How can Oakmont be Great with Such Restricted Driving Zones?

[Mark Pritchett]

It's not set up that way for membership play.
I thought places like Merion were far tougher by an over the top set-up.

I found it fun because they had reasonable rough, the fescues were set much further back and the greens were fast but not unrealistic. I would describe my time there as ... fun.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts, thanks Ian.

[David Davis]

I was curious about some of these stories/rumors so had a chat this evening with a friend that's a member of Oakmont.


He said that the ONLY thing they do for the US Open is to grow the rough, width stays the same as does green speed. They don't slow it down for the Open. However, he noted that there are a few special members tournaments were they pretty much max out the speeds.


Mike Davis is on record as saying Oakmont is the only course that could host a US Open on 3 weeks notice.


I've only had the chance to play Oakmont once, the total experience was great, my golf was less so but admittedly I was a little overwhelmed with the first play. Not the first time while playing a great course but next time, if I ever have the chance I should be able to calm down and play a little better. It's can be hard when an experience really means a lot to you to really be able to sit back, relax and take it all in. It felt like it was a blur and a struggle. Funny enough my struggle was off the tee but I heald my round together by playing great golf (for me) around the greens and putting really well. It felt like a struggle to the last shot but it was fun nonetheless. Again I'm certain the next round will be far better and also that the course is really playable if you choose the right tees and play a few times getting the feeling for it.

[mike_beene]

First, I really enjoyed the place and think it is beautiful. Reminds me of Muirfield the way you see the whole course from the clubhouse. I suspect some of the speed perceptions are historical. I bet it was far faster in a day to day basis than other courses 30 years ago. Now it seems everywhere you go greens are fast. The slightly downhill putts are wicked at Oakmont just as they are at a lot of older courses with greens following the land. You can only go so fast and the ball wont sit still.

[Sean_A]

Oakmont has never been one of those courses I have jumping to play though I would love to one day because of its history.  I am not terribly keen on too much penal architecture, but then I like Merion a lot.  Its not penal like Oakmont with hazards, but when the rough is 3-4 inches it doesn't matter with fairways as narrow as Merion's...its effectively a penal course if set-up that way.  Still, much of the card at Oakmont reminds of Merion and from the daily tees the length won't bust your balls.  I said in the Woodhall thread that I could be more forgiving of a penal design if the greens and/or terrain was more interesting....that seems to be the case at Oakmont.  Maybe I should add it to me dream list?  Where is Pittsburgh...is it east of the Mississippi?


To answer the question..yes, I think a penal course can be great.  When I evaluate courses I try to do so through the eye of what was intended and then work from there.  The big problem with penal courses is that its much tougher to get variety in the design simply because of the dictating hazard placement.


Ciao

[James Brown]

I think another interesting dimension is that there are at least several other courses near Oakmont that most people from the area will tell you are just as good of a test as Oakmont in terms of severity of test and green speeds, but not widely know because they never got a chance to host the Open.  Fox Chapel is one that's very similar. 

[Tom Birkert]

I don't think Oakmont is great. 


I think it is a great test of golfing ability and ideal for a major championship like the U.S. Open.  However, I firmly believe if it were a modern design by Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus that many people on this website would trash it without a second thought.  Every square inch of it is penal and punishing, it is the anti-thesis of playable for the hack yet challenging for the scratch man.  It is 100% a challenge for the scratch man and a raking through the coals for the hack.


Since I firmly believe that a "great" course does embody the mantra, 'playable for the high handicap while, at the same time, presenting a challenge for the scratch man'...I, therefore, believe Oakmont is solely a great test of golf for the world's elite golfers.

Mac,

I have to disagree. There's no water. There are few - if any - forced carries of any distance. A lot of the greens allow (even encourage) shots running on to the green.

The greens might be incredibly difficult, which might make scores higher, but a high handicap can navigate their way around it far more easily that, say, Pine Valley.

[Jason Topp]

I have never played the course but it seems from television that Oakmont is a purely penal course and, in that sense, runs directly contrary to the widely held view here that width and options in terms of line off the tee are required for a great course. 


There are, however, three features of Oakmont that make up for the fact that nearly everyone will aim down the middle of the fairway:


1.  The greens - often discussed here
2.  The holes seem to sit nicely on the natural terrain - discussed some
3.   The course has four relatively short par fours - which add much more variety than many US Open courses, break up the monotony for the average player and require some interesting choices for the best players regarding how far they want to hit the ball off the tee.

[Mac Plumart]

Jason,

I agree with what you said. Oakmont has some incredible features.

Tom,

It's great to disagree. That makes for an interesting discussion.

Excellent point on no water. It does allow you to find your ball but then the high handicapper gets another attempt at a shot that is too difficult for him to execute properly.

I'd put it in the same category as Pine Valley. Both courses are meant to test the best in the world. By some definitions, this makes them great...and maybe the best in the world.

But by the defintion most of us seem to espouse on this site, and the view that Ross and Mackenzie shared, a truly great course must be playable for the hack and still a challenge for the scratch man.

It's all simply your point of view.

For point of reference, the courses I've seen that best fit the defintion of greatness I'm using include:  The Old Course, Pinehurst #2, and Old MacDonald.

[Mike Wagner]

I don't think Oakmont is great. 


I think it is a great test of golfing ability and ideal for a major championship like the U.S. Open.  However, I firmly believe if it were a modern design by Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus that many people on this website would trash it without a second thought.  Every square inch of it is penal and punishing, it is the anti-thesis of playable for the hack yet challenging for the scratch man.  It is 100% a challenge for the scratch man and a raking through the coals for the hack.


Since I firmly believe that a "great" course does embody the mantra, 'playable for the high handicap while, at the same time, presenting a challenge for the scratch man'...I, therefore, believe Oakmont is solely a great test of golf for the world's elite golfers.

There are exceptions to every rule ..

[Kalen Braley]

Great feedback guys, I've enjoyed reading the responses.

I did reckono that Pine Valley is a brute from everything i've seen and read about the place.  But once again, maybe its just my perception, but it seems that penal archicture isn't the only thing going on at Pine Valley.  It seems there are several holes which offer risk/reward. Holes where you can take on a daring line and be left with a much shorter approach or a much better angle into the green.  It also seems it has a lot more width in its fairways where one could play safer for a bogey instead of putting up a bigger number.

....as compared to Oakmont which seems to be "hit it here or else" on almost every hole and every shot where the danger must be interfaced.

[George Pazin]

I don't think Oakmont is great. 


I think it is a great test of golfing ability and ideal for a major championship like the U.S. Open.  However, I firmly believe if it were a modern design by Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus that many people on this website would trash it without a second thought.  Every square inch of it is penal and punishing, it is the anti-thesis of playable for the hack yet challenging for the scratch man.  It is 100% a challenge for the scratch man and a raking through the coals for the hack.


Since I firmly believe that a "great" course does embody the mantra, 'playable for the high handicap while, at the same time, presenting a challenge for the scratch man'...I, therefore, believe Oakmont is solely a great test of golf for the world's elite golfers.

Swing and a miss. A complete whiff, not even close to the ball.


Nice try, Mac...

[Ben Sims]

Oakmont is clearly a great golf course. The way the course moves over the land is ingenious. There are some bold choices for routing that work beautifully. The greens are placed not in juxtaposition of the slopes, but in agreement with them. The maintenance matches the architecture. The course is simultaneously compact and expansive, beautiful yet intense. There are generally several options for handling the inevitable adversity that the course provides. I could play it everyday.

[Bill_McBride]

I don't think Oakmont is great. 


I think it is a great test of golfing ability and ideal for a major championship like the U.S. Open.  However, I firmly believe if it were a modern design by Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus that many people on this website would trash it without a second thought.  Every square inch of it is penal and punishing, it is the anti-thesis of playable for the hack yet challenging for the scratch man.  It is 100% a challenge for the scratch man and a raking through the coals for the hack.


Since I firmly believe that a "great" course does embody the mantra, 'playable for the high handicap while, at the same time, presenting a challenge for the scratch man'...I, therefore, believe Oakmont is solely a great test of golf for the world's elite golfers.

Swing and a miss. A complete whiff, not even close to the ball.


Nice try, Mac...

I was awestruck when I played Oakmont although it was tree lined then.  Although very demanding it was fun trying to grapple with the challenges.  I'd love to see it now with the long open views. 

[Mac Plumart]

I don't think Oakmont is great. 


I think it is a great test of golfing ability and ideal for a major championship like the U.S. Open.  However, I firmly believe if it were a modern design by Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus that many people on this website would trash it without a second thought.  Every square inch of it is penal and punishing, it is the anti-thesis of playable for the hack yet challenging for the scratch man.  It is 100% a challenge for the scratch man and a raking through the coals for the hack.


Since I firmly believe that a "great" course does embody the mantra, 'playable for the high handicap while, at the same time, presenting a challenge for the scratch man'...I, therefore, believe Oakmont is solely a great test of golf for the world's elite golfers.

Swing and a miss. A complete whiff, not even close to the ball.


Nice try, Mac...

 

[Carl Rogers]

I don't think Oakmont is great. 


I think it is a great test of golfing ability and ideal for a major championship like the U.S. Open.  However, I firmly believe if it were a modern design by Rees Jones or Jack Nicklaus that many people on this website would trash it without a second thought.  Every square inch of it is penal and punishing, it is the anti-thesis of playable for the hack yet challenging for the scratch man.  It is 100% a challenge for the scratch man and a raking through the coals for the hack.


Since I firmly believe that a "great" course does embody the mantra, 'playable for the high handicap while, at the same time, presenting a challenge for the scratch man'...I, therefore, believe Oakmont is solely a great test of golf for the world's elite golfers.

I vote with you.  If Golf Digest continued to do its experiment of having "regular" golfers play the same course, they would not break 120.  The set-up question I have is the rough?? Is a real recovery shot possible out of it?

[Mark Pritchett]

Carl,


When I played in September a couple of years ago I was able to advance the ball out of the rough.  My caddy said the only noticeable difference between the US Open set-up and everyday play was the rough is usually a little bit thicker/taller.


Mark

[Terry Lavin]

Oakmont is great. It's not overly penal unless the greens get out of control and the rough is goofy. Right now the rough is around 6-7 inches.  I will guess that they'll trim it to 4.

The penal part of Oakmont in my judgment is found on the ground hazards like the bunkers and the ditches, which are omnipresent. The bunkers are very steep. Pros don't care about that like we do. The drainage ditches are demonic. The pros will almost always avoid them.

The greens are tough but manageable. Compared to the goofy, agronomic trampoline, upside down saucers at Pinehurst and the brownish asphalt at Shinny and Pebble, these greens will receive shots but not give up many birdies.

It's a great test of golf and as good a US Open course as any that has hosted the championship in my lifetime.

Sheesh, I hope it doesn't suck!   

[Kalen Braley]

I fired up Google Earth and took a bunch of random measurements in various landing zones on Oakmont and Pine Valley.  (I should say as best as I can tell what were the DLZs  as I haven't played either).

What I found was a little surprising in that in most cases, the fairways at Pine Valley are nearly twice as wide as Oakmont, which I didn't expect based on PV's also very difficult reputation.

25-30 at Oakmont, 45-55 at Pine Valley.

[Kevin Lynch]

In its current set-up (mainly the zero-option rough), I would have to agree with Mac that it isn't a great course for the reasons he stated.  It is a test only for the elite, and even in the case of a US Open, I'd argue that the rough is overkill, simply because the wonderful greens, slopes and firmness will adequately punish a shot into reasonable-length rough.  That's the main reason I'm really not all that excited about this year's event, because the hack-out back to the fairway is boring relative to the failed recovery attempt.


But as I've been listening to player interviews this morning, I've heard most of them describe "options," which I really hadn't considered given the penal nature of the course.  But given the relatively short length of the course (when considering firmness or elevation). players can really choose from different levels of aggressive & conservative play.  So, in that respect, the restrictions in the driving zones can lead to a positive result (i.e. tee club decisions instead of the default Driver).


Outside of US Open set-up, I was pleasantly surprised how playable Oakmont was in my few trips around.  The rough was difficult, but would allow you to make some recoveries (although quite demanding).  You really couldn't lose a ball (and if you know my game, that's saying something), and there were chances to be a hero.  Sure, the greens were fast, but you were able to adjust to that, with only a few places where I recall it being physically impossible to lag close.  I have zero problem with the omnipresent bunkers, as that's the price you play, but there's still a recovery chance. 


Having said that, it's certainly not the type of course I would want to play all the time, even with a more reasonable set-up.  Penal is simply not my preferred design, and I'd rather have a few more angle options to choose from.  I'd prefer a bold green contour punish me for an improper line of attack, rather than thick rough, but to each his own.




I did look back at the Historic Aerials, and noted that the fairways have been narrowed and bunkers moved inward over the past 60 years.  As much as the membership may want to talk about Fownes' intent, they seem to have stepped up the demands even more than what was there (perhaps working a little too hard to keep up the "difficulty" mystique).