[Ryan Farrow]

I would like to start off with a short excerpt from Ran's review of Oakmont Country Club:

"Given the clay subsurface, Fownes could not make deep bunkers as at Winged Foot, due to difficulties with both construction and drainage. Oakmont is justly known for its bunkers, but the visitor is often surprised to realize, over a drink after his round, that the bunkers are simply not that deep. What is striking are the numbers of them and their positions. The well-known furrows in the bunkers have been gone for over 50 years."

This of course, is not Ran’s fault. He was describing the course as he saw it at the time(2003). I believe last summer every one of the 200+ bunkers were re-done. This also includes the addition of a handful of previously removed bunkers. It seems to me that through the help of some new machines or just some good labor, the bunkers have gotten to be deep... very deep.

The first thing I noticed when I stepped foot on the course was the ridiculous number of bunkers. But when you start to get closer the bunkers seem to get even more devilish. I would venture to say that half of the bunkers on the course will obstruct your view of the green. You might be able to see a green but chances are it’s not the hole you are playing on. I have seen caddies help pull golfers out of these bunkers more times that I can count. They are by far the most severe grass faced bunkers I have seen in my life.

Do these deeper bunkers fundamentally change the way the course is played. It seems like pitching out or laying up is now a preferred option. I am lacking the knowledge of how these bunkers were a few years ago and more importantly how the bunkers were when Fownes was running the place and calling the shots.

Does anyone else have some first hand experience of a before and after of the restoration work? How drastic was the change over the last few years?

[Kyle Harris]

I had a rather good conversation about this very subject with Mike Cirba while playing Reading Country Club last week. He compared the state of bunkers at Reading to that of Oakmont's from a few years back.

Here's a picture of Reading's 12th hole for comparison's sake. The grassed over looking mounds may have been a part of an old bunker complex and serve as an interesting comparison.

[TEPaul]

Ran Morrissett is a very good golf course architecture analyst but everyone makes mistakes and Ran Morrissett's glaring golf course architecture analysis mistake is Oakmont.

I think Ran even said that he thought Oakmont had an aura about it that was 'cold'. He apparently meant that perjoratively, not realizing that "cold" is most of the point of Oakmont!!  

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, my two favorite elements at Oakmont are (1) falling away greens -- #1, #10, #12  , and (2) fast   greens.

Those two define Oakmont to me, and are timeless.

[Forrest Richardson]

It is like an old painting. The work there has carefully restored much of the old masterpiece...but it has also added some color and — too bad — resulted in the loss of a few details along the way.

I am certain this thread will eventually get to the aspect of the tremendous effort to rid the course of its forest and trees. So, in advance I will put forth a defense of the 1920s and 1950s tree planting...

Much of the 1920s trees planted are either gone or have been lost. The few large specimens which remain are prized trees and the club would hate to lose them.

Of the 1950s trees, most were planted to buffer the Turnpike. Rarely do we hear praise of these...but we should. Without them, Oakmont would have the freeway in its face...even more that it does. Like the earlier plantings, much of the 1950s trees are gone or have been cleared. But of those which remain, many represent ideal trees which complete the picture or, in some cases, add a degree of challenge.

What many here fail to recognize in golf, is that tree plantings can have good attributes. It can be argued that both those doing the planting — and later, those taking exception — are both living in a short timeframe, failing to see the longer-term picture and consequences. There is good and bad...like everything else.

[Ryan Farrow]

There is no doubt that the tree plantings along the interstate were a necessity. The only time you actually see the road is when you are crossing the bridge. It is kept out of sight and out of mind for almost the entire round. The only tree left in play is between the 3rd and 4th holes about 150 yards short of the pew on #3 and just after the pews on #4. I don't know why this is the only one which remains but it is quite a tree.

As far as the pews go I think they look great. The additional length and extra pews is something that I strongly feel Mr. Fownes would have agreed on if he was still around. Not to mention the change of grasses add a nice visual touch.

I wish I could get my hands on some old pictures of the course.

[George Pazin]

Can't say that I agree with Forrest's defense of the trees, as blocking the interstate (which we here call the PA Turnpike - the nation's first - and worst).

Forrest's statement is true of the trees alongside the Turnpike, but there were a tremendous number of trees on holes nowhere near the Turnpike. And I've been to Oakmont enough times of late, on quiet, idyllic days, to note that, even without the interior trees, one doesn't notice the Turnpike at all, other than when crossing between 1 & 2 and 8 & 9.

Of course, I am somewhat hard of hearing, so maybe that's just my own personal side benefit.

I personally don't get anyone's fascination with "specimen" trees, but I realize that is my own personal preference, so I can overlook that in others. If you want to see impressive trees, go see the Redwoods or the Cypress trees in Cali.

As for Ran's comments on bunkers, I do believe they were made before some recent bunker work.

Ryan, there are some good photos in Geoff Shackelford's Golden Age of Golf Architecture, but the best source is the Oakmont clubhouse, which has quite a few old photos hanging on the walls.

If by older you mean from the 2003 Am (you did recently remind me how young you are...), you can do a little searching on here and find photos I took then and posted.

[wsmorrison]

I don't see how the trees along the Turnpike obscured views of the roadway, except for some limited parts of the course while travelling from one section to the other.  The turnpike is some 20 feet or so below the level of the course.  Maybe it did serve to block some of the noise from the cars and trucks.

Tom and I recently found some very old photographs of Oakmont and the look of the course surprised even the most knowledgeable historian of the course.  The geometry of features and prolific use of church pews were very interesting.  Oakmont underwent some real evolution over time and it would be hard to advocate going back to the course exhibited in these photographs.  I think it is in its best state right now.

[Forrest Richardson]

George — I like Oakmont better with fewer trees. As now. But I do not believe the tree plantings of past were any more a good — or bad — an idea than the most recent eradicaton of trees. Both efforts were fad in nature. Oakmont will continue to ebb and flow with the times. At some point it may be that all the trees are cut down — every last one. And, perhaps 100 years from now, that thousands are planted. Trees are really a dynamic component to a golf course. In reality, they are just big roughs.

[Forrest Richardson]

Of course, Wayne — I doubt that anyone in the previous eras would have dreamed that Oakmont was any different than you describe — "Perfect now..." Each generation seems to define its own version of what is right. I agree with you, though — we should not move too far back in the case of Oakmont!

[George Pazin]

Of course, Wayne — I doubt that anyone in the previous eras would have dreamed that Oakmont was any different than you describe — "Perfect now..." Each generation seems to define its own version of what is right. I agree with you, though — we should not move too far back in the case of Oakmont!

This is an absolutely fascinating statement, and explains why I personally am against trying to "improve" designs by recognized architects (I'm struggling with the right words there for the architects in question).

I don't doubt that virtually every effort made to "improve" any course was made with good intentions, whether we are talking about adding or removing trees, adding or removing bunkers, recontouring greens, almost anything. But it is equally clear to me that not all changes result in a superior product, at least by standards of others who were not involved in the change!

This all ties back into the most difficult - and interesting -  question in golf course architecture, to me, anyway: How does one know when it is time to tinker? How does one determine a course's high point? (If it indeed has one - Forrest's statement seems to imply it doesn't, which is an interesting perspective.)

It's hard for me to imagine the interior trees ever resulted in a superior course at Oakmont, whether it be compared to the course now, the course 75 years ago, or the original course. Trees lining fairways are bad agronomically, from what I understand, and bad strategically, imo. They add the ever interesting punch out shot, while limiting recovery options. And I don't think they make the course appreciably harder (just appreciably duller).

[Tom Zeni]

Maybe, the bunker right side of the 3rd hole can be used as a comparison as to the depth and steepness of the present day setup. I don't have that comparison, but if you recall, back in 1983 at the Open, Hale Irwin during the ravaging Friday summer storm, said he about drown as they were hiding in that bunker!

We had two such severe electrical storms in that 4 day stretch, the 2nd on Sunday, and I was caught in both! We did return Monday morning, in the fog, drizzle, and smell from the steel mills to witness Larry Nelson can what I believe was a 53 ft putt (don't quote me) to move and stay ahead of Tom Watson for the eventual win.

We could talk about 1994 when OJ had the longest drive during the Open at Oakmont.

[Ryan Farrow]

I don't see how the trees along the Turnpike obscured views of the roadway, except for some limited parts of the course while travelling from one section to the other.  The turnpike is some 20 feet or so below the level of the course.  Maybe it did serve to block some of the noise from the cars and trucks.

Tom and I recently found some very old photographs of Oakmont and the look of the course surprised even the most knowledgeable historian of the course.  The geometry of features and prolific use of church pews were very interesting.  Oakmont underwent some real evolution over time and it would be hard to advocate going back to the course exhibited in these photographs.  I think it is in its best state right now.

Do you suggest no trees anywhere on the course? The turnpike is in a small valley but I think the road itself could be seen on some high points of the course (I can verify this in the near future). I actually feel the course could benefit from some denser tree planting along the turnpike. The noise is noticeable at the greens right by the road on 1 and 8.

As far as the pews, other than the ones they restored on 15, did they exist anywhere else on the site?



And where did all of this tree talk start, o yea, Forrest
 

[wsmorrison]

Ryan,

I said that I think the course is in its best state now.  Since there are trees on the course why would you ask if I think these should be removed?

Yes, there were multiple church pews on the golf course around 1920 or so, 4 sets on the opposite side of the Turnpike from the clubhouse alone.

[Adam_Messix]

I think you need to keep the trees along the turnpike as a noise buffer.  As a matter of fact, I'm surprised someone hasn't put something more up to block the turnpike noise because it can get pretty loud by 1 and 8 greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()