New Golfweek Rankings

[THuckaby2]

JV:

That is food for thought.  The course surely is not brutally long.

But I guess what also keeps me from too much praise of Oakmont is how it SEEMS to rely on absurd green speeds for so much of its difficulty also.  To me, greens with contour stimping at 13 means goofy golf, as I have said on here many times.  And as I watched the amateur, there were so many shots shown that to me just seemed absurd... well... Again, I'm having a hard time seeing the greatness.

I know I am asking for a lot - this type of thing is very tough to describe... But everything I know and see about this course just comes out negative.  Truly what am I missing?

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Standing on the first tee at about 7:45 in the morning looking down one of the most magnificent and simple openers in the game of golf... knowing that you will come off the 18th green knowing EXACTLY what kind of golfer you are...

That's what you're missing.

[George Pazin]

Huck -

The only thing you're missing is seeing it and experiencing it in person. It's not nearly the goofy golf or the overly harsh one dimensional test that you seem to think. You won't shoot your handicap, true, but you would have fun.

[THuckaby2]

George:

OK, now we are getting somewhere.  Hell I don't shoot my handicap even at Santa Teresa these days, so that's not an issue.  But more seriously, I never expect to do so on US Open type courses, that's for sure.

So you tell me I'd have fun, and I believe you.  Of course I am a bad example, I have fun everywhere.  So make it not me... why would Lou Duran have fun there?  I don't mean to pick on Lou, but he is tougher on courses and does seem to like to have a chance at success.

I want to know WHY it's more fun than the image I have of it.

Tough question, fully understood if you can't formulate an answer or don't care to or don't have the time.

TH

[Scott_Burroughs]

Would Oakmont not have this "stigma" of severe difficulty if the green speeds were set at, say, 8?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Let me put it this way, I could be doing the same thing you're doing to Oakmont to Pebble.

Every picture I see of a hole at Pebble, especially of the oceanside holes, the emphasis is on the ocean and not the golf.

Every picture you see of Oakmont, the emphasis is on the bunkers and the greens and how it has beaten people up.

Truth be told, you are seeing it through the eyes of someone else, and then having George, et al, trying to get you to see it through their eyes.

Oakmont is core golf: hell, the oldest and one of the busiest turnpikes in the country splits it in half, yet the whole place has this serenity to it.

You simply have to be there and look at it through your own eyes.

[THuckaby2]

Would Oakmont not have this "stigma" of severe difficulty if the green speeds were set at, say, 8?

Well that's the question, isn't it?  Not for me to say as I haven't seen the course.  My feeling is a lot of the stigma comes from the absurd greens.  But someone who's played it would have to comment.

TH

[THuckaby2]

Tom,

Let me put it this way, I could be doing the same thing you're doing to Oakmont to Pebble.

Every picture I see of a hole at Pebble, especially of the oceanside holes, the emphasis is on the ocean and not the golf.

Every picture you see of Oakmont, the emphasis is on the bunkers and the greens and how it has beaten people up.

Truth be told, you are seeing it through the eyes of someone else, and then having George, et al, trying to get you to see it through their eyes.

Oakmont is core golf: hell, the oldest and one of the busiest turnpikes in the country splits it in half, yet the whole place has this serenity to it.

You simply have to be there and look at it through your own eyes.

Kyle:  OK, understood.  Very good points.

BUT TRY, please.  Describe it.  Help me to understand.  And I ask this knowing full well it would be tough for me to make you understand Pebble, so it is a very tall order, I know.

Or is it just one of those courses that just plain can't be understood unless one does play it, as you seem to say?

I guess I could live with that.  There are some here who maintain EVERY golf course is like that, so what the hell.  I just have found participants here to have pretty good descriptive powers, from which I learn a lot.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

When I hear the words "stigma" and "absurd greens" about Oakmont I have to ask the people mouthing such words have they played the course? The answer is usually they have not. That much of what they know comes from TV -- from third parties and the like.

The greatness of Oakmont stems from a sterling array of unique and challenging holes. The course is not just one 470-yard par-4 after another -- for that go to Firestone South in Akron, OH.

Oakmont keeps players on their toes -- just look at the wide array of champions that have won on its turf. With the lone exception of Sam Parks -- a quality listing indeed.

What's even more impressive is the work that was recently carried out to remove countless numbers of trees that eviserated what the Fownes family had envisioned.

Like I said before -- I'll put Oakmont in my top five in a New York minute without even thinking for a second.

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

Fantastic!  That is getting closer to the descriptions I am seeking.  So do tell me....

Are the green speeds NOT absurd, and does the course derive its difficulty from things other than the greens?

The fact you put it in your top 5 does speak powerfully to me.  

I just am still yet to see any good reasons WHY it is such.  

And a fair answer is it can't be described, just has to be seen.  

I just think you can do better than that.  
TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I'd say walking it, as I've never actually hit on shot on the course.

When I did walk around there, it had this very gentle feel to it. I expected a more abrupt presentation of hazards and with the green contours. It was almost as if the course was sleeping, and only woke up when a bad shot was struck. The greens are fast, but not unforgiving, and certainly not impossible. Each hole has a back door to par or even better.

Some of the shots there seem to broach my comfort level too. Some of the holes on the front have funny angles that you don't normally deal with everyday. Oakmont subtly takes you away from your comfort zone, and I'd imagine it would continue to do so replay after replay.

You open with two gentle, but different Par 4s, the greens slope away from you, you're shocked that you can't fly it all the way to the hole and that you have to trust the slope to take it to the hole. They're short and manageable, but throw you off a bit.

Then comes the church pews, the trenches, the long par three 8th, the huge green at nine... all test your execution and all throwing you off a little bit, not wowing you like Pebble, bust just unsettling you.

The back nine is the more strategic of the nines. 12, one of the few true three shotters left in the game, lets you choose one of several different ways to its green. 17, lets you go for broke off the tee, and 18 just gives you a plethora of attacking options, depending on your game.

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff - many thanks, Kyle.  I am getting a much better feel for the course.

So there's an ebb and flow to it and the difficult is more subtle than in your face?  That does seem to meet the definition of greatness....

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Right Tom, it makes you define yourself as a golfer...

I get the feeling that walking off 18, I would exactly where my STRENGTHS and weaknesses were.

Not just my weaknesses.

[THuckaby2]

That is cool.

And there certainly is a place in the pantheon of great courses for a course that defines ones strengths and weaknesses, as opposed to the many that just reveal flaws.

VERY well said.  I never thought of it this way before.  Thanks, man.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Similarly, I feel that way about Pebble, just from seeing it in pictures...

HOWEVER

Until I get there, I wouldn't be able to tell to what degree it does that, and as compared to Oakmont.

As an aside: I would have loved to have played both courses back in the 20's and 30's... they were probably better then.

[Philip Gawith]

As a very, very late-comer to this thread, I see that some of you guys have - ahem - been spending a bit of time in the rough. I did indeed wonder, as no doubt have many others, how there could be so much to say about the ratings. All is now revealed!

 Looks like Shivas hooked his drive on post 92 (was it?) and it was all downhill from there! It makes for very funny reading, and very pleasant viewing, after the fact.

[Philip Gawith]

Shivas, you succeed! But I am happy to spread the praise around - when you got into difficulties in the rough there were clearly a lot of selfless guys on hand to help you out.

[Ted Kramer]

Come on Mike,
I just caught my breath from yesterday's photos . . .
 
-Ted

[Scott_Burroughs]

Shivas,

I still like the 3 I posted better than Ms. Ghauri... .  Throw in some Salma, Eva, Marisa, Shania, Catherine Z-J, Paz, J. Lo, Halle, etc. and I'm ready for some alone time....

[THuckaby2]

Mike - just FYI - I got to see the pic of Ms. Langoria - muchas gracias - but unfortunately the alone time wasn't what was hoped for.  The were others in the house and thus I had to be more surreptitious than what was hoped.  The viewing did occur unscathed, thank goodness.

 

[George Pazin]

Nudging us back again:

The only real changes in the top 50 of the Classic list is that Myopia Hunt made a pretty good leap from 43 to 32 and Medinah dropped a solid 8 from 32 to 40.

Have Rees' changes to Medinah been completed? If so, did they affect the raters or did something else happen - such as maybe returning back down after a jump after the 99 PGA (don't know details, haven't checked)? At least one poster on here (noted for his intransigence to change ) felt Rees might add some character to Medinah.

I'd think Myopia's move might have been due to fewer ratings and thus more volatility, but I wouldn't necessarily expect that with Medinah.

Any ideas?

[Gary_Smith]

Nudging us back again:

The only real changes in the top 50 of the Classic list is that Myopia Hunt made a pretty good leap from 43 to 32 and Medinah dropped a solid 8 from 32 to 40.

Have Rees' changes to Medinah been completed? If so, did they affect the raters or did something else happen - such as maybe returning back down after a jump after the 99 PGA (don't know details, haven't checked)? At least one poster on here (noted for his intransigence to change ) felt Rees might add some character to Medinah.

I'd think Myopia's move might have been due to fewer ratings and thus more volatility, but I wouldn't necessarily expect that with Medinah.

Any ideas?


George,

I think Medinah has actually been losing a little ground ever since the 1990 Open. I can remember Medinah actually making the Golf Digest top 10 in the late '80s.

Medinah is one of those strong parkland brutes that has probably taken some of the visiting rater's golf games and shaken it like a dog does a snake. One of those "depressingly efficient at revealing one's weaknesses" type of courses, if you will. Those types tend not to get fondly remembered.

Jones is finished, I believe. The course does or did need some finesse/subtlety, to my way of thinking.

[Mike_Cirba]

George, Rees is a foul four letter word to most GW guys.  If the exact same work had been done by one of the good four letter words, ie Doak  (sorry Tom, but in this case, you fit the suit, Johnny Bravo   ) , Medinah would have gone up 8 or whatever.

Shivas,

You've got to be kidding.  Your Teri Hatcher comment made more sense.  

[Gary_Smith]

Shivas,

Don't forget your anti-midwest bias card.  

[Mike_Cirba]

I ain't kidding.  The work made Medinah a better golf course in more respects than it didn't.  The stair-step bunkers on #16 are hideous and the afterthought cat milk saucer bunker behind #17 is atrocious, but other than that, the golf course got better (#1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 18), and the course should have gone up in most people's eyes, if they could take their eyes off the design credits on the scorecard, that is.

The only possible explanations for it dropping, therefore, are trends in design preferences, new classic courses (which there ain't any of), bias against the work of certain architects, or -- the most likely candidate -- expression of "they could have done so much more".  But what could have been ain't what you rate.  You rate what's there, and what's there is better, on the whole, IMO.

Shivas,

Then why did Torrey Pines & Bethpage rise in the rankings after Rees worked there?