16 at Oakmont

[Matt_Cohn]

I'm watching the US Women's Open replay. 16 just looks kind of plain compared to the other holes on the course. I'm sure it's plenty hard, but it looks like the least distinctive hole on the course. Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

You could say that about most long par-3 holes.


You could say it about the 8th at Oakmont, too, except somehow it gets some street cred for being EVEN LONGER than the rest of them.  That's the dullest green at Oakmont, with 16 in second place.


It's hard to build a great long par-3, if you don't have a coastline like Cypress Point's.  If the green isn't big and receptive, good players hate it, and everyone else is just making four anyway.  Yesterday on Instagram someone said that 16 at Streamsong (Blue) was one of their favorite holes on the course, and I responded that he was maybe the first person who had ever nominated it as a favorite.  Just guessing he made 2 there.

[Adam_Messix]

Tom--


In some ways it's appropriate that long par 3 holes should not have a particularly severe green.  It's a demanding shot to begin with.  There's also nothing wrong with having a subtle, tricky green every so often and #8 at Oakmont is misread fairly often.  16 may be the 2nd least interesting green at Oakmont but it's still a hand full.  That false front is enough to give the best players the shivers!


For many, the ultimate long par 3 golf is 16 at Cypress and that green is on the flat side too. 


There's nothing wrong with a change of pace in terms of green contouring.  The flattish 14th green at NGLA is a great change up between the severely pitched 13th and 15th holes. 

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:


It may be appropriate, but my point was that people don't fall in love with holes that have big, flat greens, with the unique setting of the 16th at Cypress Point being a notable exception.

[Craig Disher]

The hole was significantly softened in the 1920s, possibly due to frequent complaints about its difficulty.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom--


In some ways it's appropriate that long par 3 holes should not have a particularly severe green.  It's a demanding shot to begin with.  There's also nothing wrong with having a subtle, tricky green every so often and #8 at Oakmont is misread fairly often.  16 may be the 2nd least interesting green at Oakmont but it's still a hand full.  That false front is enough to give the best players the shivers!


For many, the ultimate long par 3 golf is 16 at Cypress and that green is on the flat side too. 


There's nothing wrong with a change of pace in terms of green contouring.  The flattish 14th green at NGLA is a great change up between the severely pitched 13th and 15th holes.

Adam,


I could do without the 8th at Oakmont. Just seems boring. Don’t see any real virtue.

[MCirba]

I think 16 is a superb hole, 8 not great but I believe both also have to be looked at from a course routing standpoint as they each utilize the available (flattish) land left between two terrific golf holes.  In the case of 16, it's placement connects two tremendous holes at 15 and 17

[Matt_Cohn]

The hole was significantly softened in the 1920s, possibly due to frequent complaints about its difficulty.

What was changed?

[Craig Disher]

The hole was significantly softened in the 1920s, possibly due to frequent complaints about its difficulty.

What was changed?

The previous version was 220+ yards with the tee located immediately left of the 15th green. The 16th green was very near the 17th tee and guarded on both sides by long, deep bunkers which extended well past the front of the green. The green and bunkers were angled in a clockwise direction which must have created a very difficult approach.

[Joe Bausch]

The hole was significantly softened in the 1920s, possibly due to frequent complaints about its difficulty.

What was changed?

The previous version was 220+ yards with the tee located immediately left of the 15th green. The 16th green was very near the 17th tee and guarded on both sides by long, deep bunkers which extended well past the front of the green. The green and bunkers were angled in a clockwise direction which must have created a very difficult approach.

Does this map from 1927 help at all?:

[Matt_Cohn]

(Removed)

[MCirba]

Let me see if this works...

[V. Kmetz]

It may feel like I'm hijacking the thread at this later point, but the conversation went to an area that causes me to cast this focus.

You could say that about most long par-3 holes. holes of 210 - 275 yards

You could say it about the 8th at Oakmont, too, except somehow it gets some street cred for being EVEN LONGER than the rest of them.  That's the dullest green at Oakmont, with 16 in second place.

It's hard to build a great long par-3, hole of 210 -275 yards if you don't have a coastline like Cypress Point's.  If the green isn't big and receptive, good players hate it, and everyone else is just making four anyway (or 5, 6, 7x - what percentage of all players actually hole out on this green?).  Yesterday on Instagram someone said that 16 at Streamsong (Blue) was one of their favorite holes on the course, and I responded that he was maybe the first person who had ever nominated it as a favorite.  Just guessing he made 2 there.

If this post, by a leading GCA of the last 25 years, who has as many courses on anybody's World Top 300 as you could expect, doesn't show the desultory and limiting effect of individual hole par on design, nothing will.


Looking at my cross-outs and insertions by comparison, doesn't TD's analysis really become...


"Except on a coastline subject to coastline elements, it's hard to build a satisfying hole of 210 - 275 yards, that has a flattish/tepid green." ?


I'm not trying to punish Tom's input with "gotcha" parsing, but where does that stop; where isn't that true?  280 yards?  300 yards?... or the other way.... 200 yards?  180 yards?  100 yards? 


TD's, among others in history, is long on the voluminous record that interesting greens make for interesting holes and interesting, amusing, memorable courses.  Why wouldn't that hold true for a 78 yard hole or a 278 yard hole or a 378 yard hole or 478 yard hole...and what is the thing that prevents the great designers past and present to remembering, locating and delivering that... because the hole says "3" on the card, and therefore a different set of criteria thus holds sway?


Individual hole par, especially in this steroidal tech era, has become a tired, inured limitation on the brilliance of the current design community to respond to the challenges and continue design innovations.  Removing it will not be a panacea for all design problems, or their solutions, but I believe it would breath new life into the various details that go into making course(s) of 18 memorable holes.  Isn't that the point.

[Matt_Cohn]

So what happened to that original 16th hole? It doesn’t exactly seem like the land is being used for something else now.

[Peter Pallotta]

VK -
I think Tom must walk a knife-edge, just about every time out. I don’t know how else to explain the rare kind of success he’s so long enjoyed, ie consistent critical acclaim + widespread public appeal and acceptance. Somehow he manages time and time again to capture the hearts & minds of commoner and cognoscenti both. Which is to say: I can add nothing to what you wrote, except to suggest that Tom’s notions about what makes for a “satisfying” golf hole may be at the very heart of his approach to golf course architecture.

[MCirba]

Here's some cool articles describing the change from the original hole.

Pittsburgh Press May 1927



Pittsburgh Daily Post August 1926





Brooklyn Daily Eagle June 1927 (next two snippets)

[V. Kmetz]

VK -
I think Tom must walk a knife-edge, just about every time out. I don’t know how else to explain the rare kind of success he’s so long enjoyed, ie consistent critical acclaim + widespread public appeal and acceptance. Somehow he manages time and time again to capture the hearts & minds of commoner and cognoscenti both. Which is to say: I can add nothing to what you wrote, except to suggest that Tom’s notions about what makes for a “satisfying” golf hole may be at the very heart of his approach to golf course architecture.

Agree with all, in greater measure than most here Peter, but this is much much less about Tom saying it, as to what he says.


Design doesn't (oughtn't to) know from par; and that's the point.


A hole of any length with an tepid green is probably not as good as one of similar length which is closer to boiling.