USGA green renovations at Merion for 2013 US Open

[TEPaul]

"What would you do?"

Mark:

See post #43.

I have tried to study this situation for over five years now (I'd be glad to tell you how) and that's been my suggestion across the board for a few years now. The apparent need to recontour greens is a function of excessive green speed on those greens and I think a real 11 is doable on any green I've seen and I also think a real 11 offers sufficient challenge to any level of player, even tour pros in US Opens. What I would really like to see as a general solution is for the USGA who actually owns the Stimpmeter to make an across the board pronouncment that green speeds in excess of 11 are not necessary and can be detrimental to both agronomy and golf course architecture.

[JESII]

Tom,
I'd study the situation and if I did not believe it was not the right thing to do, I would not do it nor recommend it, period!   What would you do?

Mark,


I would have thought that someone with such a strong devotion tot he classic era courses would want to make sure that project was carried out in the most considerate manner...you'd rather leave it to someone not quite so contientious...

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
I would want to make sure that project was carried out in the most considerate manner.  But first you have to decide if it is the right thing to do.  If it is not, I wouldn't do it or recommend it in the first place.  

[JESII]

Believe it or not Mark, I think it is very unlikely that a club intent on doing this sort of thing is going to be talked down by you...


In that light...the club is going to do something like recontouring a few greens...with or without you, would you take the job?

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
My post #12 should answer your question.  If I believe it is the wrong thing to do, why would I do it?  I wouldn't but I take it you would?

[JESII]

I don't think they'd call me to make a proposal...I don't even have a website...



I understand and admire your moral fortitude on this issue if, hypothetically, you were offered this particular job. My issue is with you deciding to leave it to someone else in the industry to carry out as they see fit[/i].

[Dan Boerger]

I recall reading how a competitor actually putted his ball OB off #12 at Merion. I'm not sure how he did it ... I can only imagine that he putted to a pin placement in the back and just wanted to make sure it got there ... and it crested over the back.

Why change anything at 12? Well, if the members want it changed, bully for them. They've been exceptional caretakers of that property for years and I'm sure any decision would be well thought out. I have no reason to think otherwise.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
If anyone from Merion has read this thread they know my opinion as well as that of others.  If that helps in someway great.  What do you recommend we do?  Furthermore, all we are doing right now is acting on a rumor in Golfweek that may or may not be true?  If it is, maybe Wayne or someone like Tom who lives there, can voice their opinion and get them to do the right thing.  I noticed Wayne has not chimed in on this thread?  He must have some idea what is going on?

I hope and trust that Merion will make the right decision for their club.  

[TEPaul]

Mark and Jim:

It's interesting to me that a good number of otherwise passionate people on here are casting this entire issue as some kind of moral dilemma. Perhaps they're doing that so they don't have to offer a viable solution that may get politically uncomfortable for them.

This really isn't a moral dilemma, in my opinion. Furthermore this isn't an issue that's just about Merion or about Merion's #12 and #15 greens. It's an issue that is being raised and acted on all over the world and it doesn't seem to be abating.

I think too many people are just not looking at the most important issue which also happens to be the most effective solution.

This entire issue rests on one problem that can be very easily solved and resolved. It's excessive green speed plain and simple.

My suggestion is to attempt to limit green speed to no more than 11 on the stimpmeter.

The problem with that is apparently too many people think that if this were done the challenge to particularly the very elite player would be too greatly diminished.

I, for one, do not agree with that assumption at all. Furthermore, if 11 on the stimp was accepted as the maximum stimpmeter reading the problem is not that #12 and #15 would somehow become inadequately challenging---the problem for these people is that the rest of the course would become inadequately challenging at a maximum green speed of 11.

I do not agree with that assumption either.

[Dan Boerger]

Tom - I agree with your assessment. But then again, I also have no problem with our National Open Champion shooting 10+ under par -- and that a number such as that doesn't automatically suggest a course lacks proper defense.

I would only add (and I supsect this topic has been discussed at lenght on these boards) that I can't imagine that Wilson or (CBM ) envisioned Merion to have green speeds the likes of which we commonly see at US Open set ups.

[JESII]

Tom,


As you know, I agree wholeheartedly with a speed limit on greens...one question though...when do you measure that speed?

I think some of our dirt experts on here could chime in with their experiences of changing green speeds through the day...both faster and slower...

[TEPaul]

"I would only add (and I supsect this topic has been discussed at lenght on these boards) that I can't imagine that Wilson or (CBM ) envisioned Merion to have green speeds the likes of which we commonly see at US Open set ups."

Dan:

Of course not and we hear that refrain all the time. What we do not seem to know is if those guys back then thought they had arrived at a green speed that should not be exceeded to keep their greens playable without going over the top. My sense is that with a very few exceptions they did not feel they had arrived at that point.

But that's not the real issue either. The real issue is what is the maximum green speed that can work without the need to soften greens and also maintain enough of a challenge for clubs on a daily basis or even for a US Open.

At this point we are very much into the realm of physics, and probably for the first time on a reasonable maximum green speed given general slopes and contours on most all the greens on older courses.

My sense is that there are two operative numbers involved here---eg 11 on the stimpmeter and the amount of greenspace at 3 degrees of fall or less. Obviously attached to that 3 degrees of fall or less are the degrees of fall of surrounding slopes and contours since the ball does need to transition around all greens to pinnable spots.

The latter potential problem gets into what some of us are beginning to call "greens within a green".

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
IMHO I think the issue is more one of capability.  And that is not the capability of the players but the cpability of the turf equipment manfacturers, seed researchers and supts.  No one wants to do less than they are capable of producing....thus it is not the speed they seek as much as the low height of cut that can be produced which gives a higher speed as a by product...
It is true they could get grass very fast in the old days but it lay much flatter and if one was to use a stimp meter correctly thus measuring in both directions....the average could read slower because of the against the grain roll...perfection has increased expectations from the clubs and players.....the next worry will e increased distance due to an even lower fairway height....

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
As you know, I agree wholeheartedly with a speed limit on greens...one question though...when do you measure that speed?"

Jim:

Experts in stimping and setups seem to suggest that the ideal time to gauge maximum green speed is in the 10am-11am timeframe.


Furthermore, my sense is that most supers are very good at interpreting and translating their mow heights and rolling procedures into a specific green speed. For instance, at my course we are now pretty confident that our mow height of .105" and our regular rolling program translates into a green speed of app 10 1/2-11.

[JESII]

"Tom,
As you know, I agree wholeheartedly with a speed limit on greens...one question though...when do you measure that speed?"

Jim:

Experts in stimping and setups seem to suggest that the ideal time to gauge maximum green speed is in the 10am-11am timeframe.

How would you fit that schedule into the US Open tee time schedule?

I am sure these things could be checked and charted for weeks leading up to an event, but the reality is that you would want to get as close to that "speed limit" as possible without going over...

Not expecting an answer, just trying to highlight a potential speed bump to this idea in the context of a US Open...

[TEPaul]

"How would you fit that schedule into the US Open tee time schedule?"

Jim:

That kind of thing does not need to be done at an Open for instance in the 10am-11am timeframe. That would be pretty inconvenient to play to say the least.  

Supers can do this kind of thing leading into events and then they simply don't vary their procedure (mow height and rolling program) that give them various stimpmeter readings.

The problem with some of these tournaments such as Shinnecock or Olympic is someone comes in at the last moment and just overrides the superintendent. This is when things are most likely to go awry and have in the past.

[Peter Pallotta]

This is a terrific discussion, thanks gents.

I think it's interesting that TE mentions looking for an "effective solution"... a reminder, I take it, that such a solution is still possible (with six years to go before the Open) and, more generally, that seeking solutions instead of assigning blame is a sensible and productive approach.

It also struck me that perhaps the powers that be might encouraged to look at green speeds a little more "flexibly"...that is, that perhaps on potential U.S. Open course X, an 11 would not only be fast enough but could be attained and maintained easily and without altering the greens; while on potential U.S. Open course Y, a 12 could be sought, again, without making an alterations etc.

I know why you can't have different speeds on greens of the same course, but why can’t you have different green speeds from one course to another....I mean, it's always going to be fast, and very fast at that.    

Peter

[TEPaul]

"and, more generally, that seeking solutions instead of assigning blame is a sensible and productive approach."

Peter:

That may be a concept that most of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's participants have not come to grips with yet. Obviously it's easier and probably more fun to just assign blame. Furthermore, why should an effective solution get in the way of some fun blame assigning?  

[JESII]

Tom,


From your experiences, how much of a difference, in inches, do you see in green speeds throughout a single day at a place that has prepared for a state tournament?   Could there be 12" increase through drying out? How about 12" decrease due to growth?

My point is that with a green speed target of 11, many greens will be just within the "playability" threshold at that 11 foot mark, but (as you have said numerous times) the effect increases exponentially once you cross that 11 foot barrier...and through the course of a day, I suspect some greens greens are able to pick up a foot or more of speed...

[TEPaul]

Sully:

The decrease in speed through the day has to do with a lot of factors. The biggest decrease I've seen was at Crystal Downs which was probably a foot and a half and mostly caused by the poa. On these straight A strain greens and such I doubt it would be half that.

As far as increased speed through the day, I don't think so. I think that's why some say that stimping a green in the 10am-11am timeframe represents the highest speed of the day. I believe I heard that from the USGA's Competition Director.

[JESII]

Tom,


10 - 11am makes sense to me for some reason, but obviously the logistics of measuring at that time during US Open week preclude the option.

My real issue/concern with all of this is the fact that the speeds do change through the day...whether it decreases due to growth, or increases due to drying out. When the goal is a fixed 11 feet, how would you know what to strive for the green to be at 6am when they cut and roll it so as to provide 11 feet at 11am?

I hate the notion of micro management, but understand the reality at major championships...

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

You really hit on THE critical issue.

If a club is INTENT on doing something, they're going to do it.

And, they'll find the appropriate practicioner to carry out their bidding in short order.

Projects tend to take on a life of their own and when the club's leadership makes up their mind, irrespective of the merit of the project, no amount of reasoning is going to disuade them from achieving their objective.

How do you think so many wonderful courses were disfigured over the last 80 or so years ?

On an inordinate number of projects, prudent individuals, examing previous alterations that have been done years before, frequently ask themselves, "why did the club embark upon such a foolish project ?"  "Why did they disfigure these features, this golf hole, these golf holes ?"

The answer lies in the "authors" of the project, rather than in the merits of the project.

This is an issue where the "sunshine" concept works to prevent disfigurations.

All too often, power groups seize upon a bad idea and implement it before most are aware of it.  And, once the project is complete, due to a variety of factors, it won't be undone for at least 15-20 years, if ever.

However, when the spotlight of public scrutiny is thrust upon a project, that project undergoes another level of "quality control" because the individuals responsible are now identified and held responsible for their actions.

They either dig in and try to proceed irrrespective of the criticism, constructive or destructive, valid or invalid.
Or, they reevaluate the project, then proceed as planned or modified.
Or, they abandon the project.

I questioned someone about a decision that had been made by a company.  The person to whom I was speaking said, "It was a corporate decision"  I responded, "Corporations don't make decisions, people do, who made that decision ?"

When you can identify the decision makers, allow them to present their position, question the project, their positions and their decisions, then and only then can you influence the outcome.

While corporations aren't run democratically, neither are clubs, from a practical point of view.  The club's leadership has the ultimate responsibility for the club's destiny.

They should view their service as curator's, protectors of a valueable exhibit, changes to which should be approached with great caution and only after exhaustive analysis.

With respect to Tom Fazio's firm, they're a commercial enterprise.  The company is obligated to perpetuate itself, legally and profitably.  

 

[Mike_Trenham]

Why has there been so little discussion of #5.  Now I see how 12 or 15 could be slightly modified (less crowned) without changing all of the surfaces around the green.  But #5 sits right there on the natural slope of the land with the creek on the other side.  I can't visualize how this could be anything but a major project that will disrupt much of land around this green you can't touch the creek.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I love your idea of no Stimpmeter above 11, at Merion or elsewhere, as an approach that is so sensible, logical, and commonsensical that it's impossible in reality.

The question is, how do you get them to do it?

I think it probably works both ways...or threeways, for that matter.

For instance, if Merion insisted on keeping green speeds at 11 maximum, would the USGA agree?

Hah...if the USGA insisted on green speeds at 11 maximum, would Merion agree??  

In either case, I'm willing to be dollars to donuts that Tom Fazio would concur with the dissenting party, even if Patrick wants to leave him blameless!!!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

It's not that he's blameless, it's that his corporate responsibilities don't include him being the conscience of the membership