U.S. Open Oakmont Preview

The Course

Oakmont is a great golf course. It embodies everything a US Open venue is supposed to test: precision, mental toughness, and total control over every part of a player’s game. There’s nothing artificial about Oakmont’s challenge. There’s no water, no forced carries, no island greens, just brutal bunkering, menacing rough, and rock-hard greens.

My favorite feature at Oakmont is what is not there: trees. Decades ago, the club removed tens of thousands of trees to restore the course to its original, open design. This has produced a links-like landscape that allows the wind to have a maximum impact. Players can’t rely on specific trees as aiming lines, and there is nothing to block or catch an errant shot. 

The strongest feature of Oakmont is its greens. Aside from maybe Chicago Golf Club and Augusta National, no other course in the U.S. has a set of greens as strong as Oakmont. The greens are undulating and reach up to 15 on the stimp meter, but what makes them truly brutal is the precision they demand on approach shots. This is especially true because six of the greens at Oakmont slope front to back. In an era where most championship courses are built around back-to-front slopes that punish short misses and reward aerial precision, Oakmont flips that script. These front-to-back greens, reminiscent of those at Elie in Scotland, mean that every shot into the green must be calculated not just for distance, but for trajectory, spin, and landing zone. The margin for error is razor thin, and a slight miscalculation in any of those areas can lead to a slippery putt or a ball running off the back.

The feature of Oakmont you will hear the most about this week is the thick rough. In my opinion, thick rough doesn’t make golf harder in a more interesting way, rather, it makes it more monotonous. It kills creativity, discourages risk-taking, and punishes imagination. 

While I will proceed to explain why I dislike thick rough, I want to address why it has been a staple for so long and why so many fans enjoy it. Thick rough represents a kind of golf purity test: hit it straight, or pay the price. It reflects the ethos that a championship should identify the most disciplined and mentally tough golfer in the field. When the fairways are tight and the rough is brutal, par feels heroic. A player grinding out 72 tough holes and finishing at even par feels like they’ve survived something. Most people would agree ankle high rough isn’t compelling year-round, but as Alan Shipnuck said, “51 weeks a year I’m not a fan of brutally penal rough, but this is the U.S. Open – there should be pain and suffering.”

There’s also undeniable drama in watching the world’s best players look mortal. Fans who tune in for the U.S. Open know what they’re signing up for: chaos. Big numbers. Emotional meltdowns. Thick rough amplifies those moments. It raises the stakes, tightens the margin for error, and makes every shot feel like a potential disaster. In that way, it creates tension, and tension is compelling.

Now, for why I think thick rough presents a less interesting version of golf.

Thick Rough

Great golf rewards artistry as much as execution. But thick rough leaves no room for creativity. When a ball nestles down in 4–6 inches of rough, the player’s options shrink dramatically. Often, the only viable play is hacking back to the fairway. The rough effectively dictates the shot for them. Miss the fairway? You're hacking out. A great escape shot, like Seve or Tiger carving a miracle from the trees, is often the product of a challenging but playable situation. Thick rough, however, tends to erase those romantic possibilities. Miss around the green? It's a high lob from deep grass, again and again. There's no room for a bump-and-run, a Texas wedge, or a low spinner.

Additionally, thick grass prevents the ball from rolling further away, which ironically can make a miss less hazardous. Let’s take the last two golf majors, for example. The 14th hole at Quail Hollow was a drivable par 4 with water guarding the left side of the green. On paper, it’s a classic risk-reward hole. Go for it, and you have a chance at an eagle, but you also flirt with disaster. But in reality, that drama never materialized. The rough to the left of the green was so thick and high that balls that should’ve rolled into the water sat up in the grass. 

Now let’s look at the 18th hole at Erin Hills, which the women played for the U.S. Open. It’s a par 5 that is reachable in two shots. Nelly Korda needed a birdie on Sunday. She hit a high towering approach that looked good, but it took a hard bounce and ran through the green. If there was thick rough there, that ball would hang up, and Nelly would have a simple up and down, which would have gotten her into a playoff. Instead, she had a tight lie far away at the bottom of a daunting hill, and she made a six.

Imagine if the 12th hole at Augusta National had rough that kept the ball dry?

I’m not calling for no thick rough. I think it can be a useful design feature. But just as courses don’t pepper bunkers everywhere, I don’t think five-inch rough should be an inch off every fairway. However, while I would prefer this week's U.S. Open at Oakmont to play without uniform thick rough, as the course was initially designed to, I don’t think it will deter the tournament. It did so much at Winged Foot because the greenside bunkers and greens weren’t punishing enough, so the optimal strategy was to hit it as far as possible and then hack it out. The greens weren’t firm or contoured enough to punish players for attacking from the rough. Oakmont has so many other built-in defenses, angles, slopes, firmness, and bunkers that the course's complexity will still shine through.

For people who will say all they care about is seeing a score over par, I hear you. This is just my opinion. And thick rough is currently the most straightforward way to manufacture higher scores. Luckily, we should be able to marry the two viewpoints in a few years. Once the golf ball is officially rolled back in 2028, great courses can play more true to their strategic nature and still produce scores near par.

But enough about debates whether five inches or two inches is better, let’s dive into my picks for this week.

My Picks

Harris English: This is my favorite pick of the week. English is the prototypical U.S. Open player. He hits the ball straight and long enough, he’s good out of the rough, and is a great putter. The results back this up. English has made the cut in all nine U.S. Open appearances, including a solo third and fourth at Torrey Pines and Winged Foot. While the past three U.S. Opens have been played at courses with short rough, Torrey and Winged Foot are similar to Oakmont in being old-fashioned, stern tests with thick rough. English is in good form, having won at Torrey Pines earlier this year, and he recently followed up a T-2 at the PGA Championship with a T-12 at the Memorial. The Georgia alum is a Dog (pun intended). He is tough as nails. I expect him to be on the U.S. team at Bethpage in the fall, and he’ll solidify his spot on the team by contending this week.

Corey Conners: There are only nine golfers who are currently playing better than Corey Conners per Data Golf. Nine. Corey Conners. Less than 10. Conners, Corey. Since joining the tour in 2018, Conners has always been a ball-striking maestro. What has plagued the Canadian, however, is his short game and putting. Conners was an atrocious putter to begin his career, losing 0.5 strokes a round in his first three seasons. He has been dead average the last four seasons, but this year he is gaining almost a fourth of a shot a round on the greens. His play around the green is also the best it has ever been. 

Conners finished solo third at the API, and carded top-10s at The Players, The Valpsar, and The Masters. Very few players drive it as well as Conners and only Straka, Scheffler, Morikawa, and Hovland have his proficiency from 100-200 yards away. Canada deserves another major champion, and I think Corey Conners could be the guy.

Scottie Scheffler to win by 5+ strokes: Scheffler is currently less than a 3-1 favorite to win the 2025 US Open, making him the shortest favorite in a major since Tiger in 2009. This makes sense considering Scottie is the most dominant player since Woods, and this is currently the best version of him. With that being said, and this sounds crazy, I still think he’s undervalued. With all of the randomness and luck involved in winning a major, it feels insane to say this, but currently there are only three players in this field whose A game I think can beat Scottie’s B-game. That’s Rory, Rahm, and Bryson. Rory seems lost right now, so I’d be shocked if we see him contend. Rahm is facing some sort of existential crisis since going to LIV, and his mental game is seemingly not there. Bryson has become one of the most consistent major players, and while his floor is so high because of his driving ability, until I see more control from him with his approach play, I can't fully buy in. Oakmont is one of the best tests of professional golf, and like all great major venues, it tends to separate the field more. I could write 2000+ words on why the Oakmonts of the world produce more spread out leaderboards than the TPC Toronto’s, but take my word for it for now. Long story short. Scottie’s playing at a historic level, none of the other big names strikes fear into me, and Oakmont tends to separate. If Scottie shows up with his A- or better game, I see that resulting in a five-stroke victory. Think this is me getting carried away? Let’s look at the data. Scottie’s DG index is currently +3.08. This essentially means he is going to be on average 3.08 shots better than the average pro in a given round. Bryson is the only other player above +2.0, at +2.07. So, going off these numbers, over four rounds, Scottie is expected to beat the second-best player in the world by four strokes. Wild. Aside from Bryson, I would take Scottie to win by 5+ strokes before I would take any other player in the field to win straight up.