What are they doing here?
Oakmont CC was cut out of Pennsylvania Forrest. This is by every definition an American Parkland Golf Course.
Why are they removing all the trees on this classic golf course?
I understand the original intent, but…
Lovely… he said they took down 1000 trees before anyone noticed at night.. 3 or 4 am. Never asked the members. Just did it. Then he goes on to say that in 1962, when Arnold lost to Jack.. the trees were only 10 feet tall..
Oh really? Why is he lying? What is behind this…
Here are 1962 photos of Oakmont CC
To me… you lose credibility when you blatantly lie about things like this. The trees were NOT 10 feet tall in 1962. This was a parkland course. Early ariel photos often show a young course when trees were just saplings (with stakes)… that were meant to grow, be cared for… maintained and have purpose. He complains about trees getting in the way… as if they can’t be maintained, trimmed etc. This is 8 minutes of nonsense.
So he admits Palmer, Nicklaus, Player and Trevino HATE the trees gone. But then says everyone loves it! Really? everyone but those four guys. Blames it on “them” being the problem… that they just like their memories. Really? How degrading… how disrespectful. This is just bad.
He then complains about having to “draw the ball” off the tee because of a tree? Really? How inconvenient.
Or he had to play shot sideways because a tree was in the way of a bunker? But it’s OK for a dozen “Church Pews” to be In some bunkers where you have to play sideways? Sounds more like this guy needs some golf lessons… and not from me.
Or how he again condescendingly says they needed some real high IQ golf knowledgeable folks to make these decisions.. Really? Folks with much higher golf IQ’s than Jack, Arnold, Gary and Lee combined? Ok.. That makes a lot of sense.
They preferred the trees because this is American parkland golf. It’s different than golf in the UK. They like links golf because that’s the lay of the land… THERE! It’s natural THERE. They like diversity in the game. Real diversity… and it’s why they loved Australian golf also, which has it’s own unique characteristics.
Another “expert” talking about original intentions… How about the original intentions that the golf course was ORIGINALLY a 6400 yard par 72 to be played with persimmon and balata golf balls. Oh, I guess that part of original intentions doesn’t fit the selective narrative.
Why is golf in a mess of confusion etc? Guys like this.
5 Likes
lol. Wtf. I hate it. This guy made $588 on the tour in 1981 vs the greats of the game.
I really wish they would just stop the bullshit and admit that they are just supporting the bomb and gouge game, trying to fit in… be complicit, be trendy or whatever… but PLEASE stop with the “original intentions” and get off their virtue horse. If they really believe that there should be no trees to preserve and honor the origins of the design, then they should be speaking just as passionately that the course is played with the appropriate clubs to preserve the integrity of the architectual design of the course. Making sure at a minimum four long irons approaches are required into the par fours… , and the trajectory of the ball coming into the greens is consistent with the green design shape… while sticking close to the original yardages.
But not a mention of this… zero. Just that he found some old photo taken in the 1910’s when the planted trees were not big enough to be seen from 3000 feet in the air.
The orginal owner bought some cleared farmland so he had a fresh canvas to work off. Designed the course, and then PLANTED TREES! Then to lie about 1962 that the trees were only 10 feet tall and didn’t come into play or other nonsense… and try to pass off this fictional narrative.. or… fabrication of nonsense to the uniformed and gullible is exactly why golf has be so compromised. There are just too many of these folks around pandering to the bomb and gouge game and not enough real traditionalists/purists who actually care about and respect the game of golf.
5 Likes