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

[Lester George]

All things considered, it is quite remarkable how little has changed.

Great stuff, Ryan.

Lester

[JSlonis]

Garland,

Isn't #8 now stretched out to close to 280 yards?  With a par 3 of that length, something had to give.  Keeping the centerline bunker would have been just too much.

Of course you can argue that the hole doesn't need to play that long and the bunker should stay.

[Ryan Farrow]

A few other things that caught my attention and I think are worthy of discussion.

1. Look at how much better #17 was.

2. How intimate the bunkers are. They are angled a lot better and allow for serious roll-ins from drives and/or approach shots. Image how different the course would play now, especially considering how firm/fast the FW's are.

3. The drainage ditch crossing through the FW on #10. And possibly 18 around the cross bunker.

[Ian Andrew]

Ryan,

Thank you that was fun to go through.

I'm with Lester on this - I'm more in awe of how much is left from that date. I've never been there - which I must do this year - so I can't comment on what I see.

[Kirk Gill]

I'll admit, I do like the way the fairways are widened out in the driving area to the edges of the bunkers on 10, 12, and 15......

[Mike_Cirba]

I think I have to withdraw at least half of my original criticism.

While I'd love to see the fairway lines brought back to what they were, I'm also quite impressed by how much has been very well preserved.  

And while I would still argue that the look (at least from pictures and tv) of the new "deeper/mounded" bunkers is balky at best, at least much of the original positioning is intact.

I'm betting that a comparison of say, Merion, would indicate fairways that have narrowed in much the same manner.  

While regrettable, I don't think that's anything unique to Oakmont.

[John Foley]

So I ran across an old aerial of Oakmont country club in the late 1930's that really shows the negative affects of either 1.letting your course get ruined by the USGA or 2. hiring and incompetent architect to perform a restoration. On many holes it looks as though every fairway was at least shrunk in half. In turn, this has transformed Oakmont into a one dimensional golf course from the tee box. Instead of giving players options for better angles off the tee, Oakmont is now limited to options of distance and nothing more. Luckily the golf courses legendary greens have survived over the years or Oakmont would have been just another great course lost.



So heres to what used to be and what will probably never be again.









p.s. I don't give a damn what courses Tom Doak blacklisted.  

Ryan - First of all thanks for the heavy lifting - this was a very cool excersize.

I am also how amazed how little has actually changed. Expanding a few of those mowing lines would do wonders.

Why do you think the USGA runied the course & the restoration was performed by an incompetant architect?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder why the fw contours couldn't be enlarged up to the first fw bunkers for the average players - even knoning Oakmont has a low handicap base of players - and then narrower up where US Open contestants might play. It would bring back some of the original character and not affect championship level play.

[John Gosselin]

Ryan, thanks for the pictures. The comparisions aer very interesting.

The thing that surprised me was the changes were less dramatic then I had expected. Looks like someone put a lot of effort and time into recreating the old bunker scheme. The narrowing of the fairway is dramatic in some areas, but are the any course that still maintain or have recaptured their fairway lines from the 20s or 30s?

Who are you referring to that was the incompetent architect. Are you saying the members are not happy with the outcome of the latest work or are they not happy with how the course was perceived during the Open?

[TEPaul]

Maybe I'm wrong but I think I heard the idea with the tree removal and restoration of Oakmont was to put the course back pretty much as it was when W.C. Fownes died. I think that was basically the "go to" time they tried to use.

Since W.C. Fownes died in 1950 maybe a 1938 aerial isn't that representative of what they were trying to do.

I never like to see that much fairway area lost on those old courses (it appears it might be around 30-40%) but that fact seems true of most all the old courses today. The only real exception I can think of is Pine Valley and there's a good reason for that----eg the course basically never had rough anyway.

There're a few other oddities in the comparison of the 1938 aerial and today.

In a number of cases they did not put back some of the small "necklaces" of bunkers on some holes and they seemed to put others in that weren't even there in 1938.

It appears they did the same thing with some of the "church-pew" sets that weren't in the 1938 aerial or else some appear to have been obsoleted at that point.

As for all this fussin' and clammerin' by JohnK that the course didn't really go with reality in all their propaganda on trees vs the 1938 aerial is basically too ridiculous to even comment on, in my opinion.

It doesn't look to me like there was more than fifty trees on the interior of the course in 1938 and maybe Fownes removed them by 1950.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Jeff Brauer,

I've always maintained, that in the ultimate, it's the club's responsibility for what happens to their golf course.

They are the curators.

Without the club's consent, changes can't be forced upon the golf course, irrespective of who's making the recommendations.

JakaB,

The tree on # 2 in the 1938 photo is not intrusive to play to the green from the right side fairway bunker.  Don't confuse shadows with leaves.  

I happen to love playing Oakmont, but, have to lament the loss of width and the loss of many bunkers, in number and in size.

JSlonis,

While it's true that # 8 only recently plays to 280, it only plays to that length for those who venture to the back tee.
The overwhelming majority of play is from forward tees.

I think the one glaring error that all of the clubs in the Open and PGA rota make is the 913 to 1 rule.

Essentially they make their members step-children for 3,648 or 3,659 days in favor of catering to a chosen few for 4 days.

In years past, while changes were made in preparation for the 4 day event, they were undone when the show left town.

That's changed.

Now, the changes are permanent in nature.
New rough lines are created, new bluegrass is planted and bunkers are moved to match the new rough lines.

Members must now play a reconfigured golf course that has less width and fewer playing options, a far more penal golf course that has to be less fun to play than the wider course, for the great majority of the membership.

Having 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicappers play a golf course that was specifically reconfigured for the best 200 players in the world is not in the best interest of those golfers.

It's fun initially.  But after sufficient time with repeat play reality begins to set in, the challenge is beyond the ability of the membership and play, that once was fun, is now a labor.

This leads to dissatisfaction one's game and creates a disconnect with THE game.

One of the reasons that NGLA retains its lure and the desire for repeat play after 100 years is the fun of the challenge.  It does not erode the golfer's will.  Instead, it provides a thrilling, fun challenge, primarily through expansive fairways that can accomodate the 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicapper.

Winged Foot appears to have rejected the trend that requires altering the golf course to accomodate Major events.

As a decent golfer, I've never understood why 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicappers would want to play a golf course, day in and day out, that was specifically chosen and altered to present a ferocious challenge to the best golfers in the world.

It's misguided at best.

[TEPaul]

"The narrowing of the fairway is dramatic in some areas, but are the any course that still maintain or have recaptured their fairway lines from the 20s or 30s?"

JohnG:

Actually there is one I'm aware of----NGLA. I think they're getting close to something like 60 acres of fairway area these days and I wouldn't think the course ever had much more than that. The really good news is they did this right into the design and implementation of a brand spanking new sophisticated irrigation system! Even with that they're also into a real F&F dryout program.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I had a very edifying conversation recently with someone from the USGA who really can speak authoritatively on the subject of clubs sticking with a US Open configuration or not once the SHOW leaves town.

He said it certainly is fine with the USGA if a club reverts the course back to the way it was before the Open setup goes into motion. I believe he even said he'd recommend that even if I'm not too sure if the USGA has any standard policy about who pays for that kind of thing.

But he also said in many cases the club basically wants to stick with an Open configuration as they seem to think that's a neat thing to talk about and show off.

So you're right that clubs are just going to do what they want to do.

Do you have a problem with that? If so what do you think they should do----what YOU want them to do?

[JSlonis]

Tom,

Another thing to consider is that it is difficult from an agronomic perspective to just "go back to normal" after an Open has left town.  You can't just cut back the rough to the original fairway sizes and be back in business.  The grasses are too different, a club would have to strip out all the bluegrass roughs where fairway once was and then re-plant or re-sod with a Bent grass.  I'm sure with the $$ involved in hosting the Open that this sort of expense can be covered, it is still a big project.

[Ryan Farrow]

For those of you who think the changes from 38-07 are not that big of a deal or not dramatic you need to think about more than just bunker placement. The only reason the bunkers are still where they are today is that the bunkers stretched way past the landing areas of years past and are still in range of todays top golfers. As many of you have said, and I think those who have the played the course many times will attest to, the fairway widths are the missing  link. They add a whole new dimension to Oakmont called strategy. And with the extreme speeds and tilts of its greens the importance of fairway positioning can't be overlooked.

I don't know exactly who deserves the blame: the club, USGA, the architect, but we do know that the USGA has a history of narrowing courses, the club has a history of preserving its golf course, and who knows what the Fazio team actually proposed. Do you think they suggested widening fairways? I doubt it, but then again can/will anyone ever stand up to the USGA and do whats best for their golf course, and not whats best for the egos of those at the USGA.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick:

I had a very edifying conversation recently with someone from the USGA who really can speak authoritatively on the subject of clubs sticking with a US Open configuration or not once the SHOW leaves town.

He said it certainly is fine with the USGA if a club reverts the course back to the way it was before the Open setup goes into motion. I believe he even said he'd recommend that even if I'm not too sure if the USGA has any standard policy about who pays for that kind of thing.

But he also said in many cases the club basically wants to stick with an Open configuration as they seem to think that's a neat thing to talk about and show off.

So you're right that clubs are just going to do what they want to do.

Do you have a problem with that?
If so what do you think they should do----what YOU want them to do?

I believe that there are certain absolutes.

You would have us believe that just because a club has the ability and power to disfigure a feature or a hole, that that makes it OK to do so.  And, that that power/ability is the absolute, and not the product.

I don't adhere to your theory, one that's based on transient values implemented by revolving door management.

You must not have been listening when Mark Kuhns made his presentation at my architectural symposium at Baltusrol in February of 2004.

Baltusrol spent approximately $ 800,000 to permanently replace and reconfigure their rough with Bluegrass.

The insidious aspect of that decision is the cost to undo it.

You may also recall the surprise and objections of Mark Fine, Brad Klein, Mike Cirba and many others, possibly including yourself, when it was mentioned that they were contemplating moving the bunkers in to more closely align with the rough lines.

You seem to equate the power to alter with the quality of the alteration.

If that was so, NO course would ever seek to have lost or disfigured features restored.

Based on your theory, you would have us believe that the 12th hole at GCGC is an outstanding product of membership wisdom, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Having the power to alter or disfigure a golf course doesn't equate with the merits of that alteration/disfiguration.

However, I can understand how you came to your opinion and your strident defense of a membership doing whatever they want to a golf course that they hold temporary power over, afterall, Gulph Mills has seen more surgical procedures than the Cat Lady
[/color]

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

There're two ways of taking fairways in and then taking them back out.

One way is to seed in and then just gradually mow back out (generally in the late fall) as Shinnecock planned to do and did following the '04 Open. That was a pretty smart pre-planned move on Michaud's part.

The other way is to sod in and then sod back out. That might be somewhat quicker but it's also at least four times more expensive.

As for the USGA's Open narrowness philosophy I don't know that that will change any time soon but I think an effort should be made to see if they might consider changing that at some point in the future. My sense is that there may be some up there who'd consider it if it was presented in a cogent  manner and of course concentrating on the finer point of "strategic" golf.

I guess it's true to say that the Open narrowness mentality and philosophy began in the Joe Dye years and it's hung on ever since. He just really believed in demanding accuracy of Open level players.

Curiously Joe Dye was also a guy who had a remarkably frugal mentality when it came to golf courses. You should see what he did with his own golf course, or I guess I should say the course he belonged to.

[TEPaul]

"You seem to equate the power to alter with the quality of the alteration."

Pat:

It just always fascinates me when you say something like that. I have never said or implied anything of the kind---quite the opposite in fact---but you just go right on saying something like that.

The only real difference I have with you is the way you just go about almost automatically criticizing and blaming memberships.

It sure doesn't take a Dale Carnegie to understand that anyone's chances of getting any membership to do something you want them to is a whole lot better if you don't go about critizicing and blaming them and thereby making enemies out of them first.

[John Gosselin]

Ryan, if an architect gives the owner/membership exactly what they wanted, and meet all the other deliverables of the project, why would you consider this incompetent?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

"You seem to equate the power to alter with the quality of the alteration."

Pat:

It just always fascinates me when you say something like that. I have never said or implied anything of the kind---quite the opposite in fact---but you just go right on saying something like that.

Yes, you did.
Reread what you typed.
Your implication is clear.[/color]

The only real difference I have with you is the way you just go about almost automatically criticizing and blaming memberships.

There's a reason for that.

They and ONLY they are the ones who disfigure the golf course.
They're the curators responsible for the care and preservation of valuable golf course architecture.  Yet, in case after case THEY and THEY alone have altered/disfigured course after course.

Who should be held accountable for disfiguring a golf course ?

Uncle Reamus ? Bugs Bunny ?  The Phantom ?

Stop absolving memberships for making terrible decisions and disfiguring a golf course over which they hold temporary power.

If there are no reprecussions for disfiguring golf courses, more will be disfigured. [/color]

It sure doesn't take a Dale Carnegie to understand that anyone's chances of getting any membership to do something you want them to is a whole lot better if you don't go about critizicing and blaming them and thereby making enemies out of them first.

I'm not running for office.

You want to pat them on the back and tell them that everything is perfect, that all the previous alterations and any future alterations will be A-OK.

Years ago a friend asked me to come with him to the hospital to visit his wife.  I was unaware that she had been hospitalized.

When we arrived, we went to the 7th floor, which was a secure floor.  It was the M & N floor.

As we walked to my friend's wife's room a patient approached me and declared, "Welcome to my home, I'm King so and so."
I replied, "Thank you your Majesty" and continued on my way.
A doctor who observed the interaction pulled me aside and told me that I had done the patient NO favor, that I had catered to his fantasy world and perpetuated his myth.  He informed me that I should told the patient that I knew he wasn't King so and so, which would have helped him face reality.

And so it is with golf clubs, you can pat them on the back and tell them that everything they've done is just wonderful, or you can offer honest, constructive criticism.  If they choose to ignore the facts/truth, then they're compounding the wrongs that have already been forced upon the golf course.

If clubs don't receive constructive criticism they'll never come to  realize the fact that they've made a mistake/s[/color]

[Mark Studer]

Ryan- thanks for posting the side by side photos of oakmont. We did use the 1949 aerial as the masterplan with Fazio's Tom Marzolf to restore oakmont's approaches and green surrounds and remove many trees from 2000 until 2005. He also helped us build the new longer tees for the 2003 amateur(2007 open, too). We were able to keep the original tees in  place for restoration and preservation sakes as well. We also built new forward tees on #3,4,5,7,&11 without affecting the originals. The narrowing of # 5 and #14 was not based on those classic documented 1949 photos.    If you could put 1983 or 1994 aerials in your comparison, we all could see what heavy lifting was completed from 1991-2007. Not perfect for sure , but fun to see first hand .  I am  helping with oakmont's documentation of design evolution and it will be fun to expand on what you have shown us all so effectively with your side by sides. Thanks for sharing and educating. WC Fownes died in 1950 and that is why we started the restoration process with the 1949 aerial.  Oakmont was most fortunate that 16 of 18 greens are the same (as far as we can document)since the 1927 us open.

[Kyle Harris]

I am seeing MANY small, but acute changes over the years on pretty well every hole.

The 20 handicap in 1938 could plod his way around and shoot a very safe 95. The minute any risk was taken, he risked turning that into 105.

Same goes for the 15, 10, 5 and so on down the line.

[TEPaul]

"Who should be held accountable for disfiguring a golf course ?
Uncle Reamus ? Bugs Bunny ?  The Phantom ?"

Patrick:

Perhaps it's never occurred to you for some odd reason but have you ever considered that it may not be necessary to hold someone accountable for anything to effect a really good restoration on any golf course and amongst any membership these days? And I certainly don't think it's necessary to blame any entire membership from the old days to effect a good restoration these days.

The reason is so simple it's just amazing you don't see it. Why would anyone want to be going around looking for a whole bunch of people to blame when a lot of those people are many of the same ones you're trying to convince to do something like a restoration?

Apparently that story of mine about the 95 year old man on our committee means nothing to you. It was a beautiful thing to see and it made us all understand those people back then weren't TRYING to disfigure their golf courses. That certainly wasn't their intention and I see no reason at all why people like you need to seek them out and accuse them of that. They thought they were doing something positive and if you can get them to see something that they didn't realize before without just gratuitously blaming them first I just feel it makes the whole restoration process and project not only work better but probably work at all.

I just can't see what you think you're accomplishing by blaming whole memberships for anything. What the hell do you think that does other than just piss them off and why would anyone trying to convince people to do something want to piss them off first?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

"Who should be held accountable for disfiguring a golf course ?
Uncle Reamus ? Bugs Bunny ?  The Phantom ?"

Patrick:

Perhaps it's never occurred to you for some odd reason but have you ever considered that it may not be necessary to hold someone accountable for anything to effect a really good restoration on any golf course and amongst any membership these days?

Those are two SEPERATE issues.

However, it's hard to ignore Newton's First Law of Motion.[/color]

And I certainly don't think it's necessary to blame any entire membership from the old days to effect a good restoration these days.

Again, those are two distinct issues.[/color]


The reason is so simple it's just amazing you don't see it. Why would anyone want to be going around looking for a whole bunch of people to blame when a lot of those people are many of the same ones you're trying to convince to do something like a restoration?

You're confused.
It's beyond rare to find that someone who has disfigured a golf course is suddenly ready to undo his own work.  It just doesn't happen.

It's been my limited experience that the parties who make substantive alterations/disfigurations to a golf course have to be far removed from any attempt to undo their work and invoke a restoration.

As far as time frames are concerned, it's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 12 to 20 years or more.[/color]

Apparently that story of mine about the 95 year old man on our committee means nothing to you.

You're correct, that was an anomaly, and that 95 year old man was far, far removed from the date of his work on the golf course.  Had he implemented his changes two years earlier you can bet he would have opposed any proposal to undo it.

You're living in a dream world if you think otherwise.[/color]

It was a beautiful thing to see and it made us all understand those people back then weren't TRYING to disfigure their golf courses.

That he was unaware of his actions is greater cause for alarm.
"The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions"
You readily accept the misguided deeds of those responsible for disfiguring a golf course, whereas I reject their agenda.[/color]

That certainly wasn't their intention and I see no reason at all why people like you need to seek them out and accuse them of that.

You remain confused and out of touch on this issue.
Noone ever suggested seeking out and/or approaching a green chairman, President or Board member who disfigured a golf course 30-40-50 years ago, but, if they remain in power or exercise influence over continuing with the status quo, then you must confront them on the issues.  To do otherwise, or to do nothing just reinforces their disfiguring of the golf course.

When a golf course is disfigured and successive generations of leadership perpetuate that disfiguration, you have to disrupt Newton's First Law of Motion, for if you don't, the status quo will remain .....[/color]

They thought they were doing something positive and if you can get them to see something that they didn't realize before without just gratuitously blaming them first I just feel it makes the whole restoration process and project not only work better but probably work at all.

That's pure nonsense.

You're talking about one individual 50 years removed from his reign and influence on the golf course.  At 95 his power base and constituency reside in that great fairway in the sky.

Ask yourself, what would have been his response to you the year after he disfigured the golf course.  Would he have defended his actions or accepted the error of his way and UNDONE what he implemented, at great cost to the membership ?

Please, ground yourself with the reality of club life and politics and NOT with a sole individual who 40 or 50 years after his mistakes, finally recognized and atoned for them.[/color]


I just can't see what you think you're accomplishing by blaming whole memberships for anything. What the hell do you think that does other than just piss them off and why would anyone trying to convince people to do something want to piss them off first?


You apparently aren't familiar with the word, "accountability"

What you DON'T understand is the following.

If you DON'T challenge the perpetuation of a disfiguration, you're  supporting that disfiguration and reinforcing the belief, by the club's leadership, that they've done the RIGHT thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Your failure to challenge and confront the decisions and the decision makers who perpetuate disfigurations makes you complicit in the disfiguration.  Your lack of constructive criticism reinforces the disfiguration.

You either support the disfiguration, through perpetuating it, or you oppose the disfiguration by challenging its continuation.

I choose the latter and you've chosen the former.

You choose, like Neville Chamberlain, peace at any price.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Let me ask you a related question.

You crafted a wonderful book detailing your club's architectural history.

You were involved with the fairly recent restoration/renovation/modernization of your golf course.

You worked hard on behalf of your club.

How were you recently rewarded for your efforts, your sensitivity to the membership and your supreme diplomacy ?

Were you ungraciously and unceremoniously booted out ?
Is that the thanks you get for being polite, sensitive and diplomatic when it comes to the needs of your membership and your golf course ?

You advocate and do it your way and I'll advocate and do it my way.

And after we're both too old and battle scarred to care, we'll sit around, have a drink or two and discuss which method left us the more satisfied.

Remember what I told you, "no good deed shall go unpunished"