Mismeasuring Merion

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Wagner,

You're confusing eyewitness accounts with civil engineering when it comes to measuring

[Bryan Izatt]

Wayne,

Where is the back tee?  Here is a closer view.  Is it near A?  Or B?  Or somewhere else in the trees.  B looks like it's in someones back yard.  In any event if it is B, a tee there would add 30 yards.



Jes,

I think the turning point makes little difference.  Here's one where the second shot would be 75 yards.  The total length is still 308 yards.  Pretty close to what Wayne says it currently is.  One way that they might have got a longer distance out of it would be if they walked it off down the middle of the fairway on a curving line or as multiple shorter line segments.  But, even that, and if they measured along the contour of the ground would only add 10 yards.  Perhaps like many courses now they measured from the back cut of the tee and to a pin that is more to the back of the green.  It'd be easy to get an extra 20 yards out of that way.  Perhaps they were as obsessed in those days with longer is better as we are today.   



 

[wsmorrison]

Bryan,

I wasn't trying to say that there was another 30 yards to add.  I said that the distance is determined more so by the way the measurement is made than the straight line distance.  The back of the back tee is against the fence of the properties shown in the photo you posted (a great photo by the way).  The 1930 photo is misleading in that it doesn't show the back tee.  The back tee is a bit behind the letter A you designated--maybe 10 yards, but that's just a guess.  Not nearly so far as the B.  My point is that the yardage on a hole that swings as much as this is dependent upon method used.  The guy that marked the drive at 300 yards erred.   This in and of itself does not disprove that Jones was capable of hitting 300 yard drives as we see on other more straight away holes.

David made a statement that the course yardage was significantly overestimated.  Do you agree?  I do not think the 10th hole is an example of that but rather something else. 

[JESII]

Thanks Bryan,

I didn't know what sort of difference it would make.

There is a small back tee pad just below the A[/color] in your first picture. Maybe 8 or 10 yards longer, and hiding in the shade. The circle cut is distinct if you look closely.

[TEPaul]

I haven't read every word here but today I believe most all courses are measured down their centerline from point to point (shot to shot) and if holes turn that will certainly add distance compared to "as the crow flies" directly from a tee to a green.

I think it's been done that way for a long, long time as on Ross' stick routing for my course in 1916 the measured drive on the hole by holes on the routing was to what he called "tee to bend" and "bend to green" whether the hole seemingly turned or not.

Courses around this time, at least most of the best of them like Merion and Pine Valley and others definitely were or could be concerned about total card yardage. I think a lot of that was the shock in distance perceived by the Haskel ball and the dedication to do something architecturally (length) to adjust to that, plus some architects like Crump were sort of fixated on a particular course "balance" or "shot testing" variety of shot requirements.

By the way, my course was about 150 yards longer when it was designed in 1916 then it is today and we just added about 250 yards to it in the last five years. In our case the course really was that much longer back then. It was probably one of the longest around at over 6700 yards. It was longer than Pine Valley, but there were more pars 5s at GMGC than either PV or Merion too.

Jones did on occassion hit the ball 300 yards or more. There are some particular examples that he wrote about. Wayne and others are right, though, when that kind of thing happened the ball was probably bouncing and rolling out 75 yards or more.

By the way, WELCOME BACK to GOLFCLUBLAS.com, David, you big West Coast PUTZ!!

I'm kidding, just kidding.

I'm glad you decided to get back on here.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,  Could you please offer factual support for your assertion that the back tee (now a middle tee) was there in 1930?   

The Alan Wilson article doesnt just address the "contour method"  but also address the proper methodology on measuring doglegs, measuring from the middle of the back tee, etc, so it is very easy to replicate endpoints and bend points.   And many of the yardages are way off.

When I considered the "present measurements" I did so based on publication of the listed yardages before the recent Amateur when the course was listed at around 6800 yards, if I recall correctly.   

I made no representation as to the accuracy of the measures in 1981.  But if the tees were the same, and many of the measures had not significantly changed, then some of the measures were still significantly overstated in 1981.    Just a quick check on google confirms that this was indeed the case.

Take the 10th again, since we've been discussing it.    It was listed as 303 yards before the Amateur.   This is pretty close to Bryan's first measure of 304, from the new back tee, not the back tee to which you were referring.    Yet, you have the 10th listed at 310 yards.    The hole was lenghened by, what, 15 or 20 yards?  The measure decreased by 6.   

All these measures are with a dogleg.   As the crow flies, the hole is less than 290 yards from the middle of the current back tee, and about 270 yards from the middle of the next tee up.

By the way, the most powerful men at Merion Cricket Club were some of the most powerful men in American business, the top executives of the Pennsylvania Rail Road.  I think it likely that they had men available that could accurately measure the distance of a golf hole.  Howard C. Toomey, a civil engineer formerly of the Pennsylvania RR, who would later partner with William Flynn in their construction business, worked for the Cricket Club.  I suppose he was capable of not making egregious measurement errors.

Surely they could have accurately measured, but they were measuring by a method that was not accurate.   It is described in the Alan Wilson article. 

CORRECTION:   I misread Wayne's previous post.  I think we are both referring to the same back tee.   So my statement that there was an additional back tee was incorrect.  Sorry for the confusion.   

[JESII]

David,

To address just one small portion of this...the image Bryan is using with markings in yellow {A} and {B} is off by about 10 yards because he was measuring from what is currently the second tee from the back. I am not wading into the timing of any of it, but if you look at his google image with the Yellow letter markings, about an inch below the A is a small circular area in the shade that is the current back tee.

[Peter Wagner]

JES II,

Your above picture illustrates one of my points that by moving the turn in point while still staying on the center line yields a different yardage for the hole.  Your picture shows a yardage of 308 and the same hole depicted a few posts above with a different turn in point shows 304.

The problem is compounded by slightly different fairway shapes between now and 1930.  This produces a different centerline and again different yardages.

To have a true apple-to-apples comparison we would need:  yardage makers on all tees in 1930 that haven't moved, and markers in each fairway depicting turn in points which also haven't been moved.  Even with that you would still have the issue of finding the center of the green then and now which would yield some variance.

David,
I'm not sure why this topic is important as I wasn't on this board when you last brought it up.  I think yardage differences of plus or minus 6 to 12 yards per hole are explainable by some of the above discussion.  I would scratch my head at anything over 12 yards though.  The exception would be par-3's as there is no turn in point.  Those should be plus or minus 2 to 4 yards due to the finding the center of a green problem and the slight changes in the shape of the green since 1930.

Mike,
I've gone back to edit my poor spelling.  No offense intended to the Merion Cricket Club nor to any former Philadelphian's!   Thanks for the correction.

Best,
Peter

[DMoriarty]

JES,

Thanks for the clarification.    To expand, then, Wayne claims that current back tee was built in 1930?   Is that the way you read it?   If so, then I would definitely like to see the support for this assertion, because I have seen no evidence of this.

Peter,

They weren't off by 6 yards a hole.   Again, I am not interested in quibbling about a yard or two, but some were way off.   Even the back tee had been built on the 10th, it was still off by 25 yards.   The 18th was off by over 30 yards.  The 12th was off by over 30 yards.  The 2nd was significantly off, by dozens of yards. The 4th was off by over 20 yards.   

The course as a whole was off by over 300 yards!
______________________

To all. 

Here is another way to look at it.   The course played at 6800 yards for the recent Amateur and will apparently play at between 6900 and 7000 yards for the U.S. Open.   Where, exactly is this yardage coming from?   The number grew over 340 yards between 1981 and the recent amateur?   From where did this yardage come?  Which holes were lengthened and by how much?.
_____________

[wsmorrison]

"When I considered the "present measurements" I did so based on publication of the listed yardages before the recent Amateur when the course was listed at around 6800 yards, if I recall correctly."

David,

That was a mistake.  You neglected to consider unchanged holes and distances stated from tees that remain from the 1930 Amateur.  The yardage used in the 2005 Amateur differs from the yardage prior to that only due to lengthening on holes 2,3,5,6,9,12,14,15,17 and 18.   All of these holes and the unchanged holes retained the existing tees as used in the 1930 Amateur.  The yardage I posted represents the yardage on the current scorecards, which were redone this year and are all of 4 days old.

The back tee on the 10th hole is the same as the one that existed in 1930 and 1924 prior to that.  It did not exist in 1916.  Nothing has been done to the 10th hole since 1930 except for the regrassing of the green, the work on the bunkers within the last 6-7 years and the installation of an XGD system.

What additional factual support are you looking for?  I'm completely convinced of this and would welcome any findings of yours that correct my opinion.

The measurement you refer to on the 10th, as we have established several times, is dependent upon where the turn was taken for the approach shot.  The yardage discrepancy is mostly, but not entirely, based upon that.  Alan Wilson talked about how measurements are done on "a good many courses" in two articles in the USGA Green Section, on July 21, 1923  and March 24, 1924.  Neither article identifies Merion as a specific example of one measurement manner or another.  In the 1923 article, AW wanted to standardize the scorecard measurement from the middle tee to the middle of the green.  I don't know why he didn't suggest measurements from the middle of each tee so that the scorecard would be accurate for all players and for handicapping purposes.  In the 1924 article, Alan Wilson recommends using the contour method to measure as it is better for practical reasons.  He goes on to state that for uphill holes, the contour method represents the playing yardage better than a measurement from middle of tee to middle of green (which he cites as the better method in the 1923 article).  For dogleg holes and holes with long diagonal carries, AW recommended that the holes be measured along a line of play "which would be used by the standard good player--a man who could drive the ball 225 yards rather than a short hitter or a very long player--leaving an open angle into the green.

[wsmorrison]

"To expand, then, Wayne claims that current back tee was built in 1930?   Is that the way you read it?   If so, then I would definitely like to see the support for this assertion, because I have seen no evidence of this."

I do not claim this nor have I ever.  No need to look for evidence to support such a claim.

[wsmorrison]

"Here is another way to look at it.   The course played at 6800 yards for the recent Amateur and will apparently play at between 6900 and 7000 yards for the U.S. Open.   Where, exactly is this yardage coming from?   The number grew over 340 yards between 1981 and the recent amateur?   From where did this yardage come?  Which holes were lengthened and by how much?."

That is very easy to determine.  There was an 80-yard increase on one hole alone.  Post #34 tells you all the holes that were lengthened but not the yardage increases.

[JESII]

David,

I guess I would ask you, what exactly is the point? If you are building a case of some sort and this is a foundation, fine. I can be patient, just tell me if that is it.

If not, and you are simply wondering how on earth Merions yardages could be so far off please tell me that as well...

I can say that the couple of holes Wayne posted earlier from the old magazine article, it seems the 300 yard drives were on holes that would provide a good amount of roll. #10 would not, but I think the "300" tag is just poorly placed.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Although a couple of holes had discrepancies in their measurements, I think what I posted previously dispels the notion that a lot of holes were mistakenly measured.  OK, a few were.  I wish David would tell us what this all means, because I for one don't get it.

[JESII]

For the longest time, I had the sprinkler head yardages on my course pretty well memorized. Not that impressive when you know they were at 30 yard intervals. One spring, the sprinkler we all drove it near on #11 said 119 instead of the prior years 130.

First two guys hit it in the water in front, so I stick with the 130 yardage...afterall, I hadn't hit it in the back bunker unexpectedly every prior time playing the hole...and later ask the guys in charge how they came up with the measurement. It was the only one much different from before. They said they had these new thinga-ma-bobs called laser range finders and they were accurate from 400 yards to within like 2 yards.

OK! Why is #11 so screwy?

"Dunno".

Is there a meter conversion button on there?

"Yep".

OK, take it off, and go remeasure and tell me what you get. "130". Still there.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,

It wasn't a mistake.   I was checking the "current" distances.    Surely 1981 is not "current,"  not "present," and not "today." 

And as I said above, many of the 1981 distances were still wrong.   Some had been corrected, or partially corrected, but not all and not by enough. 

No. 18 is a good example.  You list it as 463 yards in 1981,  If the tee was the same as in 1930 then it was not even close.   In fact it was off by 30-50 yards. 


For clarification, did the back tee used at the recent amateur exist in 1930? 


Is there any documentation of when the back tee on the 10th was built?
_______________________

Jim,

My points are in the original post, and I outlined them above.  Again:


1.   Old golf courses that followed Alan Wilson's contour method of measurement overestimated what we usually think of as the true distance of the golf holes.   Merion is an example of one of these courses.

2.   Stories of long drives from the past may also be exaggerated because the holes were not measured inaccurately.   Some of Jone's drives from 1930 are an example of long drives that were not really as long as we thought. 

3.  The lengthening of golf courses over time has probably been more severe than we thought, because the old ones were not as long as we thought


At this point, I am simply responding to challenges to my factual assertion that the length of Merion was drastically overestimated in 1930 and before, and I have since added that the length was still overestimated (by not quite as much) in 1981.   

What I dont get is that this part is a factual assertion and easy to check.   Take a look at the photos Wayne posted, and go to google earth and check for yourself.   No question that many of the listed yardages in 1930 and in 1981 were way off. 

[Mike Sweeney]

David,

I guess I would ask you, what exactly is the point? If you are building a case of some sort and this is a foundation, fine. I can be patient, just tell me if that is it.

David,

I made this same point a few months ago. I am genuinely interested in the history of Merion for a few reasons as I grew up in a non-member way on the course.

Your past theories about Macdonald lead me to speculate that your theory is as follows:

Wilson went to Europe (according to your manifest) after the grassing of Merion, thus Macdonald had a bigger role in the layout of Merion that he was credited for. Maybe you have some additional evidence to support this theory, but 1 ships manifest from an H Wilson from Phlly just is not going to cut it.

We now have two Mike Sweeney's on this board and a pretty good friend recently confused the two. There obviously were a bunch of H Wilson's according to Cirba's research.

If your goal here is to tweak Tom and Wayne and their research, please go for it off-line, but as requested by many others on that original email chain, please keep me off of it (unless of course someone sends some Porn, which is how that email started, please keep me in   )

Thus, if you have some information similar to Tom MacWood had about Crump prior to his article, let's get to it.

Thanks

[TEPaul]

"The back tee on the 10th hole is the same as the one that existed in 1930 and 1924 prior to that."

Wayne:

I'm not so sure about that. I could be wrong but I think I remember a back tee being added on #10 during my playing career which would be in the last 20 years probably (and not during the recent rounds of distance addition to Merion).

I could be wrong but I vaguely remember playing from the tips for some years and then walking up there one time and seeing a new back tee up in there which I kind of recall led me to say: "Hmmm, I didn't think they could get a tee farther back on this hole but obviously they did."

Ask Capers. If they added a new back tee in the last twenty or so years and before about five years ago he would certainly know.

[Mike Sweeney]

I could be wrong but I vaguely remember playing from the tips for some years and then walking up there one time and seeing a new back tee up in there which I kind of recall led me to say: "Hmmm, I didn't think they could get a tee farther back on this hole but obviously they did."

Ask Capers. If they added a new back tee in the last twenty or so years and before about five years ago he would certainly know.

I would agree with that Tom, but only from memory. I also remember that they cleared out some trees on the hillside when they built that back tee.

Same too with #12. It used to be a narrow shoot coming out of there.

[JESII]

Jim,

My points are in the original post, and I outlined them above.  Again:


1.   Old golf courses that followed Alan Wilson's contour method of measurement overestimated what we usually think of as the true distance of the golf holes.   Merion is an example of one of these courses.

2.   Stories of long drives from the past may also be exaggerated because the holes were not measured inaccurately.   Some of Jone's drives from 1930 are an example of long drives that were not really as long as we thought. 

3.  The lengthening of golf courses over time has probably been more severe than we thought, because the old ones were not as long as we thought

So the point is that technology has been worse that we all thought because we added more length to courses than we thought we added...?

As to the Jones long drives, I think it is important for you to recognize the holes where these long drives happened. On #8, I expect the ball to go 20 - 30 yards further than normal off the tee because of a long gradual downhill...interestingly, the hill gets steeper out where the image shows Jones drive and he would have had a very difficult shot from 30 or 40 yards.

#7 has a similar but not quite as dramatic runway fairway if you get it going up the left side. Nothing really to stop the ball before the upslope about 310 from the tee.

the 300 Yard mark on #10 is mis-placed I think.

[DMoriarty]

Yes, Jim, that is one of the points.   

But another point is that these old clubs used a faulty measuring methodology, as outlined by Alan Wilson.   And Merion is a good example of this.   

Another point is that many of the yardages still remained significantly off as recently as 1981.  I'll bet some are still way off.   How is HV?  Have you ever checked it? 

[JESII]

Now I get it...these guys couldn't measure a golf course properly, how in the world could they build one?

[DMoriarty]

No, not at all.  It is just that the Green Section mag had a lot of credit, so Wilson's article was likely followed by many other clubs who probably did the same thing as Merion. 

To me it would shed light on the distance issue if courses have had to grow hundreds of yards more than has been documented. 

To clarify, my last sentence above referred to courses in general, not Merion.   I havent checked them all, but Merion's new yardages appear to be accurate.   

[James Bennett]

Imagine the issues at any club that has been able to proudly assert that 'we are a 6600 yard championship course' based on mis-measurements.  The new policy finally comes in and measurements have to be retaken, and the 6600 yard course becomes 6400 yards.  There is going to be a lot of 'tweaking' of the course to ensure there is enough change to either retain the 6600 yard course (including pushing tees back into corners where they don't fit well) or to lengthen holes, perhaps from a par 4 to a par 5.  Enough for the committee to feel comfortable about their 'championship length' being retained.

Well, that is what I have seen over the last 30 years in my local area, and I expect human nature and committees around the world share a lot of similar behavioural traits, and that some of these traits have been around a long time.

James B

[JESII]

To me it would shed light on the distance issue if courses have had to grow hundreds of yards more than has been documented. 

The words "...courses have had to grow..." is what turns me off.

Who forced them to grow even one yard?