Oakmont: Balanced and playable by all skill levels?

[Bill_McBride]

I played there twice about 25 years ago when I was a short but straight driver of the ball with a good short game.  We played the member tees.  I shot around 90 both times, once 87 on a nice day and 92-93 on a rainy day. Both times my caddies were great and gave good guidance on where not to miss. I was in the fairway but short off most tees and laid up rather than getting in the brutal greenside bunkers.  On 10 I hit a 2-iron second just short. My caddy had me chip to the front right and the ball trickled close to a back left pin, great fun.  I found the course pretty playable for a guy with my skill set, but you have remember Clint's admonition:  "A man has to know his limitations."   Doing otherwise could definitely yield big numbers. 

[Jim Nugent]

Bill, what was your handicap back then?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, what was your handicap back then?

9-12

[Carl Rogers]

Isn't the "playability" a function of:
1. tees you play from?
2. length of rough?
3. green speeds?
4. flagstick locations?
5. relative firmness of fairways & greens?

[MCirba]

Rumor has it that a regulat contributor on this Board shot a fine 83 today on his first go round at Oakmont. 

Gives me hope that breaking 90 is realistic for a low to low-mid handicapper with a conservative strategy and some accurate ball striking.

[Mike Schott]

Isn't the "playability" a function of:
1. tees you play from?
2. length of rough?
3. green speeds?
4. flagstick locations?
5. relative firmness of fairways & greens?

Don't forget the ability to recover from a missed tee shot. A stroke penalty for a high handicap player is fine but if it takes them out of the hole it's not playable.


Second, there's the ability to recover from missing a green. It sounds like Oakmont is very penal if you miss to the wrong side of the green. This can happen at any course but it sounds like the penalty there is very penal.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
As you know, all "great" golf courses (even the toughest ones) are subject to very good rounds.  That is part of what makes them great.  But to argue that one of the most penal "great" golf courses in the world is also very balanced and playable by all skill levels is simply ludicrous.  If Oakmont is playable for all, then every "great" course is playable for all.  Name one that you think is great but not playable for all?  There wouldn't be any. 


I can think of brutally tough courses like Lagoon Legends outside Panama City, FL that is stupid hard.  It is definitely not playable for all skill levels but it is also not would I would classify as a great golf course. 
Mark

[MCirba]

Mark,


Get your point. 
In that regard, have you played Shore Gate?

[Mark_Fine]

I have not played Shore Gate.  Sounds like I should?

[MCirba]

Ummm....that's a course I think about when I consider unplayable for the average golfer.  An exercise in archtectural restraint it is not.

[Ben Wolfe]

I've been fortunate to call Oakmont home since I was a kid, and I do agree that the course is quite fair to all skill levels. There aren't any blind shots or overly tight holes, although small misses can be penalized greatly. It's very much in front of you and can be played a variety of ways. The biggest thing when out of position (i.e. in the fairway bunkers) is to get it back into play and not try and make a miraculous par. Bogey is a good score, and birdie chances are out there.. Patience is the key! Easier said than done, but I do agree.

[Mark_Fine]

Ben,
From your description it sounds like you are a pretty good player.  As such, I would expect you to think this way.  Can you name another "great" golf course that is not payable and fair to all skill levels?  You don't seem to like blind shots?  The National has almost a dozen of them.  Is that course unplayable to All?   You don't seem to like tight holes.   Merion has lots of tight holes.  Is that course not playable to All? 

Just because you probably won't lose a ball (with a good caddy) at Oakmont doesn't mean the course is playable for all.   No disrespect to Oakmont (as I love the course and give it close to a 10) but it would cause many golfers to give up the game.  It just wouldn't be any fun for them. 

I stand by my comment that if Oakmont is considered playable for All then every great course is playable for All as Oakmont is one of the most penal golf courses in the world. 

[Kyle Harris]

Just because you probably won't lose a ball (with a good caddy) at Oakmont doesn't mean the course is playable for all.   No disrespect to Oakmont (as I love the course and give it close to a 10) but it would cause many golfers to give up the game.  It just wouldn't be any fun for them. 

No, this is exactly the reason it is playable for all.

One gets around Oakmont by playing strokes, not by dropping under penalty strokes.

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
Trust me there are plenty of penalty stokes to be handed out at Oakmont. 

Players who don't routinely break 95 (and that is A LOT of golfers) would have on average at least one or two holes where they don't record a score because they couldn't finish it.  If that is playable for all then we have a different definition of what All skill levels can handle. 

No one here has yet to name a great golf course that they think is NOT playable for all? 

[Jim Nugent]

Kyle,
Trust me there are plenty of penalty stokes to be handed out at Oakmont. 

Players who don't routinely break 95 (and that is A LOT of golfers) would have on average at least one or two holes where they don't record a score because they couldn't finish it.  If that is playable for all then we have a different definition of what All skill levels can handle. 

No one here has yet to name a great golf course that they think is NOT playable for all?

Mark, why wouldn't they finish 1-2 or more holes at Oakmont? 

[Mark_Fine]

Some of the bunkers are inescapable for all but a good bunker player.   Playing ping pong with yourself back and forth across greens gets old and holds up play.  Most people concede after four or five putts when still not in the hole.  Want me to keep going 😉

[George Pazin]

No one here has yet to name a great golf course that they think is NOT playable for all?

TPC Sawgrass. If "you need to play it from the right tees" is your argument, then we're not just on different pages, we're on different planets.


It all comes down to one's definition of playable. There isn't a course on the planet I couldn't find a way to score an X. The Old Course? I could easily have to pick up on The Road Hole, or any number of other holes with brutal bunkers. That doesn't mean it's unplayable for all skill levels, it means I had a really bad hole. TPC Sawgrass, on the other hand, I will likely post a score that is in fact disqualifying, because my own personal understanding of the rules of golf are not strong enough to determine umpteen proper drop areas and penalty strokes. I suspect Mike's example of Shore Gate would be closer to Sawgrass than Oakmont.


The member quoted in the original post, and Ben Wolfe, have played Oakmont many many times, but somehow their opinions are trumped by Mark's, at least in his mind. By all accounts, all three are good players. It's up to everyone to decide whose opinion is correct.[/size]If your idea of playable is playable within a certain number of strokes of your handicap, then you will likely disagree.


I know who I support.


The reason this all matters is that we're a golf course architecture discussion site. There is much much much much much more to be learned at Oakmont than almost any water strewn course built in the last 50 years. Or desert course, for that matter.


But that's just my humble opinion, you are free to disagree. But you're not free to say we shouldn't discuss this.

[Mark_Fine]

George,
Your a smart guy and I respect your opinion (most of the time)  . However, in this case I don't buy your argument or anyone else's supporting Oakmont as playable for all skill levels.  Once again how can one of if not the most penal great golf course in the world also be playable for all?  It is an oxymoron. 


I guess one could say, Oakmont will beat the hell out of you but almost all players might still have the same ball at the end of the round.  Obviously we have totally different definitions of what is penal and what is playable.  Maybe we should leave it at that.
Best,
Mark 

[Sean_A]

Mark

So far as I can tell, nobody is debating the concept that Oakmont isn't penal...for it surely is a very penal course.  However, I think folks are saying the penalties are of the sort where the ball is found and played...hence the course is playable for all.  To me, both sides are far too black or white over the concept of playable for all skill levels.  I certainly don't believe a large percentage of golfers would fare very well in terms of score or getting the ball around in a timely manner. Oakmont is filled with trauma from tee to tee and it is this way for a purpose. 

Playability is a sliding scale and I think most would agree that in the big scheme of things that Oakmont is not balanced and playable by all skill levels compared to all courses on the planet. Of course, we would need to define "balanced", but to me balanced suggests a course which has a variety of styles of holes.  It is my opinion that Oakmont is predominately of the penal type of hole set up to challenge the best golfers so it isn't a balanced course...which isn't at all surprising since it is used for major championships.

Bottom line, its very difficult to have a course which is balanced and playable for all and yet can host a major where level par is a great score.  I don't believe any such animal exists especially when we consider what is done to more balanced courses to prepare them for majors.  If you want the course to be more playable then it must be more balanced.

I can't understand why we can't just say Oakmont is a great course.  Why do folks insist on giving it labels which is a wide stretch of reality?  Isn't being a great course nuff said?

Ciao

[George Pazin]

George,
Your a smart guy and I respect your opinion (most of the time)  . However, in this case I don't buy your argument or anyone else's supporting Oakmont as playable for all skill levels.  Once again how can one of if not the most penal great golf course in the world also be playable for all?  It is an oxymoron. 


I guess one could say, Oakmont will beat the hell out of you but almost all players might still have the same ball at the end of the round.  Obviously we have totally different definitions of what is penal and what is playable.  Maybe we should leave it at that.
Best,
Mark

I'm happy to agree to disagree. With you and Sean!

[Peter Pallotta]

What George says.


I played a great course once -  Crystal Downs.


It was fun. I did not then consider it, nor is it generally considered to be, a penal golf course.


And yet I shot about 18 strokes higher than I usually do.


Not coincidentally perhaps, CD has 18 greens. They were very difficult to putt, especially if you were out of position.


An average golfer is almost always out of position.


Should I now post my adament/unswerving belief that CD is neither balanced nor playable by all? Here goes:


Damn you, Crystal Downs! 


Despite your total lack of watery graves or forested out of bounds, and your more than adequately wide fairways and less than dauntng length and manageable rough, I shot my highest score in years there! Almost 20 strokes higher!


Why I didn't quit the round, indeed quit the game of golf entirely, is beyond me -- so depressed and demoralized was I.


You, Crystal Downs, may be a 10, but you certainly are not a balanced and playable test!


And I don't want to hear another word about it!