USGA green renovations at Merion for 2013 US Open

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
The decision makers at a club know what is needed and "requested" by the USGA to get a major tournament.  However, it is doubtful that this is communicated to the entire membership.  

[Mike_Cirba]

 

   

With all due and proper respect to the membership of Merion, and as much as I'd love to see the US Open return there;

In a perfect world, the membership of Merion would chase Tom Fazio and his minions out of freaking Pennsylvania (does this man have any shame whatsoever??) after tarring and feathering him, and then proceed to tell the USGA to shove the US Open sideways up their collective revisionist asses.

Joe Dey must be rolling in his grave, with Ben Hogan grumbling right beside him.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I think what Mike Cirba was trying to say before he suffered his tragic stroke   was that he wishes the membership would tell the USGA that their course was just fine for Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan and Lee Travino vs. Jack Nicklaus. They would be most pleased to give a slightly longer version of that golf course to the USGA but it they wish for more changes including their greens they should take the event up the NJ turnpike to nearby Trump Bedminster.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

[size=10]VAMPIRA! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

[Mark_F]

Classic.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think what Mike Cirba was trying to say before he suffered his tragic stroke   was that he wishes the membership would tell the USGA that their course was just fine for Bobby Jones, Ben Hogan and Lee Travino vs. Jack Nicklaus. They would be most pleased to give a slightly longer version of that golf course to the USGA but it they wish for more changes including their greens they should take the event up the NJ turnpike to nearby Trump Bedminster.  

Geoffrey,

Yes, thank you.   That's precisely what I meant to say before my head exploded.  

Tommy,

"Invasion of the Course Character Snatchers" might be the film you're thinking of.

[Sean Leary]

I missed where it said that it was Fazio's idea to soften these greens. Must have been the same article where he tricked ANGC to change that golf course too.

Doak alters Pasatiempo 11th green (and maybe some at SFGC as well?) and Coore and Crenshaw are brought in to soften the contour of Prairie Dunes 2nd hole as they are considered too severe for modern green speeds. I'm pretty sure  it wasn't their ideas, but as consulting architects, they carry out their orders to the best of their ability, but no one here vilifies them for the most part.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the changes, but I don't understand why the architect gets the blame.  If Fazio says no, does the USGA or Merion change its mind? Does Augusta?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Sean,
This is something we can further discuss next week, but it does go something like this:

Classic course that once held major tournament's green committee is quite disenchanted with green speeds; maintenance practices, devolution of golf course, etc., seeks outside help and consultation from USGA Agrononomist for Championship play, and from renown superintendent. Superintendent restores certain elements regarding maintenance, while USGA Personnel suggest USGA study of what it will take to get it back into respectable standard to host US Open. Through the respected Superintendent and USGA staff comes one name--Tom (Fazio & Marzlitoffski's) and they are invited in to make the necessary changes that not only further their critieria of what it takes to hold an Open, but to challenge the best players in the world, even if this means changing features, creating new ones completely out of tune with these historic sites. Many knowledgeable writers, architects and critics oppose these changes, some of them completely out of touch with the true nature and charm of their original designs.

This is the good ol' boy network at it's finest, at work.

And us, those who oppose such changes of these classic courses all in the name of defending par are: muckrakers; upstarts, wannabee's that don't look good in a blue blazer.

At least in their eyes.

This pattern seems to be happening more and more and more, time and time again. One classic course after another.

So I ask this: If the man's originally designed courses are so good, then why don't they take major championships to them instead of these classic courses which he--in his own words-- doesn't care for, or at least says aren't really all that good to begin with?

Hey, I'm all for the PacNorWest getting an Open at Aldarra. I think the Northwest deserves it, but do you ever hear a glimmer of hope or truth of this ever happening? Why is that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=10]VAMPIRA! ! ! ! ! ![/size]

Tommy,

Now that's "classic"

And, very funny.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I missed where it said that it was Fazio's idea to soften these greens. Must have been the same article where he tricked ANGC to change that golf course too.

Doak alters Pasatiempo 11th green (and maybe some at SFGC as well?) and Coore and Crenshaw are brought in to soften the contour of Prairie Dunes 2nd hole as they are considered too severe for modern green speeds. I'm pretty sure  it wasn't their ideas, but as consulting architects, they carry out their orders to the best of their ability, but no one here vilifies them for the most part.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the changes, but I don't understand why the architect gets the blame.  If Fazio says no, does the USGA or Merion change its mind? Does Augusta?

Sean

Go back a couple of hundred or more posts of mine and you will find the same argument that I made when Trip Davis was being reamed (by some) for his work at Engineers. That work turned out fine.

I am more concerned if its the USGA asking for changes then I am Fazio as consulting architect.  Merions greens work just fine - 12 and 15 included. WF East #'s 2 and 8 worked (edit - worked well BEFORE the changes) too and that course is not even considered for a US Open. EDIT- THey should have left the greens alone at all costs.

[ChipOat]

A Merion thread that's not about the bunkers - what a concept!!!

Since I've posited in the past around here that many "great" Golden Era greens on just about every single Golden Era course were never designed for Stimping above 8-9, I feel qualified to address this thread objectively and without sentimental bias.  Emperor, take your shots at me if you wish, but I'm only getting specific here about something that had been somewhat of a personal peeve ever since all greens began to get mega-fast for everyday play (let's say 1985+).

I think a repeat of #18 at Olympic Club and #7 at Shinnecock should be avoided at all costs - windmills, clown noses and loop-the-loops are out of place on regulation golf courses.  especially those that are acknowledged as otherewise works of inspiration and genius.

It is really very easy for even the world's best players to putt off the green on #'s 5, 12 and 15.  I've never liked that on any golf course anywhere and that includes Merion, National, Pine Valley, etc.  I'd rather see the green speeds reduced instead of the contours "amended", but I surely don't want the course to be ridiculed due to an overly ambitious set-up given the conditions (think Shinnecock).

Or, to raise a question that might be worth its very own thread, why shouldn't restoration also include a return to the green SPEED that was originally intended?

Legend has it that Coore & Crenshaw agreed to build some really "creative" greens at Eashampton with the written stipulation that the club would never Stimp them above 10.  True or not, I've played Easthampton and I surely wouldn't accuse the course of having greens that are too SLOW.

Greens have gotten inapprorpiately fast, IMHO - especially those that were designed for something completely different.

[Mark_Fine]

I wonder if anyone knows how many guys putted off #5, #12 or #15 during the 2005 Amateur?  I doubt that many.

I think one of the points of this thread is that the greens at Merion seem great for everyday play, for club championships, and even for U.S. Amateur events.  Why do they need to be changed for one pro visit?  

Depending on the situation, I am not against a club that considers softening the contours of a green if it is borderline impossible (or hardly pinnable) for regular member play (#9 at Manufacturers comes to mind).  But don't change them just for one event.  You can't change them back when you are finished.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Chip,
In line with Patrick's suggestion: Who was responsible for the green speeds being too fast?

Who or what group is usually the culprit for any changes at any worthy Golden Age course that take it way from it's original architecture and purpose, all usually in the name of updating for the modern game?

Don't get me wrong here, I can see some resolution, but with Merion, but some thing you just don't touch or alter.

BTW, any post that can bring a Chipoat out of hiding is a good one!

[Sean Leary]

Tommy,
 
I agree and understand with everything that you say in your post. However it has nothing to do with the decision to change the greens in the first place, which is what the heart of the issue is.  If you don't like the work that someone does (whether it be Fazio or whomever) in a redo, then have at it and hammer him.  But if the main issue is that it shouldn't be changed/softened at all in the first place (like Jamie says at the beginning of this thread), then it should be the green committee at the club that should be the target of your discontent, not the architect. The clubs have the ultimate power over their golf course (as Pat Mucci said), and blaming the architect for the choice of altering the golf course is misguided. Fazio, of course, is an easy target here, but he is not the one making the decision to change the golf course, particular THAT golf course.  

By the way, my being a member at a Fazio course has absolutely nothing to do with this.  Aldarra is not at all capable of holding any tournament (and actually can't as per the bylaws of the club), never mind an Open, so maybe you have it confused with another course. Don't know where you were going with the other questions about the PNW, but we can talk about it this week.

[Mike_Young]

Just one question....where would you guys locate the pins for 4 days of tournament play on holes 12 and 15?

[Mark_Fine]

The locations they used for the 2005 U.S. Amateur seemed to work ok?  

[Mike_Young]

Mark,
I don't think they would work.....much more traffic than matchplay....they also used a different stimp on a few of those greens if I have heard correctly. JMO
Mike

[TEPaul]

Here's a concept and probably the ultimate questions for you on a subject like this;

Should the USGA (or any other tournament entity) get ready to slap a limit on green speed period, and furthermore slap a limit on it permanently? Obviously the simplest way to do that is via the stimpmeter (the stimpmeter is ultra dangerous in the minds and hands of some but it's remarkably useful in the hands of others). And if they did do that what would it be?

Can these tournament entities, and the rest of us, ever come to the realization that we are not going to change physics, and via a stimpmeter number we are very much into being able TO DETERMINE what is doable playability-wise in that realm of pure physics whether some of these tournament entities are willing to admit it or not at this point?

My suggestion has for some years now been that a real 11 is challenging enough for any level of compeition at a course like Merion (or frankly anywhere else) even for US Opens. Ironically, I seem to be getting some agreement on that from some at even the USGA, but perhaps at this point only in theory, for the simple reason that perhaps not everyone there is on board with this concept yet.

The real deal with a course like Merion defending itself in a tournament like the 2013 US Open isn't just greenspeed anyway, it's green surface firmness---eg the correct degree of green surface firmness with a real 11 at Merion for the 2013 US Open would give the best in the world all the challenge they'd need on a course like that and nobody would need to worry much that the field would tear the course up scoring-wise. However, there are still too many today who do not seem ready to accept this fact.

What the problem here really is happens to be that green speed is controllable---eg they can always just up it to increase the challenge while green surface firmness is not as controllable----in other words the weather can take out ideal green surface firmness in less than an hour with rain but the same is not necessarily so with green speed.

If the course (some of the greens) is basically architecturally only able to accept a real 11 due to degree of slope on some greens and rain takes out the green surface firmness the course will be susceptible to lower scoring. Recent history has proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt with players of US Open calibre.

So the deal is can these people responsible for these tournaments and their setup accept the risk that rain can take out one of their best scoring deterents---eg green surface firmness and go with a maximum of a real 11 anyway, and not fall into the trap of trying to exceed that maximum green speed to totally preserve the challenge in scoring?

Those are the questions. If they can accept that they probably don't need to even think about recontouring greens. If they can't accept that it will be hard to stop them from considering recontouring.

And furthermore, this isn't just about 4-6 days of the US Open, this is a question of general play too and finally coming to accept the fact that we are now in a position to increase green speed beyond what physics will allow with sane playability.

I know these golf courses around here and I know most all the boarderline greens around here too. Personally, I don't think there is a green in this district that needs to be recontoured to preserve the challenge for a US Open level field if the greens were kept to a maximum of 11, AND the ideal green surface firmness was also acheivable!

Contrary to the belief of some, a real 11 is fast----eg most amateurs would probably think a real 11 was a 13. On the other hand, a real 13 on some of these greens around here can and will get freaky in play very quickly. Most do not seem to understand the exponential effect in playability once greens reach a real 10-11 and plus (it's just remarkable---eg 9-10 is a 9% numerical increase and with the playability of break that may necessitate perhaps a 50% increase in successful borrow. But from 10-11 needs about a 150-200% increase in borrow and it goes up very expontentially from there----eg 13 will need about 500-700% more borrow to be successful on a 3% slope than 10 although the actual numerical increase is only 30%.

In my opinion, the push to increase greenspeed above a real 11 ANYWHERE is as dangerous to architecture, if not more so, than the present distance problem.

Again, I think the choice is remarkably simple---eg get all tournament entities to ACCEPT a maximum greenspeed of 11 EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE and everything will fall nicely into place without a need to recontour greens. To get all tournament entities and all clubs to accept a permament maximum greenspeed of 11 obviously the best entitiy to successfully make that recomendation and have it get generally accepted would be the United States Golf Association!

With some of the greens we have today real physics is speaking to us all now and we aren't going to change real physics----ever. The only way to get around that real physics fact is to soften green contours and slopes.

The answer is a MAXIMUM everywhere of NO MORE than a real 11----and to dedicatedly never exceed that----EVER AGAIN and anywhere.

If the mission and goal is to preserve present green architecture the answer is remarkably simple if everyone would just learn to pay attention to how simple it really can be!

[Jim Nugent]

Tom's last post made wonder, not for the first time, how ANGC maintains green speeds that apparently are 12 to 13 during the Masters.  Are the contours smaller, or less severe, there than at Merion?  Why can ANGC stimp its greens faster than 11?  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
The greens at Oakmont roll at 11 when they haven't been cut for two days and their is still dew on them in the morning    Let's face it, the only reason we are discussing a change to the contours of the greens at Merion is because of ONE tournament.  Am I wrong or not?

[TEPaul]

" Why can ANGC stimp its greens faster than 11?"

Jim:

It's real simple, and it's because ANGC has a whole lot more and larger flatter spots in those otherwise wild greens than Merion does on a few of their greens, primarily #12 and #15 which are basically just big slopes that mostly exceed 3%. More and larger flatter spots translates to one thing here---eg more and larger areas of pinnability! Why does it happen to be that way at ANGC? That's simple too---eg because ANGC has been recontouring their greens for years.

[TEPaul]

" Am I wrong or not?"

Mark:

Yes, I believe you are wrong. And you are also wrong about the green speed at Oakmont. They have been fast for years, very fast, but not as fast on the stimpmeter as you apparently think or have been told. There is one thing alone that totally makes my point and that's the undeniable and unalterable realm of physics. You can couch this in any context you want to but you will never get around that fact---eg physics. Oakmont does not have the ability or the capacity to alter or deny physics anymore than anything or anyone else under the sun does.  

Furthermore, Sean Leary is right, none of you on this thread have any idea who it is who is asking for or sugggesting recontouring. Everyone seems to assume it has to be the USGA or Fazio. How do you know that? Who told you that? And if it isn't how would you know who it is other than just a out-of-the-blue assumption?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
What do you think the greens at Oakmont normally stimp at?  How fast on the stimp do you think they can get them?  Maybe what I have been told is wrong but I don't think I've ever putted greens that were faster.

Back to Merion; I hope the rumor posted in Golfweek is wrong about the greens being changed.  You are down there all the time Tom.  Do you know what is really happening there?    

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
What do you think the greens at Oakmont normally stimp at?  How fast on the stimp do you think they can get them?  Maybe what I have been told is wrong but I don't think I've ever putted greens that were faster."

Mark:

Year in and year out I've never putted on faster greens than Oakmont's either. What do I think they could get them to speed-wise? Probably --- if they really wanted to like a lot of courses are capable of doing today (to their detriment). What do I think they normally stimp at? -----to----- on a regular basis. I don't just think that, I know that. What they used to tell people, even what they used to post, was another matter.

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
You are correct...a simple answer..no more than 11....also helps with stress and traffic.....11 is FAST IMHO