New Golfweek Rankings

[JohnV]

6 at Oakmont is better than Pebble.  6 is a great mid-range par 3.  But, I'd give 8 to Pebble.  10 I'd call a half, both great hard par 4s.  I would probably go with 16 Oakmont over Pebble.

And then there is 18.   One of the greatest par 5 finishing holes in the world vs one of the greatest par 4 finishing holes in the world.  Tough choice there.  The only advantage Pebble might have is the setting, but the green at Oakmont is better (as are most of the greens at Oakmont.)

[PThomas]

Oakmont better than Pebble???  now I now I HAVE to get there someday so I can make the comparison, having played the latter...

[Matt_Ward]

This might set a precedent but Ward actually agrees with George P.

Oakmont is IMHO one of the 4-5 best golf courses in the USA. The holes are that good and the course became even stronger and better with all the finished work that took place a short time ago.

The purity of Oakmont rests beyond the greens but clearly they are a big part of the story.

Many people talk rightly about Miller's final round 63 but very few ever mention what Larry Nelson shot over the last 36 holes there (65-67) in winning the '83 Open title. I was there and frankly his 60-foot putt on Monday at the 16th hole has got to go down as one of the greatest long putts in golf history. Easily the equal of what Crenshaw did at the 10th at Augusta when he won there.

I only wish the USGA would keep the 9th as a par-5 instead of doing the silly par-4 conversion gimmick.

I also agree with a few who have chimed in that as good as the 10th at PB is -- the 10th at Oakmont is a tad more demanding. Just ask Tom Watson both at the final round in the '78 PGA and the '83 US Open.

You also have to credit Oakmont for such a superb finish. The par-4 15th is simply tremendous -- the par-3 16th has demanding as one can get -- particularly with a front right position. The 17th is a grand gambling hole -- I only hope it's played as a 300-yard hole tops to entice the big drive.

And, the final hole is simply stellar. Nobody wins at Oakmont unless you play air-tight golf. Very few states in the USA can put forward such a daily double as Oakmont & Merion.

Like I said before -- I'd put Oakmont in top 4-5 courses in a New York minute.

[PThomas]

Oakmont probably causes Watson more golf nightmares than any other place, Matt....in addition to the 2 tournaments you mention, he was also in contention at the Open Els won but finished with a 74, if I remember correctly from John Feinstein's Good Walk Spoiled

[THuckaby2]

OK you Oakmont lovers, riddle me this:

I know it's a HARD course.  I get that.  I see it in the competitive scores there, I can see it from TV.  It's purpose is to be brutally tough.  Crump said so, right?

But is it any fun, outside of for the masochists for whom test of golf is all that matters?

From afar, I don't see much fun to be had there.  I see a very good test of one's game, a revealer of all of one's faults, perhaps as good or better than any course in the US if not the world....

But I just don't see the fun.

But then again, much to the chagrin of Matt Ward, I find NGLA to be a superior course to Shinnecock.  Why?  Because I do so prefer fun to test.  I like to have a chance a success.  MacKenzie was with me in this though process, methinks.

So educate me.  Is there fun to be had at this course?

Pebble Beach is an absolute joy to play... a LOT of fun can be had there.. absent weather extremes, even the hackest of hacks can have his moments... and at the other extreme, it obviously can and does challenge the world's best.  Can one make the same statement about Oakmont?  No offense to George, he's just here as an example, but he's described his game many times as a bogey golfer at best... Would George have any chance to get under 120 there?  Not that this is the be all and end all test, but how much fun can it be to be so brutally beat up?

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Let's be honest -- why should I go through all the "dog and pony" show exercises in convincing you when you're mind is set 180 degrees the other way?

Oakmont is a superb course that is very fair for those who play the appropriate shots. It can be made more demanding when the best come into town. What's funny is that the green speeds are SLOWED for the big events when compared to what the members play.

Let me but it this way -- Oakmont has yielded low scores when superior play was executed -- see Miller's final round and the last 36 from Nelson in '83.

Oakmont doesn't g-i-v-e it away -- you earn it. I believe the balancing act of toughness, fairness and fun is there. I look forward to the '07 Open.

End of story.

P.S. Huck -- I'll let you in on a secret -- the Ward formula of course rating always gives the edge to those courses capable in testing the finest players in the world. Ergo -- Shinny over National.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Well at least we've come to terms.  And of course I know VERY WELL where the edges go in the Matt Ward system of course rating.  As you ought to know by know how I look at things.  We've obviously been down this road many times before, and Shinny v. NGLA is just the best, most obvious barometer re how we each stand.

But I am very sincere in my questions.  If fun can be had at Oakmont, then I will understand its greatness.  Because you see, I not too long ago played another course out your way with a reputation for brutality at which I found a LOT of fun to be had... I may not agree with yours and others assessment of its 10th hole as a world great, but when evaluating the course overall I can't use any word but great, and certainly put it in the highest echelon of the world's courses.  It's called the West course at Winged Foot - remember?

So I am open to education.  From afar, not having played Oakmont or seen it in person, all I see is brutality and when one reads Crumps words and all else that seems to be said about the course, well... it just doesn't seem like it's gonna measure up to the world's greats as I see things.

Because the world's great courses really do allow for success, as well as test the world's best players.  It's a very tough thing to achieve, but that's why these courses are at the very top.  Think Shinnecock.  Yes, it's up there... because one can certainly have fun there, due to the beauty, and if one just chooses the proper tees.  Think Pebble Beach - reasons already given.  Then on the other side one has courses like Cypress and NGLA, which are so damn great, beautiful and fun that it really doesn't matter that the pros could tear them up.

How does Oakmont fit into this?  Is it great simply because it's such a bastion of brutality - akin to NGLA and Cypress being so great because they are such bastions of fun and beauty?

I could live with that.  It's never gonna be my personal cup of tea, but I could understand why it's great anyway.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Huck,

I don't necessarily think it's a bastion of brutality anyway. Oakmont has an incredible balance that Pebble Beach can't match with the land hole/ocean hole dichotomy.

Oakmont's front tests your execution, Oakmont's back tests your mettle and mind. There is a similar premium placed on both, and in each respective regard, the course doesn't let down it's gaurd - it's brutal in that it doesn't give you a complete breather but is always testing some aspect of your golf.

Pebble seems to let up in the middle of the back and gets you off to a quick start, which isn't bad, but in my opinion, not as memorable or as good as Oakmont.

[THuckaby2]

Kyle:

OK, very cool - that is the education I was requesting.  Everything I've ever heard, read or seen about Oakmont just screams out "I'm gonna kick your ass and you're gonna like it."  

So sure, you've now described to me that it's brutal in two different ways.  Great.  Gotcha.

But please, is it any fun?  Would you want to play there long-term?

Getting one's ass kicked gets old quickly, even if it does happen in different ways.

And btw, you guys seem to REALLY sell Pebble short.  Sure for the pros there are easy parts.. but even those can be set up to challenge them... if you consider 11-12-13 or really ANY stretch at Pebble to be a "let up" or "easy", well then you must be one hell of a player.  Same goes for the start of the round... Ask Tiger how easy #3 is... took a triple there one round during his famous win...

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

It's difficult to convince anyone of the greatness of a course they have not played. It's also easy for people to characterize my comments because of the convenient stereotype that many people here on GCA apply to me -- you know -- the one that goes Ward only prefers courses with a 76+ course rating and a 150+ slope.

It's easy for people to label because it's intellecutally lazy to understand the totality of what the person (me) is saying.

The problem I have with all ratings is the idea that you can crunch numbers from all different perspectives and from that comes some sort of magical determination on greatness. I'd much rather have one person being the center point because of the uniformity that comes from that -- sort of like one gets when one person reviews a movie, a play, a musical, restaurant, etc, etc.

Huck -- it's very easy to put forth a very basic and elementary equation that goes like this -- Oakmont / Winged Foot brutal and Cypress Point / NGLA great because they are simply beautiful. I guess it's E-Z for people because labeling through one or two word associations allows people to neatly place particular courses into categorical boxes.

I don't buy that.

Winged Foot / West (which you need to play in the regular golf season) and Oakmont are well tested veterans. They have the wherewithal to handle member play and championship play -- a prerequisite for consideration at the top of the charts in my book.

When you say the words of Crump my guess is you meant the Fownes family. Yes, the Fownes had a particular feeling on what golf should be -- right down to their Calvinistic roots. But here's what many people miss.

Oakmont DOES yield low scores. A course that is simply brutal and gives no opportunity to score at anytime is not a great golf course -- it is simply a boring slog. Oakmont and Winged Foot / West are far from that.

The demands are exacting at all times -- but the finely played shot at either course is rewarded appropriately and consistently.

Many people here on GCA rarely discuss the qualities of Oakmont and Winged Foot / West. Part of that comes from their desire not to get their ass kicked in playing such layouts. My issue is a simple one -- people analyze primarily through a defense mechanism of self interest. That's why you see these same people wax poetic when other courses are mentioned because THEIR golf game is more tailored to those respective courses.

Let me add there are people on GCA (raters and non-raters alike) that don't equate the self interest dynamic in their overall assessment. I salute these people.

I've had a fair share of playing the top tier courses in the USA and no doubt the likes of Cypress, Pebble and NGLA would be among the finest. However, as one not prone to be a really big fan of parkland courses I can say without hesitation or reservation that the likes of Oakmont and Winged Foot / West are supreme examples of quality architecture.

One other thing -- I will concede that Oakmont for me is a tad beyond the greatness of the West layout in Mamaroneck, NY. Oakmont has the better routing, more diversified holes and the slightest of edges on the greens (both contour and variety in size).

I hope someday you will play the course and see it for yourself.

[George Pazin]

OK you Oakmont lovers, riddle me this:

I know it's a HARD course.  I get that.  I see it in the competitive scores there, I can see it from TV.  It's purpose is to be brutally tough.  Crump said so, right?

But is it any fun, outside of for the masochists for whom test of golf is all that matters?

From afar, I don't see much fun to be had there.  I see a very good test of one's game, a revealer of all of one's faults, perhaps as good or better than any course in the US if not the world....

But I just don't see the fun.

But then again, much to the chagrin of Matt Ward, I find NGLA to be a superior course to Shinnecock.  Why?  Because I do so prefer fun to test.  I like to have a chance a success.  MacKenzie was with me in this though process, methinks.

So educate me.  Is there fun to be had at this course?

Pebble Beach is an absolute joy to play... a LOT of fun can be had there.. absent weather extremes, even the hackest of hacks can have his moments... and at the other extreme, it obviously can and does challenge the world's best.  Can one make the same statement about Oakmont?  No offense to George, he's just here as an example, but he's described his game many times as a bogey golfer at best... Would George have any chance to get under 120 there?  Not that this is the be all and end all test, but how much fun can it be to be so brutally beat up?

TH

Addressing the points I bolded:

I think the biggest misconception with Oakmont is that it is simply brutally hard. It is, there's no doubt about it. But it is the way in which it is so hard that makes it so special. It is not  simply narrow corridors of fairway surrounded by brutal rough with very fast greens. Each hole presents a unique challenge. I like to think of it as 18 essay questions with undetermined answers. There are great holes that few ever even take the time to notice. I think the 2nd is one of the best short par 4s you'll ever see that isn't a driveable par 4. The green complexes on virtually every hole are really unbelievable.

Would I break 120 there? Who cares? The astounding array of shots would keep me very happy. I have no idea what I shot at Rawls because I was playing so poorly I didn't keep score. But it was damn fun nonetheless.

None of this is a knock on Pebble. The views alone would probably make it more fun for most. But for the pure golf, I just don't see a comparison.

I can't wait to see Merion later this summer. I recently mentioned one of my favorite comments from Tom D on the CCof Buffalo thread, that Merion is a course every student of architecture should study. I think that holds equally true for Oakmont. For too long it has simply been thought of as the hardest course in the world, or the hardest inland course in the world. It deserves better than that.

I'm happy to agree with Matt on this one - I knew we had common ground somewhere.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

I had hoped we had moved beyond the generalities and stereotypes, as that was the intent of my post to you last night.  I only mentioned WF-West because yes, it is an example of a course thought of as being very, very tough, and I found it to be that and a whole lot more - just as you say.  I loved the course and consider it great.  Did you gloss over that part?  

I'm just waiting for SOMEONE to describe for me what at Oakmont makes it great, other than being this "test of golf."  Or if that is all that's there, just tell me it's the supreme example of such, and that's fine with me, it can be great just for that.  It will never be my personal cup of tea, as I tire of getting my ass kicked (and I also don't tend to prefer parkland courses) but no matter, I could understand and accept its greatness.

So care to try again?

As I finished typing this, I now see George's message... which is getting closer to what I request - thanks, George.  But still no one seems to want to say fun can be had playing the course.  George also seems to be quite the masochist, or doesn't care about the results of his shots, just likes to face different challenging ones.  If that's the case George is one unique - and cool - golfer.  Most people do care what happens with their shots, and would tire of getting their head handed to them shot after shot after shot after shot after shot.

 

So OK, just come out and say it:  Oakmont is a supreme ultimate test of golf.  I can dig that.  I could understand its greatness.

I just sincerely doubt I'd want to play it more than once.... I'd love it that one time - thank you sir may I have another - but just as it had to for Kevin Bacon in Animal House, getting the paddle does get old very quickly.

And if this is the case, I'd have a very hard time calling it better than Pebble, because that course is BOTH a great test of golf AND very, very fun to play.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Glad you could join us with your backwards logic.

Let me clue you in -- Oakmont yields low scores to only great play. The Miller round qualifies as such -- ditto the final two rounds by Nelson in '83. Do yourself a favor and check out the roster of champions that Oakmont has produced -- Sam Parks is the only real aberation. The rest are airtight.

Medinah in the last two Opens gave up low scores to just about any of the players who participated. (See the US Open record book on low score records for an event).

Big difference in my book.

Shivas -- what makes me chuckle is your self-induced sense that you know quality golf. Anyone embracing Medinah as the poste child among great golf courses is simply either delusional or smoking some high octane weed.

P.S. Keep on puffin friend ...

[Scott_Burroughs]

Shivas,

This post of mine yesterday was primarily for you, given your affinity (like mine) for non-vanilla brunettes:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=17006;start=msg298821#msg298821

[George Pazin]

Huck -

I care about the results of my shots, I just don't care about my score and let it affect my enjoyment of a round.

What you are missing is that you are simply viewing Oakmont as a brutally tough course with little else to offer. It's not. In fact, if there is one thing I noticed while viewing the tons of top notch amateurs playing in '03 it was that it is a course that responds to thoughtful play.

The test for a good player at Pebble seems totally different, to me. Pebble seems to be a great test if the question is simply execution. Oakmont's test is in both thought and execution.

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh...we're talking golf in here again today?

I walked Oakmont a few times back in the 80s but I've never played it.  

I've also never played ANGC, although I'm going there for the practice round on Monday this year.

At this point, Oakmont is the course I'd most like to play that I never have.  Perhaps April in Georgia will change my mind, but I'm skeptical.  

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Call your agent and see if you get a role on "Boston Legal."

Your embracing of Medinah (the king of all misguided
facelifts -- which version are we now?) as a "great golf course" speaks volumes to me about what you think you know about that course and its overall standing.

Oakmont yielded to Larry Nelson the all-time low at that time for the final 36 holes. That's quite an accomplishment given the score and the quality of players he beat (Watson, Ballesteros, etc, etc). The Miller round has been cited by any number of authorities as one of the best all-time rounds in the game. To do it in the fourth round -- against the array of players who were there -- and in the US Open elevates it and Oakmont to a very high level.

Medinah had guys shooting low like it was the Hope Classic. Check out the USGA record book if you bother to do any heavy lifting.

Shivas -- it's always fun to argue with you -- because when the subject of Medinah comes up you'll be in the wrong. Adios partner ...

[THuckaby2]

Huck -

I care about the results of my shots, I just don't care about my score and let it affect my enjoyment of a round.

What you are missing is that you are simply viewing Oakmont as a brutally tough course with little else to offer. It's not. In fact, if there is one thing I noticed while viewing the tons of top notch amateurs playing in '03 it was that it is a course that responds to thoughtful play.

The test for a good player at Pebble seems totally different, to me. Pebble seems to be a great test if the question is simply execution. Oakmont's test is in both thought and execution.

George:

Once again, that's cool that it tests both execution and thought... but if you think Pebble doesn't you are absolutely wrong.

But that's not the point anyway....

People keep saying what a test it is.  Great.  I get it.  And it tests one two different ways.  Great.  I get it.

Now why is it fun to play?  Is there any chance at success?

See, I watched the greatest amateurs in the world getting their asses kicked all over that course.  I shuddered to think what would happen to a hack like me... Once again, that's fun in the short term - hell those who've played with me can attest that I am as non-tied to score as anyone who plays  - but still, shot after shot ending up in horrid places just can't be too fun in the long term....

And Mike, believe me, I'd love to see it too.  I just wish someone could tell me something about it other than how tough a test it is.... or just come out and say that it's a supreme test and leave it at that...

TH

[Andy Doyle]

Mike C:

I'm betting April in Augusta will change your mind.

I'll be there for Monday's practice round as well.  First time back in 3 years & I can't wait.  I know that ANGC is far from what is favored by many here - substantial changes from the original design, incredibly manicured, etc - but it is a very special place.

Andy

[Mike_Cirba]

Well, Andy..

You know I enjoy well-manicured eye candy.  

I think I'll stick to golf pictures today, though.  

Perhaps we should have a GCA tent at Augusta for anyone in town?  It would be fun to meet and share impressions.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike;

Perhaps I was being overly hyperbolic, but I was trying to convey to Huckster that Oakmont is really special, and not just a "test" as he seems to indicate.  

It's grim, perhaps, but in the same way that Muirfield or Lytham or Shinnecock is grim, except with much better...even completely unique greens.

I'm really looking forward to seeing ANGC and will make a point to walk it all, frontwards and backwards.  I'll certainly let you know what I think, afterwards.    

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Is your assessment of ANGC -- post or prior to the changes initiated by Hootie / TF, et al ?

In my mind -- the prior course deserved the plaudits -- the "new" version much less so.

[George Pazin]

Huck -

I could certainly be wrong about Pebble, and I don't really mean that it requires no thought, it just doesn't strike me as requiring as much or the same kind as Oakmont.

Perhaps you missed my line about the top ams - my experience while watching was that the course responded to thoughtful play. That doesn't mean it was a birdie fest, certainly, but it didn't just brutalize people.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Shiv, Oakmont strikes me as a very different challenge from Medinah. Medinah seems brutally tough as well, but the challenges appear more clear cut, IMHO. Of course, I am only judging Medinah from TV, so what do I really know about Medinah.

[THuckaby2]

George:

I missed nothing in your post.

I just saw too many ams getting their asses kicked and hard by Oakmont.  I've seen it happen to the pros also.  These guys ARE good.  Again, I shudder to think what would happen to a guy like me.

So OK, I gather you are saying that if one is smart, success can be had there.  That's cool.  No offense, but from what I've seen, I am dubious about this.  But I am ready to be convinced.  Hopefully I will get to see it in person, or again on TV before too long.

Pebble requires a damn lot of thought, btw.  Hopefully YOU will get to see this in person some day.

 

[JohnV]

The thing that impresses me as much as anything at Oakmont is how you can have 5 great par 4s under 400 yards (2,5,11,14,17) and still be as tough a test as you'll find.  It is proof that every par 4 on a course doesn't have to be 460 or longer to test any level of golfer.