[Chris_Clouser]

Here is the summary of hole 2.

The second hole is a perfect illustration of how the original course design and the modern course differ in their physical appearance and style of play.  Though the second is vastly different than its original iteration (and inferior, but that’s for a different discussion), it is among the most challenging on the course.  The tee shot from the back tees is intimidating to most mortals with a creek and two bunkers appearing to be right in the landing zone.  The real danger though is the narrow chute that is created by the numerous hardwoods on either side of the fairway.  The creek and bunkers are non-factors unless a ball caroms off of a sylvan defender.  More than likely the longer hitters will hit 3 wood off of the tee to assure a shot from the fairway.
The approach on this hole is dictated by the trees.  The narrow chute only allows a straight shot, unless you are lucky enough to find a lie on either side of the fairway.  Then the opportunity exists to try and work the ball to the pin position.  A slight slope from the right side of the hole could influence the shot of the player into the green.  The hole plays into the prevailing wind so being aware of the breeze above the trees is critical.  More often than not, the players will be hitting a short iron into this green.  
The green is one of the smoothest on the front side of the course.  Four bunkers protect it at the corners of the squarish-shaped putting surface.  So accuracy is rewarded.  If the player selects the wrong club on the approach then they could very well find themselves in the front bunkers or in the stream that runs behind the putting surface.  The most difficult pins will be in the back right or front right.

From the SHCC website:
This is perhaps the most demanding driving hole on the golf course with a 225-yard carry over the bunkers and a winding creek that turns and parallels the fairway. A long-iron second shot is required to reach this well-bunkered green.

Again, Kalen will post photos shortly.  Hopefully I'll be able to figure out how to post photos by the time this is done.

Thanks for the help Kalen.

Here is the link to the first hole.

[Kalen Braley]

No problem at all Chris.  Here are the photos for the 2nd hole:

[Sean_A]

On the other hand, this is the kind of tree I don't mind.  Its handsome without low branches and with short grass under it.  It impedes play, but there is a recovery available.

Chris, why the bunkers next to the creek?  This strikes me as a fairly rare design element for a classical archie.  

Ciao

[Chris_Clouser]

I agree Sean.  That photo is actually from the third tee and is well left of the green.  My guess is that the grass there will be much higher during the tournament than in the photo.  It is one of the few trees that I would be willing to let stand if given a chain saw.

I think that photo also gives you a feeling for how wide open this course could easily appear if some trees were cut down as you can see most of the sixth hole in the background.  Imagine if that view were clear.

Just saw your edited post.  I'm not sure.  They were part of the original design though, so they are Maxwell.  If I had to speculate I would say it is because the creek is hidden from view from the tee and back then he probably wanted to at least give players an idea that they needed to avoid the area or pay the consequences.  

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Speaking of bunkers, I tend to like these simple "roundish" forms which are found at Southern Hills and other Maxwell designs in the area.  Is this his style or someone else on his staff or maybe even in the field at the time who implemented this.  Or, perhaps they evolved from more shaggy edged forms into this shape overtime.

[Chris_Clouser]

Maxwell's style was always simplistic on his Oklahoma courses.  I think it was a stylistic choice that he made specifically for those courses.  They were originally a little more jagged looking, but nothing along the lines of a Mackenzie style.  

[Tom Yost]

And we can confirm the presence of a bench on the third tee.

Tom

[Matt_Ward]

Chris:

The 2nd is really where SH begins IMHO.

The narrow nature of the fairway makes for a real terror the first time you play the hole. Candidly, it doesn't become less so with future plays.

If one were to play into the wind it does take a solid hit to fly past all the obstacles.

I've always believed the coming in from the left side -- left center makes for an easier approach. You get more access to just about any pin from that position.

What's really amazing is that too many times other specific "2nd holes" in American golf get plenty of mention -- the 2nd at Scioto comes quickly to mind -- the 2nd at SH is really in simple terms a solid hole that will certainly have an impact in this year's PGA.

[Chris_Clouser]

Someone sent me the information to try and post images and where to save them at.  Here is an attempt to put a version of the Southern Hills map up so everyone can see it.  The first hole plays just tick west of due north.

By the way, the map is courtesy of my friend David Lewis.  If you are interested in viewing more of his maps, go to artistsgolf.com

[Kalen Braley]

With the recent posts about mix-matching holes and only having time to play a few late in the evening, this is one of the best examples I've seen that could accomadate this.

I came up with 4 short 3-6 hole routings just after a first quick glance.  

Thanks Chris.

[Garland Bayley]

OK, the first was an easy opener, and this one, though difficult, is a shadow of its former self. How soon do we get into any holes with real meat?

[Chris_Clouser]

Garland

So you're saying that just because Matt Ward says the first is an easy opener, there's nothing there...

You have a gorgeous elevated tee shot and a backwards sloping green.  Goodness.  People were all over Oakmont's first as a great opening hole and from what I recall it was only because it had a backwards sloping green.

As for the second not having enough "meat" then you must be eating those bronto-burgers that Fred Flinstone liked so much, because that hole has more meat than most you will find out there.  Just because in its original form it was an all-world hole doesn't mean the current iteration isn't very good.  

[wsmorrison]

While there have been brief mentions of the changes made on this hole and I expect later holes, can Chris or someone please give an account as to the original nature of this hole design and the remaining course (as the hole analysis continues) and what changes were made and the reasons for the changes?

Such a discussion would be a lot more interesting than considering Matt Ward's statement as to where the course "really begins."  

Chris,

The interest/difficulty of the opening hole at Oakmont is a lot more involved than the front to back slope of the green.  It is long and narrow.  Even with a 60* wedge, that's a hard green to hold if you hit the wrong section.  Left of center for instance makes the ball shed left, while a long iron is likely going over the green.

[Chris_Clouser]

Wayne,

One of the things I wanted to try and keep the threads on was what the course will play like for the pros.  But I can extend them to what some of the changes have been to the course.  

Below is a quick workup of what the original hole design was like.  It was similar to the bottle hole concept from NGLA.  There were no or very few trees between the 2nd and 3rd holes and much wider.  



From the tee there were three distinct options.  Play short and lay up short of the creek, Play over the creek if you could carry it, or play to the left but then be left with a much harder approach than if you cleared the creek on the tee shot due to the bunker front left.  As for why the changes, my guess is that over time, people stopped using the left side and it was decided to add trees to narrow the hole by the club.  I have not found anything specific that points to the reason for the changes.  

[Ian Andrew]

Chris,

The routing image gave me a whole new respect for the course with the constant turn of holes. I really liked the way the course double looped on the front nine. Very interesting routing.

[Garland Bayley]

Wayne,

One of the things I wanted to try and keep the threads on was what the course will play like for the pros.  But I can extend them to what some of the changes have been to the course.  

Below is a quick workup of what the original hole design was like.  It was similar to the bottle hole concept from NGLA.  There were no or very few trees between the 2nd and 3rd holes and much wider.  



From the tee there were three distinct options.  Play short and lay up short of the creek, Play over the creek if you could carry it, or play to the left but then be left with a much harder approach than if you cleared the creek on the tee shot due to the bunker front left.  As for why the changes, my guess is that over time, people stopped using the left side and it was decided to add trees to narrow the hole by the club.  I have not found anything specific that points to the reason for the changes.  

Now there's some meet.  

[Garland Bayley]

At Oakmont, we saw the need to play down the fairway between the penal fairway bunkers. Will that be a constant theme here? That is the need to stay in the fairway to keep away from tree trouble? Which would be easier to hit the exciting recovery from? Oakmont hazards, or SH trees?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()