For Serious Discussion Only.....

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Greg,
 You bring up a good point which few have really looked to for serious (hurrumph, hurrumph!) discussion.... I feel that there is a possibility that Church Pews, as gimmicky as they may seem to you, are in fact some what of a descendent of geometric architecture in some what of a more evolved form. Quirky in  a linksy kind of way. You know like hitting over a train shed or grave yard; etc.

I've always been of the opinion that Fownes was sort of "I did it my way" kind of guy, being from Pittsburgh and all. Certainly the uppercrust of New York, Pa, Rhode Island set probably looked down upon him differently in some way, even though he was supposedly a pretty good golfer in his own right. I'm sure personality has a lot to do with it. Even if he was respected in some way. What he did at Oakmont was so much more different then what was being done during those really formative years of the teens and early twenties. It was almost as if it was being done with a devil may care attitude.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

BTW Cowley, I didn't get a hurrumph hurrumph out of you!

[Dan Kelly]

Dougthery looks like he might have a pretty good sense of humor. Why don't you tell him on the first tee you're considering penalizing him at least a shot for a really bad hair week?

When Lee Janzen has the better-looking hair in a twosome, serious penalties are called for.

[George Pazin]

The other thing I forgot about is what Tom Paul has astutely observed many times: Oakmont presents more of a vertical challenge than most courses, due in part to flanking bunkers and the rough. The player always has the option to use a shorter club to not flirt with the bunkers, or to try to keep it in the short stuff, but it presents the difficulty of approaching the world's toughest greens from a greater distance.

The worst thing about Oakmont isn't really Oakmont's fault: I believe people tend to learn the wrong lessons from things. In this case, I think a lot of people will focus on the rough and the green speeds, and not the firmness of the fairways and greens, nor the green pitch/contours.

Here is a telling example of what I mean:

Yesterday I was standing next to a few guys alongside the 12th green. The discussion was about the lack of trees, and one of the guys said he plays a "links-style" course on a regular basis, due to proximity convenience, and he doesn't particularly care for it. Why? Because he noted that most American golfers tend to equate links golf with hay-like rough, which on his course provide numerous opportunities for lost balls and thus cause slow play.

It takes a wise man to learn the right lessons.

I would love to see Oakmont with little or no rough. I'd guess it would play darn near as hard, and as evidence I offer the many times guys bogey (or worse) from the middle of the fairway.

[RJ_Daley]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Oakmont never did have a tournament that didn't have pretty serious rough.  That and the bunkers like the church pews have defined the course in the public's mind along with the lightening fast, native soil and evolved poa turf on oddly contoured greens.

So, by Paul saying:

I think that by utilizing similar strategies, combined with widening the fairways, or even eliminating the rough altogether, and getting the greens to roll at about 9.5....you could create an ideal challenge for the masses.

And Peter defining Paul's conjecture of an altered Oakmont to fewer bunkers and lower rough, and well reduced green speeds, as creating an "Oakmont Lite", you have no real accurate gauge to consider what you would do.  Tiger may consider what he would NOT do based on real world playing experience at Oakmont, but no one knows what Oakmont Lite could provide for the masses because it hasn't been done.

As I understand it from an interview with the Superintendent the other night, members actually have events at the club where they get the green speeds up to 15!!!  That as opposed to what they are saying is about 13 for the open tournament.  

So my point is, how do you know what you would do at Oakmont, if you haven't actually seen it in a maintenance meld and in a competitive situation, or as a member where possibilities could be considered in the real world.  Otherwise we are talking virtual golf.  

Frankly, I'd like to see a women's tournament or senior am there with the Oakmont Lite maintenance meld, and then have a more accurate guage of what architectural features might be translated more to widespread public appeal.

[Jim Johnson]

One can widen fairways to bring "angles" into play, particularly with the contours and the speeds of the Oakmont greens, but when these pros are firing 9 and 8 irons into the greens on par-4 holes, what difference would it make. If the "average" driving distance for these guys is, what, I dunno, 290 yards, and if one wants to bring contours and slopes of greens and angles in fairways all into play, I think one needs to build 500+ yard par-4 holes to make things relevant.

I am really impressed with the greens at Oakmont; and I'm not talking about the speeds. I'm referring to the slopes and undulations. They are really something.

The tree-removal program has really improved things; particularly as someone said that in earlier times, trees actually helped one line up with certain shots. I would think tree removal has improved the turf quality as well.

Paul...hope this is "serious" enough...is this gonna get "dinged"?  

JJ

[cary lichtenstein]

Paul:

I like your concept and think it has alot of merit.

Let me tell you why. I played both Oakmont and Augusta recently and hated Oakmont and loved Augusta, and after watching the US Open for the past 3 days, I'm confident about what I'm going to say.

Augusta (minus the trees on 11 and 15) from the members tees is a very fair and challenging course. It examines your short game unlike any course I have ever played.

The rough at Oakmont takes your game away thru out the course. There is just no recovery on your 2nd shots nor on your shots around the green unless you are fortunate enough to land in one of the green side bunkers.

I think Oakmont would be alot of fun and I would enjoy playing it either with little or manageable rough, or if they went to fescue in the rough and didn't water it so it became more British Open like where you have irregular rough, but more control of your ball out of it.

Oakmont has great greens, especially the greens that fall away from the player, but you can not execute any shots into them or around them when the rough is 5" or higher and so dense.

I have no problem with the speed of the greens, so once I was on Oakmont's greens, I could enjoy the challenge, but the rough wore me down.

The very narrow fairways and their sideways cants are so penal that after awhile you start swinging protective at Oakmont, whereas at Augusta you can hit a 7 wood or 4 wood out of the rough, and get it on the green or somewhere around and then get it up and down.

At Oakmont, I was reduced to hitting a sand wedge out of the rough or out of deep fairway bunkers.

Cary

[Greg Beaulieu]

Greg,
 You bring up a good point which few have really looked to for serious (hurrumph, hurrumph!) discussion.... I feel that there is a possibility that Church Pews, as gimmicky as they may seem to you, are in fact some what of a descendent of geometric architecture in some what of a more evolved form. Quirky in  a linksy kind of way. You know like hitting over a train shed or grave yard; etc.

Tommy, you may well be correct. I actually like the pews, don't get me wrong. On TV at least (and this may be lost to someone actually playing) the geometric effect is quite visually appealing. And really, is hitting over a train shed any different than hitting over a water hazard? If anything, it is more interesting. I see nothing wrong with that.

I've always been of the opinion that Fownes was sort of "I did it my way" kind of guy, being from Pittsburgh and all. Certainly the uppercrust of New York, Pa, Rhode Island set probably looked down upon him differently in some way, even though he was supposedly a pretty good golfer in his own right. I'm sure personality has a lot to do with it. Even if he was respected in some way. What he did at Oakmont was so much more different then what was being done during those really formative years of the teens and early twenties. It was almost as if it was being done with a devil may care attitude.

Perhaps the Pete Dye of his generation?

Interesting to read George's comment about overhearing the conversation from the fellow who equated links style courses with long rough and hence slow play due to lost balls. I think there may be some truth in that, although on a tree-lined course you have much the same problem unless the tree rejects the errant shot and sends it back into play. For casual (i.e. bad) players like me I would prefer a graduated penalty of sorts: a shot a few yards off its intended target should receive less of a penalty than a truly wild shot. I'm not sure Oakmont differentiates enough in that way given the way it is set up this week.

One other thing I forgot to note: perhaps the thing I like least about Oakmont are those drainage ditches that line certain holes. I think it is a visceral thing: they remind me too much of the inexpensive daily-fee owner-designed courses I first began playing golf on where a slightly stray shot would disappear into similar ditches that were there only because the budget did not allow a more elegant solution. That experience led me to the opinion that lateral ditches have no place on golf courses.

[paul cowley]

No problem JJ ....you're safe.
A whole lot safer than that Naccarato character I might add.

...but back to serious stuff;

JVB indicated that Oakmont was always designed with rough in mind.
Is that true?......even in the 20's and 30's?

I find that hard to believe in those earliest of years.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Paul,
I'll take Hurrumph Hurrumphs and Ding Dings for $200 please.....

Greg,
Now see, this is a part of Oakmont I didn't know about up until the observations of George of the Jungle of Pittsburgh and his excellent 18 hole anaylsis of weeks past.
 
I like those drainage ditches because they are in themselves hazards much more identifiable then the modern hideous collection basins favored by Arnold Palmer & Ed Seay, Fazio, etc. In some cases no different then Riviera's barrancas. Only deeper.

As far as the rough, I have found in my experience--which isn't nearly as vast as some who frequent GB on a more annual basis, that the roughs of links courses is what we ALL should be emulating--that playability, where as deep looking as the rough can be, it's all still really playable.

I remember once being caught in this kind of rough on #15 of the Old Course and literally thinking to myself how ugly this was going to get and when I got there--through that tall jungle of fescues and who knows what other types of dune grasses--not only could I get the club on the ball, but it was wispy enough to get a full swing on it too. I not only got out of it with ease, I put it on the green and then promptly three putted, thinking I had the mysteries of the Great Links solved.

I was hoping the rough at Oakmont would be just as similar.

I was hoping....

[Ryan Farrow]

Paul:

I like your concept and think it has alot of merit.

Let me tell you why. I played both Oakmont and Augusta recently and hated Oakmont and loved Augusta, and after watching the US Open for the past 3 days, I'm confident about what I'm going to say.

Augusta (minus the trees on 11 and 15) from the members tees is a very fair and challenging course. It examines your short game unlike any course I have ever played.

The rough at Oakmont takes your game away thru out the course. There is just no recovery on your 2nd shots nor on your shots around the green unless you are fortunate enough to land in one of the green side bunkers.

I think Oakmont would be alot of fun and I would enjoy playing it either with little or manageable rough, or if they went to fescue in the rough and didn't water it so it became more British Open like where you have irregular rough, but more control of your ball out of it.

Oakmont has great greens, especially the greens that fall away from the player, but you can not execute any shots into them or around them when the rough is 5" or higher and so dense.

I have no problem with the speed of the greens, so once I was on Oakmont's greens, I could enjoy the challenge, but the rough wore me down.

The very narrow fairways and their sideways cants are so penal that after awhile you start swinging protective at Oakmont, whereas at Augusta you can hit a 7 wood or 4 wood out of the rough, and get it on the green or somewhere around and then get it up and down.

At Oakmont, I was reduced to hitting a sand wedge out of the rough or out of deep fairway bunkers.

Cary

Ding!

The rough for regular member play is not all that bad, 5" Why are you deliberately lying about this? I think you are just reaching for reasons to hate Oakmont. Why the comparison to Augusta? The two courses are not supposed to play alike in any way, and is it that hard to understand penal golf?

[paul cowley]

Paul:

I like your concept and think it has alot of merit.

Let me tell you why. I played both Oakmont and Augusta recently and hated Oakmont and loved Augusta, and after watching the US Open for the past 3 days, I'm confident about what I'm going to say.

Augusta (minus the trees on 11 and 15) from the members tees is a very fair and challenging course. It examines your short game unlike any course I have ever played.

The rough at Oakmont takes your game away thru out the course. There is just no recovery on your 2nd shots nor on your shots around the green unless you are fortunate enough to land in one of the green side bunkers.

I think Oakmont would be alot of fun and I would enjoy playing it either with little or manageable rough, or if they went to fescue in the rough and didn't water it so it became more British Open like where you have irregular rough, but more control of your ball out of it.

Oakmont has great greens, especially the greens that fall away from the player, but you can not execute any shots into them or around them when the rough is 5" or higher and so dense.

I have no problem with the speed of the greens, so once I was on Oakmont's greens, I could enjoy the challenge, but the rough wore me down.

The very narrow fairways and their sideways cants are so penal that after awhile you start swinging protective at Oakmont, whereas at Augusta you can hit a 7 wood or 4 wood out of the rough, and get it on the green or somewhere around and then get it up and down.

At Oakmont, I was reduced to hitting a sand wedge out of the rough or out of deep fairway bunkers.

Cary

Ding!

The rough for regular member play is not all that bad, 5" Why are you deliberately lying about this? I think you are just reaching for reasons to hate Oakmont. Why the comparison to Augusta? The two courses are not supposed to play alike in any way, and is it that hard to understand penal golf?

Ryan...strong words against a veteran GCAer.....deliberately lying etc.

Aren't you interning with Renaissance?

If you aren't working with them....then I would like to hire you.... just so I could fire you.

 Ding!  

[cary lichtenstein]

Ding!

The rough for regular member play is not all that bad, 5" Why are you deliberately lying about this? I think you are just reaching for reasons to hate Oakmont. Why the comparison to Augusta? The two courses are not supposed to play alike in any way, and is it that hard to understand penal golf?

I don't think I'm reaching for reasons to hate Oakmont, I think that I do not like penal golf. I'm not strong enough to handle the deep rough, my club head speed is much too low. So whether it be Oakmont or the local muni, I don't enjoy narrow fairways and deep rough so don't take it personally.

Whether the depth of the rough is 5", I don't know. It certainly appeared to me to be that deep when I played. As to why "I was lying about that", I wasn't, so I will take your accusation as a youthful indiscretion and excuse it.

I was responding to Paul Crowley thread and what he proposed.

I compared Oakmont to Augusta because both courses have very fast and difficult greens, so in that respect they are similiar. So that is not the aspect of Oakmont that bothers me, I think the greens are great.

I compared Oakmont to Augusta because they both hold majors, and both are rated as great courses.

I compared them to point out that for players of my limited ability and others like me, that the "enjoyment factor" in everyday golf is why I play almost everyday.



For a tourament like the U. S. Open, I think the Oakmont set up this week has been wonderful. It makes for very exciting golf on every hole, as danger lurks with any mishit. You can root for your favorite player on every tee shot and against anyone just by following their tee shots and seeing where they land.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul
I don’t want to make too much of this (though I’ve brought it up several times in the last week!), and I’m not sure if this exactly answers your question about Oakmont always having rough, but this article is from 1919, when the US Amateur was held there:

“The number of traps on the holes and the narrowness of the fairways made straightness imperative, a feature which was lacking at Detroit, that other extended and lengthy course where the championship in 1915 was played. The average number of bunkers and traps at each hole was in the neighborhood of eight, with some having as many as fifteen, and a few as low as five, these on the short holes. But there was rough everywhere, except in the fairway and it was the intertwining sort which makes it difficult to play a shot any distance. In a word…it can be said without a shadow of a doubt that there never was a championship in this country held on a course which could be regarded as an equal to Oakmont, which is praise indeed.”

[As both Joe H and TE Paul raised on another thread, though, I'm not sure the rough in those days could have been the kind of rough we/Oakmont have today, given today's technology/irrigation etc....but it certainly seems to have been considered quite penal in 1919]

Also, I don’t want to copy all of RJ’s post, but I thought he raised some good questions, and they were what I was wondering about as well. In short (RJ, I hope I haven’t cut the heart out of your question):

“Tiger may consider what he would NOT do based on real world playing experience at Oakmont, but no one knows what Oakmont Lite could provide for the masses because it hasn't been done….So my point is, how do you know what you would do at Oakmont if you haven't actually seen it in a maintenance meld and in a competitive situation….Frankly, I'd like to see a women's tournament or senior am there with the Oakmont Lite maintenance meld, and then have a more accurate gauge of what architectural features might be translated more to widespread public appeal.”

Peter

[paul cowley]

Peter....thanks, my guess stands corrected....and it seems I have been out of touch with previous posts.
I am still surprised they would focus on multiple cutting heights in those early days.....I thought they would just gang mow everything and sickle/scythe everything they couldn't.....and just left alone what was too far out of play because it really didn't matter.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul
I edited my last post a few minutes after I wrote it because I remembered posts by Joe H and TE Paul that made sense to me, basically saying that what's thought of as rough now (and what's possible in terms of rough-making) isn't what the rough was like back then.....which is to say, your assumptions might not be so that far off, and I on the other hand might be making too much of that one article. And plus, maybe Oakmont was unique for that time in having that kind of rough -- I just don't know.

Peter  

[paul cowley]

Sorry Peter it's taken me this long to respond...I'm not that sure I know either!

Halcyon days.....

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

Perhaps Oakmont would have had more impact, if there had been more courses to build in the past five years.

Maybe it will have an impact on China, since Ryan Farrow is over there now working for Brian Curley.

[cary lichtenstein]

I'll answer for 3 palyers, me, my wife and a good friend who is a +2. No fun, too hard and more than happy to turn down any and all invites. Same can be said for the Medalist down here in Florida.

I'll Ding myself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cary,

I've heard others express similar thoughts, but, there's a unique culture at Oakmont, one that revels in its difficulty

[Bill_McBride]

Cary,

I've heard others express similar thoughts, but, there's a unique culture at Oakmont, one that revels in its difficulty

The members joke that the USGA slows down the greens for the US Open!

[Jason Thurman]

There's a huge subset of weekend players who like to get beat up by a course. I know plenty of players who would love to play similarly impossile greens, at the very least. Oakmont seems both extremely strategic and extremely penal (as does Pine Valley). Is that the most ideal form of architecture: one that finds a balance between strategy and penalty as opposed to dichotomizing the two?

Is there something to be learned architecturally from Oakmont's maintenance meld? My understanding is they've basically evolved their own strain of poa annua over the years which allows them to run their greens at such uniquely fast speeds without killing them. Is that true, and if so, is it something architects/supers can learn from when managing or installing turf?