[Steve Kohler]

I had the opportunity to play at Oakmont a few weeks ago with a long time member and multiple time club champion.  He made some interesting comments about Oakmont being the “most balanced” golf course in the country and playable by all skill levels.   His argument (probably butchered by me) was as follows:

-   There are 2 par 3’s on each side – the first is short (#6 and #13) and the second one long (#8 and #16)
-   The long par 4’s are downhill (#1, #7, #10, #15) and the short 4’s are uphill (#2, #5, #11, #17)
-   6 of the holes are on a east/west axis, 6 run north/south, 4 run SW/NE – so the player must adjust constantly to the wind direction
-   There are only a small handful of true forced carries (e.g. the second shots on #5 and #11).  Otherwise all of the trouble is along the sides of the holes, and the thinking golfer can navigate the course to avoid that trouble.

As a first time visitor to Oakmont, my lack of knowledge and subpar game limited my strategy mostly to “survival” mode on a brutally tough course.  Given time to reflect, I can appreciate his comments from the comfort of home though.  I believe a moderately skilled player familiar with the layout could think his way around that course, and minimize the opportunities to self-destruct (as I self-destructed trying to escape the Sahara bunker on #8 and Big Mouth bunker on #17).  The uphill/downhill par 4’s help offset any distance deficit a player might have, and the lack of forced carries (if in proper position) would minimize the do-or-die shots.  Clearly there is a premium for hitting the ball to the correct position in the fairway though.

I’m interested to hear GCA’s opinion on the concept of “balance” and “playability”, and whether a course long considered one of the toughest in the world can truly fit that bill.

[Jeff Tang]

I'm by no means an Oakmont expert having played the course one time but in my lone play I found the course more playable than I anticipated it being. It's probably the most difficult course I've played in terms of once you're out of position it's hard to get it back in position and you're likely to make a big number. If you hit it where you're supposed to though it seems you are rewarded with playable holes. I think that's the way a tough course should play. Oakmont does this better than anywhere I've played especially since it's done without using water hazards or OB to achieve this result for the most part.

[Sean_A]

If you hit it where you're supposed to though it seems you are rewarded with playable holes.

This sentence bothers me.  For one, practically every hole on the planet rewards a shot where its meant to go with playability....it would be awfully harsh not to.  Two, the concept strikes me as very restrictive.  There is nothing wrong with penal design, but it will most certainly reduce playability.  In the case of Oakmont, the club has a legitimate argument for penal design due to being a regular host for high level events.

Ciao

[Jeff Tang]

Sean, I didn't really intend for the focus of my comment to be the portion that you highlighted. Rather my point is that I think a large part of Oakmont's difficulty comes from when you get out of position and the course penalizes a player more than other courses would. Of course Oakmont is hard no matter where you play your second shots from but feel the difference between being in position versus out of position is greater there than anywhere else I've played.

[Mark_Fine]

I love Oakmont (one of the my favorite golf courses on the planet) and have played it over a dozen times.  Couldn't disagree more about it being "balanced for all skill levels".  The average golfer would not have fun there if played on a regular basis unless they like shooting 110 and not finishing all the holes.  Not even worth an argument. 

[MCirba]

I love Oakmont (one of the my favorite golf courses on the planet) and have played it over a dozen times.  Couldn't disagree more about it being "balanced for all skill levels".  The average golfer would not have fun there if played on a regular basis unless they like shooting 110 and not finishing all the holes.  Not even worth an argument.

I generally play something like "all skill levels", sometimes in the course of a single round. 

With that level of skill variance, I believe I'm uniquely qualified and in fact will volunteer to go out to Oakmont and settle this argument once and for all.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

It might be a good, balanced, championship test for good players with different game strengths.  I have only played once and would have to think about that a bit more deeply to really answer.

Playable by all skill levels, it is not.  I have only played once and really struggled.  On the other hand, the greens got into my head on the first, after three putting from about 12 feet.  If I could have two putted any of the first couple of greens, they may not have cowed me that much.......LOL. 

[Eric LeFante]

What is striking to me about Oakmont is that 12 of the 14 par 4s and 5s have hazards on both sides of the fairway the same distance from the tee. I know the ditches are there for drainage purposes but it seems incredibly penal to have a ditch a couple yards from one side of the fairway and then deep bunkers on the other side of the fairway (Holes 2, 9, 18). The only option off the tee seems like hitting it straight down the middle. There may be very few forced carries, but even scratch golfers have a hard time keeping it between a ditch and pitch-out bunkers.

[Mark_Fine]

It is a great course but an extremely penal golf course.  If my old golf league played there the rounds would take 6 hours and half the players would have picked up on at least several holes. 

[George Pazin]

I love Oakmont (one of the my favorite golf courses on the planet) and have played it over a dozen times.  Couldn't disagree more about it being "balanced for all skill levels".  The average golfer would not have fun there if played on a regular basis unless they like shooting 110 and not finishing all the holes.  Not even worth an argument.

This, and your later comment, stand in direction contradiction to everyone I know who has played Oakmont more than once.


Virtually everyone, after first playing the course, says, it's simply too hard to play on a repeat basis.


Those who then have the opportunity to play it again say, without exception, besides you apparently, that it is more playable than he realized.


When I did my long, drawn out discussion of the course, I received many many many private messages from people who shared stories similar to what I shared above. I had one poster who said he played two older ladies and said he was dreading the round, expecting to be stuck waiting on them all day. He said he never waited on them after the second hole.


So, with all due respect, and I mean that, I call bull shit. Completely. If you play with some idiot who thinks he is putting for the US Open, sure, I can see that. Otherwise, no, no, no, no and no.

[David Davis]

The only thing in my book that throws off his premise would be the difficulty of the greens and putting. All skill levels have no place on greens running at 13 on the stimp. Or perhaps it wasn't about the greens or surrounds. At Oakmont you need to be a great putter to get around or you will most certainly have as many or more putts than other shots. I myself watched someone who was totally freaked out by the speed of the greens and a pretty decent high single hcp'er end up picking up on several greens after hitting them in regulation. I'm not saying they were 4 and 5 putting them for example but had they not picked up they very well might have.


What Sean says is also true, hit your shots where they are supposed to be and every single course is playable. Hit your approaches with in 2 meters of the hole on all of Oakmont's greens (i.e. where they are supposed to be played) and I'm certain most decent putters can make a lot of 2 putts ;-)

[Sinclair Eaddy]

It goes without saying that Oakmont is an extremely difficult golf course. I think for most people playing there more than once, they remember the number of no-go positions, short-sides and bunkers (read: sand pits) that can wreck a round and they simply avoid them at all costs. This surely will save a few strokes in the pummeling that Oakmont has in store for you. Putting is an entirely distinct ordeal. 

[Mark_Fine]

Without question the course is not playable by all skill levels.  There is NO debating this.  If you think otherwise you have ZERO clue about how the average golfer plays golf!!!!

[Mark Saltzman]

Why can't most golfers finish every hole? There may be some pitching out sideways from fairway bunkers, and three and four putting, but there isn't any water.

[George Pazin]

Without question the course is not playable by all skill levels.  There is NO debating this.  If you think otherwise you have ZERO clue about how the average golfer plays golf!!!!

Seriously, Mark? There is NO debating this? You think I have ZERO clue how the average golfer plays golf?


I'm not even going to say more, because I will regret what I have to say to you.

[Mark_Fine]

George,
With all due respect if you think the hardest most penal "great" golf course I have ever played (over 1500+ courses around the world) is playable for ALL skill levels (as the title of this post states), then yes you are clueless! 

If you or anyone thinks that Just because most golfers could play this course with one ball (assuming they had a good caddie) that it means the course is playable for ALL skill levels then we have an entirely different definition of playable.  It might be "playable" for all skill levels as a match play course because then someone can pick up after 10 strokes and concede the hole to their opponent who got a 9!  But that get old fast and I don't consider that playable or any fun for all!
 

[John Connolly]

Does Oakmont tend to be a someone's 1st or 2nd club? Or is it a mixed bag?

[George Pazin]

Mark,


Ok, you're actually engaging me, so I'm assuming there can be SOME debate...


Two questions:


1) Re: your hypothetical, golfer wins hole 10 v 9 over other golfer. Do you think this is commonplace on Oakmont? Do you think the average golfer shoots upwards of 150 at Oakmont?


2) You've played 1500+ courses worldwide. Kudos to you, I don't think I've hit my 100th course yet. You typically shoot in the 70s. My last pencil and card round was at Mountain Ridge in NJ 2 years ago and I shot 107. Which one of us do you think has better clue as to what the average golfer wants and how he plays?

[Mark_Fine]

George,
I know you.  You are a smart guy.  Why are we arguing something so stupid.   According to the National Golf Foundation, the average golf score remains where it has been for decades: 100.  The USGA says that the average golf handicap for men is 16.1, and is 29.2 for women.  The National Golf Foundation breaks down scores this way:


Average Score - Under 80 - 5% of golfers
80-89 - 21% of golfers
90-99 - 29% of golfers
100-109 - 24% of golfers
110-119 - 10% of golfers
120+ - 11% of golfers

So to answer your questions, 1) No not every "average" golfer shoots 150 at Oakmont, but we are talking about ALL SKILL levels!  So yes, most of those golfers who shoot 110 and above will likely be in that 150 range if they played Oakmont by the rules of golf.  And 2) I renovate/restore golf courses for a living (been doing that for 14 years now) and I have a pretty good idea about how all levels of golfers play. 


The bottomline is this, Oakmont is without a doubt one of the most penal and difficult golf courses in the world (even people on this website who like to argue for the sake of arguing won’t debate that).  Oakmont is not in the same breath also considered “a well balanced and playable golf course for all skill levels”!!!!!!!!!!  It makes ZERO sense!  Please let's stop this stupid argument. 

[Sean_A]

Sean, I didn't really intend for the focus of my comment to be the portion that you highlighted. Rather my point is that I think a large part of Oakmont's difficulty comes from when you get out of position and the course penalizes a player more than other courses would. Of course Oakmont is hard no matter where you play your second shots from but feel the difference between being in position versus out of position is greater there than anywhere else I've played.

Jeff


This is because Oakmont is an incredibly penal design.  If you didn't have a hard time when out of position the design is crap at what its meant to accomplish. 

In the words of the great George P, I gotta call bullshit on the notion of balance and playable in relation to Oakmont.  It is hard to imagine a course that is less balanced in terms of its design.  Practically every hole asks a specific question for which there is essentially one answer...hit it straight stupid.  Where is the balance?

Playability?  Okay, compared to OOB and water, Oakmont is very playable.  However, in the big world continuum of golf, playability isn't the way I would describe Oakmont.  Its far better to call a spade a spade and it strikes me as common sense that the harder a course, the less playable it is.  Folks that pretend some courses can be all things to all people..are, well pretending.  Why can't we leave Oakmont as a great penal design which can host majors?  Does it need to "playable"?  Do members want it to be "playable"? 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
AMEN!

[Peter Pallotta]

My guess is that one of the reasons for the disagreement between George and Mark is the different definition/ description of the term "playability" that they bring to the table.

If as an average golfer I played Oakmont from the appropriate tees and had my average/typical round of ball striking, chip/pitch/bunker shots and putting, I'd fully expect my final score to be higher, perhaps much higher, than it is on my home course.

But with that as a given, I also imagine that if I focused on and somehow managed to stay below the hole on those fast greens, and thus limited somewhat my number of 3 putts, it might not be exponentially higher.   

Now, if I had a below-average driving day (and was very often in the rough/bunkers) and/or if I didn't stay below the hole on most of those fast greens, and had not only a whole bunch of 3 putts but also some 4 putts, my score would be exponentially higher.     

I wouldn't like that so much, and I'd probably feel a bit embarrassed at my very high score, but I'd know what that exponentially higher score was built upon, i.e. rough/bunkers and length and hard fast greens.

And, as an average golfer, I wouldn't blame the golf course for that, I'd blame myself.  I'd think to myself: "If I'd hit a few more fairways and if I stayed below the hole, I would've score higher, maybe much higher, than I do back at home, but not exponentially higher. That I did so was my fault, not the course's". 

And I can imagine -- maybe like George can also imagine -- coming off the 18th green and thinking "Wow, that's a really hard golf course, but it was indeed quite playable". 

And why would I say that? Well, in part because I'd just finished playing it. But also because (to come full circle to my opening line) I'm a dedicated but average golfer -- and dedicated average golfers tend to think that way.

Good golfers don't think that way.  They have a different definition for and experience of "playability".

Peter

[Terry Lavin]

Great course. Love it. In my top 5 played. But playable for all levels?  Uh, no. The fairway bunkers are too plentiful and too penal. You can run the ball onto most of the greens, which is a plus, but then you have to putt the greens.

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Just about any course is very playable if you do your damdest to avoid interfacing (hello Mucci!) with its features.  If you want to hit 7 irons off the tees to keep straight and chip half way to the hole to stay below the holes, why sure, the course is playable.  However, what is the point in so called playing what is meant to be one of the best courses on the planet that way?  I can't understand why its so hard to admit or understand why some courses are inherently more or less playable than others.  Seems a straight forward concept to me.  Penal design is meant to be less playable...no?  Courses with higher SSS are meant to be less playable...no?  It doesn't seem possible to me that a course can be extremely difficult, but very high on the playability continuum. This thread has me completely bewildered.  A savvy person needs to create an X-Y graph 


Ciao

[cary lichtenstein]

Jeez, playable for all levels, that is not even remotely true. As a skilled golfer, it brutalized me. It beat me up unlike any other course I ever played. I'd prefer to stay home and be brutalized by my wife.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()