[Patrick_Mucci]

Is the 8th hole at Merion an ideal hole for every level of golfer.

Does it offer differing strategies or is the strategy strictly off the tee, with an aerial requirement for the second shot.

Or would you say that the 5th at Newport is an ideal hole for every level of golfer, offering different strategy"s on the tee shot and second shot ?

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You've been playing golf with too many good golfers    Neither of those holes are remotely close to "ideal" for all golfers.  On #8 at Merion, half the golfers who hit it in the front bunker will never get out.  And at #5 at Newport, most golfers would never have the opportunity to experience a birdie putt because of the hole's length and the wind.  The ideal hole for all golfers probably doesn't exist.  
Mark

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Perhaps my inclusion of every level of golfer is too broad.

When I use the term "GOLFER", I'm implying a reasonable level of ability and accomplishment.

So let's redefine the term using groups.
Group A plays from the back tees
Group B plays from the forward tees

Let's start the discssion with those playing the back tees,
then we'll move up front.

[TEPaul]

When we talk about strategic holes today and what makes them ideal we very well may be asking too much of architectural principle insofar as in incorporates strategy for ALL levels of golfers at any time!

Some of us have even criticized a course like Pine Valley as not being "ideal" because it was never designed to provide for and accomodate the hacker. It was never intended for the hacker originally, even at his best, and still isn't.

Some architects and some golfers today look at this as somewhat undemocratic to all levels but the likes of Crump and Tillinghast had a much higher level of play in mind when they designed these types of courses.

In reponse to JH Taylor who claimed the new American "championship" style course like Pine Valley was undemoctratic, Tillinghast's response was (in effect); "It's supposed to be, hackers can either get better or stay away from it!"

But some on here have even questioned strategic intent or strategic function of other well designed and strategic courses by saying that they don't accomodate the hacker who makes a plethora of mistakes!

No serious architectural and strategic principle or concept I'm aware of was intended to accomodate egregious mistakes of either hacker or higher level of player! But a good strategic course was designed to include strategies for almost every level when that level, no matter what level it was, was doing their best--and that's the point! More than a few of the best architects and writers remarked there was no reason to create problems and solutions (strategy) for golfers who make egregious mistakes because those mistakes were problems enough for them!

William Flynn cites this as well as anyone when he say;

"Every course needs not be a Pine Valley or a National, but every course should be so constructed as to afford incentive to and provide a reward for high class play; and by high class play is meant simply the best of which each individual is himself capable!"

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat- Could you try to describe what your talking about. I think that there are many more of us unfortunate, who don't have a clue what either hole you reference, looks like.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A clayman,

I'll try to give a brief description, though an aerial from Scott might provide far better information.

# 8 at Merion is a shortish par 4, Out of bounds right, slight dogleg left,  Flat off the tee to a small green sitting about 15-20 feet below the fairway.  

A short right cross bunker covers about 1/3 of the fairway and a far left cross bunker cover about 1/3 of the rough and fairway line.  The ideal tee shot is to hit the ball toward the OB, over the short bunker with a long iron or 3-wood, or driver, depending on ones length. You can also hit a shot down the middle splitting the bunkers, or you can try to flirt with the corner of the fairway near the left bunker, understanding that a stand of trees might block your view of the green if you hit it short or pull it left.

Essentially, the tee shot is filled with choices of where and how to hit the ball.  The second shot to the green requires an aerial approach.

I'll post # 5 at Newport later.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Your description of the 8th is missing the fact the the pitch to the green is exceptionally demanding.  A huge, deep bunker sits front and center, almost the width of the green.  

Over...is dead.  Don't ask me why, it just is because of the way the green sits almost shelf-like above anything you might want to attempt.  Kind of the old, land the ball on the hood of the car and stop it shot.  Missing in the front bunker is ironically the place to miss.  

As far as tee shot placement, you almost certainly want to leave a full shot, simply because the closer you get to the green, the more downhill the pitch of the terrain, leaving a frightening shot.

For some reason known only to the golf god's, the right side near OB is the preferred tee shot position, as Patrick mentions.   I haven't been able to figure out the logical reason for this, as a shot to either side of the fairway leaves a second the needs to negotiate the front bunker.

I've driven perfectly on that hole twice now (the only two times I played the course), far up the right side, and managed one scary par and one double.  

The only person who the hole is "perfect" for might be Phil Mickelson!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I did say that the second shot to the green requires an aerial approach.

I think a right side tee shot gets a slightly better green slope to hit into.  A left side tee shot has the green running away from you, so I think the risk/reward is there, but, not apparent to the first time player.

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat-Thank you. Your desciption is far more valuable to me than any areial. Do I understand correctly that the fairway has a downhill slope to it as you get closer to the hole? Is the rightside ideal approach, flatish? could this be the cause for it's desirabilty?

[TEPaul]

#8 Merion's second really isn't all that scary--I'd call the approach shot just one of "feel"--it takes some getting used to because your distance control has to be good. Because of the extreme build-up of the fronting bunker the left 3/4 of the green just over the bunker can really shoot your ball forward (a turbo boost area). But past that boost area the green is back to front so there really isn't much problem holding the green except it's quite shallow--but it does have pretty good width for such a short approach. People seem to get in trouble on this hole if they start to focus in on the pin too much!

Pat Mucci probably wouldn't appreciate all this though since his approach apparently (the base of the front pin was blind)  lipped out!

Missing the approach shot in the front bunker is not the place to be anymore if you want to make par. That fronting bunker is very deep now and the face is really high. Getting up and down from the front bunker now would be quite an accomplishment!

[Patrick_Mucci]

A Clayman,

I don't know the yardage from the tee that the downslope begins, I would guess in the 230-260 range.  Perhaps some better acquainted with the course can provide that info.

The right side is flat, but it too descends to the green, and I don't know the yardage off the tee, but I would say in the
240-270 range.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

If one were to miss the 8th green, would not the front bunker be easier to control the recovery shot than from over that green?  

It seems to me that most mistakes there are either short or long, given the significant width of the green that you mentioned.  I'm just thinking in terms of "pick your poison".  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

If the pin is anywhere near the front of the green the answer has to be NO due to the slope of the green away from the front of the green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

Ahhhh...such are the vagaries and genius of Merion!

Both times I played, the hole was cut towards the back, so that a shot that was long was DEAD, deceased, visited by the grim reaper, morto!

I see your point with a front pin!

[TEPaul]

Merion's #8, just like #13 has about the most significant "evolutionary build-up" I've ever seen from sand splashing up on the tops of the fronting bunkers on both that has created a serious "turbo boost" on the front green section just over those bunkers (obviously because of that the "turbo boost" area are blind too). This makes approaching those two greens and particularly front pins on both that much more difficult than the holes used to be or were originally.

To me this is no more than poetic justice which involves very much the evolution of golf courses but also the fact that it makes the modern aerial game to these greens that much more difficult--and certainly it makes recovering well from the front bunkering harder than ever before!

Naturally being short holes neither one has any ground game option to approach it.

#13 green was originally almost flat to the approach and originally #8 even canted away from the approaching golfer (front to back) but Wilson and Flynn changed that in the 1920s to the back to front green that's there today--and then evolution took over and worked some real changes on the front of those greens over time.

I like that kind of evolutionary buildup as it seems to be keeping pace with the increased effectiveness of the aerial game! It's not that much different in a way to Mike Cirba's post about "tongue" sections on some greens that are hard to get to. Front pins are very hard to get to but very much dependant on the firmness (or lack of it) of those greens!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()