Oakmont CC 1938 VS. 2007 (updated w/ back 9)

[John Gosselin]

Tom Paul, I don't know if your trying to say I blamed the membership or not? I tried to defend them. The idea of blaming someone for the changes was a way generate some discussion and hopefully get an answer. I don't think we should overrun the entire thread about who's do blame. There is obviously a reason for every change that happened over the years and I do think its important to know who made the changes and why they did. That why I brought up the subject in the opening.

John, better for whom? How about the greatest number of people who play the course? Which goes beyond the membership and beyond the Pro's. I've seen more people struggle to finish a hole at Oakmont than I want to remember, Arnold Palmer included. They are just happy as can be though, they are playing golf at Oakmont Country Club, and that alone is enough for them. Its a complicated answer but why can't the course be a little more forgiving and strategic off the tee? Wouldn't that benefit everyone?

Ryan, By BLAMING the USGA for the changes and calling one of the most successful golf course architectural firms ever INCOMETENT, for the changes you disagree with, is basically calling the membership ill informed idiots. I would be willing to bet that all you think you know about Oakmont, plus a lot of things you never considered, were studied before any decisions were made.

If the members wanted a difficult course, one that will challenge the best in the world, they got it. Good for them. If a guest struggles and can't finish a particular whole then maybe that was just what they were looking for.

I do agree with you that if you widen all the fairways out it certainly will be more fun for the masses. While your at it you should also mow the rough much shorter, slow down the greens, and be very conservative when you place the pins.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul, I don't know if your trying to say I blamed the membership or not? I tried to defend them. The idea of blaming someone for the changes was a way generate some discussion and hopefully get an answer. I don't think we should overrun the entire thread about who's do blame. There is obviously a reason for every change that happened over the years and I do think its important to know who made the changes and why they did. Thats why I brought up the subject in the opening."


Ryan:

I just feel there's no productive reason to even use the world blame on these kinds of threads and I don't want to overrun this thread talking about it, that's for sure. And I don't think looking for people to blame first is a good way to start a discussion on the comparative changes on a golf course over time.

Of course it's very important to know when and particularly why changes were made in the past and why changes are being made now. It's probably less important to know who's making the changes, as again, the reasons why will probably always be more important to understand.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tom, I agree. Maybe I could have left that comment out. I should have know how defensive some people get around here get and certainly didn't want that to be the focus of this thread.


John Gosselin, your hostility toward me is duly noted.



Moving on.....

[Ryan Farrow]

#17

So what do you all think of the old 17th hole. IMO it would be a great hole for member play and one of the best short 4's in the world. Today the only sensible option is an iron to the right of the fairway bunkers to a narrow strip of fairway. It looks like the old configuration would reward a carry of the fairway bunker even if you did not reach the green and provide a terrible angle to a small and narrow green to those who played safe.

I think the hole might be too easy for US Open play, I could see 3-5 woods being used to carry the bunker to that top shelf just short of the green and an easy chip shot to set up birdie. Of course we all know the simple solution for this.

[TEPaul]

Thanks Ryan, and now no more about blame and back to the thread. This is the kind of thread with those comparative photos that'll always be roundly popular with the contributors on here and others who look in but can't contribute, so again, thanks for this thread and your work on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ryan Farrow,

I would have thought that viewing the last day of the US Open would have undermined your theory that the 17th hole is too easy for the U.S. Open.

I've always subscribed to the theory of horizontal elasticity when it comes to preparing a golf course for a Major.
Unfortunately, when the rough lines are permanently altered and the bunkers moved in to match them, horizontal elasticity is a dead issue.

The unfortunate side affect of this policy is the reduction, and in many cases, the elimination of playing options.

If you look at # 17 green you can clearly see that there's a prefered angle of attack into the green, and that's a direct challenge of or over the left side bunker. Risk/Reward at its best.  Narrowing the area beyond that bunker reduces the margins for all but the very best golfers in the world, and even they weren't that successful in rising to the occassion at the Open.

Narrowing fairways reduces playing options and places a premium on driving the golf ball.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

I believe Ryan is saying that the 1938 version of 17 would be too easy.

[Ryan Farrow]

Ditto Chuck, but I believe Pat is saying that number 17 played as a good/challenging hole for the pros in 2007? Which I would agree, I just think it was too big of a gamble to drive the green because the chances of holding it are so, so, low and there is a ton of trouble all around. The 1938 hole would be hard enough for the pros if they had some kind of tournament ball, as the hole would be both strategic and challenging, rivaling or perhaps even surpassing the present 10th at Riviera.

[TEPaul]

Since Ryan is now at the 17th with his 1938 v 2007 photos, let's just stop for a moment and see if we can get some confirmation on some architectural facts on #17.

I heard a number of times in the last few years that #17 green was redesigned somehow in the not too distance past (not by Fazio and Co on the work they did on the course going into the 2007 US Open).

I heard that a bunch of times from some at Oakmont but for some reasons I never got into the details of it with them.

If that's true I wonder who did it and what exactly they did AND WHY that may've changed particularly the green from the way it was under Fownes.

Mark Studer, are you out there? If you don't know I can't imagine who would.

[Mark_Fine]

Here is what I know about recent changes on #17 green.  Prior to the Amateur in 2003, there were three bunkers in back of the green.  These bunkers were set well above the putting surface.  The back of the green flared up to the point where you could almost use it as a backstop.  When Fazio built the new tee on #18 they redid the back area of #17 and in the process lowered those bunkers as well as the back portion of the green so balls would roll off and down into the bunkers.   It was determined to be too severe so work was done in house to soften the back portion, flatten it out a bit (this was done two winters ago).  

Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Thanks, that brings back some recollections and I guess I did hear that but apparently I wasn't paying close enough attention---just another example of my on-going lack of ability to play golf and look and listen at the same time!  

[Curt Coulter]

I am new to the discussion group, but not to Oakmont as I have played there for 30 years and am currently on the Grounds and Archives Committees. Mark's view of the changes on #17 are correct and I will further say that we have only used historic photos from our archives in an attempt to re-create what Fownes did. Fazio's group did deepen the bunkers beyond what was original but we have a photo of the back green portion showing it being flat and of the same shape we put it back to.

[John Kirk]

Welcome to the site, Curt.  In addition to this detailed thread, there is a fine series of threads last year by Pittsburgh resident George Pazin.

I played your course for the first time last year with a four time match play champion, initials RB.  What a player.  Terrific course, but very difficult the first time around.  Course knowledge is pretty important there.

I think I read that the bunkers at Oakmont were necessarily shallow, because of the clay soil, or something like that.  Did Mr. Fazio's crew have to do anything special to deepen the bunkers?

[Joel_Stewart]

I am new to the discussion group, but not to Oakmont as I have been a member there for 30 years and am currently on the Grounds and Archives Committees. Mark's view of the changes on #17 are correct and I will further say that we have only used historic photos from our archives in an attempt to re-create what Fownes did. Fazio's group did deepen the bunkers beyond what was original but we have a photo of the back green portion showing it being flat and of the same shape we put it back to.

I guess Ran will let anyone on this site

Curt:  Many of the holes look different, take the 1st and 2nd holes.  Did Fazio rebuild all the bunkers or just a few.   The 1st is unusual in the bunkers are now stright as opposed to vertical.   On the 2nd, the large bunker is now replaced wih a series of bunkers.  Why?

[Curt Coulter]

He is one of my contemporaries there and we have had some good matches. And it is a very tough course for ALL players but particularly the first-timers.
As for the deeper bunkers, yes there is a heavy clay soil base but they did not have to do anything extra than the standard drainage procedures for all the other bunkers.

[Ryan Farrow]

I am new to the discussion group, but not to Oakmont as I have been a member there for 30 years and am currently on the Grounds and Archives Committees. Mark's view of the changes on #17 are correct and I will further say that we have only used historic photos from our archives in an attempt to re-create what Fownes did. Fazio's group did deepen the bunkers beyond what was original but we have a photo of the back green portion showing it being flat and of the same shape we put it back to.

I guess Ran will let anyone on this site

Curt:  Many of the holes look different, take the 1st and 2nd holes.  Did Fazio rebuild all the bunkers or just a few.   The 1st is unusual in the bunkers are now stright as opposed to vertical.   On the 2nd, the large bunker is now replaced wih a series of bunkers.  Why?

Joel, If I remembered correctly from John Zimmers, the superintendent, all of the bunkers that are present today had existed on the course before. It has been well documented that there were always on going changes and bunker additions so I wouldn't take that 1938 aerial as the be all end all.

[Joel_Stewart]

I don't know about bunker additions, Oakmont had 300 bunkers and are down to 200.  I'm just a little surprised that some bunkers may be in the same spot but not in the same shape?  

It was my understand when I played with an Oakmont member that the club took Marzolf out and told him exactly what to do, with old photos.  McDonald & Co. did the actual construction so who knows???

[Ryan Farrow]

I don't know about bunker additions, Oakmont had 300 bunkers and are down to 200.  I'm just a little surprised that some bunkers may be in the same spot but not in the same shape?  

It was my understand when I played with an Oakmont member that the club took Marzolf out and told him exactly what to do, with old photos.  McDonald & Co. did the actual construction so who knows???

What bunkers are not in the same shape? If you talking about holes like 2 or 17, couldn't it be that those bunkers were a different shape at a different time?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.


Any takers on 17 about the architecture or just about the changes? Even though we got some good information there  

[Jim Nugent]

Curt, if these questions put you on the spot too much, feel free to ignore them.

How do you like the work Fazio did?  How do most of Oakmont's members like his work?  Assuming ball and club technology does not change much, would you like to see the course play pretty much the same for the next Open there?  

Right after last year's Open, we talked a bit about the rough at Oakmont.  Some of the guys here think the course might be tougher if there was no rough.  The idea being that without rough, balls would run into all sorts of difficult spots.  I'm guessing we'll never find out, but do you have an opinion on that?

Welcome to the site!  

[Mark Studer]

It is interesting how #17 evolved.....and COULD HAVE been totally altered.    After Oakmont's board approved an additional 680 trees to be removed following a 1995 4 hour presentation based on the 1949 aerial, I volunteered to take any and all interested members on a personal tour of the course to see first hand the proposed restoration (tree removal).  Many accepted(approx 46)and signed up, and a few respected members did not proactively sign up.  One of those who did not was Mr. Fred Brand.  I called him at his office(still working in his early 80's, which is really cool).  He had served on the club's green committee/USGA executive committee/Augusta member and was one of the members that had captained the tree planting in the 1970's.  Our tour lasted 2 1/2 hours and he explained how we had made RT Jones an honorary member for the help he had provided during the 1970's in adding a few bunkers and adding sand to some bunker faces (for TV, of course).  Mr. Jones had also suggested adding a pond in front of #5....changing the par 3 16th into a par 5 and making #17 into a par 3.  The green chair at the time, Mr. Stewart, was quoted by Mr. Brand that "no major changes would be made to Mr. Fownes' masterpiece under my watch", and these major proposals never materialized. The large bunker on #17 just left of the landing zone was the one named "big mouth".  In the fall of 2001 we removed the 3 huge trees behind #17 green and #18 tee.   During the 1991 bunker drainage project the front greenside "big mouth" bunker had been turned into "medium mouth"....as named by my wife after seeing how it had been made more shallow.  The 2001  project allowed oakmont to deepen the greenside bunker back to an intimidating depth with new drainage dug out to the lower elevation of the driving range.  A suggestion to shrink the depth of the green(to the size of #10 at Riviera) was rejected.  When the back greenside bunkers were deepened, the  putting surface was slightly contoured down to the deepened bunkers but this was corrected (as Mark Fine mentioned) by flattening by raising the rear 4 feet of the  putting green the next fall.  Those that have played a flip sand wedge into #17 can describe the illusiveness of confidence in the yardage without the backdrop of deciduous foilage in summer.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

I can't imagine Oakmont being more difficult with NO rough.

If a ball is running, it's usually running closer to the green, leaving a shorter approach.

And, the rough at Oakmont is ROUGH.
Extracting oneself from it, and getting to the green are extremely difficult.

Without rough, the golf course would be easier, not more difficult.

Curt & Mark,

One of the things I liked most about Oakmont's work was the deepening of the bunkers.

Over the last five (5) decades, between improvements in equipment, grooming and the general softening of bunkers, deepening the bunkers and adding fronting berms returned the bunkers to their intended strategic and tactical purpose.

For quite some time, the fear and tactical elements were being diminished.

That's no longer the case.

Recently I played a course that used to have reletively deep bunkers with fronting berms/lips.

A green chairman took it upon himself to fill the bunkers with sand such that a "ski ramp" was effectively created from the low point in the bunker to the top of the lip, allowing golfers to hit 3-woods, where formerly, mid to high irons were required.

Bunkers have lost their architectural, strategic, tactical and intended purpose at many clubs over the years.

Hopefully, more clubs will follow Oakmont's lead and return bunkers to a configuration that best accomplishes their intended purpose, as opposed to the simple eye candy that many have devolved to.

Deepening bunkers should be a consideration for any club considering methods to recapture the challenge for the modern day golfer.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Thanks for that architectural history on #17.

Those suggestions of RTJ's in the 1970s are the most egregious I've ever heard of. I've been one who's always given RTJ a lot of slack for a lot of reasons but those suggestions of his you mentioned really make me mad!

Call me when you get the chance.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark:

Thanks for that architectural history on #17.

Those suggestions of RTJ's in the 1970s are the most egregious I've ever heard of. I've been one who's always given RTJ a lot of slack for a lot of reasons but those suggestions of his you mentioned really make me mad!


TEPaul,

I'm unclear about something.

How did RTJ get past the front gates ?

Did he just drive down the street and make a wrong turn ?  

You've got so much to learn, and I just don't have that much time.

Fortunately for Oakmont, a man of wisdom overrode the penchants of the membership [/color]

Mark,

Forget about calling TEPaul, he's up north, where it's about to get cold.  He probably wants you to help him with his winter chores at HappyDale Farms, where year after year he attempts to pluck the cows and milk the chickens.

Call me instead and let's make plans to get together in warmer climes.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I'm unclear about something.
How did RTJ get past the front gates ?
Did he just drive down the street and make a wrong turn ?  
You've got so much to learn, and I just don't have that much time.
Fortunately for Oakmont, a man of wisdom overrode the penchants of the membership>


Patrick:

Your UNCLEAR about how RTJ got past the front gates???  

Leave it to you to ask a stupid question like that. Do you think perhaps it had anything to do with the fact that he was just the most famous architect in the world at that time??  

[Joel_Stewart]

What bunkers are not in the same shape? If you talking about holes like 2 or 17, couldn't it be that those bunkers were a different shape at a different time?

I'm not sure what you are asking here.

All I'm saying is that the bunkers on the left of the first hole in 1938 ran east-west and now run north south.  On the 2nd hole, the large fairway bunker on the right is one large bunker and now it is a series of small bunkers.  The fairway bunker on the left is missing?

You need to look carefully at the shape of the bunkers or else (like my home club) the bunkers will look like modern Fazio bunkers.   I like the old look better.