Oakmont is amazing!  I think Mark Studer should be commended for coming on here during such a busy time for him to provide us with the details.  Thanks, Mark!!

My sincere hope is that the US Amateur is being watched at clubs across the country and serves as an inspiration for tree removal programs and firm and fast conditions.  

Almost any course can be improved with the latter;  I was also impressed with how much more interesting the golf was at Firestone South today with a speedy golf course.  Yes, birdies were possible and the firm turf led to some unusually long drives and short approaches, but the course more than held its own due to the emphasis on distance control.

All in all, a really great week so far for the world of golf.  

TEPaul,

I believe that I addressed and answered your questions relative to ANGC on the "GAME", AERIAL thread.

If you'll reference that thread, it should provide the response you are looking for.

Forrest Richardson,

I can't think of one course that I've played where tree planting in the last 40-50 years has benefited the golf course to an overwhelming degree.

It became popular during the late 60's and 70's to introduce landscape architecture to golf courses as manifested through indiscriminate and short sighted plantings.

Some clubs went through the isolation syndrome, feeling that each hole should be isolated from all others, and the only way to accomplish this was the massive planting of trees.
A good number of clubs that planted these trees never envisioned that the drip lines would be extending far into the lines of play.

I can think of many courses that I've played where tree removal in the last 5-10 years has benefited the golf course to an overwhelming degree.

I think you may be confused,
I'm not the one who advocates removal of all trees.
Trees can and do provide strategic and aesthetic value to a golf course.

But, clubs have planted and used them to excess in the last 40-50 years, and their removal should generally be welcomed.

Trees also impede WIND, sunlight and can have a decidedly negative impact on grass and turf.

Given the choice, I'd rather play a golf course without them.

With respect to the aerials without any trees from yesteryear, how did all of those trees get there today ?
Did the original architect have a master plan that was followed, or did the revolving door of new green chairmen and Presidents randomly plant them every two years for the last 50 years ??

Forrest Richardson,

It's not trivializing, it's reality.

I've never seen any evidence of substantive continuity over the years.

Dictatorships seem to do a much better job of passing the torch, of maintaining a greater degree of continuity from one leader or set of leaders to the next, and to the next.

I have seen one green chairman embark upon a program only to have his successor undo everything that the prior chairman had done.

Personalities, ego, pride of authorship and other factors create a chaotic rather than a fluid approach to an organized and prioritized long range plan.

Why do you think that so many classic golf courses have been bastardized over the years, and why restorations are becoming so popular

Could it be because rotating Boards, Presidents and committee chairmen are responsible for these alterations.

And, while I'm on a rant, how many clubs have a limited term policy for chairmen and Presidents.

A green chairman with little or no experience is appointed as the caretaker and/or custodian of the golf course, and just when he's getting up to speed with education, experience and wisdom, he's out and a new guy starts the process all over again.  How good is that for the golf course and super ??

I'll bet there are quite a few superintendents that are pulling out their hair and grinding their teeth while going through deja vu all over again, every two years, forever.

Do you think that individuals are appointed to green committees based on their agronomic, architectural, and playing qualifications

There is something to be said for stability and continuity, versus the revolving door democratic process at a club.

Long live Dictatorships at private golf/country clubs.  

"Dictatorships seem to do a much better job of passing the torch, of maintaining a greater degree of continuity from one leader or set of leaders to the next, and to the next."

OK...if continuity is your thing. While we're at it, let's put in a word to have the wind at the same speed each hour. And the grass the same as it was last year and the year before that. And the conditions just the same as when...heck, let's not ever allow a golf courese to change — for worse or better.

(Hope, Pat, you allw my bantering)

Paul is correct: Yes. I believe that is a well accepted opinion. Oakmont looks beautiful...and in person, too.

"TEPaul,

I believe that I addressed and answered your questions relative to ANGC on the "GAME", AERIAL thread.

If you'll reference that thread, it should provide the response you are looking for."

Pat:

And in your own words what do you think that response I'm looking for is?

I have not read through this thread, so maybe someone already mentioned this, but I was impressed with the minimal number of cart paths at Oakmont. Could be wrong as I have never set foot there, but didn't see many of them scarring up the course from looking at the course on TV.

Mark Studer,

A 50 % increase in budget is very substantial, and the membership should be applauded for having the faith in the committee and spending their money to improve the golf course.

I would also think that the planning, preparation and presentation to the members was very well done by a number of individuals who invested a good deal of their time, because of their love of Oakmont.

I'm curious to know what those who were so opposed to the plans think of the golf course today, and, what were their primary objections.  My experience has led me to believe that many if not most objections revolve around the finances and resistance to change.

Will I see you at ND vs USC this October ?

Forrest Richardson,

I've found it easier to swim, nap and post, when taking advantage of a slight right to left, helping current.

Never, I repeat never, try that with a left to right current that is against you.

I would agree that there is a happy medium, but perhaps the pendulum is swinging back to eradication, to returning golf courses to their original or early form.

The battle is, too many beautification committees have/are indiscriminately throwing shrubs, flowers and trees all over the golf course.

My primary and/or secondary objection to this is the siphoning effect on the maintainance budget, and the never ending quest to throw as many shrubs, flowers and trees onto the golf course, as possible.

In the past it has been much easier to plant a tree in an ill advised location, and very difficult to have it removed.

"...to returning golf courses to their original or early form."

Earlier, yes. Original, not necessarily.

This is the "one" issue I have with many GCA-regulars. They (indeed, "we") speak of "returning" courses, "restoring" them and "bringing them back". Many times, correctly, to when they were first built.

But two variables are at play:

1. With golf, in the broad scope. It's original form was likely not open expansive fields of green linksland, but rather the entire countryside, be it fields, woods, pasture or streets. Certainly golf was a cross-country event and "country" implies all sorts of landscape, not just windswept open lands.

2. At Oakmont — perhaps exclusively — there was never an intent to create a course that was finished. So...how do we proposed to define what it might be "returned" to? I say we do not. Rather, Oakmont will always change and God help it or us if we try to define that "forever". I would loke to believe there is some distant discussion group that would make our head hurt! On live Oakmont...for it will never be "done".

I believe that Oakmont defined that high water mark as the late 1940s.  This was because they had a good aerial photo from then and it was shortly before WC Fownes died.  That seems pretty reasonable to me, others might not agree.

Certainly the choice would not be universally accepted at any club and probably it would change if the decision was made at another day.  But the important thing is probably to pick some point and stick with it rather than creating a hodgepodge due to constant changes of direction.

"But the important thing is probably to pick some point and stick with it rather than creating a hodgepodge due to constant changes of direction." — JohnV

John,

Isn't a "hodgepodge" as you call it, in and of itself a possible design "moment" that works — even quite nicely in some cases? For example, there are many courses which embrace old design, new maintenance and remodeled areas. Heck, Oakmont is such an example. It is all of the following: Classic, original, remodeled, changed, restored, renovated, replaced, new, improved, lengthened, tweaked, and adjusted.

TEPaul,

I typed the answer out once, I'm not going to waste the time to type it out a second time because you won't take the time to simply reference the other thread where I answered you question in detail.

Let you fingers do the wandering.