Oakmont

[TEPaul]

Spent the last three days at Oakmont officiating at the Penn Amateur Championship.

What a golf course that is--unbelievably good--everything about it!

There's a lot to report but can just now.

There is one thing that's been on my mind while there and driving home. You know how we've all heard that NGLA was the first really good golf course built in America--or the first golf course in America that had 18 good holes?

How could that be since Oakmont was built in 1903 and NGLA in 1910? Maybe C.B. MacDonald never saw Oakmont before he built NGLA.

The other remarkable thing about Oakmont is its basically natural landform greens! Some certainly more so than others but for natural landform greens you can't possibly do much better anywhere than 1!,3!!,5,8,9,10!!,12!!!,15!,17!,18.

The hell with it, why even make any distinctions--I'll just throw them all in!

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Tom,
I agree with you; the course is one of the finest.

What are your feelings on the green speeds?  Do they detract or add to the course?  They certainly contribute to the character.

A great example of a course that does not need water hazards, ocean or linksland to be superb.

There are many lessons to be learned from Oakmont, I will look forward to a few more visits, to appreciate it even more.

[brad_miller]

This is the one US classic course I know so little about and would like very much to know more. TP how did the tree work look? That is if you are free to comment.

[TEPaul]

Ben:

The green speeds at Oakmont are a whole subject in and of itself--believe me!!

First of all, Oakmont and their famous green speeds has never chased another golf course to acheive green speed! Forget about the modern fascination and misguided craze of quoting the latest high stimp number that some courses have gotten into!

In my opinion, Oakmont has not only NOT gotten into that but they have in fact been super fast for many decades before the stimpmeter was even conceived of or invented! In a word, they were far faster far longer ago than any golf course in the world!! Far faster far longer ago than apparently anyone realizes!!

Pete Dye did a very detailed historic photographic analysis of whether the greens of Oakmont really were as fast as they were reputed to be back in the 1960s (for US Opens). Pete's conclusion was that they were not as fast as reputed simply because a particular piece of green mowing equipment had not yet been invented and produced so consequently Oakmont's green speeds simply could not possibly have been as fast back then as some believed.

In my opinion, Pete's analysis, assumptions and his conclusions are wholly wrong and I think I've found not only the evidence to prove it but also the person who can prove it!!

The fact of those extraordinary speeds probably going back to the 1930s and 1940s all rests with the design and maintenance ideas of Mr Fownes (calling for super fast greens on his course alone) but more particularly with some innovative and creative green mowing and equipment rigging practices of one Emil Loeffler, Oakmont's super famous superintendent (and possibly partial co-designer).

But that's another story.

I did ask the super what the speeds were for the Penn State Amateur and what he could have had the green speeds at if the course had not gotten so much rain over the weekend but I'm just not going to mention on here what those stimp speeds were or could have been because the knowledge of that number would be downright dangerous!

The important thing to realize and understand is that no club understands what high green speeds are all about and how to manage and handle them on their own particular course better than Oakmont does! They do understand what the character of their greens means, obviously, and the idea of thoughtless "softening" is not in their mindset!
 
They probably also are well aware that in the area of super fast greens Oakmont could be responsible for their own "Oakmont syndrome" that would encourage other courses to get on the train of higher speeds that those other courses could not handle.

But I don't see them doing that! I've never seen them do that! But the thing to keep in mind is that they are very fast and have been that way far far longer than anyone realizes, including Pete Dye.

I played in a state amateur at Oakmont about ten years ago and can truthfully say I've seen a lot of very fast greens in my life but nothing like Oakmont's.

But the important thing to keep in mind is they know what they're doing, they know exactly how to do it, they always have and they don't advertize it for other courses.

There's a ton of uniqueness to Oakmont, their greens speeds being just one element.

Also, this whole concept of the "ideal maintenance meld" I talk about--I have not seen another American golf course that has so completely tapped into it's own "ideal maintenance meld" as comprehensively and totally as has Oakmont.

If you want to see what it is (the "ideal maintenance meld") go take a look at Oakmont when it hasn't rained in a while! It's the ultimate in "ideal maintenance meld"!

And furthermore, I don't know if Merion and Pine Valley are talking and collaborating with Oakmont somehow but they also are moving quite quickly towards their own "ideal maintenance melds"!!

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Just like Oakmont has always done their own thing on their own greenspeeds and have been very satisfied to be very quiet about what they do, the same is true with their latest tree program.

They don't seem interested in talking about numbers of trees removed--all they say is come and look at the golf course. So I'm not ever going to talk about numbers either--stimp or amount of trees removed.

One of the best lady golfers in my state who's from my club and on our green committee went out and played Oakmont last fall and came back and simply said--"WOW, that's the coolest golf course I've seen in America"--tree removal, firmness--the "ideal maintenance meld".

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,

I assume you got to see all the holes on more than one occasion? If so, which not-so-obvious holes/what features impressed you the most (i.e. everyone raves about 15 and 18 but what about some of the others?) How did four of my favorites fare - the 4th, 6th, 10th and 12th?

Cheers,

[Bill_McBride]

Tom, you are so right about the combination of green speed and firm turf at Oakmont.  Several years ago I was playing there and left my second at #10 about ten yards short of the green.  I started to pull a seven iron to chip at the back left pin but the caddy suggested a soft pitch onto the very right front of the green with a sand wedge.  Watching the ball roll slowly toward the pin for what seemed like a couple of minutes was very exciting, and holing the four footer for par even better!  The front to back sloping greens were marvelous - 1, 10, 12 - and the short par 4's are protected by great green complexes - I'm thinking of 2 and 17.  

[TEPaul]

Bill McBride:

You're so right about what you say about those holes you mentioned.

Basically that golf course simply astounds me it's so damn good everywhere. And the fact it's so damn old just blows me away.

I don't know what I'd do if I actually had to play the course every day--feel like a small mouse--I guess, but I'm so impressed by it, that now it's up there in my top five in the world. Talk about a real championship golf course and basically that way in 1903!! What was Fownes thinking about??

Ran:

I'll go through the holes you mentioned and my impressions of them  and the details. Even spending a solid 2 1/2 days there officiating I thought I hadn't really been able to observe all that much but in retrospect I took in more detail than I thought I would.

There were probably a dozen of so officials and it sure helped to have Mark Studer officiating too as we could talked up an architectural storm in between tournament pacing! Mark Studer has done one helluva job there as the green chairman!

The architecture is so good but that constant "ideal maintenance meld"--Oh my God is that great. John Zimmer and the committee has it down to the absolute ideal, of course, barring rainfall!

But I'll go through those holes in detail later. The only thing that concerned me were the new tees on #4 and #7. The look of them was a shock to me from last fall but to get that extra length on those two holes there was no other way to do it an retain the visibility they had to have!

Later!

[TEPaul]

Ran:

To get back and answer you as to how your four favorites fared in the PA Amateur (#4, #6, #10, #12).

First of all, most of the time spent officiating a tournament like that is the pacing and maintaining the pace of play! This time I feel the officials who were numerous enough were really on top of things, constantly communicating by radio and never for an instance letting pace get beyond control. As any committee official knows once you lose the pace it's really hard to get it back!

Clearly, to do that effectively at a course like Oakmont one (all actually) has to be aware of the "golf related" problem holes and I would say #10 is probably the most problematic with pace. Our incrimental hole times may have been a little out of whack but clearly #10 (as a par 4) was probably the most over time--I'd say maybe averaging out to 15-17 minutes which is sort of par 5 range!

And the reason for the extra time on #10 definitely had to be the green. Both #1 and #10 are really amazing front to back natural landform greens but a pin anywhere to the left of centerline on #10 green is really problematic to approach, chip or putt. The fairway on #10 with the bunkering either side followed by the fairway contours just past the bunkering is very dicey for tee shots. And then of course there's that narrow lateral hazard ditch running well along the driving area to the right of the right bunkering. Get in that and any golfer will be scrambling for par or bogie!

The only oddity I can see at Oakmont (which frankly I had not realized before) is the eastern routing of #1 and #10 dead into the morning sun. For a #1 and #10 morning start this does make things somewhat problematic for players and officials with visiblity!

#4 is now 624yds from the new back tee which looks way too prominent and manufactured for my tastes but again there's nothing that could have been done since it obviously had to be built up maybe 25-30 ft (the tee!!) because of the dropoff behind the former back tee to get the visibility needed above the old tees inline with it!

For distance though of this tee for the tour pros will be interesting. The church pews are right in their driver area left although most will probably be able to fly the right corner of the right inside bunker set but maybe not from the new back tee. And if not things will be a bit narrow in the landing zone.

I really will be interested to see how close to this green a Tiger Woods could get in two. I doubt reaching in two here would be possible.

Of course the blind bunkering right on the second shot will be a factor and it's designed and placed really well for the left greenside diagonal bunkering and that great back left pin section. Wedge or short iron shots aren't much problem for tour pro though no matter how complex things are at or around the green!

The church pews which as you know are shared fairway bunkering on #3 and #4 are pretty interesting. I hadn't noticed that the first seven or so are concave in shape for the tee shot on #3 and the first three coming down #4 are concave in shape!

The "pews" are the ultimate in "iffy" penal bunkering design since the area between them is narrow and they are also the ultimate in the bunkering theme of Oakmont in that players try to squeeze as much distance as possible out of their recoveries and still get it over the tops of the bunker faces.

Almost all Oakmont's bunkering has basically flat sand floors so how near or far your ball ends up in relation to the front faces is sort of what all bunker recovery is about! There is basically no rollback of balls down front sand faces on fairway bunkering at Oakmont so recovery is totally random!

#6 plays at 199 and the green is interesting with its narrow front green space and wider back which has many of the "filter left" characteristics of PVGC's #3. The club selection on this par 3 is probably about in line with PVGC's #3. I doubt a tour pro would need much more than a 6-7 iron on this downhill par 3 sans wind!

#12 is now 622 but I would say it will be far more reachable in two for the tour players. The bunkering on #12 combined with the left to right fairway slope is brilliant being arranged in an almost perfect stagger of left/right/left which becomes most problematic for recovery from rough, not necessarily that demanding if on the fairway.

#12 green is without question one of the best and most interesting front to back runaway green slopes I've ever seen with subtle problems of visibility for particularly back pins!

Last week the coures had  gotten too much rain before the Monday start and John Zimmer was very disappointed to have lost the necessary firmness, particularly on the greens he was hoping for!

+2 won the Pa Amateur for 54 holes and had the fairway and particularly green firmness been there that he was hoping for the winning score very well may have been around +10!

[TEPaul]

Ran:

Regarding the 10th hole which probably played the most difficult to par in the Pa Amateur and I understand definitely played the most difficult to par in the last US Open may have a trick wrinkle to it now that if true and if used in the Open will be interesting and you can say you heard it here first.

I'm not sure if any trees have come out between #10 and #11 or where they might have been but it's possible now for a relatively longer driver to bomb his tee shot really out to the left of #10 and far down to the beginning of #11 fairway. Getting a tee shot that far left (left of the left fairway bunkering and one shared with #11) actually catches the upslope of #11 fairway which coming from the other direction (#10 tee) turns into one massive "turbo boost" down to the beginning of #11 fairway which is much wider than any part of #10 fairway. Consequently the player will get much more distance than he can on #10 fairway!

If a tour pro can get his ball down to that position (and a few did in the Pa Am) he will have not much more than a wedge into #10 green albeit over two large trees which is really no problem.  The key to this position is the player is coming smack into the severe right to left cant of that green from way over on the left. So in other words instead of having to deal with the severe runaway and left cant of that green from #10 fairway, the player will have turned the approach shot into a real back to front receptive approach--if you know what I mean!

You heard it here first!

[George Pazin]

Pulled forward as requested...

[TEPaul]

Just one of the little timing problems with Golfclubatlas. Someone starts a thread not realizing there is a very similar one like it in the back pages, so we start all over again.

[TEPaul]

I'll bring this up again for the recent Oakmont thread.

Oakmont has extended the length of the course. On particularly #4 and #7 it's sort of a shame that the land behind the previous back tees fell away because the present new back tees had to be raised maybe 20 or more feet above natural grade back there and they sure do stick way up in the air when you look back at them!

That's curious about Fazio recommending the bunkers be extended some into the fairway! If that's some kind of US Open recommendation my thought would be to leave them just where they are and take the fairway to them.

If taking them out into the fairway has to do somehow with matching them to the US Open fairway set-up of 22-28 yds wide Oakmont could be getting themselves into one helluva problem for the future of their golf course!

Please tell me this is not the case!

[George Pazin]

I wanted to bring this thread forward because I happen to know that one of our posters was involved in hosting a tournament here on Monday & I was hoping he saw something he could share with us.

[JohnV]

George, unfortunately I've been sick since Saturday afternoon (which is why I didn't call on Sunday) and missed the opportunity to not only go out there and work at our charity event, but I would have gotten to play as well since a couple of people didn't show up.  Oh well, at least nobody I work with doubts that I was really sick.

[Will E]

It's been a few years since I was lucky enough to spend a couple of days at Oakmont.
I can't think of a better par 4 than 15 at Oakmont, surprized that you guys didn't mention it.
I like fast greens as much as the next guy and question the comment made here of how Oakmont "understands" their fast green speeds. With only a couple of loops at Oakmont I'm not qualified to comment, however I thought the green speeds were borderline goofy, esp. 10 and 12. Perhaps that would change with more experience (and a better putting stroke). As much as I enjoyed my time at Oakmont, I thought the green speeds actually did detract from the wonderful design. In tournament play it doesn't surprize me that play crawled on 10, one of the most difficult greens I've encountered.

[George Pazin]

JohnV -

Sorry to hear the bad luck - let me know if you need doctor advice. I may not have good club connections, but with a Dad & brother as physicians, at least I can get free medical advice! Heck, I was pre-med for 3 years in college, so I feel qualified to give you my Dad's diagnosis right now, sight unseen: it's a virus, nothing you can do about it, get lots of rest.

[snowman]

I was lucky enough to play Oakmont two days ago.  I was aware of the reputation of the Oakmont greens and was interested to see them for myself.  On the 1st green I had a six foot putt for par.  It lipped-out and then rolled thirty feet to my left and off the green.  I had never seen such speed.  It was awesome.

I loved the short par fours (#2, #17) in combination with longer par threes (#8, #16).  The course is not long, yet scoring well very difficult.  The hole is never over until you sink the putt.  Normally a down hill three footer is not a huge problem.  At Oakmont it becomes a strategy session.  Do you go firm in the center and risk flying by the hole by twenty feet or more; or do you play it outside the cup and hope you can hit it soft enough so it will take the break?

My partner was above the hole on #2....not where you want to be.  he missed the putt and had to chip his fourth shot from the fairway.  When you play a course like this the course feels alive.  You can almost hear the laughter of Henry Fownes.

The tree removal has clearly opened up the course.  I never saw the course when it was filled with trees, but now the golfer has beautiful views across several holes.  The rolling landscape is now revealed.......thank you Oakmont membership!  Now please call Winged Foot.

Our caddie has been looping there for 15 years.  He told us his father caddied there in the '50s and '60s.  In fact his father was on the bag for Nicklaus when he won in a playoff over Palmer in 1962.  The starter we met was the local caddie for Palmer that year.  I thought it interesting to chat with him about that experience.  I wish the pros still had to take the local caddies.  I know they required it at Augusta for many years.  I think it adds a great regional aspect to a tournament.

Oakmont is a special golf course.  It is a true golf challenge.  It does not have the famous "signature hole" that is clearly identified with the course, but I think that only adds to its character.  It is 18 tough and strategic golf holes.  I loved it and encourage every serious golf course fan to make it a must.

[TEPaul]

Shooter:

I was probably the one who said Oakmont "understands" their fast greens!

Perhaps that remark needs some clarification as to why I'd say such a thing!

I've played Oakmont enough over the years including a couple state amateurs to be able to say that Oakmont's greens were and are not like anything I've seen before and not much like anything I've seen since! But the point is they've always been like that and that's one of the reasons I said the club "understands" them.

I don't know for sure but I would say the idea of "softening" Oakmont"s greens to attempt even higher speeds would be not only out of the question but unthinkable or even unmentionable from a single member. The way they maintain their speeds, again, has always been that way and they know exactly what they're doing!

Plus the club and the membership has always understood that and I know takes pride in that and loves it! William Fownes, himself, dictated this idea and the club has perpetuated it since the days of the famous Emile Loeffler, Oakmont's longtime greenkeeper!

Pete Dye has questioned how fast Oakmont's greens really were in the 1960s and the Opens and did an in-depth study of them and determined they were not of the speed that some of the pros back then remembered and said they were. Pete basically determined that the greens were lightening downhill and downgrain but not fast the other way! Clearly it could be concluded then that they didn't run that fast in the context of a stimp reading!

But I found a man who I believe can validly contradict Pete Dye's conclusion! He's a long time member of Merion, a past green chairman there and happens to be Emile Loeffler's nephew!

He's came from Pittsburgh and when he was a teen he spent his summers cutting those greens! He explained how Loeffler had a special way of jury-rigging his mowers, sharpening them every night and those greens were unlike anything that golf had ever seen and going way back! He also said mowing those greens was unbelievably hard work!! This man really knows golf and has said that the speeds that Oakmont ran way back when (at the dictate of Fownes) were unlike anything in the world by a mile!

So that's why I say the club "understands" their greens and always has! That kind of thing was again something that William Fownes came up with on his own with the help of Emile Loeffler, probably not unlike his own idea of "furrowed" bunkers!

Pete does not think it was possible but this man can assure him it was not only possible, it was regular!

Playing those greens certainly was like nothing I've seen and actually in those state ams there was some compensation for the hair-raising speeds! It was that the surfaces were so true that a 10 ft putt was like a 3ft putt! If you got the ball started on line it would stay there so much better than anything I've ever seen! Those greens were so fast that through a tournament of 72 holes a lot of us actually got into some serious de-accelerating and leaving putts short!

One competitor, Jim Sullivan, from Huntingdon Valley (and their former green chairman) I remember played all 72 holes without a single 3 putt and believe me that was some accomplishment!

But if you ask me it's not the putting that's the most intense on greens that fast--it's the chipping and around the green recorery shots!

But again, I believe that Oakmont really does "understand" their greens and they always have.

In the last state am there this year the greens were slower for Oakmont because of excessive rain jsut before the tournament. I asked John Zimmers what the speed was for the state am and what the course ran normally and he told me! I'm definitely not going to tell anyone on here what he told me though!

Some people may even say that the green speeds of Oakmont are sending a bad message and always has!

I completely disagree with that! Oakmont isn't sending any message at all! They only do something they've always done that they understand how to do very well. I've never heard them say back then or now that others should do what they do! Certainly not unless you "understand" exactly what you're doing!

[Bob_Huntley]

TEPaul:

I have another candidate who confirms that the greens were always lightning fast. Frank Souchak (Mike's older brother) is around about 86 now and comes to the club every day, putts a few balls and plays nine holes. If you check the records you might find that he won the Oakmont Club Championship a few times. Back in the 1953 U.S.Open, he led the tournament at one stage and eventually finished low amateur in tenth place. A tremendously accomplished player.

I'll ask him about the special blade sharpening technique at lunch today.

[GeoffreyChilds]

Tom

I was wondering if you could clarify your statement about Oakmont "knowing what they are doing" in justifying their greens speeds?

I'm not saying I approve or disapprove in their green speeds.  In fact, Oakmont is right at the top of places that I would love to see. However, lets suppose that anyclub USA could get their greens running pool table smooth at stimps of 13 or more.  How could anyclub USA NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING compared with Oakmont? Is it inherent in the design of the Oakmont greens that there are enough fair pin locations?  If thats the case then Fownes is the one who knew what he was doing not necessarily the current members and staff.  All they have to do is keep them smooth and fast. Is there a lesson in the design of Oakmont greens compared with the modern greens with LESS slope?

[Mark_Fine]

Snowman,
The course is not long???  What tees did you play from?  I played there in the past week and from the tips it's over 7400 yards.  Two of the par fours are over 500 yards.  Complicating matters it was cold and soft from rain earlier in the week.
Mark

[snowman]

Mark,

According to the scorecard the back pegs labeled "Championship Tees" are 7,018.  We played from the regular tees and from there the course measures 6,426 yards.  Perhaps you were playing the tees reserved for the US Open.  I do not know the yardage for those tees.  Those tee boxes appeared closed to golfers when we played.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I think TE might be referring to Oakmont's long history and experience with super fast greens. If any club knows about fast greens its got to be Oakmont. I can't imagine Oakmont justifying their greenspeeds to anyone - that is part of their mistique - golfer beware.

The greens are managable and the caddies are also very good, but the place is very intimidating and thats just the way they like it. I vividly remember strolling on to the practice putting green (the back of the huge 9th green) dropping down a couple of balls and watching them roll right off the green! Yikes.

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey:

If Anyclub USA actually gets their greens to 13 on the stimpmeter I certainly hope they know what they're doing! My point is I see too many golf clubs getting their greens too fast for their greens and the first thing they seem to think to do is soften their greens instead of slowing them down to what maybe fast but reasonable for their greens. That's what I would call not understanding their greens! That is not the way Oakmont is and I don't believe it ever has been!