Why don't you share some of that knowledge with Wayne Morrison; he has plenty of space left in his head.

Frankly, with a course like Oakmont that really does have those in-line "distance" strategies one needs to be very careful with a design like that when doing things like adding tee length.

Generally, the way that course was designed a well struck and accurate driver tee shot can skate by and past the really penal flanking bunkers and hazard schemes.

But if they add too much length to any of those holes they can create sometihng of a strategic "disconnect" that way.

I feel they have probably done that on the 7th hole. That tee is just too far back there now to allow even a long player to get it past those flanking fairway bunkers.

On the other hand the new bunker (not original) within the fairway about fifty yards short of the 2nd green is a brilliant addition on that hole----a hole that does not have any capacity to add tee length.

Brent:

Regarding Oakmont, I don't agree with your post or your logic in it at all.

It appears that you merely think any of this stuff just turns on the definitions of various words, such as strategic or penal.

Oakmont in a strategic sense turns on the unique "distance" strategies of its design.

If the design of the course offered a golfer no ability to skate a well struck and well placed driver PAST most of the penal flanking hazards and bunker features I would not say what I am saying about Oakmont and its unique "distance strategic" makeup.

So, Tom, exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Brent:

The argument that Oakmont is in fact a inline "distance" strategic design is not poorly made. It's the absolute truth and if one plays it enough or studies it carefully it's definitely not hard to figure out.

Frankly, it's probably the reason that long hitting (and accurately) driver reliant Angel Cabrera won the 2007 US Open.

On the other hand, I certainly will admit that an inline "distance" strategic design like Oakmont's is inherently nowhere near as democratic a design or as much of an all accomodating strategic design as most of the best "directional" strategic designs of this world.

The reason for that is pretty obvious---eg the best of the "directional" strategic designs allow ALL golfers of any level the options of using directional choice that suites their abilities.

The fact is with an inline "distance" strategic design like Oakmont's many to most golfers simply aren't capable of hitting the ball far enough to take advantage of its best strategic rewards way down those fairways.

I'm quite sure this fact was not at all lost on either Fownes. However, the point is they designed this course to be a championship test for good players just as George Crump did at Pine Valley.

They were not necessarily concentrating on accomodating golfers of lesser skill or ability.

I realize a lot of golf architecture analysts both past and present have a real problem with this kind of championship design but the fact is the likes of H.C. and W.C Fownes and George Crump simply did not have a problem with it.

That fact alone, in my opinion, makes these types of golf courses and designs, particularly from the old days, extremely interesting in the history and evolution of golf course architecture in America.

This was just part of the "Big World" theory even back then, I guess.

Sean, you kind of had me till you chose the numbering thing.

If a "penal" (in the strict architectural definition of the word) course results in a great deal of thought about shot placement, I think it deserves a far higher number than a 5.

I find it wonderfully ironic - but also extremely revealing - that a course designed around the original architectural definition of penal results in a very strategic course (Rich, ignore the anthropomorphism, please).

Maybe everyone needs to give more thought to what it truly means to be penal, and what the resulting course can offer.

Brent, the only group think present is the recognition of the thoughtful play that Oakmont requires. Strictly applying labels is far closer to group think than recognition of what actually works, imho.

So take everybody's favorite strategic tee shot, a long hole with a lake to left of the fairway and a left-curving shoreline. You can bite off as little or as much as you like but if you come up short on whatever line you choose you're in the drink. If there is acres of fairway to the right you can play it safe and completely avoid coming close to the water at the expense of making the hole play much longer. And a properly placed bunker up by the green can enforce an additional cost of playing safely to the right. Strategic as hell.

Now let's make that fairway just 18 yards wide by installing five inches of bluegrass rough with a curving border that parallels the shoreline of the hazard. So you now have to pick the line on which you want to carry the hazard but if you hit it 20 yards too far right or 30-40 yards too long you're in the rough and have to chip out. In my estimation that hole is penal as hell with that rough.

The fact that there's a "strategic" decision to be made is trumped by the fact that a difficult shot must be perfectly and expertly executed in order to avoid a stroke or more penalty for being slightly off-line or off-distance. I like and understand Tom P's addition of Strategic Distance Control to our arsenal of concepts. However, a thoroughly implemented set of ubiquitous penal features represents Rock to the Scissors of strategy.

I find it wonderfully ironic - but also extremely revealing - that a course designed around the original architectural definition of penal results in a very strategic course (Rich, ignore the anthropomorphism, please).

George, I think labels can be perfectly useful tools. If we can just say "penal" instead of quoting Fownes' entire catch phrase that really streamlines the discussion. But if Oakmont is a strategic course rather than a penal one then in fact there are no great penal golf courses at all and the label should be retired altogether.

Here's my repsonse to Tom's, John's and George's invocation of various wrinkles on the label "strategy". In as much as you consider it "strategy" to hit the ball to a spot that Fownes would consider to be a well played shot, that's not a strategy it's just perfect execution. And in as much as you consider it "strategy" to lay up short of the most penal features, you're simply chickening out and if Fownes had suspected that an elite player would do that he would have dug a bunker there.

Consider this with regard to long holes (and I think this might fit at Hoylake as well as Oakmont). Distance is not just off the tee. Fownes wanted the long holes to force the player to hit a long tee shot extremely accurately with extreme penalties for misaim or mishit shots. Some modern players can lay back short of the "gauntlet" and still reach and hope to hold the green from there. Hitting 250-yard iron shots on approach is a form of bomb-and-gouge just as surely as hitting 320-yard driver shots off the tee. Is it possible we mistake a capability not forseen by the designer of the course for clever "strategy"?

P.S. George, I think a penal course by my definition would still require careful consideration to play. If there is little room for error and severe penalties for small misses then you'd better be darned sure you're choosing the lowest risk shot that will find a playable spot. Great stategic design allows you to think your way to a better score. Great penal design demands that you think correctly to avoid a worse score.

Here's my repsonse to Tom's, John's and George's invocation of various wrinkles on the label "strategy". In as much as you consider it "strategy" to hit the ball to a spot that Fownes would consider to be a well played shot, that's not a strategy it's just perfect execution. And in as much as you consider it "strategy" to lay up short of the most penal features, you're simply chickening out and if Fownes had suspected that an elite player would do that he would have dug a bunker there.

This is where we have a disconnect: you are entirely wrong if you think that's the only element at play at Oakmont, and that is why I think your labelling is highly misleading.

"In as much as you consider it "strategy" to hit the ball to a spot that Fownes would consider to be a well played shot, that's not a strategy it's just perfect execution. And in as much as you consider it "strategy" to lay up short of the most penal features, you're simply chickening out and if Fownes had suspected that an elite player would do that he would have dug a bunker there."

Brent:

That is just such a total rationalization on your part and if you are even half using your head you'd understand both that it is and why it is.

Try to give a unique architect like Fownes and Oakmont a bit more credit than that.

If Fownes really did only intend to one dimensionally REQUIRE that all golfers particularly good ones ALWAYS must use the maximum distance club with no possibility of the option of laying back then he probably would have put nothing but bunkers and hazard features in the shorter landing areas.

But he didn't do that did he?  

Perhaps you should just try to understand better why he didn't instead of torturing every explanation just to fit it into what you think should be easy definitions of only two categories of architecture.

TomP,

Well, it was my intent to allow for the possiblity that something other than a long driver shot can comprise what I called a "well played shot". As I said, if the hole demands that you hit it straight and hit it 260 yards and you damned sure better make sure you don't hit it 265 then a player hitting that spot with a 3-iron is executing perfectly and deserves a playable shot at the green.

What would make that "penal" and not "strategic" by my definition is if a straight 265-yard shot or a slightly crooked 260-yard one means pitching out of an unadvancable lie in bunker or rough. I appreciate the fact that Oakmont places great demands on choosing and achieving good distance control as well as fine directional control. In as much as it does that (plus has some excellent half-shot holes to boot) it is certainly far superior to other one-dimensional (i.e. hit it long and straight, period) Open/PGA setups.

[EDIT] And with that...I'm out. Gotta get at least a half-days work done today so I can't keep speed-typing in this fascinating thread. Y'all have fun.

Quote from: Brent Hutto on June 20, 2007, 11:12:35 AM

And there's nothing wrong with being famous for flat-out penal design.

But there is something wrong in missing the finer points of a course.

Oakmont is not famous because it's the best penal design. It's famous because it is a fantastically interesting and challenging golf course.

I shouldn't really be participating, either, I have 2 guys on vacation, so I'll try to catch up later as well.

George

I have no problem with this.  However, it doesn't mean the course isn't penal.  Besides, isn't "challenging" code for tough and "tough" code for penal?  I still think you and Tom are hung up on the term penal and perhaps assuming the term implies Oakmont is inferior or something similar.  That is not at all what I am getting at.  

I am only trying to differentiate between strategic and penal.  If you like, you can think of it as a continuum, but where a course places on the continuum doesn't imply quality so far as I am concerned.  The continuum sorts and categorizes courses for ease of conversation - of course there is nothing which is black and white and the best courses have elements up and down the continuum.  Again, if we are gonna say Oakmont is primarily strategic, then the term strategic has no meaning across the board.

Ciao    

"Both holes have the same angle off the tee.  Forget all this talk of thinking (we have to think on each and every shot), which hole presents the most options?"

Sean:

I'm a big believer in the more reasonable, effective and functional options a hole has the better it probably is. That's why I'm so fond of a hole like Riviera's #10 that has a series of both distance and direction options and choices, most all of which are frequently used by golfers. On the other hand, I think a course needs some balance from holes of multiple options like that. If any course had 18 holes with as many distance and direction options as Riviera's 10th it would probably just wear out any golfer.

But this subject and this discussion about Oakmont or even about what's strategic is not really about how MANY or how MULTIPLE the options of the holes of the course are, it's about what the options of Oakmont's holes ARE, and if they constitute choices (options).  

When I see a course that has little in the way of interesting options or choices I say the course isn't very interesting and not very strategic although it surely could be penal.

Oakmont, however, is not a course devoid of interesting options and choices at all and that's why I call it a strategic course, albeit it of an interesting and unique type---eg "distance" options, not really "directional" options.

This is certainly not to say that Oakmont isn't also very effective at penalizing players of all abilities. But that fact does not at all mean that it isn't a course that also offers them interesting choices (options), particularly in distance risk and reward.