Oakmont and rough

[George Pazin]

It seems to me, you're ignoring the opinions of the posters who were actually there.

It seems to me, you're ignoring the opinions of the players who actually played.

It seems to me, you're ignoring the opinions of the officials who worked the event.

It seems to me, you're ignoring the intent of the original architect.

It seems to me, you're ignoring the mandate of the members.

It seems to me, you're making broad generalizations that are not supported by the specific facts.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

I believe that there was a discussion with respect to course set-up for match versus medal play some time ago.

You make some interesting points, but remember that medal play rounds were conducted on the golf course.

Margaret C,

Your "envy" comment leads me to believe that you didn't understand the essence of the discussion.

Are you positive that the fairways haven't been narrowed ?
Before answering, you may want to review photos taken in previous years.

Are you positive that the rough hasn't been made deeper/thicker ?
Before answering, you may want to review photos taken in previous years.

TEPaul & George Pazin,

I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for its difficulty is its greatest charm,  But when, in spite of the vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting.

[MargaretC]

Patrick, Patrick, Patrick, the "Oakmont-envy" comment was just a bit of a tweak for levity.  

Hopefully, Mark Studer will comment concerning the fairways and rough.

IMHO, your comment, I should never care to argue for anything which would lessen the difficulty of the game, for its difficulty is its greatest charm,  But when, in spite of the vast improvement in the ball, in seeking to preserve the difficulty and to make scoring as hard as it was in the old days, we make the mistake of destroying the effect of skill and judgement in an important department, I cannot help protesting. does not apply to Oakmont.

Oakmont was a devil of a course when it was created by its founder and it continues to challenge.  I do not think that the Oakmonts of the world destroy the effect of skill and judgement; however, that's my opinion and we can agree to disagree.  

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

I agree with you almost totally with regard to the ball.

I'm simply saying that I was there, MargaretC was there, JohnV was there, I spoke to actual competitors, I spoke to a couple officials & no one seemed to feel the rough was as bad as you're making it out to be.

I personally watched Casey Wittenberg hit a shot from an incredibly awkward stance in the deep hay on the church pews from about 160-170 yards out, significantly uphill to & through the green on #3.

I also assisted several marshals in finding balls in the rough & it never took more than a few seconds.

I also watched the winner, young Flanagan, repeatedly get up & down from the thick rough.

To contrast this with another western PA course, I lost at least a half dozen balls in the rough at Mystic Rock when I played there 2 years ago. These were not balls that rocketed into the woods, they were shots that hit fairway & ran out, yet I couldn't find the ball in the lush thick rough.

No one dislikes hack it out golf more than me, but this wasn't even close. No one is giving Oakmont a free pass on this issue. The high scoring (if you call it that - as JohnV pointed out, it matched up well with the course rating) was the result of firm, fast, sloped & undulating greens. I rarely saw anyone leave a pitch, chip or even long lag putt stone dead.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Margaret C,

You should know that the paragraph you requoted was a direct quote from a letter Bobby Jones wrote regarding Oakmont.  

George Pazin,

What you, and many others who have frequented this site for years are missing is that my comments aren't about Oakmont, at least not as the primary focus.

For years many on this site have complained about the USGA,
about how the USGA has changed golf through the set-ups for the US OPEN courses.

The complaints have been that the USGA has eradicated or reduced strategy by NARROWING FAIRWAYS, letting the rough grow deep and thick, firming up the greens and excessively speeding up the greens.  Sound familiar ?

So, along comes Oakmont, with narrow fairways, deep, thick rough, firm and super fast greens and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Well, wait a second.

Isn't this what the USGA has been doing for years

Why is it okay at Oakmont, and not okay at Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Winged Foot, etc., etc. ?

You can't have it both ways ?

TEPaul,

Even you have to admit that praise of Oakmont's conditions, represents a double standard with respect to all of the criticism that has been directed toward the USGA for their US OPEN set-ups over the last few years.

Sooner or later, I'm hoping that the opinions/evaluations voiced by posters on this site will be consistently applied.  

[Eric Pevoto]

Pat,

With a quick scan, I might have missed this through the thread, but couldn't part of the criticism of the USGA Open setups and PGA setups simply be that the organizations attempt the same sort of setup every year regardless of the venue?  Why not a little variety?

Pinehurst is the only recent exception I can remember.  With regard to the PGA, the event at Whistling Straits should be interesting.

[MargaretC]

You should know that the paragraph you requoted was a direct quote from a letter Bobby Jones wrote regarding Oakmont.

Patrick, I'm underwhelmed that you found the need to plagiarize.  Knowing neither Mr. Jones nor the context in which he wrote that statement, it may be the case that I do not share Mr. Jones' opinion of Oakmont.

In terms of Oakmont, I am only aware that the USGA changed "par" for the US Am.  Since I do not place a lot of weight on "par," I could care less.

Why is it okay at Oakmont, and not okay at Oakland Hills, Oak Hill, Winged Foot, etc., etc. ?

You can't have it both ways ?

Although I'm familiar with the courses you've mentioned, my knowledge of those courses is limited so I'm not comfortable commenting on the changes, if any, that were driven by the USGA.

To me, a golf course is a work of art.  Comprised of 18 different holes, etc., but also part of a continuum.  Even if the changes at Oakmont were not made in the interest of restoration, beauty can be found both in the composition of each part as well as in the composition of the whole.  Oakmont has a beautiful flow -- each piece works together.

It may be the case that at the other club's you've mentioned, that the changes made stick out like a sore thumb and, as a result, detract rather than enhance the composition of the whole.

To me, that offers no argument for the existence of a double standard.  Changes that disrupt the composition of the whole evidence the absence of vision, planning, poor execution, etc.,

[Patrick_Mucci]

Margaret C,

I do not believe that any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all of the varying conditions possible-
varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc..

With respect to these other courses, if the changes aren't identical in their specific categories, use the terms from geometry, similar but not congruent, when viewing Oakmont, the USGA set-ups and the different courses.

The USGA set-up at Oakmont is exactly what they've done time and time again for previous US OPENS.

No changes stick out like a sore thumb at these other courses, as you allude to.  The USGA did the same things, narrow fairways, deep/thick rough, firm greens, and fast greens just like at Oakmont.

Is Oakmont the only golf course with a beautiful flow ?
Or do the Winged Foot's and other courses designed by classic architects enjoy the same feature ?

There are no changes that disrupt the composition at the other US OPEN courses.

I think you're grasping for straws, have lost sight of the issue, but to your credit, have doubled your effort.  

Posters can't have it both ways, either the Oakmont set-up was fine, as are the US OPEN set-ups, or the Oakmont set-up and US OPEN set-ups are wrong, too severe, too narrow, eliminating strategy.  These aren't my words, but the words of others.   As I said, they can't have it both ways.

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

One trick the USGA left out of their bag at Oakmont (to their credit) was the watering of approaches short of greens while keeping the greens surfaces firm.  Who can forget balls stopping dead short of greens at Pebble while those hitting the surface bounding on by into deep rough.

I still can't stand teh 6-8 inch grass collars bordering the fringes of greens.  I can't count how many times balls rolled just against them.  The punishment is out of proportion to the shot and the required recovery skills were left too much to chance.

[CHrisB]

Posters can't have it both ways, either the Oakmont set-up was fine, as are the US OPEN set-ups, or the Oakmont set-up and US OPEN set-ups are wrong, too severe, too narrow, eliminating strategy.  These aren't my words, but the words of others.   As I said, they can't have it both ways.

Patrick,

In future allegations of bias and double-standard, I would request that you name the particular posters that you are accusing.

Several posters have complained about U.S. Open setups, while others have had no opinion or defended the setups.

Several posters have lauded the setup at Oakmont, while others have had no opinion or challenged the setup.

Your blanket allegations of bias and double standard make it seem like (almost) everyone here loved Oakmont but criticized U.S. Open setups. You argue back and forth with MargaretC about this double standard, even though you really aren't accusing her, but other posters.

Why don't you just call out the posters you are accusing by name and get their explanation instead of arguing with third parties about it ?

By taking it up with third parties, you're letting those you accuse off the hook...

Or maybe you've given up on them...

[George Pazin]

I'm going to say this for the last time - if you choose to continue to ignore it, fine, whatever.

IMO, other posters opinions, some players opinions, some officials opinions, etc., the rough at Oakmont was not super thick lush hack it out rough. The fairways did not seem excessively narrow. I didn't see competitors hit the left side of the fairway, only to watch the ball roll the entire way across the fairway into the right rough, like I saw at Olympic in '98. I didn't see 10% of the fairways hit like some holes at Sandwich this year (though I did enjoy that setup for reasons I've already stated, if you care to look up the Open threads you can see them).

I am against hack it out rough. I do not generally like US Open setups. I prefer to see recovery shots, I think they make the game more exciting. I prefer setups like the one at #2, though I will say that to some degree it matters how the course was designed. Oakmont was designed to be penal; I don't think it would make sense to go to an all fairway cut approach like Augusta formerly had (though I think it would be an interesting & entertaining experiment).

If you choose to lump the setup at Oakmont this year in with all US Open setups (and try to paint a picture that every year the USGA is looking for a massacre at Winged Foot type setup ) and label this inconsistent with my beliefs on how a course should be set up, that is your choice, but don't think for one second that that makes it true.

[MargaretC]

Sheesh!  I've reached the conclusion, Patrick, that you are inclined to see ghosts where none exist.

I do not believe that any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all of the varying conditions possible-
varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc..

With 4400+ posts to your name, I'm curious if you keep a meteorological log of the courses you play so that you can determine the point at which you are qualified to have an opinion on either a particular hole or a golf course?

In determining the breadth of conditions that must be met, do you restrict yourself to annualized weather patterns or do you also include 100 year floods, etc.?

The world isn't black and white.  While I do believe that there are many double standards that exist, I'm not convinced there is one here.

Ciao!  

[JohnV]

Patrick, There are different setups for different courses.  Oakmont should be setup basically as it was.  I will repeat that the fairways were not narrowed and in some cases are 45 yards wide at Oakmont.  If I have a complaint with the USGA setup of the Open is that they do tend to try to setup all courses similarly, although since Pinehurst they have had a few more chipping areas around greens.  I would like to see a little more shortish rough around the greens at Oakmont so that balls don't just roll up to the jungle and leave those bladed wedge type shots for everyone.

Geoff, I think the did put a little water on the course on Saturday night and some of the approaches looked a little soft.  I didn't watch too much of it as I was out wrecking my car instead , but I did see Flangan's approach to the 37th hole and it seemed like it should have released more than it did.

[Eric Pevoto]

John,

Great point!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

If you've been tuning in for a while you know that there's no need to the list names of those who have been critical of USGA set-ups for the OPEN.

One only has to look as far as the Emporer-Russian Tea Room thread to get a sense of some opinions on the subject of the USGA, OPENS, Rees Jones and others.

I thought that Margaret C was a fresh and refreshing voice that would assist in the attempt to recognize and reinforce the competitive conditions at Oakmont, allowing the discussion to springboard  to USGA set-ups at OPENS and what I preceive as a double standard in that regard.

Margaret C,

You're 0 for 2.

The quote you requoted was a direct quote from Charles Blair MacDonald, perhaps you'd like to offer your dissent with respect to his opinions as well.

But, don't feel bad, in his earlier days, TEPaul made the same mistake, and still disputes CBM's words  
So you're in good company.

I appologize for being so devious  
And, hope you've had as much fun as I have.

I wasn't saying that your opinion was wrong, only trying to get you to answer the question of course set-up with a simple yes or no answer.  Since you suggested that the question was a set-up for a "gotcha" answer, I thought that I'd try a few, just for fun      NHF ?

George Pazin,

Are you telling me that you're going to compare the land and the way the golf course traverses the land at Olympic to the land and the way the golf course traverses the land at Oakmont ??

Geoff Childs,

I think you've hit on perhaps the most grievous of course set-ups, the watering of the areas in front of the green.
That one act creates the greatest inconsistency in playing conditions, and shouldn't be permited.

John V,

I don't think anyone disputes that each course is unique, but I think we can prudently state that a consistent general set-up pattern exists at US OPEN venues.

What would you say was the average width of the fairways in the driving zones ??

What hole had a 45 yard wide fairway driving zone ?

[TEPaul]

MaragretC;

I've been reading your posts with interest recently. I think you're a most observant analyst and a level headed contributor on here. But please, don't be too concerned with Patrick Mucci and his fixation on "double standard"---to him a rural two lane road is a "double standard"!

[ForkaB]

Geoff C

I fully agree with you about the idiocy of 6" dog collars around greens (particulary great ones, as I assume those at Oakmont are).  Surely the USGA has more imagination than that tired old set up, which is complete cop-out from showing what the essential contours of the course really are.  Also, agree fully re: watering of green approaches.  I played a course 2 weeks ago that was marvellously firm and fast, except for the 3-4 yards in front of the green.  It turned a potentially great golfing experience into a series of failed expectations.

[TEPaul]

"Also, agree fully re: watering of green approaches.  I played a course 2 weeks ago that was marvellously firm and fast, except for the 3-4 yards in front of the green.  It turned a potentially great golfing experience into a series of failed expectations."

That's almost the "Reverse Ideal Maintenance Meld" put into effect. The only way to top that is to make the green surfaces so rock hard no aerial shot or otherwise has a chance of success.  The idea behind this maintenance process is to shut down and negate every conceivable option and strategy.

[ForkaB]

Tom

The greens were pretty hard.  There was one way to get it close, i.e. hit a semi-spinning shot that landed about 12" in fornt of the watered bit and hope it bounced onto the green and then took some spin.

Rich

PS--don''t let your buddies at the USGA see this post, or this ideal maintenace non-meld might be the next "big" idea to humiliate the good golfers at the next Open or Amateur...........

[JohnV]

Patrick, I lied.  #7 is 41 yards wide and #12 is 43.  No 45s.  Also, #5 is 36 yards.  The rest are basically between 24 and 30 yards.  The average is 29.5 yards.  These numbers are from our course rating forms and at Oakmont landing zones can vary greatly due to bunkers that encroach.

I agree that the USGA has taken a consistent view of setup for the US Open and that is the problem.  The setup at Oakmont seemed to be correct for Oakmont, but that doesn't mean I can't be critical of them using the same setup at other courses where it might not fit.  I don't believe I've made a blanket statement that their setup is bad, just that it doesn't always fit the courses.

[George Pazin]

Re: Flanagan's shot in the playoff -

I was standing about 20 yards from where the shot hit. It appeared that it hit in a little hollow area that allowed it to bounce more up than forward. The hole, while generally downhill, does have undulations where some areas are steep & other areas are shallow. It is my understanding that the areas in front of the greens at Oakmont are maintained in the same manner as the greens - ie greens mowers set a little higher, they are top dressed, they are kept at the same firmness as the greens.

Patrick -

If that's what you care to take from my post, whatever, doesn't make it right. Others don't seem to have as much trouble understanding my version of English, but Rich G often does, too, so you're in good company.

[MargaretC]

Patrick, it's okay with me if you choose to add C.B. MacDonald to the list with Bobby Jones.  I'm relieved and pleased to be 0 for 2.  

I appologize for being so devious.

No appology is required, Patrick.  Devious?  No, I don't think you were being devious.  Strange may be a better descriptive, but that's okay, too.    

[Robert_Walker]

The bunkers (excepting the pews) did not appear to me to be in the middle of the rough. Therefore I believe the fairways were not narrowed a considerable amount.
Oakmont's bunkers and greens were the main elements with which players had to deal, and that is why N Flanigan won.


additionally,
The fronts of the greens were not soft as someone previously posted.

[Chris Kane]

Patrick,

I do not believe that any one is qualified to pass on the merits of any one hole, let alone eighteen holes, unless he has played them under all of the varying conditions possible-
varying winds, rain, heat, frost, etc..

Is the logical conclusion to this that only frequent players of a course can make any comments on its architecture?  It would make a forum like this very boring indeed.

[Forrest Richardson]

Chris, good point.

Many of the Golden Age architects were not players, yet they studies the merits of courses and made remarkable and thoughtful comments on their design.