[George Pazin]

Tom Paul,

I wouldn't presume to know Ran at a level that would explain this thread.  But I think he needs to reload and engage a bit further.  I thought Oakmont was one of the more enchanting clubs I've been around.  That is to say, that the way the ground rolls and heaves, yet remains so open and inviting is pretty stinking cool.  --Edit.  I think this is what makes other places like Shinnecock and others so inviting as a club as well--

The way Ran has started this thread--among others--is like the way fighter pilots mission plan.  A bunch of dudes are in the planning room working their tails off.  And in jumps one guy--usually a fast mover type--and says, "We're all f@^&ed!", then promptly leaves.

Ben, I think you are misunderstanding Ran's premise.

I think - and I'm guessing Ran would agree - that the reason you think Oakmont's land is great is because you are evaluating it based on the final product. There is hilly land like the land Oakmont stands proudly upon (man, I'm running out of ways to say that) all over western PA - really, all over the good 'ol USA. Yet damn few courses can claim to be Oakmont's equal in any respect. Several of those that can have spectacular sites along the ocean, or favorable sand based soils, or bumpy little swales, or some combination of all of the above and more.

I think Ran's thread is essentially saying Mr. Fownes got more out of his land than damn near anyone else. I'd be hard pressed to disagree.

Augusta strikes me similarly - haven't had the pleasure of being there, but I think it is only called a spectacular site after one has seen the final result. There's orchards all over the world, yet none have been upgraded in the manner of Augusta.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I love that story and I love that title too. I'm about to write a chronicle for the family about our recent trip to Italy and particularly the days we spent in Posetano (unquestionably one of the most gorgeous towns in the world) where the wedding of my brother-in-law took place to an American lady. They have been living together for a number of years and last year had a baby. So they decided to do things somewhat in reverse order from most.

Neverthless, there is a ton of wonderful and funny material to use from that time in Posetano a few weeks ago, the wedding and all the little and funny unpredictabilities of it, the days before it and the days after it, when we were all there but I haven't written it yet even though I do have a great title for it-----which is "Why Did Dave Have the Breast Pump?"

[Ben Sims]

Tom Paul,

I wouldn't presume to know Ran at a level that would explain this thread.  But I think he needs to reload and engage a bit further.  I thought Oakmont was one of the more enchanting clubs I've been around.  That is to say, that the way the ground rolls and heaves, yet remains so open and inviting is pretty stinking cool.  --Edit.  I think this is what makes other places like Shinnecock and others so inviting as a club as well--

The way Ran has started this thread--among others--is like the way fighter pilots mission plan.  A bunch of dudes are in the planning room working their tails off.  And in jumps one guy--usually a fast mover type--and says, "We're all f@^&ed!", then promptly leaves.

Ben, I think you are misunderstanding Ran's premise.

I think - and I'm guessing Ran would agree - that the reason you think Oakmont's land is great is because you are evaluating it based on the final product. There is hilly land like the land Oakmont stands proudly upon (man, I'm running out of ways to say that) all over western PA - really, all over the good 'ol USA. Yet damn few courses can claim to be Oakmont's equal in any respect. Several of those that can have spectacular sites along the ocean, or favorable sand based soils, or bumpy little swales, or some combination of all of the above and more.

I think Ran's thread is essentially saying Mr. Fownes got more out of his land than damn near anyone else. I'd be hard pressed to disagree.

Augusta strikes me similarly - haven't had the pleasure of being there, but I think it is only called a spectacular site after one has seen the final result. There's orchards all over the world, yet none have been upgraded in the manner of Augusta.

George,

I get the premise, and I agree with it fundamentally, but Oakmont is not the only example.  Not even close.  Augusta, Crystal Downs, Riviera, SFGC, Yeaman's Hall, Chicago GC.  These are among some of the best courses I can think of--9's and 10's here--on sites of less than obvious talent. 

All I am saying is that Ran's assertion that Oakmont may have the most "deltaRating" is a good argument, but not even close to the only in town.  For Oakmont's land possesses much of the qualities of other great courses.

[JC Jones]

Ben,

Perhaps your back prevented you from seeing the greatness of the site that Crystal Downs is on.  From my understanding, MacKenzie was very reluctant to come to NW Michigan but once he arrived, he realized that the sandy soils of the dunes and the bluffs were some of the greatest property for golf.

Tom Doak and Mike DeVries, homers no doubt, have frequently said that the soil and the land in NW Michigan is some of the greatest for golf.  There is no shortage of interest in the topography at Crystal Downs.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

[JESII]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your misunderstanding...but, George, I don't think Ran was simply saying Oakmont is a great course (9 or 10 on the Doak scale) on land that could be found elsewhere...I think he's saying if given the choice, an architect wouldn't select that land to build a course upon and would pass on the opportunity...yet the Fownes created a 9 or 10 on it. I would tend to side with Ben in that the land looks pretty good to me with some elevation change but not so much as to make any particular part an unworkable challenge.

As far as the question at hand, what does TPC Sawgrass rate on the Doak scale? if it's a 7, it passes Oakmont's Delta because the land couldn't have been better than 0, could it?

[Garland Bayley]

My logical mind says the answer to this is NO!

Given that "anyone can build a difficult course" and its corollary "a difficult course can be built on any site" you find that the delta decreases rapidly as the number of holes goes to infinity.

Face it. The course gets its high rankings from being a "shot testing" test for the best players. It gives little enjoyment to the average player (or even the much better than average player like Cary). If you follow the dictum of the ODGs that a course should test the best, but give the average player an enjoyable round, the delta goes to almost zero.

JMHO

I don't think you'd feel this way if you played the course several times, but I don't know you well enough to say for sure.

I understand that you think I might like it some after playing it several times (instead of living vicariously through Cary). But, what about the  reduction in delta argument. After all, Winged Foot has much poorer land, but rates in the same ball park as Oakmont.

[George Pazin]

George,

I get the premise, and I agree with it fundamentally, but Oakmont is not the only example.  Not even close.  Augusta, Crystal Downs, Riviera, SFGC, Yeaman's Hall, Chicago GC.  These are among some of the best courses I can think of--9's and 10's here--on sites of less than obvious talent.  

All I am saying is that Ran's assertion that Oakmont may have the most "deltaRating" is a good argument, but not even close to the only in town.  For Oakmont's land possesses much of the qualities of other great courses.

Okay, then I misunderstood your posts.

I don't think Ran meant Oakmont is the only example, merely the best.

I understand that you think I might like it some after playing it several times (instead of living vicariously through Cary). But, what about the  reduction in delta argument. After all, Winged Foot has much poorer land, but rates in the same ball park as Oakmont.

Haven't seen the Foot, so I can't comment. I'll bite me tongue on your premise.

[Tom_Doak]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your misunderstanding...but, George, I don't think Ran was simply saying Oakmont is a great course (9 or 10 on the Doak scale) on land that could be found elsewhere...I think he's saying if given the choice, an architect wouldn't select that land to build a course upon and would pass on the opportunity...yet the Fownes created a 9 or 10 on it. I would tend to side with Ben in that the land looks pretty good to me with some elevation change but not so much as to make any particular part an unworkable challenge.

As far as the question at hand, what does TPC Sawgrass rate on the Doak scale? if it's a 7, it passes Oakmont's Delta because the land couldn't have been better than 0, could it?

Jim:

I agree with this ... Ran's whole premise of a "Delta rating" seems off.

For starters, he based it on my scale rather than his own, setting up a straw man.  And then it is also based on a rating for the "property" which most people would never get right.  I think he had the Oakmont property pegged rightly as a "4" or "5" ... interesting topography, on the severe side but not if you have enough of it to work with ... in other words, a lot more feature than a swamp [which would be a "0"] or a cotton field.

What he should have said is just that Oakmont is by far the least well endowed piece of property which anyone turned into a 9 or a 10 course on the Doak scale.  But, the "delta" between 4 and 9 is equal or less than the "delta" between 1 and 6, depending on how you do the math ... and there are a fair number of modern courses which turned a 1 into a 6.


P.S. to George:  I do not really understand how I have so maligned Oakmont by giving it a 9 in The Confidential Guide.  That's the same rating as Pebble Beach and Prairie Dunes, which I also think very highly of.  It just isn't a 10, because I just cannot imagine that the average 15-handicapper could have fun with it.  Indeed, in all of these threads I sometimes wonder how often YOU have actually played Oakmont, and whether you would enjoy getting flogged at Barnbougle (if you ever get there) as much as you claim to love Oakmont for it.

[Tom_Doak]

it seems to me that if you AIM for the spectacular you're going to miss as often as you succeed (and in gca, that means ending up with many courses that look like amusement parks); but if you aim instead to be the consumate professional over the long haul (and in gca, this means always trying to route the best course you can on the land as it presents itself), you'll achieve that PLUS achieving greatness every once in a while.

Yep, that's what I've been droning on about for 25 years.

[Sean_A]

I don't expect Ran to revisit and further explain his position, but I still can't understand how the site can be mediocre, little was done to enhance the site, and yet the course is a marvel.  It just doesn't add up.

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

The last large open piece of land on Chicago's north shore was the Great Lake Naval Air Base. After it closed in 2001 Fazio was brought in to build a $150/round course.

Ok it was an airport. So what do you do when you are called in to build a high ticket golf course on a flat piece of ground? Well naturally you MOVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SOIL. Because everyone knows that flat golf courses are BORING. Now you would have no idea that the ground on that golf course was flat ground. There is nothing out there that is connected to the natural history of that property.

But what if they had built large greens like Oakmont, and cored out below grade shadowy and menacing bunkers? They could have kept it sparse with few trees, and maybe some prairie areas. It all could have been a really unique golf experience, instead it's just another boring golf course with curvilinear lines running every where and cookie cutter bunkers.

I may sound like a nut but I honestly don't think there is a bad place to build a golf course. And I think the more you are able to retain of the natural history of the land, the better chance you have of that golf course being great. Conversely I would say that the more you alter the natural history of the land the less chance you have of the golf course being great. As a game, golf is that great. Golf can transform a dull piece of land into something magnificent. Look at what golf did for St. Andrews.

[Tom_Doak]

The last large open piece of land on Chicago's north shore was the Great Lake Naval Air Base. After it closed in 2001 Fazio was brought in to build a $150/round course.

Ok it was an airport. So what do you do when you are called in to build a high ticket golf course on a flat piece of ground? Well naturally you MOVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SOIL. Because everyone knows that flat golf courses are BORING. Now you would have no idea that the ground on that golf course was flat ground. There is nothing out there that is connected to the natural history of that property.

But what if they had built large greens like Oakmont, and cored out below grade shadowy and menacing bunkers? They could have kept it sparse with few trees, and maybe some prairie areas. It all could have been a really unique golf experience, instead it's just another boring golf course with curvilinear lines running every where and cookie cutter bunkers.

Bradley:

I would have liked to have a shot at that project, to build something more sustainable; but all of the decisions you describe trace back to that original goal of building a $150 golf course.  [I wonder how that price is holding up now?]

It would have been harder to do an Oakmont-like course on that site, however, because it was quite flat and had more drainage issues.  Oakmont is not as bad a site because it's reasonably hilly ... all those shadowy bunkers need is a bit of pipe to daylight at a lower spot.

P.S.  If I recall correctly, you are wrong that they didn't leave anything connected to the former site:  the parking lot for the clubhouse is part of the old airstrip! 

[Ran Morrissett]

TePaul,

To paraphrase your post, 95% of the time you have a glass of red wine near at hand; this must have been one of the 5% of the times when you don't  . How good on a scale of 1 to 10 do you think the site was, especially given its heavy clay soil and a road cutting through it?

Sean,

Tons of work was done to the site to give it its golf interest; my point is the manner in which the work was done was so great that a green like the fifteenth looks natural. Ala Raynor, most of the dirt was moved for the tees and green pads which is the only/best way to remain true to the landscape while still providing the golfing interest.

Speaking of work done by man, the creation of the drainage ditch system is another unique attribute and why more architects never followed that example I don't understand as the ditches are both functional and strategic.

Re the bunkers, what I most admire is how a) penal they are and b) non-showy they are. They are the antithesis of the big flashy modern day sand faced bunkers with their pretty crumbling faces that set up so well for photography yet don't act as much of a hazard.

In short, the architecture at Oakmont does nothing to try to make you like it - and that's what I love.

Cheers,

[Bradley Anderson]

The last large open piece of land on Chicago's north shore was the Great Lake Naval Air Base. After it closed in 2001 Fazio was brought in to build a $150/round course.

Ok it was an airport. So what do you do when you are called in to build a high ticket golf course on a flat piece of ground? Well naturally you MOVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SOIL. Because everyone knows that flat golf courses are BORING. Now you would have no idea that the ground on that golf course was flat ground. There is nothing out there that is connected to the natural history of that property.

But what if they had built large greens like Oakmont, and cored out below grade shadowy and menacing bunkers? They could have kept it sparse with few trees, and maybe some prairie areas. It all could have been a really unique golf experience, instead it's just another boring golf course with curvilinear lines running every where and cookie cutter bunkers.

Bradley:

I would have liked to have a shot at that project, to build something more sustainable; but all of the decisions you describe trace back to that original goal of building a $150 golf course.  [I wonder how that price is holding up now?]

It would have been harder to do an Oakmont-like course on that site, however, because it was quite flat and had more drainage issues.  Oakmont is not as bad a site because it's reasonably hilly ... all those shadowy bunkers need is a bit of pipe to daylight at a lower spot.

P.S.  If I recall correctly, you are wrong that they didn't leave anything connected to the former site:  the parking lot for the clubhouse is part of the old airstrip! 

And you probably wouldn't have moved nearly so much dirt out there. They actually created hills. Somehow all the Chicago projects end up being moonscaped.

[Bill_McBride]

The last large open piece of land on Chicago's north shore was the Great Lake Naval Air Base. After it closed in 2001 Fazio was brought in to build a $150/round course.

Ok it was an airport. So what do you do when you are called in to build a high ticket golf course on a flat piece of ground? Well naturally you MOVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SOIL. Because everyone knows that flat golf courses are BORING. Now you would have no idea that the ground on that golf course was flat ground. There is nothing out there that is connected to the natural history of that property.

But what if they had built large greens like Oakmont, and cored out below grade shadowy and menacing bunkers? They could have kept it sparse with few trees, and maybe some prairie areas. It all could have been a really unique golf experience, instead it's just another boring golf course with curvilinear lines running every where and cookie cutter bunkers.

Bradley:

I would have liked to have a shot at that project, to build something more sustainable; but all of the decisions you describe trace back to that original goal of building a $150 golf course.  [I wonder how that price is holding up now?]

It would have been harder to do an Oakmont-like course on that site, however, because it was quite flat and had more drainage issues.  Oakmont is not as bad a site because it's reasonably hilly ... all those shadowy bunkers need is a bit of pipe to daylight at a lower spot.

P.S.  If I recall correctly, you are wrong that they didn't leave anything connected to the former site:  the parking lot for the clubhouse is part of the old airstrip! 

And you probably wouldn't have moved nearly so much dirt out there. They actually created hills. Somehow all the Chicago projects end up being moonscaped.

With all that 12" concrete and #8 rebar for the runways, the demolition might have been more expensive than the construction!

[Sean_A]

TePaul,

To paraphrase your post, 95% of the time you have a glass of red wine near at hand; this must have been one of the 5% of the times when you don't  . How good on a scale of 1 to 10 do you think the site was, especially given its heavy clay soil and a road cutting through it?

Sean,

Tons of work was done to the site to give it its golf interest; my point is the manner in which the work was done was so great that a green like the fifteenth looks natural. Ala Raynor, most of the dirt was moved for the tees and green pads which is the only/best way to remain true to the landscape while still providing the golfing interest.

Speaking of work done by man, the creation of the drainage ditch system is another unique attribute and why more architects never followed that example I don't understand as the ditches are both functional and strategic.

Re the bunkers, what I most admire is how a) penal they are and b) non-showy they are. They are the antithesis of the big flashy modern day sand faced bunkers with their pretty crumbling faces that set up so well for photography yet don't act as much of a hazard.

In short, the architecture at Oakmont does nothing to try to make you like it - and that's what I love.

Cheers,

Ran

I have a better idea of your position now, thanks.  I would agree entirely that Oakmont seems like it was built almost in disdain of what golfers like aesthetically (I believe very much like Fowler) - especially the bunkering (despite me not liking their penal placement), but also around the greens.  There doesn't seem to be many visual clues as to where are the best or worst places to be.  I also wonder about the ditches and often think this is a huge positive for Oakmont (the reason I mentioned drainage in my first post) because there is nothing better than form meeting function.  Best of all, the ditches strike me as in perfect balance with the bunkers - not terribly attractive, buit effective in that they cannot be ignored.  Many heathland courses have ditches about, but they aren't often taken advantage of in terms of impacting play.  I also find it interesting that the fairways weren't shaped, again, very much an English characteristic of the Golden Age (with again, Fowler being a great example of this style) to focus on greens and let the natural terrain (but with the odd bit of work here and there) with earnestly placed bunkers create the interest from tee to green.  

BTW - Where does your beloved Westward Ho! fit in on the Delta Scale? 

Ciao    

[Bradley Anderson]

The last large open piece of land on Chicago's north shore was the Great Lake Naval Air Base. After it closed in 2001 Fazio was brought in to build a $150/round course.

Ok it was an airport. So what do you do when you are called in to build a high ticket golf course on a flat piece of ground? Well naturally you MOVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SOIL. Because everyone knows that flat golf courses are BORING. Now you would have no idea that the ground on that golf course was flat ground. There is nothing out there that is connected to the natural history of that property.

But what if they had built large greens like Oakmont, and cored out below grade shadowy and menacing bunkers? They could have kept it sparse with few trees, and maybe some prairie areas. It all could have been a really unique golf experience, instead it's just another boring golf course with curvilinear lines running every where and cookie cutter bunkers.

Bradley:

I would have liked to have a shot at that project, to build something more sustainable; but all of the decisions you describe trace back to that original goal of building a $150 golf course.  [I wonder how that price is holding up now?]

It would have been harder to do an Oakmont-like course on that site, however, because it was quite flat and had more drainage issues.  Oakmont is not as bad a site because it's reasonably hilly ... all those shadowy bunkers need is a bit of pipe to daylight at a lower spot.

P.S.  If I recall correctly, you are wrong that they didn't leave anything connected to the former site:  the parking lot for the clubhouse is part of the old airstrip! 

And you probably wouldn't have moved nearly so much dirt out there. They actually created hills. Somehow all the Chicago projects end up being moonscaped.

With all that 12" concrete and #8 rebar for the runways, the demolition might have been more expensive than the construction!

No those are just really wide cart paths. 

[cary lichtenstein]

I think Oakmont belongs to the extreme side of the penal school of architecture. I thought that phase went out in the 80's with Nicklaus and Dye trying to out do one another.

Down here in Florida, Greg Norman's course, The Medalist, is almost universally disliked. No one wants to play it when invited, most turn down invitations. Besides being ugly, it just beats you up.

Why so many people like to be beat up at Oakmont is beyond the ability of my small brain to understand.

Now...Pebble Beach, that is a gem. I have played it over 100 times and never not enjoyed myself, regardless of how I played. It has so many nuisances, it is different every time you play it.

That is a true gem!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anthony Gray]

  George,

  Having never played Oakmont,but by listening to the comments of people that have.....I think I would leave there thinking I really suck at golf. And thinking Garland sucks even more. It sounds like it beats up the higher handicappers but is a great test for the better players. Therefore the better players would enjoy the course more than the less talented.I haven't heard an other course as polarized as Oakmont when it comes to skill level of the golfer. It would probably beat me and Garland up but be a treat for others.

  Anthony

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
To paraphrase your post, 95% of the time you have a glass of red wine near at hand; this must have been one of the 5% of the times when you don't. How good on a scale of 1 to 10 do you think the site was, especially given its heavy clay soil and a road cutting through it?"



Ranulph (Ran) Jean D'Algue Sartre DeTocqueville Morrissett VIII, my good man:


From your remarks above I do feel that very rare occurence bubbling up and cominng on----eg a very long post that may push the envelope on here of how long any single post may be; but allow me to preface it with this:

First of all----if you are ever going to reach the sunlit uplands of life and understanding, certainly including anything resembling an intelligent and sophisticated understanding of golf architecture instead of mucking around in the heavy clay soiled lowlands of boring and sober thought, particularly scientific or mathematical thought, with things like pre-golf course land and sites that have man-made railroad tracks running through them, with "delta" factors and course comparisons and even hole by hole "Match Play" comparisons and scales and such, even Doak Scales, you MUST begin to appreciate not just the importance but the incredible significance of red wine---hereinafter referred to as "The Grape," and all the magic and mysteries and including various mystery unlocking elements it contains and offers! (how is THAT for perhaps the most magnificent run-on sentence you have ever seen and/or read?)

It's endurance and history and certainly its importance exceeds that of golf course architecture IMMENSELY! In age alone "The Grape" exceeds Golf Course Architecture by 37.0373 TIMES! (162 years compared to 6,000 years). And, all this time you probably thought I had no interest in or understanding of mathematics, didn't you?

You need to understand that certain things must of necessity precede other things in life and it appears you need a bit more application for that understanding. A recent example, is the last time we saw each other, and at that terrific Italian restaurant somewhere in that inexplicable labryinth known as North Jersey. You did not even come close to finishing your last glass of delicous Mucci selected red wine----I had to do that for you, as I sometimes have to do with things to do with golf architecture!

Come along with me and I will show you the sunlit uplands of life and golf course architectural understanding in its most sublime state and you will see it is important, on this journey, to have a glass of red wine at hand at all times when the sun passes over the yard-arm, the timing of which often depends upon whether the proverbial ship is at rest and at anchor or out at sea heeling over in the embrace of a refreshingly powerful wind.

[JC Jones]

Ran,

Let me translate Tom's blabber for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TLYioRY4i4

[TEPaul]

JC:

THAT is fantastic---MARVELOUS---totally appropriate and makes my point of the importance of the "Grape" for not only achieving the highest reaches of golf architecture understanding and sophistication but for many and perhaps all things, and according to that good band, apparently for such things as how to handle various forms of unrequited love and how to transition on from there to pick up the best for the next relationship along the journey to the Great Redan in the Sky.

Lennon's "Imagine" is my favorite song but that group's "Red, Red Wine" just made the list.

Thanks.

[Garland Bayley]

...Pebble Beach, that is a gem. ... regardless of how I played. It has so many nuisances, it is different every time you play it.

That is a true gem!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thought I would preserve this gem.

[TEPaul]

"Why so many people like to be beat up at Oakmont is beyond the ability of my small brain to understand."

cary:

That is a very good question indeed but it most certainly is the truth. Never in my life and travels in golf have I seen another club with a membership like Oakmont that sort of enjoys the idea of getting tortured in many ways by their course as apparently Oakmonters do and have for many, many years. It seems to be sort of an ethos there; perhaps the ethos of Fownes, if you will. One might consider though that there are an awful lot of good players there as was mentioned on this Women's Open telecast.

It's a bit like what people feel about Pine Valley or certainly used to feel about it even though not many members of Pine Valley in relation to the size of its membership ever played it as as steady diet as I'm sure Oakmonters play Oakmont. I would venture to guess that at any time in its history Pine Valley probably had well over 90% of its members that belonged to another club or clubs. It may even be more that way today and through the years than any other signifcant course in the world.

[Peter Pallotta]

I want a pair of sunlit upland-coloured glasses.

I'd see a Coore and Crenshaw everwhere.

I'd never fly a bunker, but they'd never be in the way.
The fairways would run like rabbits and the greens would stick like glue.

Max Behr would show up and congratulate me on my posts.

Drainage ditches would smell like roses and rain water taste like beer.

I'd shoot 67 at Oakmont from the tips, and never tell a soul.

I'd have no idea what I'm rambling about, and wouldn't care.

Best
Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()