Changes at Oakmont

[Matt_Ward]

The real issue would have been if the 16th (235 yards+) had been lengthened -- then a much more compellign case about "unfairness" or the like could be made.

The 16th is easily the more demanding of the long par-3's at Oakmont IMHO -- I have personally witness the last three US Opens there and the front right pin placement -- usually in the final round -- is very demanding and almost unplayable.

The room fronting the 8th will permit the bounce-on shot and thus is a bit more flexibile even with the added length.

[Jim Franklin]

Matt -

You hit the nail on the head as I think #16 is defintely harder than the 8th. Front right would be a pretty tough spot. Fortunately, it was back left on Tuesday .

[Peter_Herreid]

Here are some pictures from 10 days ago, of some of the current work at Oakmont.  The bulk of the activity was around the green on #14, and on the opposite sides of the fairway in the landing zone of #15...

From #14 landing zone, looking at the green


From greenside right, looking back down the fairway


From #10, wide view catching the front edge of the current back tee on #12 (note the Open tee is off the picture to the left), the 14th green and then looking down the 15th fairway at the work being done there


We were participating in a charity event, so we did not have a member host, but the caddies claimed that the work on #14 was for pinching the fescues all the way in towards the green.  We saw some obvious bunker drainage going in, so either some new bunkers were going in there as well, or existing ones were being re-plumbed.  By the way, the existing back tee on #14 is at 360 yds, and the club's concern was that the green would be driven, thus the work being done.  I don't believe that tee can be moved back, as it is already on the top of a hill behind the 13th green

View of the all-world #15 green, looking back up the fairway to the clubhouse


The caddies were not sure whether the re-done area in the left rough (right side of picture) was a true Church Pew or a multi-"toothe" bunker complex.  They claimed it was to mirror the grass Pews on the opposite side of the fairway

From middle tee on #18, looking back across the #15 fairway (near-ground), past the work around #14 green, across #12 tee, #10 fairway, to #9 fairway in the distance in front of the tree-line (you can't see the 1st fairway which is right in front of the tree line)


Again #18, but rotated a bit to the right, still catching the work on #15 in the left foreground


Someone mentioned that Oakmont "does not suffer fools".  Boy, was that a perfect choice of phrases.  I can't imagine trying to play that course on a regular basis as a mid-high HCP'er, even from the proper set of tees.  As Jim F mentioned, it was very difficult to execute even the safest-appearing recovery shots from rough that was thick and dense, but not necessarily long.  There is no such thing as a tap-in, or gimme putt, as there is so much character to the greens, and they weren't even at "Oakmont" typical speed last week.

Oakmont is an examination, a measuring stick, if you will, for where you are and what kind of grasp you have on your game at that moment.  I can't fathom anyone "getting away" with shots at Oakmont, or getting many lucky bounces, and that is why I think it doesn't suffer fools.

[Matt_Ward]

Peter:

It was I who mentioned about not suffering fools -- Oakmont is America's best parksland course IMHO. The work that is still being done will only help further the considerable reputation the club has enjoyed.

What many people don't realize is that the Fownes philosophy was clearly Calvinistic in its approach to golf. Souls that sin were eternally damned on the course and to the pleasure of the founders. At Oakmont -- you get a layout that will carve away and eat any mistakes you make. Some will not find that kind of golf fun and I can certainly understand the hesitation to embrace such a style.

What strikes me about Oakmont and elevates it ahead of another strong layout like Winged Foot / West is the level of details on the greens and the sheer range / diversity of holes encountered when playing.

Nonetheless, for me Oakmont belongs in the highest level of courses I have ever played in the States. Yes, there are going to be some additional changes as the '07 US Open approaches but I see those changes in line with what the course needs to be given the techonological gains made since the '93 event.

P.S. The one change I wish was not made is switching the par-5 9th to a long par-4. I know it doesn't mean that much since a score is a score regardless of it's par but I alway thought the 9th provided that comeback eagle / birdie attempt after facing the long par-3 8th.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Hereid,

What do you think is the average handicap of the membership at Oakmont ?

[Jim Franklin]

When we played Tuesday, we played the front 9 behind two woman that could be 70+ each, and were never held up at all. Granted they were on carts, but hit the ball a little, drove, hit it again. Their handicap couldn't be much lower than 30.

[THuckaby2]

Here's what I've never fully "gotten" about Oakmont:

I understand it's great fun for Matt Ward.  In fact I'd be shocked if he doesn't have it in his world top 5, right up there with Shinnecock.  Examination of one's game seems to be the top criterion for Matt, and there's nothing at all wrong with that - lots of people think that way.  Tough but fair is what it's all about. (And Matt, I know I am WAY overgeneralizing but you are a known entity here so you work for this example).

Is it any fun at all for the rest of us, who don't hit 350 yard drives and 240 yard 4 irons, miss chips and putts all the time, and otherwise make mistakes?

Several have tried to explain to me that it would be.  Yet still, every time the course comes up, all that is trumpeted is its difficulty and how it doesn't suffer fools.

For me, true greatness means a course would please both Matt Ward and me.  I just don't see Oakmont doing the latter, just as far too many courses that Matt would find too easy don't do the former.

So let's try again... how is Oakmont any fun for a guy like me?

TH

[Peter_Herreid]

Patrick Muci--

I did not make an effort to peruse the HCP listings in the locker room.  I would not even care to guess...

I would have this gut reaction, not based in fact but only in instinct--that my 14 HCP from the northwest corner wouldn't match up so well against a 14 HCP from Oakmont...

Again, this is only my opinion...

[George Pazin]

Huck -

JohnV says it well here (pulled from another thread):

That's more like my wife's dream top twenty.

As for playing Oakmont on a regular basis, one of the other posters on this board made a similar comment after playing Oakmont for the first time - it was too hard for him to want to be a member. However, after having a few more cracks at it, he has changed his opinion.

And I reserve the right to change my opinion again after Friday.

I enjoy having fun when I play golf and sometimes if it is too hard it isn't fun.  But the more I've played and seen Oakmont, the more I'm convinced it is fun as well as hard.  Oakmont challanges you on every shot, but you can play it without losing a ball (assuming you have a decent caddie.)  

Some other courses where you can lose a golf ball on every shot are not fun, just hard.  A friend of mine who is a 12 handicap lost three golf balls on three consecutive tee shots a few days ago at a course.  That is not fun.  You don't want to sit around reloading all day and if a course is very difficult and penalizes you in that manner, I don't consider it great.

If you can find it and hit it, but be suitably punished for the mistake it is great.  Oakmont is that kind of course as Cary's description of his round implies.  He (and I) might not be good enough to shoot a great score there, but we can still play it and give it a great effort without feeling like we just reloading until we get it right.

I think you'd love it, but I could be wrong!

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

Re-read what Tom Doak said about Shinnecock Hills in "Confidential Guide" - I would apply that same linkage to different handicap types at Oakmont.

Keep this in mind there are at times more than a few people who will post comments on a given course that they claims is too tough or too unforgiving. Guess what? They may be right but likely because they are judging the course ONLY from their perspective and as I have seen personally over the years from playing the course at a given length that is beyond their ability level.

Naturally, the person making such a claim doesn't see that the course is too strong for them at a given tee box -- therefore the course is simply impossible to play, unfair, you know the verbal dress-down drill. These are the same clowns who drown in their brewskis after a round and are looking for some sympathy. I know such a drill would not apply to you.

I have had the opportunity to have played Oakmont about a half a dozen times over the years -- my last two times have come recently since a good bit of work has been to the course.

The layout now has more a-i-r and less of the confining and inane tree plantings that took away the stark visual image you get of Oakmont from the early photos of the course.

Huck -- help me out with something -- you draw a conclusion that Oakmont would not be any fun for you. I don't know the answer to this -- but have you ever played the course? Might it be more prudent to hold such comments until you do?

P.S. Huck -- I appreciate your characterization of my views on courses but it's a bit of a generalization and at times fits a certain stereotype easy for people to say over and over again when I opine on a given course. I enjoy plenty of different courses and there are quite a few I have played over the years that are not beyond 6,500 yards or have CR's beyond 74 or slopes higher than 135.

Great courses of all types -- do not suffer fools -- they are quite adept in identifying the better player in their consistent and thorough examination they provide. Such an examination goes beyond the "350-yard tee shot & and the 240-yard 4-iron" that you mentioned. Oakmont is simply a superb layout with an equally storied reputation -- albeit -- one geared more towards the penal school of thought. However, minus Sam Parks in '35 if you examine the names of champions who have been crowned there over the years it is an impressive roster that only a very select handful of courses can possibly match or exceed.

[Jim Franklin]

Huck -

I think Matt is right, you may hate it from the green tees, but from the blues you may find it wonderful. I would bet that you find place this course in your top 10 if you played it. The history alone is enough to give you goose bumps all the way around. Sure, it is hard, but it is fun too. We have never played together, but I am not the straightest driver in the world, so finding rough and bunkers is not uncommon for me and I loved the place.

[THuckaby2]

George:

Thanks.  JV's comments are powerful, as were yours before as well as Kyle's when we discussed this before.  But somehow I can't get over the hump here, so to speak.  It still seems to me to be a torture test first, fun second.  And I'm still not convinced where the fun occurs.  One must have a reasonable chance at success in this game, and I've yet to hear anyone say that can occur at Oakmont.

Matt:

Chill.  Notice how I said in my post "And Matt, I know I am WAY overgeneralizing but you are a known entity here so you work for this example)."?  Or did you miss that part?  I thought you might be able to discuss this with some sense of humor, but I guess you've been too pounded lately to allow for that.  My bad.  Please understand that I KNOW it's a generalization.  So just change the words "Matt Ward" to "some guy who prefers a test of golf to all other things."  Then try to answer my question.

And of course I haven't played it.  Fact is, I can say with 99.44% certainty I never will.  I don't tend to get to Pittsburgh often.  

I'm just trying to get a handle on this golf course, because it intrigues the hell out of me.    And remember when we discussed this before, I admitted that I had the same feelings about Winged Foot West before I played there, and such were reversed dramatically upon actually playing it.  I could have fun playing that very difficult golf course any time.

So what I'm asking for is some help - assume I never will play the course.  Make me see what I saw at Winged Foot.  I'm having a really hard time imagining it when it comes to Oakmont.  And understand what I'm trying to imagine is the EXTREMELY high praise it receives from you and others... best course in the US, Top 5, top 2, whatever, that type of praise...

To that end, Jim Franklin's brief post helps - goose bumps mean a LOT to me and there is absolutely no doubt I would feel a huge sense of awe if I ever did set foot on those grounds.  I truly belive that counts in these assessments also.  And he makes another great point, one does have to play the proper tees.  But still, that's not getting me to see it's a Top 5 course, let alone "better than Pebble, better than Cypress, better than NGLA" as some have proclaimed.


Thanks!

TH

[Jim Franklin]

TH -

I understand you have never been to Pittsburgh, but you have heard of Fox Chapel and Laurel Valley? Both pretty decent courses in their own right. I had the option to play those courses a few years ago while I was staying at Oakmont, and I said no way, I playing Oakmont again. That's how good and fun it is.

As for Winged Foot West, it is my favorite Tillinghast (SFGC is a close second), but I would play Oakmont 6 out of 10 times versus Winged Foot West. Now if we are talking Merion, it would be 5 and 5.

[JohnV]

Peter Hereid,

What do you think is the average handicap of the membership at Oakmont ?

11.1

[THuckaby2]

TH -

I understand you have never been to Pittsburgh, but you have heard of Fox Chapel and Laurel Valley? Both pretty decent courses in their own right. I had the option to play those courses a few years ago while I was staying at Oakmont, and I said no way, I playing Oakmont again. That's how good and fun it is.

As for Winged Foot West, it is my favorite Tillinghast (SFGC is a close second), but I would play Oakmont 6 out of 10 times versus Winged Foot West. Now if we are talking Merion, it would be 5 and 5.

Jim - that speaks powerfully to me.  And I know your thoughts on other courses... although from all accounts you are a VERY strong player, well... from what I can tell our take on courses is similar, in that we tend to go for fun first, test second.

6 out of 10 v. WFW is a very strong statement.  But I am getting it better now - many thanks.

And yes, I have heard of those other Pittsburgh greats.  That's a strong statement also.

But 5v5 v. Merion speaks loudest of all.  Wow.  Merion (again, from afar, don't jump down my throat Matt) appears to me to be fun all over.  Oh it's a test for sure, but fun comes first.  5v5 v. Merion makes me understand this.

Thanks, Jim.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Huck:

No matter how many words can be posted or pictures shown the final barometer on any course -- especially one at the lev of Oakmont -- is to personally play there and see it for yourself.

Clearly, you are being impacted upon by the words people generally use when describing the course -- very penal, long and narrow, extremely fast greens, etc, etc.

Oakmont does reward fine play -- you just have to be consistent in your execution and to follow the maxim of Clint Eastwood, "know your limitations." Many people often opt for the wrong tees and then project such failure as a sign of weakness in the design. Clearly, addressing one's own shortcomings is never discussed -- it's always the course.

Huck -- if you can't see the course beyond the likes of others usually mentioned here on GCA -- than there's nothing I can say or write that I definitively prove it.

Oakmont, IMHO, is easily among the top five courses we have in the States. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it. The course has sensibly returned to its roots with a concerted tree removal program that has done miracles in illuminating the sheer nature of what the Fownes envisioned many years ago. Yes, there has been added length included but it's entirely in line with what technology is about today. The core nature of those holes has not been bastardized as you see with other layouts like Augusta National.

The totality of the holes -- the manner of their routing and the overall pacing -- are always an issue when playing. The green contours and speeds faced have no peer in American golf from the many layouts I have been fortunate to play. In sum -- the game is on when you tee off there.

Oakmont is not assisted being in the Pittsburgh area simply because the fanfare and hype is not a given there -- I have nothing against Pittsburgh so those from there should not bash me. If the course were in the greater New York area it would be even more noted than it is today.

There are few courses in the world where the sheer existence of the golf is so thorough and complete and is in no need in having a body of water to compliment it in some meaningful way. Oakmont is golf and golf is Oakmont. Nuff said.

P.S. Appreciate your sense of humor -- more than a number of others here on GCA.

 

[THuckaby2]

Matt:

In the end you are correct - there is no substitute for personal on-site experience.  But given I damn well for sure will hever have that at Oakmont, well... I am just trying for some understanding.  Maybe it can't be done.

But the same thing goes for Augusta, Pine Valley, so many other intensely private all-world greats.  Are we to just give up trying to understand or make sense of those also?

In any case your last post there does help a lot.  There simply must be more to it than the torture test.  I just can't get over that whenever someone does play it, words like "it doesn't suffer fools" seem to be all that are expressed.  Outside of me specifically asking for this, no one has ever come back from Oakmont saying how much fun the course was, or how much they enjoyed themselves.  That too speaks powerfully to me.

Because no matter how I fall on the Shinnecock/NGLA debate, well... people do come back from Shinny glowing over fun as well as difficulty.  I know I did.

 

[George Pazin]

Huck, if you check the archives following the Am, I believe it was Tom Paul who said he spoke to many players and most felt Merion was one of the touhgest, if not the toughest, courses they had ever played. One of my friends had the pleasure of playing there recently and he said it was fun but exceptionally difficult, especially for a course that does not rely on length to be a difficult test.

Incidentally, Oakmont doesn't rely on length, either. There are plenty of shorter par 4s that are really tough - 2, 5 & 17 come to mind, though 11 & 14 are certainly tough as well. (Many would include 8 and 16 as tough short par 4s as well. )

If you're looking to shoot your handicap, you will certainly be disappointed, but if you're looking for tough, challenging and imaginative shots, Oakmont is all that and more.

As an aside, there probably aren't many great courses that "suffer fools", but that's a thread for another day.

[THuckaby2]

George:

ANY course be made to be tough through set up.  Thus TEPs comments from players at the recent USAm have way less weight to me than Rich Goodale's playing it in a friendly round.

That being said, I have no doubt Merion is a difficult golf course to score on, any time.

But I also have no doubt that no one looks at it as a paragon of difficulty, at least not in the way that courses like Winged Foot, Oakmont, Bethpage Black, PGA West Stadium are.  That is, one rarely hears Merion when "brutal tests of golf" are listed.

One does, however, often see Merion cited when "fun, wonderful, awe-inspiring" courses are the topic.

So that's all I meant there.

And you'll notice I never once mentioned length in any of this.  I am well aware Oakmont has some short holes.

I'd also disagree and could cite several great courses at which fools are very much suffered.  Let's start with these:

The Old Course
NGLA
Cypress Point
Sand Hills

Need I continue?

 

[George Pazin]

Huck -

Just a couple quick thoughts:

1) Those courses you list wouldn't suffer this fool much easier than Oakmont. Maybe NGLA & TOC, but there are more opportunities for lost balls at both Cypress and Sand Hills (from what I've seen and read on here and from others, obviously I haven't had the pleasure).

2) You listen to RICH?

My friend who told me his opinion about Merion didn't play in the Am, he's a mid to high single handicapper. Long but wild, can't putt a lick unless I'm reading the green for him. He said he'd call Merion his favorite course and the best he's played - except that he played Shinney earlier this year and it won his head to head.

You played Winged Foot and loved it, didn't you? That certainly strikes me as a course that doesn't suffer fools, either.

[THuckaby2]

George:

You obviously didn't read the entirety of this thread and for that I am insulted.  

I did mention Winged Foot West as one at which my eyes were opened.  This surely could happen at Oakmont if I ever played it.  But given I damn sure never will, I am hoping for clarification from those who have.  A lot has been given and I am almost there, almost ready to allow that it is more than the torture test its founder and creator intended.  But something still nags at me.

As for the rest, well... Rich Goodale was just at the top of my mind given I just read a post of his.  That could be any "normal" golfer playing it at a "normal" time.  Championship setups mean little to me.  Hell they made our local Harding play tough recently....

Now as for courses suffering fools, oh my friend there is SO much more to this than losing golf balls, or not.  Sure one can and does lose golf balls at each of Sand Hills and Cypress (not as many as you seem to think, but it does happen).  But the key is one knows it and doesn't mind.  Fools are suffered because they can have success on damn near every hole... for many reasons.

And re Oakmont, well one thing everyone seems to trumpet is the very high rough, year-round, all the time.  You really think no golf balls ever get lost in that stuff?

In any case, your friend's take is interesting.  But heck, it's not like there are many lost ball opportunities at Shinnecock.  Seems to me this guy just likes great courses where he can spray the ball and still find his golf ball... which seems to describe both of these very well.

Give me several high handicappers who came back praising Oakmont and saying how much fun they had - then I might come to full understanding.

That I have yet to hear.

TH

[George Pazin]

I've read your comments on Winged Foot many times on many different threads, which is why I brought it up. If WF opened your eyes, why do you think Oakmont wouldn't?

The rough is not as penal as you would think. You won't lose a ball there, though that is also partly a function of having a good caddy corps, which Oakmont does.

Jim mentions that he played the front 9 behind two women in their 70s who never held them up. Does that sound like a course that is overly penal?

Losing balls is the bane of the poor golfer. You fail to understand this because you are a good golfer. (Don't feel bad, there are only a few people on this site that do understand that.) That's why I chose JohnV's comments. He understands the desire of any golfer to play interesting shots, not simply reload until you get it right.

As I said before, if you want to shoot your handicap, you will surely be disappointed. If you want to be challenged with interesting shots and don't mind ringing up a few high numbers in the process, you won't. It's as simple as that.

[TEPaul]

Who knows what Oakmont's old 8th hole used to look like before the green was moved or whatever and it was redesigned maybe fifty years ago?

[THuckaby2]

George:

Again, you don't read the rest of the thread and my insult is now doubled.  I granted ON THIS THREAD that Oakmont could well open my eyes, as WFW did.  But once again, since we'll never get to test that theory in any sort of reality, I ask for written help.  

And you keep missing the point.  I never said I felt Oakmont was overly penal.  I just have yet to read anyone say it is any sort of FUN.  You know, the fun they rave about at places like the courses I listed at which fools are suffered.

Jim Franklin has given me some understanding saying he'd go 5-5 with Merion and Oakmont.  Why?  Because while all do grant that Merion is far from easy, most also do trumpet various fun aspects about it.

Apologies, but mentions of 70 year old women going fast does nothing for me, except wish they were in the group ahead of me.  

Look - it comes down to this:  didn't Oakmonts creator set out to make the world's toughest test, or something to that effect?  And damn near everyone says he succeeded.

That's what I can't get over, George.  Because no matter what people say, well... the world's toughest test is never gonna be what golf is about, not for me anyway.  And I really do believe that the greatest of all courses - the very top of the lists - these courses should be BOTH difficult AND fun.

So if you want to say Oakmont is a great golf course, I'l just nod my head and agree.  I have absolutely no doubt of that.

But if you want to put it in the world's top 10... top 5.. call it better than Pebble Beach... better than Cypress... better than Sand Hills, etc... which is what some here have said... well that I am having a very hard time with.

And thanks, but I got your line about shooting one's handicap the first three times you said it.  I understand that.  But one could say that about MANY difficult golf courses.  In fact that's exactly what I say about PGA West Stadium course.... I just don't then take it further to put that course among the world's greats.

TH

[George Pazin]

I read the thread, I read it multiple times. I don't understand how WF can open your eyes, but you remain unconvinced about Oakmont. Oh, I know, you say Oakmont could open your eyes, but you'll never understand until you play it. Well, if that's the case, why ask the question?

There are all sorts of ways to not shoot your handicap. Of those, reload after reload is far and away my least favorite. In my limited experience, I have yet to see another course that punishes shots as effectively without causing reloads. That is a gigantic thing for me. From what you keep saying, apparently it is not for you.

When I face a really difficult shot, I may or may not find it "interesting". If the penalty for the mishit is reload and try again, I probably won't find it especially interesting. If it means that I might face an even tougher shot from a difficult lie, difficult bunker, something like that, that I find that interesting. I call that fun. That is why I think Oakmont is appealing to more than just ace players on top of their game.

I can't think of any other way of saying it, so if you need further clarification, you might need to seek someone else's opinion.