[TEPaul]

Now that the US Amateur is over at Merion what did the new technology and clearly increased distance these players today hit the ball show at Merion?

In my opinion, the outcome was pretty interesting and by no means that predictable.

Obviously some of the holes on the course got some additional tee length distance and that did show in play pretty well. But perhaps half the rest of the holes on the course had no capacity for added tee length.

By my calculations of the fourteen par 4s and 5s players who are in the longer half of the spectrum basically could not intelligently hit driver on those holes more than about seven times.

As a point of comparison, on the other qualifying site for the US Amateur, Philadelphia C.C. a very long player could intelligently hit driver on all fourteen of the par 4s and 5s.

On the holes that had no capacity for additional length it was my observation that the US Amateur players were hitting their tee shots into the same places players always have. Obviously with less club off the tee, but nevertheless.

Like it's premier counterpart across the river, PVGC, Merion East simply takes the driver out of the hand of long players a good deal. On both courses just about to the tune of 50% or more of the time. At PVGC a really long player might hit driver a single time on the front nine and no more than four times on the back nine. Some will say this is a bad thing in design but nevertheless that's the reality now, and the fact is that makes both those courses less vulnerable to being overwhelmed, as Merion did show in qualifying.

The holes at Merion that played really different strategically this time around for these long players were #2, #4!! and #5!

#5 had 75 yards added to it and played longer and harder than it probably has in many decades. #4 had no added yardage and played vastly different strategically for maybe half the field. Perhaps half the field actually had the opportunity to go at that 597 yard hole in two where previously virtually no one tried that. #5 played longer and harder than it ever has.

Perhaps the hole that's been most gutted strategically by new tech/increased distance was #16, the Quarry Hole, perhaps Merion's most famous hole. It's never had any elasticity at all.

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,
If I'm reading your post correctly, it seems hard to draw conclusions about exactly what the effects of technology were, at least in part because of changes to the course in the meantime.

Let me ask you this:  In general (a dangerous phrase, granted) what would you say was the impact of technology on the holes that were NOT lengthened at all?  Were they strategically different, and did they score differently than they would have "before"?  

I'm really, really curious about this because Merion has been cited here so often over the years as a case study of a course that technology has impacted severely.  Now I get the impression from the threads during the tournament and comments from people like Bob Tway that perhaps that isn't the case after all.  (Keep in mind that I only know the course from TV.)

[Geoffrey Childs]

Tom

During the TV telecast of the final round of the Canadian Open this week they flashed a graphic showing how difficult relative to par the course was playing (note it is normally a par 73 that they played at 70 last week - they must read your posts on NGLA). I found it very interesting that until last week the two MOST DIFFICULT courses on non-majors they play all year were

Harbor Town and

Westchester CC

Both courses well under 7000 yards in length. I played Westchester CC a few days before the Tour got there this year and it was not tricked up or narrowed relative to member play except the rough is much more penal. Good designs hold their own and I'll bet Merion might be the poster child for that premise.

[JESII]

It showed that you best defend par at the greens, and work your way back to the tee.

What does having a number of holes (you said 7, I count 6) that essentially takes driver out of the hands of this length player say about a golf course? Good question. To me, Merion is as good as it gets so I have no problem hitting position shots on 1, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 16 because there is so much demand on hitting a good shot from those tees. Frequently when we come to the tee on a "lay-up" hole we're annoyed because the 3-iron off the tee offers very little challenge and also has only a very little consequence for hitting a poor shot. Are any of those holes I list easy pars if you miss your tee shot? Even if you miss it straight but have about 30 yards more than normal into the green, it's a tough shot.

[TEPaul]

Mayday and Pat:

Regarding holes #7 and #16, tee shots hit directly at the middle of the green (which is visible from the tee) to those two blind fairways WILL end up in the left rough. That fact really does make the tee shots on those two holes sort of high in an "experience" factor as well as fascinatingly deceptive. I sort of like that and I also very much like the fact that it demands that a golfer hit his tee shot somewhat away from the eventual target he can see. That's what I like so much about holes like PVGC's #12 or particularly Maidstone's #7 and #17. That sort of deception forces golfers to really concentrate on their target at hand and not the eventual target. Holes like that really do "pull" a good golfer's aim psychologically unless he's really concentrating.

I saw this recently on the Quarry Hole with two pretty good players from Atlanta who'd never been to Merion before. To convince them they needed to hit their tee shots to the right of the visible green to a fairway they couldn't see was interesting. You could see they both just instinctively wanted to hit those tee shots right at the flag.

In 1930 if they'd hit their tee shots at the flag on #7 or #16 they'd have been in the left side of both fairway.

What's more interesting and more challenging psychologically and other-wise. I vote for the way those two holes and their fairways are now.

[mike_malone]

TEPaul,

   Watch yourself! Start picking and choosing what parts to restore and what parts not to and you start down a slippery slope.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Watch yourself! Start picking and choosing what parts to restore and what parts not to and you start down a slippery slope."

Mayday:

Really? Maybe you and Pat and perhaps someone like Tom MacWood subscribe to the philosophy that if you can't do it all then do nothing but that's not a philosophy that I subscribe to. In restorations to me something is always better than nothing.  

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  Doing things because YOU like it better is dangerous. Maybe someday someone bigger and tougher than you comes along and she likes it better some other way. Using some consistent guide avoids that.

[Andy Hughes]

Using some consistent guide avoids that.

Mayday, what kind of consistent guide is there that helps to choose what should and shouldn't be restored?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Doing things because YOU like it better is dangerous. Maybe someday someone bigger and tougher than you comes along and she likes it better some other way. Using some consistent guide avoids that."

Mayday:

Are you serious? What do you think I have been doing for about the last ten years in architecture and restoration architecture? If I haven't been using "guides" what do you think I was using? Have you seen the design evolution report I wrote for GMGC and the early aerials in it? What do you think I used those things for---just because I, alone, thought it was better?  What do you think I've done so much reading for on the principles of architecture written by so many architects, particularly the old ones? What do you think I speak with so many golfers at my club and other clubs for---just because I can tell them what I, alone, think is better?

Of course not. I believe there really is a supreme logic in so much of what was done in the early days when the ground game really did exist and function. I'm no enemy of firm and fast conditions. I'm no enemy of width. They go hand in hand.

What I don't like, though, is standardization in golf or architecture. We probably know precisely why fairways got narrowed and standardized that way in the last fifty years to 35 yards and less. But do we know why all those fairways in the old days were all about 50-60 yards of standard width? No we don't and if you think you do then please tell us.

I believe that one of the greatest assets of all golf architecture is VARIETY, and varying widths of fairways depending on what a hole is logically and ideally calling for strategically should dictate fairway widths and configurations, in my opinion.

What people like you and Pat are basically saying is those old guys knew everything there is to know and they could do no wrong at all---that they never made a mistake or did everything in such a way that it could never be made better or more interesting in any way. Are you both so naive as to actually think that? Are you so afraid that none of us can make a correct and intelligent decison on our own that you have to unquestioningly regurgitate every single thing they did even if in some cases it may've failed to pass the "test of time" for some logical and good reason, many of which we actually have on record? Sometimes I feel if most of those old guys could see and hear some of the things we attribute to them that they did and thought they'd just laugh.

It sure sounds like that to me the way you keep reacting to these subjects.

Somebody's got to pull the trigger. Somebody always does and they always will. The best one can hope for is that those who do have a really good working knowledge of the inherent principles behind all this stuff that has basically been proven to work best and play best.

I'm not afraid to think for myself and get involved in making decisions on these things but like anyone else I have to live with the only true determination---and that is will the decisions I get involved in pass that all important "test of time" over the long haul? In the end, that's all there really is that's the truth of what's best in golf and architecture in my book.

And I depend on golfers for that. The old architects depended on golfers for that. If someone doesn't depend on golfers for that in the end then who is it really who's acting like THEY think they know BETTER than anyone else?

[mike_malone]

 Andy,
     It is my understanding that Merion wanted to "restore" to a date in the 30's reflected in some photos. That was their guide. Some can argue that they should have chosen a different one. But, I'm just saying that when you vary from it you can get into trouble  .There are many who then see it as a power game and it gets politicized.

   Tom,

   Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. It helps me to see where you are coming from.I am not suggesting some orthodoxy; I'm just concerned that things can get bolloxed (sp) up when you get creative.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. It helps me to see where you are coming from.I am not suggesting some orthodoxy; I'm just concerned that things can get bolloxed (sp) up when you get creative."

Mayday:

You're more than welcome. Anything for you. Actually I most definitely do have an orthodoxy with all this stuff. That orthodoxy is the principles behind great architecture as I understand it and them. I do feel there is a fascinating logic in all this. It's just that "standardizaion" of any kind, old or new is not part of my orthodoxy. Variety in all things architecture and in golf too is one of my primary beliefs.

The 50-60 yard wide "standardized" fairways of the old days are probably far more interesting and enjoyable than the 25-35 yard "standardized" fairway widths of today but why have any fairway width standardization at all if varied widths depending on the type of hole can be had?

Things can get bolluxed if one gets creative? I doubt that. What would the Golden Age have been if those guys weren't as creative as they were? Should there not be a lesson in that for us too?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()