Is the Oakmont ethos a dangerous thing?

[Matt_Cohn]

A great deal of the journalism regarding Oakmont is about how much the members enjoy playing a brutally difficult golf course every day. In the words of Golf Digest, "Nothing pleases an Oakmont member so much as inflicting and enduring pain."

Is there any danger that the masses will hear all of this and start demanding golf courses set up at U.S. Open difficulty for everyday play? Or that, at a minimum, it will exacerbate the misguided "hard=good" notion that seems pretty pervasive in golf these days?

Or would it never catch on, because members would quickly tire of shooting 120 all the time?

[Tim Pitner]

I read Fownes' quote that he wanted Oakmont to play so that a poor shot would be irretrievably lost (I assume he meant that you couldn't recover to make par, rather than that one's ball would be lost).  Personally, I think that's a terrible mission statement for a golf course.

That said, I'm looking forward to seeing the pros take on the challenge.  I don't have any problem with an over par score winning a major.  Unfortunately, I suspect that the rough will be unnecessarily long.  With those greens, it seems like you wouldn't need narrow fairways and severe rough to make the course a great test.  

[Bob Jenkins]

I have never been to Oakmont and likely never will get there.

Reading what is said about the place and how difficult it is makes me think I really do not want to play the track. It reminds me of our home course being set up for an "Iron Man" competion with all kinds of silly tees and pin placements which are impossible. Why would you want that?

If the Oakmont members want it that way, I think we should set up a home for them. They need help.

Bob Jenkins

[Andy Troeger]

I think it is fun to try "really hard" once in awhile. However, once or twice a year with extreme difficulty, whether at Oakmont or elsewhere, is enough for me.

[Steve Okula]

I was reading an article in the "Greenkeeper" trade magazine of the British and International Golf Greenkeepers Association, written by a young English lad who had done a stint working at Oakmont. I was surprised at the intensive level of maintenance.

Apparently, there is normally 45 full time staff for 18 holes, working unlimited hours. Greens are mowed 2-4 times per day, just for regular members' play. One time with a triplex just to take off the dew, then another 1-3 times with walk-behind mowers to get the green speed up.

The article went on to describe other, way over the top maintenance practices.

Anyplace that mows greens four times in one morning to get the greenspeed they want is unequivocally bad for golf.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I too have never been to Oakmont, but have to fear that some of the green contours that are existing, whether they are original or not--will they survive after this open with the USGA, Fizzio (Martzaltinitov) and the threat of future opens to be had or lost.....

I hear that the green speeds are ridiculous when it comes to those wonderful contours, which brings up painful memories of Olympic #18 and Shinnecock #7 for me; and how those greens have been or will be altered for future events.

[Jeff Doerr]

Tommy,

I'm don't recognize Mr. Martzaltinitov - is he new?


I think any "ethos" can be dangerous if people buy into an almost impossible objective. Do you want greens at 15? Do you want ANGC perfection/beauty every month of the year at your course? Let's just hit off mats for 10 months out of the year, so our course is peeerrrrfect!

YUCK!

I don't need a car that will go 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds just because they build it and a neighbor has it. I don't need a yard with zero weeds and narry a flake of barkdust out of place - and blooms perfectly timed throughout the seasons.

What I long for are those courses that make you say, "I could play this one every day, in all kinds of conditions, for the rest of my life..."

[C. Squier]

I think the media is riding the difficulty donkey as long as they can.  Besides the trees, its the big story this year.  Every US Open needs a byline to fill the pre-round Jim Nantz monologues, this just happens to be Oakmont's.  Regardless of what they say, the course is obviously playable, however very difficult.  As for the members, I'm sure they have a ton of pride in the difficulty of their course....but show me a US Open membership that doesn't.  I don't think its a selfishness either, more relief showing that even pros will putt off the same green we do week in and week out.  I'm sure the guys that sleep in the cars outside of Bethpage got a nice giggle out of it when half the field couldn't reach some of the fairways....its not just the bluehairs in the matching plaid jackets.  

I will say that its probably easier for a membership to embrace such difficulty on an older course than a modern course.  Knowing that your great grandfather battled around the course is easier to explain than a jaded group of investors who envision a hellish test over a bubbling cauldron of bentgrass and witches brew.  

[Chris Cupit]

I too have never been to Oakmont, but have to fear that some of the green contours that are existing, whether they are original or not--will they survive after this open with the USGA, Fizzio (Martzaltinitov) and the threat of future opens to be had or lost.....

I hear that the green speeds are ridiculous when it comes to those wonderful contours, which brings up painful memories of Olympic #18 and Shinnecock #7 for me; and how those greens have been or will be altered for future events.

Tommy,
Has there been any suggestion that to get a future USGA event, Oakmont will be asked to "flatten" some of its greens ?  I hadn't heard that yet!

[Patrick_Mucci]

A great deal of the journalism regarding Oakmont is about how much the members enjoy playing a brutally difficult golf course every day. In the words of Golf Digest, "Nothing pleases an Oakmont member so much as inflicting and enduring pain."

Matt,

I think it's just that, "journalism"

I don't see any evidence that a 6, 12, 18 and 24 handicap golfer at Oakmont is that much different from a 6, 12, 18 and 24 handicap at Shinnecock, Winged Foot, Merion and many other clubs, famous and obscure.

I tend to think it's media hype rather than reality.

I doubt that the majority of the 6, 12, 18 and 24 handicaps are playing from the U.S. Open tees or regular back tees.

As to the pace of the greens, I think that's something golfers adjust too if conditions are consistent.

If the greens consistently run between 9 and 12 for membership play, and I'm a little dubious about the 12 number on sloped greens, I think golfers adapt to those conditions.

For visitors, I'm sure it's a shock to their system and a hit to their confidence.

It's only when there's substantive fluctuation in the speed of the greens that memberships have difficulty coping with them.
[/color]

Is there any danger that the masses will hear all of this and start demanding golf courses set up at U.S. Open difficulty for everyday play?

I do see that as a problem.

While I hail the tree removal program, I'm critical of the narrowing of fairways and their flanking bunkers, I think the latter is a move in the wrong direction.  It's no different from what ANGC has done in recent years to counter the modern PGA Tour player and his modern equipment.

The problem is, those guys are only visiting for four (4) days out of every 3,650 or so days, and, to permanently reconfigure the golf course for 4 out of 3,650 days, for the purpose of TEMPORARILY challenging the best players in the world for one one thousanths of the time is misguided IMO.[/color]

Or that, at a minimum, it will exacerbate the misguided "hard=good" notion that seems pretty pervasive in golf these days?

Agreed.

It's the acquisition of the "Red Badge of Courage" syndrome.

The problem has always existed.
Some members take pride in how difficult their golf course is, even if it's diabolically hard for the average member.

I want to be challenged, I don't want to be tortured, and there is a difference even at the competitive level.[/color]

Or would it never catch on, because members would quickly tire of shooting 120 all the time ?

My concern is not so much with the Oakmont's or Baltusrol's of the world, it's the "trickle down" effect and the influence on local clubs that troubles me.[/color]

[Phil_the_Author]

Two words... Bethpage Black.

It has been considered among the toughest since it opened and the public embraced it. Legions play it as often as they can get on it, sleeping overnight in their cars to do so despite how they screw up their swings with sore muscles...

I've heard it said that pain can be such exquisite pleasure...

After 300+ rounds there I relish the thought of experiencing the torture once again...

Oakmont members, those of us in the brotherhood of Bethpage understand... we understand...  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip Young,

Once it's announced that a golf course is going to host a U.S. Open, it becomes increasingly popular.

There's something unique about golf.

Golfers want to play the same golf courses that the best golfers in the world play.

They want to identify with them.

They want to be able to say that they hit this incredible shot, or made this incredible birdie or par and relate it to what they saw in person or on TV.

But, there's a difference in doing it once, or occassionally, versus, doing it day in and day out.

I played BPB from the U.S. Open tees, but, I wouldn't do that as a steady diet.  I hit a pretty good drive on # 10 and didn't reach the fairway, thus, on a steady diet, the golf course is beyond my abilities, and while I want to be challenged, I want to enjoy myself, and I don't see myself enjoying play from the U.S. Open tees on an every day basis.

The MEMBERS of Oakmont will play a reconfigured golf course once the PGA Tour Pros leave, and, they'll have to play that course on a daily basis.

Thus, I would find the narrowed features less appealing on a day in, day out basis.

It's one thing to narrow the fairways vis a vis mowing patterns, but, once you move the features inward, permanently, toward the center line, you change the enjoyment factor for golfers less able to cope with the altered presentation.

After the big show leaves town, let's see what happens over the next few years.

[TEPaul]

If the membership of Oakmont enjoy a brutally hard golf course, then fine.

The idea of any golf course is that its membership enjoy it.

I doubt that many memberships would enjoy a brutally hard golf course so I don't see the ethos of Oakmont as a dangerous thing.

[Adam Clayman]

From a 12-14 handicappers perspective...

There's no downside to Oakmont wanting and bragging about the difficulty.

If one plays a hole poorly, it's forgetable. However, any success will never be forgotten and is therefore better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip Young,

Once it's announced that a golf course is going to host a U.S. Open, it becomes increasingly popular.

There's something unique about golf.

Golfers want to play the same golf courses that the best golfers in the world play.

They want to identify with them.

They want to be able to say that they hit this incredible shot, or made this incredible birdie or par and relate it to what they saw in person or on TV.

But, there's a difference in doing it once, or occassionally, versus, doing it day in and day out.

I played BPB from the U.S. Open tees, but, I wouldn't do that as a steady diet.  I hit a pretty good drive on # 10 and didn't reach the fairway, thus, on a steady diet, the golf course is beyond my abilities, and while I want to be challenged, I want to enjoy myself, and I don't see myself enjoying play from the U.S. Open tees on an every day basis.

The MEMBERS of Oakmont will play a reconfigured golf course once the PGA Tour Pros leave, and, they'll have to play that course on a daily basis.

Thus, I would find the narrowed features less appealing on a day in, day out basis.

It's one thing to narrow the fairways vis a vis mowing patterns, but, once you move the features inward, permanently, toward the center line, you change the enjoyment factor for golfers less able to cope with the altered presentation.

After the big show leaves town, let's see what happens over the next few years.

[Mike Hendren]

I agree with Patrick.  I also chuckle at the journalistic spin that everybody at Oakmont is an average Joe, blue-collar kind of guy.  

Mike

[JR Potts]

I don't know why it would be good or bad.  Oakmont is a private club, run and populated by people who voluntarily paid a lot of money to join.  Presumably, these members like playing a hard, hard golf course.  Either way, it is the membership's problem whether the course is being set up too hard to stretched to ridiculous measures to make it difficult.

If anyone doesn't like it, then don't play it or don't join it.  Private country clubs can be a lot of things to a lot of people...fortunately/unfortunately....it only matters what those things are to the members.

I guess an argument can be presented that Clubs of Oakmont's stature have an obligation to the greater good and the game of golf....but I'm not so sure I subscribe to that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan Potts,

I've never heard an Oakmont member or a member of the Professional staff refer to the playing experience at Oakmont as one that inflicted pain and enduring suffering.

Perhaps the media likes to create sensationalism through exageration.

[JR Potts]

Ryan Potts,

I've never heard an Oakmont member or a member of the Professional staff refer to the playing experience at Oakmont as one that inflicted pain and enduring suffering.

Perhaps the media likes to create sensationalism through exageration.

I agree.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat, you missed the point. Fans of the Black have been lining up, sleeping over and abusing themselves over and over throughout the years when the idea of even the Met Open, no less the US, was but a dream.

The love of the Oakmont challenge by its members is not unique and is certainly understood by those who have enjoyed the same "privilege" on Long Island over the years.

[Kalen Braley]

A quick bit from an article I read...classic johnny at work here.


As the U.S. Open returns to Oakmont this week for a record eighth time, there are still those who wonder whether Miller's 63 led United States Golf Association officials to purposely alter the course setup to make it play more difficult.

Miller won the 1973 U.S. Open by one after shooting a final-round 63 at Oakmont. "Absolutely, for sure," said Miller, the longtime NBC television analyst who will work this week's telecast. "One hundred percent, no doubt about it. Actions speak louder than words. The next year … there was nothing like it before, nothing like it after."

That is an opinion USGA officials -- including the man who set up Winged Foot in 1974 -- take issue with. Sandy Tatum, a former USGA president who had a role in setting up the Open courses at Oakmont and Winged Foot, said Miller's low score was not a factor.

"Johnny Miller's 63 did not enter my mind in any way, shape or form," Tatum, 86, said during a recent interview. At the time, he was chairman of the USGA's championship committee. "I was only concerned about trying to set up Winged Foot. It's of some note, but Johnny has, during the telecast of the Open, said that his 63 was basically the reason we set up Winged Foot as we did. He can have that point of view, but it ain't so."
 
Told of Tatum's comments, Miller quipped, "His nose used to be shorter, too."

[Gordon Oneil]

Philip Young,

Once it's announced that a golf course is going to host a U.S. Open, it becomes increasingly popular.

There's something unique about golf.

Golfers want to play the same golf courses that the best golfers in the world play.

They want to identify with them.

They want to be able to say that they hit this incredible shot, or made this incredible birdie or par and relate it to what they saw in person or on TV.

But, there's a difference in doing it once, or occassionally, versus, doing it day in and day out.

I played BPB from the U.S. Open tees, but, I wouldn't do that as a steady diet.  I hit a pretty good drive on # 10 and didn't reach the fairway, thus, on a steady diet, the golf course is beyond my abilities, and while I want to be challenged, I want to enjoy myself, and I don't see myself enjoying play from the U.S. Open tees on an every day basis.

The MEMBERS of Oakmont will play a reconfigured golf course once the PGA Tour Pros leave, and, they'll have to play that course on a daily basis.

Thus, I would find the narrowed features less appealing on a day in, day out basis.

It's one thing to narrow the fairways vis a vis mowing patterns, but, once you move the features inward, permanently, toward the center line, you change the enjoyment factor for golfers less able to cope with the altered presentation.

After the big show leaves town, let's see what happens over the next few years.

Absolutely false.
The pros good fortune allows those who qualify or are otherwise exempt (ie, the world's greatest players) to play in a quick event the Oakmont membership is trying to fit in this week as long as it doesn't disrupt preparations for the upcoming Member's Invitational or most importantly, the Fall SWAT.
The members love the Open.  Besides the financial windfall, hosting the national championship every decade continues to add to the mystique, long cultivated, of the motherf----- of a golf course on which the membership plays "the open" just about every day.

[Phil Benedict]

The Oakmont members must love the pre-tournament talk about how tough it's going to play from the players.  I really hope we see some good scores.  If the winning score is +5 or higher again it's a joke.

[tlavin]

In my experience with private clubs that have hosted major championships, the members do enjoy seeing the one-tanned hand crowd experience a little pain and suffering during the championship.  I don't know why anybody would like to play under those conditions on a regular basis, but Oakmont seems to be in a small group of private clubs where difficulty to the point of being penal seems to be prized all year long, not just when the pros come to town.

[Jeff Goldman]

Is this chest-thumping about par a relatively recent phenomenon, or is it just that certain courses are so well-acclaimed tha they can avoid getting criticized when it doesn't play like a beast?  Something like 9 folks broke par at Oakmont in '73, and 8 in '94, and Larry Nelson shot 65-67 the last 2 days in '83, but I don't recall anyone saying the course was unworthy.