Eric is talking about aesthetics guys! How the course looks to his eye, not how it plays or how the US Open played this past weekend. Would anyone argue Oakmont is more aesthetically pleasing than Pebble Beach?
Like Eric, I prefer parkland style courses with trees and water so I agree with Eric on Oakmont's boring appearance. On the other hand, I do like the challenge of its length and variety of holes.
A bit of history for Eric....Originally was designed in 1906 as a wide open links style course without trees. It stayed that way until the early 1960s when a tree planting beautification program started. Thousands of elm, spruce and pine trees were planted. Those trees remained and grew for 30 years until the early 90s. Eric and I would have liked the aesthetics better during that period! ;-)
Then in the early 1990s all the trees were causing turf problems and course superintendant Mark Kuhns began a covert night time tree removal activity with the aim to restore Oakmont to its original wide open design. It caused quite an uproar with members and the local "tree-hugger" organizations. But he prevailed.
“The question was, do you want an arboretum, like a walk in the park? Or
do you want to play golf?” Kuhns said. “If you want to play golf, I
need 8-10 hours a day of direct sunlight on tees, greens and fairways.”
It is estimated more than 14,000 trees have been removed from Oakmont since the early 1990s.
Here's some images from Oakmont with trees and without:
The 18th hole from the front tees:
With trees
and in 2009 when WGT took their photo..
View of #18 from behind green with trees:
And in 2009 when WGT took their photo from behind green:
Some links:
In The Clear
Why Oakmont Waged a War on Trees