How difficult are the courses you play?

[Jared Willerson]

This periodically happens when you take something that was intended to be an art and make it a science.

That is what has happened to golf course architecture. There are "rules" now like never having a par 3 opener or closer etc, etc, etc. The people with no imagination but good rule following/organizational skills have taken over, like they do everything else and they have basically ruined it.....just look at golf swing instruction.

One of the reasons I like Brian so much is his philosophy that there is no one way. He also does a good job of allowing science to make him a better artist...and not allowing science to make him a rule following dork.

 

[ggsjpc]

GGSJPC-

how would it be a laughing stock? b/c it has blind shots?

taking out the 800 trees several years ago was the best thing ever and from all intents and purposes it returned it to the "classic" theme and design.

I am not doubting it may have some "quirky" holes and blind shots, but I can't think of many courses build lately I have seen and thought "classic".

never stepped a foot on Oakmont so I ask you to please clarify your opinion, for my own understanding.

I think it would be considered a tricked up. No one nowadays builds greens with 6% or 7% slope on them like Oakmont has. The severity of the greens is what makes them quick. Gravity plays too large a role in the playing of the hole.

Now granted, green severity is a product of the turf they used to play on. I'd be willing to say that many major rotation clubs have this trait but it doesn't make many of them as severe as Oakmont.

I have no problem with everyone playing under the same conditions or the course being difficult. All I am saying is that Oakmont is not a great design(except the last few holes) and the first few holes leave much to be desired. Flagpole, short hole, flagpole, flagpole.

 

[birdie_man]

This periodically happens when you take something that was intended to be an art and make it a science.

That is what has happened to golf course architecture. There are "rules" now like never having a par 3 opener or closer etc, etc, etc. The people with no imagination but good rule following/organizational skills have taken over, like they do everything else and they have basically ruined it.....just look at golf swing instruction.

One of the reasons I like Brian so much is his philosophy that there is no one way. He also does a good job of allowing science to make him a better artist...and not allowing science to make him a rule following dork.

We have a par 3 opener and it's great.

162 from the back tees.

One high-lipped bunker short and right. 2 more bunkers long and left.

All 3 sets of tees very close to the clubhouse.

That's 2 stories of people watching you for the entire hole and even heckling you a little if you hit a bad shot.

(ground level and the second story deck that wraps around the building)

It's a great hole. No par 3 opener my ballzzz.

I also like good sense. (though it's of course subjective to a degree)

One more thing that I don't get is super-watered, super-lush, super-"perfect" golf courses.

Bah.

Esp. the fairways.

I think they may have the idea over in Europe.

 

[otto6457]

It looks like I have grabbed one of the openings at Southern Hills the day after the US Amatuer next week. We get to play the course as it is setup for the tourney.


I'll report back.

So......is the game ready for Southern Hills?

I hope you've been hitting it well. Give us the run down when you play it.

 

[niblick1]

I think they may have the idea over in Europe.

Especially with the bias there against slow play.

Saturday I played behind the assistant pro and his group -- 4:30 for 18. Hard to get the marshall to move his boss along.

 

[Richie3Jack]

Especially with the bias there against slow play.

Saturday I played behind the assistant pro and his group -- 4:30 for 18. Hard to get the marshall to move his boss along.

We played in 4:20 on Saturday and were genuinely ecstatic.





3JACK

 

[birdie_man]

Especially with the bias there against slow play.

Saturday I played behind the assistant pro and his group -- 4:30 for 18. Hard to get the marshall to move his boss along.

Ya word. My home course hasn't been real busy but when it is our marshals generally do little.

(they do get paid well too)

 

[matt kluck]

A Bit of History

I think it would be considered a tricked up. No one nowadays builds greens with 6% or 7% slope on them like Oakmont has. The severity of the greens is what makes them quick. Gravity plays too large a role in the playing of the hole.

Now granted, green severity is a product of the turf they used to play on. I'd be willing to say that many major rotation clubs have this trait but it doesn't make many of them as severe as Oakmont.

I have no problem with everyone playing under the same conditions or the course being difficult. All I am saying is that Oakmont is not a great design(except the last few holes) and the first few holes leave much to be desired. Flagpole, short hole, flagpole, flagpole.

Sam Snead said #3 was his favorite hole in golf. Mr. Fownes who designed the golf course created greens that rewarded well struck shots. His greens were fast in 1903 to the point that he would drop a ball on the back of #2 and if it did not roll of of the green he had the greens crew cut the greens again thus the idea of turf conditions does not carry any weight. And yes, they slowed the greens for the open and watered them daily for the 2007 Open. Mr. Fownes and a fellow club member, George Ormiston spent many winters in Pinehurst with a certain great architect, D Ross and when Pinehurst converted their greens from sand greens to grass greens (I believe this occured in 1931), D Ross spent over 3 months studying the greens at Oakmont before designing the famed greens at #2. Oakmont without trees is 3-5 shots tougher now than when you played the course because wind is a factor and the rough is healthier. Blind shots are a part of golf and the "flafpoles" were removed for the Open in 2007. Oakmont is a drivers delight and as penal as any course I have ever played. Blind shots were not blind when the course was designed because in the original aerial photographs cross bunkering was used just as P Dye would use a directional bunker for guidance today. Mr. Fownes made par a goal and bogey easily attainable. The golf course is right in front of you, no gimmicks other than the fact every green on the course is open to the front except 2 short par 3s which makes for a wonderful ground game. Every green is impeccable in condition without a bit of grain to influence a putt and with enough undulation to make an ill struck ball continue its journey farther from the hole. When you put the ball on line the ball stays its course. Every shot requires thorough thought and there is not one shot that you could call easy. Great courses require great shots with truly great shot values. Oakmont satisfies this criteria because you will use every club in your bag and you better leave your ego at the door. As for for you exiting the clubhouse door and dropping your balls on the green and watching them roll away this was done on purpose by Mr. Fownes. The intimidation factor began before you started.
I have played golf courses that I enjoy more than Oakmont because Oakmont is the penultimate test in skill, determination and patience but if I want to see how my game stacks up with my expectations nothing does my heart better than playing the game at Oakmont, the best golf course in the game.
MK

 

[needham]

Sam Snead said #3 was his favorite hole in golf. Mr. Fownes who designed the golf course created greens that rewarded well struck shots. His greens were fast in 1903 to the point that he would drop a ball on the back of #2 and if it did not roll of of the green he had the greens crew cut the greens again thus the idea of turf conditions does not carry any weight. And yes, they slowed the greens for the open and watered them daily for the 2007 Open. Mr. Fownes and a fellow club member, George Ormiston spent many winters in Pinehurst with a certain great architect, D Ross and when Pinehurst converted their greens from sand greens to grass greens (I believe this occured in 1931), D Ross spent over 3 months studying the greens at Oakmont before designing the famed greens at #2. Oakmont without trees is 3-5 shots tougher now than when you played the course because wind is a factor and the rough is healthier. Blind shots are a part of golf and the "flafpoles" were removed for the Open in 2007. Oakmont is a drivers delight and as penal as any course I have ever played. Blind shots were not blind when the course was designed because in the original aerial photographs cross bunkering was used just as P Dye would use a directional bunker for guidance today. Mr. Fownes made par a goal and bogey easily attainable. The golf course is right in front of you, no gimmicks other than the fact every green on the course is open to the front except 2 short par 3s which makes for a wonderful ground game. Every green is impeccable in condition without a bit of grain to influence a putt and with enough undulation to make an ill struck ball continue its journey farther from the hole. When you put the ball on line the ball stays its course. Every shot requires thorough thought and there is not one shot that you could call easy. Great courses require great shots with truly great shot values. Oakmont satisfies this criteria because you will use every club in your bag and you better leave your ego at the door. As for for you exiting the clubhouse door and dropping your balls on the green and watching them roll away this was done on purpose by Mr. Fownes. The intimidation factor began before you started.
I have played golf courses that I enjoy more than Oakmont because Oakmont is the penultimate test in skill, determination and patience but if I want to see how my game stacks up with my expectations nothing does my heart better than playing the game at Oakmont, the best golf course in the game.
MK

you know, I kept thinking of a way to respond to ggsjpc.
I think quoting this and thanking MK for typing is the best option out there.
100%

 

[matt kluck]

Needham

you know, I kept thinking of a way to respond to ggsjpc.
I think quoting this and thanking MK for typing is the best option out there.
100%

Thanks for the kind words.
MK

 

[cal7426]

I'm pretty sure Oakmont is tougher than my home course, but you never know because unfortunately we don't have the slope system in England. Do any UK golfers know if the English Golf Union has any plans to introduce the system? I read a while back that the Scottish and Irish Unions had started to grade their courses.

 

[Frizit]

I pay $125 dollars a month at my local country club. Not much of a course but all I have within a hour drive. I also have my own cart and pay a $350 a year cart stall fee which allows me to charge my cart or if you have a gas powered cart all the gas you use for the year. I don't see how you can beat this deal tbh. I also pay $175 a year for unlimited range balls. So all in all that is just a tad over 2k a year not counting any restaurant or bar charges. Pretty good deal for the amount of golf I play and the amount of balls I hit.

 

[jbrunk]

So......is the game ready for Southern Hills?

I hope you've been hitting it well. Give us the run down when you play it.

Irons are pure, driver is a little crooked. We'll see.

 

[softconsult]

Needham, thanks for the info. $170 per month with carts included is, in my opinion, a steal. In my area, Northeast Tennessee, all the private clubs that I have played charge for carts. All semi-privates and public charge for carts regardless of whether you are a member. Typical is around $15.

I was a member of a semi-private club a couple of years ago. This was a nice links style course, strictly golf, no restaurant, pool etc. It was $115 per month, and I think unlimited range balls were $75 per annum. They were slowly going broke. They recently raised the rate to $135 and lost some members. They fired the Pro and didn't replace him. Pro was not really necessary. Course is still there and well maintained. Carts are $14.

I think the real problem with course profitability is simply too many courses chasing too few golfers. Clearly true in my area. I'm sure your management company expends the effort to determine the demographics before it takes on a golf course. Cost of materials goes up, but if you try to raise your price
you lose members.

Another issue is illustrated by what a friend of mine who owns a driving range told me about his business. I asked him how many people had signed up for is unlimited plan at $400 a year. He said 2 people. He also said that the average person showing up doesn't have $40 let alone $400. Point is that those same people look at there paycheck, or lack of one, and simply stop, or cut back their number of rounds.

 

[ggsjpc]

Sam Snead said #3 was his favorite hole in golf. Mr. Fownes who designed the golf course created greens that rewarded well struck shots. His greens were fast in 1903 to the point that he would drop a ball on the back of #2 and if it did not roll of of the green he had the greens crew cut the greens again thus the idea of turf conditions does not carry any weight. And yes, they slowed the greens for the open and watered them daily for the 2007 Open. Mr. Fownes and a fellow club member, George Ormiston spent many winters in Pinehurst with a certain great architect, D Ross and when Pinehurst converted their greens from sand greens to grass greens (I believe this occured in 1931), D Ross spent over 3 months studying the greens at Oakmont before designing the famed greens at #2. Oakmont without trees is 3-5 shots tougher now than when you played the course because wind is a factor and the rough is healthier. Blind shots are a part of golf and the "flafpoles" were removed for the Open in 2007. Oakmont is a drivers delight and as penal as any course I have ever played. Blind shots were not blind when the course was designed because in the original aerial photographs cross bunkering was used just as P Dye would use a directional bunker for guidance today. Mr. Fownes made par a goal and bogey easily attainable. The golf course is right in front of you, no gimmicks other than the fact every green on the course is open to the front except 2 short par 3s which makes for a wonderful ground game. Every green is impeccable in condition without a bit of grain to influence a putt and with enough undulation to make an ill struck ball continue its journey farther from the hole. When you put the ball on line the ball stays its course. Every shot requires thorough thought and there is not one shot that you could call easy. Great courses require great shots with truly great shot values. Oakmont satisfies this criteria because you will use every club in your bag and you better leave your ego at the door. As for for you exiting the clubhouse door and dropping your balls on the green and watching them roll away this was done on purpose by Mr. Fownes. The intimidation factor began before you started.
I have played golf courses that I enjoy more than Oakmont because Oakmont is the penultimate test in skill, determination and patience but if I want to see how my game stacks up with my expectations nothing does my heart better than playing the game at Oakmont, the best golf course in the game.
MK

I appreciate the history lesson. This bolded quote is exactly why I think if it was built today it would be a joke. A putting green is not designed to have the ball roll off it from the back to the front. Pinehurst #2 is a much better design because the ball falls off the edges. Falling off from back to front is just silly.

I never said the course wasn't in nice shape or difficult. Those things are not arguable. I'm sure taking the trees out helped to make it harder. Again I know it's challenging and I'm sure it looks nicer. I'm also extremely glad to hear they removed all the flag poles. I felt like I was at the U.N.

I said if the course was built today and someone went to play it for the first time, more often than not they would consider it tricked up. Hard? Sure! In great shape? Sure! An instant "classic"? No way! I must say that I am very biased against golf courses in general because they just aren't that exciting or that different from each other after you've played enough of them. I'm sad to say I can't even remember all the holes on the back.

Having a ball roll 20 feet away on the putting green is not intimidation. It is either a tier or it requires a windmill and a clowns nose. From a maintenance point of view doesn't it so severly limit the number of pin positions that you end up playing the same course over and over again because there are only so many places the pin can go?

I understand it is your home club and that you should defend it.

 

[Burner]

I'm pretty sure Oakmont is tougher than my home course, but you never know because unfortunately we don't have the slope system in England. Do any UK golfers know if the English Golf Union has any plans to introduce the system? I read a while back that the Scottish and Irish Unions had started to grade their courses.

In the UK the standard scratch score system would be the equivalent of the US slope rating.

The Standard Scratch Score (SSS) is a measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course for a scratch golfer under normal midseason course and weather conditions. It is determined in accordance with the Rating System adopted by the English Golf Union.

This, like the USGA "slope" system, takes account of the measured length of a golf course together with factors that affect both the playing length and the playing difficulty (obstacle factors).

The ten obstacle factors that determine the playing difficulty of a golf course are:

Topography, Fairway Green Target Recoverability, Rough, Bunkers, Out of Bounds, Extreme Rough, Water Hazards, Trees, Green Surface, Psychological.

The factors that affect the course playing length are: Roll, Wind, Forced Lay-up, Doglegs & Elevations. Each hole on the golf course is evaluated on a scale 0-10 for each of the ten obstacles and account taken of the effective length correction factors e.g. the effective playing length of a fast running links course is quite different from that of a moorland course with soft fairways.

The courses at my club have SSS ratings of 1 and 2 shots lower than the Par respectively. Other courses will differ from that depending on their own playability.

 

[matt kluck]

Please Reply Brian

Brian,
Please reply with your opinion at Oakmont.
Thanks,
MK

 

[Brian Manzella]

What makes a golf course great?

#1. If a golf course is a great test of golf it gets through my front door on the subject.

Now what does "great test of golf" mean to me?

If two 100 shooters went out and played, and one played better than the other and won 95% of the time, and two great players did the same. Etc.

Why would a course do this, this consistently?

Shot Values. Rewarding good shots, penalizing poor ones, testing nearly every shot in the bag.

Oakmont—pass.

Pebble Beach—pass.

San Francisco Golf Club—pass.

Old Memorial—pass.

Caves Valley—pass.

TPC of Louisiana—barely pass.

New Orleans City Park South Course 5,000 yards par 68
(now gone)—pass.


So it doesn't have to be hard.

#2. A great golf course needs to be in top-flight shape, and have excellent putting surfaces.

City Park South—goodbye old friend.

Oakmont—easy pass.

all the rest of the above—in.


#3. A great golf course has to be memorable. The holes don't have to be.

Just like a great record album might have hits and might not, and some of the ones that don't aren't great and vice versa.

All pass but TPC is out.


#4. A great golf course has to be able to hold a great golf tournament on a moments notice, and produce a quality champion.


I like the chances of all of the recent above, but if TPC slipped by #3 it is WAY out now.

#5 It has to stand the test of time.

"A great jam will always be a great jam." —Shannon Perez, musician deluxe

Oakmont—pass.

Pebble Beach—pass.

San Francisco Golf Club—pass.


The others need to age well.

As far as how hard it is, Oakmont was EASILY the hardest golf course I ever played.

But fair.

I am darn sure Bethpage Black from the tips is just a s hard, but I can beat Oakmont. Bethpage, well, probably never.

As far as blind shots?

Geez, you'd have to throw a lot of great courses out.

Severe greens, ditto.

I have Oakmont slightly behind San Francisco, but way ahead of Pebble. I'll go with Cypress Point as my #3 courses I have played.

Oh!

How hard is it compared to English Turn?

Brian from the tips a ET in a good round 73-76, great round 69-72

The Big "O"? Good Round 84-89, great round 78-82

 

[Richie3Jack]

I've walked Oakmont, so I can't say how hard it is to play, but I've got a good idea. But I cannot fathom it being as hard as Kiawah Island, which I have played. I've played Bethpage Black before as well, still not as hard as Kiawah. I also had a good friend who has played both Oakmont and Kiawah as well as Carnoustie and he lists them as Kiawah, Carnoustie and Oakmont in terms of toughness (he's never played Bethpage though).



3JACK

 

[vjsinger]

Hardest course I've ever played has to be "The Predator".... crazy long. Tee shots are really hard to navigate, but if I pick the "character" I created and press X really fast it isn't that bad. I shoot 60 or 61 everytime.... putting is key there.