A North-erly view of Oakmont

To get a look at Oakmont Country Club -- site of next week's U.S. Amateur and the 2007 U.S. Open -- from a competitor's perspective, I recently talked to two-time Open champion Andy North. He played in four U.S. Amateurs, including the 1969 Amateur at Oakmont, when stroke play was used. Steve Melnyk, now a commentator for ABC, won the tournament with a score of 286, five better than Vinny Giles. Here are North's comments on various Amateur and Oakmont topics ...

On Oakmont's toughness: "I played two U.S. Opens, a PGA and an Amateur at Oakmont. Of the four championships, the setup of the amateur that Steve won in '69 was the most difficult of the group. It was later in the year, the greens were firmer and faster. It was impossible. The scores Steve shot -- we still played medal play then -- were incredible. Steve shot 286. I think I shot over 300 and finished 12th. I missed the Masters by maybe a shot. My god, the greens were fast. A lot of guys putted off that first green. You could drop a ball on the back of the green and it would roll off. At that time, those were the fastest greens I'd ever seen."

On the atmosphere: "This is not a Chamber of Commerce answer, but what I remember was how bad the air quality was in '69. It was awful. You almost couldn't breathe. It was incredible how bad it was and it was incredible the difference when we came back in '78 for the PGA. It was a huge difference. I remember thinking in '78, Gosh, I don't even know if I want to go back. They did an unbelievable job of not only cleaning up the air, but the city. They transformed Pittsburgh from a pretty bad spot to a fantastic spot."

On the competition: "Of all the guys who qualify, maybe a third of them have a chance to win. Maybe less, maybe 20 guys -- the guys like Bill Haas who are great players, hit it a mile and play like guys out on the PGA Tour. There will be a lot of guys who barely qualify, get in the field, look around at Oakmont and go, Holy mackerel, what have I gotten myself into? There will be a 40-shot differential in the qualifying scores for two rounds. That's the sad thing about all of the USGA events. We played a 6,200-yard course in Senior Open qualifying, I shot a 72 or 73 and missed by a shot playing for two spots. The two guys who went to the Open couldn't handle the conditions there and shot like 158."

On Oakmont at the '83 Open: "There was a rain delay on Friday and I didn't tee off until 5:15 that afternoon. Larry Tiziani, a club pro from Madison, was sitting at his locker with his head down when I came in at 3 to get ready. I said, 'Tiz, how'd it go?' He said, 'Man, I just played my butt off for two days. I couldn't have played any better.' He'd shot 154 or 156. He's a good player, he's excited about how well he played and he missed the cut by 10 or 15 shots. That's what happens. Guys have it at the qualifying site but then they get on a course setup they've never seen. You couldn't hold qualifying at a course set up like the Open because you'd never finish. I've been trying to get ESPN producers to put four amateurs with different handicaps -- a 6, 12, 18 and 15 -- on a local muni, have them play with cameras watching and putting everything out. Then take the same four guys to play at the U.S. Open course and I'll bet you they shoot 100 shots higher as a group. People have no idea how hard these Open courses are and how good these tour players are."

Mailbag

Meanwhile, back at the Mailbag:

So Tiger Woods is dumping his Nike driver and going back to his old, faithful Titleist driver. Gee whiz, I bet Phil Mickelson has a huge I-told-you-so grin on his face right now, after the beating he took a few months ago in the media. Great stuff!
—Paul Cross, Jakarta, Indonesia

We all agree that Woods is playing with inferior technology -- that is, a 43 1/2-inch steel shaft when he could be swinging 45 or 46 inches of graphite or some other lightweight alloy. Mickelson's too smart to duck back into that controversy but, yeah, it looks like he was correct.

I hear a lot of talk about players driving it past Tiger Woods because they have better or illegal equipment. Am I wrong or does Woods play with a driver that is shorter than many other players? A 46-inch driver will go further than a 44-inch driver regardless of the type of clubhead. Am I missing something here?
—Gary Kramer, Ashland, Mass.

Yeah, you're missing the first letter. See above.

I think you are one of the top five golf writers at SI.com. I was wondering what you thought about the controversy involving Tiger Woods' decision to not wear Nike golf shoes anymore. I think writers like you put too much emphasis on how technology has improved shoes from those worn in the days of Jack Nicklaus and Bobby Jones. I think a good golfer, no matter what era, could wear any pair of shoes and still put up a decent score. Why, Sam Snead used to play in his bare feet, and look at all the U.S. Opens he won! What is your opinion of the newfangled technology that goes into today's shoes, and should there be limits on the tongue and soles?
—David McKee, Cambridge, Mass.

Your tongue is already firmly planted in cheek, Mac, so, no, there should be no limits. Your letter is among the top five of the four I received this week, and for those of you who don't get this guy's joke, please don't write in with the revelatory big news that Snead never won an Open ... duh!

During a particularly slow round of golf, I finally lost it as the group ahead of us fell two holes behind while lining up every 2-foot putt like the U.S. Open was on the line. Since they wouldn't offer to let us play through, I yelled "Hurry up!" from the fairway, which nearly resulted in fisticuffs. Unfortunately, many public courses refuse to enforce fast play on the weekends. Before I drop big bucks on a country-club membership, how do you recommend encouraging faster play from a group in front of you?
—Bill S., Farmington, Conn.

I've found that a mortar bombardment usually does the trick.

With most TV viewership of golf coming in the majors, could we see a fifth major added someday? As a Canadian, I would like to see the Canadian Open (first week of September) as the fifth major because it is, after all, a national championship, at least in name. The one that I think most qualifies, though, is the Players Championship, with the island green at 17 being a trademark that easily can be identified on TV. Thoughts?
—Will, Vancouver, British Columbia

The Canadian Open is no longer even a significant stop on the PGA Tour, unfortunately, so there is absolutely no chance of it getting anywhere near major status. If you were to rank the tour stops by importance and/or interest levels, the Canadian Open wouldn't be in the top 30. The Players Championship, meanwhile, is the obvious choice, but no one is in a hurry to add a fifth major. A few years ago, I would've said the Players would never be called a major, but the quality of the field makes it a big event. Now I'd say that major status is not out of the question. So, how's Grace?

Sports Illustrated senior writer Gary Van Sickle writes for the magazine's Golf Plus section and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send him a question or comment.

 

Related information

Stories

Gary Van Sickle's Underground Golfer Archive

Multimedia

Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video