[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I said on approach. Because the greens are small, the tee shot placement is less critical. Nothing wrong with that is there? #1 green is a pretty darn good one. Choke full of counter intuitiveness. FWIW, caddying there, the caddy earns his trust on the very first green because 99% of all golfers mis-read it. I especially like the fairway cut out on the left. Even with OB on the left, missing the green left is an easier recovery than right. Long is also not the spot to be. There is a similarity between 1 and 12's green. They both have at grade fronts and yet their backs slope away from the golfer. Creating the need for distance control and proper management. Firing at the flag is not often the correct strategy at Pebble.

At Merion, how does the pin position change the driving strategies?

[JESII]

At Merion, how does the pin position change the driving strategies?

FOR ME:

#1 - Anywhere along the right side of the green asks for you to get it up the left side for visibility and angle...the back right pin almost demands it if you want to have a manageable two putt, or good thought of birdie. Front left is pretty easy as the approach is open and puttable. Back left is just a notch up from front left...if you're thinking about a birdie you want to hit it as far as you can up the center to right center, or you can play conservatively off the tee and into the green.

#2 - The entire green looks better from the right side of the fairway on the approach, which is remarkably easier to get to with a tee shot up the left side of the fairway as opposed to the middle or right side.

#4 - Doesn't have much side-to-side demand from the tee, other than the flatter lie you get on the right side. Front hole locations ask for a quick stopping approach, and if the pin favors one side or the other of the front, the opposite side of the fairway will be greatly preferred. Thruth be told, the fact that the (second) fairway is able to move while your layup shot is in the air kind of takes any lateral strategy out of the picture.    A back hole location asks for a releasing shot, which is not so easy from an elevated fairway down to a green that faces you at a pretty steep angle, so it asks for me to be aggressive on your layup and get it down as close to the creek as possible.

#5 - In general, every inch away from the creek on the left increases the difficulty to any pin, but I would say that a deep, slightly left pin might be best accessed from a little higher on the hill because the general nature of the shot from the left edge of the fairway seems to play uphill which would make the back of the green difficult to reach.

#6 - generally you just want to get out of here with a par, but a drive to the left (safe) side of the fairway with the pin in the back left will result in a nearly impossible approach to get inside of 30 feet, and then the break on that 30 footer will be huge...so, if the pin is center or right, just find the fairway and find the green and you should make a par...but...if the pin is back left you will need to drive it in the right side of the fairway to take pressure off the need for a perfect approach.

#7 - Not sure of any real significant advantage to being on one side or the other with the exception of the intimidating look of the big left bunker when you are in the left edge of the fairway to a right pin.

#8 - The small slope coming off the left and front bunkers force you to approach left half pins from the right corner if you want a birdie, or even a slightly larger margin of error on your approach to make a par easier. A well struck wedge from the left center of the fairway to the left center of the green has only a moderate chance of holding the green because of the severity of the downslope while the same yardage approach from 20 or 25 yards to the right will be pretty receptive. Right half pins would not seem to offer much advantage either way.

#10 - Left side pins force an approach from the right side. The challenge and penalties are too severe to come in from the left. Back right requires a tee ball that lays back...not so much a lateral requirement (the fairway is pretty narrow there) but a distance requirement...maybe even a club that brings the otherwise obsolete left fairway bunker into play.

#11 - Just get it in the fairway and on the green.

#12 - Hole locations cut along the back provide an opportunity to be a bit more aggressive off the tee. I can try to cut it up and around the corner without too much concern about the rough because I'll have green to work with. Otherwise, you better just play safely to the center of the green at the yardage of the pin if you can.

#14 - has a back left pin the can only be accessed from the right third of the fairway, and a back right pin that is more easily accessed from the left rough than the right third of the fairway.

#15 - Really is a hole you try to par...to just about any pin, the closer you are to the left rough, the better your angle.

#16 - Provides a real, although not tremendous advantage to the typical left pin/ right side of fairway type of strategy. If you're in the middle of the fairway, you're in good shape to any pin.

#18 - I am of the firm belief that the best way to make a par here is to stay just shy of the crest of the hill off the tee, and up the right center of the fairway. I may be back at 210 or so, but it should be pretty flat and well positioned to get on the green. I've never seen a pin here that I thought I could get near from any more than about 15 feet from it...

[Adam Clayman]

C'mon Sully, you missed my cue for "the fairways are too narrow at either course to warrant any strategic benefit on tee shot placement". The strategies you describe (courses secrets)are also found on those "weak" holes at Pebble. There's enough movement in the ground to create interesting shot opportunities from anywhere. Save for the 15th hole pre, added LZ bunkers. 

I don't know how many times a person needs to play a hole to feel it's specialness. But everyone of those holes has a certain something. Maybe it's the perception of ease, that lulls the golfer? Maybe it's little tendencies, found from specific ball locations, that yield repeated results of certain scores, or, how a shot is played from them, create a lore, a uniqueness?

[JESII]

Adam,

It was teed up for sure, and I thought about it but the truth is, Merion's greens are so good that strategy is dictated back to the tee.

On at least a few holes, I think Pebble falls short of that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

It was teed up for sure, and I thought about it but the truth is, Merion's greens are so good that strategy is dictated back to the tee.

On at least a few holes, I think Pebble falls short of that.

JES II,

If the rough at Merion was cut to the same height as it is a Pebble Beach would you still feel that way ?

In addition, is the rough at Merion typical of rough at clubs in the Philly area, or is it excessively penal ?

Is the rough at Merion a critical factor in the golf course's defense ?

[JESII]

Pat,

I have only played Merion in competitive circumstances...5 years of the Hugh Wilson event (1995-1999) which was three rounds of medal play preceeded by a practice round plus last year's Philadelphia Open, which I did not play a practice round for.

In 20 or so rounds, the rough was typically penal, with a couple years being extremely penal.

My one trip (two rounds) to Pebble was during the 1999 US Amateur and the rough was also difficult, although not to the same degree.

So, to your question comparing the preparation of the rough at the two places, I am not the best to ask, but I would imagine Merion grows it higher and thicker.


Merion's rough is widely regarded as the most difficult in the region. I will say though, that last year it was not nearly as penal as my previous visits, which had been 8 years earlier...I have no idea what the explanation would be.


Your last question is by far the most interesting to me.

I would say that the course needs one or the other...very difficult rough, or firm and fast greens. Not ridiculous in either respect, but if the course is soft and the rough is down, the teeth are gone. It would still be a very, very enjoyable round because the holes are good, but a scratch player would expect to break par. Of the two (F&F greens or high rough) I would prefer F&F and think that would do the job to make the course a first rate challenge to any level of player, and would likely make the round more playable and therefore enjoyable for mid-to-high handicappers

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I would agree with you in that I would prefer F & F to high, dense, impossible rough.

To a degree, the problem is Mother Nature.

I think Mother Nature, aided by man, can provide high, dense rough, easier than MN and Man can provide F & F.

There are some who feel that Merion's rough is overly penal and the course's ONLY real defense.

It will be interesting to see the Open.

My gut tells me that the rough will be narrowed, high and dense AND that the course will strive for F & F.

I think that sets a BAD precedent for every golfer and green chairman watching TV.

[Pat Burke]

My personal thought process at Pebble's "weak" holes  (or why I wasn't as good as I should have been)
#1  I definitely had a 1st tee jitters at a place like Pebble.  But was always more worried about keeping approach below the hole. 
#3  Did seem a pretty pedestrian hole AFTER I found a three wood that had nothing but draw in it
#4  Pin placement did have an effect on my tee shot.  A back pin I would try to get it closer to the green, as the green was always "spinny" to me
#11 Severity of the green always led to a lot of importance of getting the ball in the fairway, making a pretty simple tee shot, still important
#12  In '92 US Open, it seemed absurd    At most Crosby's  (still can't say AT$T), a pretty testing mid or long iron hole.  The Open, I hit a big draw down the right and bounced it on the green.  Only way I could figure to stop it (too stubborn to hit it in front bunker)
#13  Another hole where the greens severity made the tee shot and angle left so important
I always loved PB, and thought that many of the disregarded holes demanded some precise shots, especially with a little speed in the greens.  I always felt that a properly played shot was going to be rewarded, and thus felt that PB was a fair test for myself as well as a lot of the Amateurs I was fortunate to play with there

[JESII]

JES II,

I would agree with you in that I would prefer F & F to high, dense, impossible rough.

To a degree, the problem is Mother Nature.

I think Mother Nature, aided by man, can provide high, dense rough, easier than MN and Man can provide F & F.

There are some who feel that Merion's rough is overly penal and the course's ONLY real defense.

It will be interesting to see the Open.

My gut tells me that the rough will be narrowed, high and dense AND that the course will strive for F & F.

I think that sets a BAD precedent for every golfer and green chairman watching TV.

Agreed 100% on the expected setup at Merion for the US Open...the rough lines and height/thickness need to be planned at least 12 months in advance while true firm and fast is an unknown virtually until the day of...that is why I am a very big proponent of preparing courses as firm as possible all the time and sacrificing "GREEN" to do it.

Despite what my buddies here in town suggest (TEP and Wayne) Firm, Fast and Green is substantially different than Firm, Fast and Brown...when you let it go brown, it firms back up after a rain a hell of alot faster...which could feasibly increase the odds of getting a firm course during the US Open...in which case they might not have to prep the rough as is undoubtedly planned...but that's a whole bunch of IF's...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()