[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

Aerial photos from 1928-1930, 1938 and in subsequent years right up until 2012 are irrefutable evidence, whereas your anecdotal recollections are prone to be flawed.

Fairway acreage went from 50 down to 20 and now stands at about 30, a far cry from 50.
Please get your facts right BEFORE posting

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What are you talking about on fairway acreage---Shinnecock or Merion?  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Nicely done, David, and wow is that narrow.

I've always just assumed narrowing can be undone via mowing. Is anything else required?

I can't believe anyone much less a member would want to play something that skinny. Would they?

[TEPaul]

"I've always just assumed narrowing can be undone via mowing. Is anything else required?"


Mark:

Not exactly but yes, ultimately mowing to fairway height has to be done. It's a bit more complicated than that though. To first narrow and the widen back out fairway area on a hole the options are to seed in the rough in place of the fairway area or sod it in. Sodding is more expensive but a whole lot faster.

And to reverse it and reestablish fairway area from rough area seeding or sodding is the option and again sodding is much faster.

Of course it is also all about what kind of grass you sod in with and then sod back out with because rough grass and fairway grass these days are almost never the same grass strain.

Hope that helps and that is precisely what Shinnecock did before the 2004 US Open and then after it.

Will Merion do after the 2013 US Open what Shinnecock did after the 2004 US Open in this way?

Good question!

However, even that question isn't so simple when one compares Shinnecock in 2004 to Merion in 2013 because Shinnecock did not resdesign any of their bunker arrangements preparatory to the 2004 but Merion has done that in preparation for the 2013 on at least three holes so the next question becomes will Merion take those holes back to their previous bunker arrangements? That I do not know but if I were a betting man my inclination would be to bet against it. Most all the architectural redesigning of Merion East actually ended in the early 1930s. This latest redesign was actually the most significant since then (other than perhaps the comprehensive bunker restoration or improvement project, or whatever one wants to call it, of 1999). So will this 2013 US Open redesign of two greens and about three holes of bunker rearrangement remain part of the architectural evolution of Merion East going into the future?

That's the ultimate question, I guess.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

What are you talking about on fairway acreage---Shinnecock or Merion?  

Shinnecock

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What I said about the evolution of the fairway acreage at Shinnecock is essentially what you said above. You have an interesting way of repeating me and what I have just said to you and then telling me I'm wrong about something. Why is that? Is it that you just keep forgetting that most of what you know about the details of the architecture of some courses historically and otherwise does come from me in the first place?

[ChipOat]

Dan Herrmann and a few others.

You guys are making these U.S. Open adjustments sound like the sturm und drang about the bunker project (which was also unnecessary, IMO).

Maybe 5 members (all under 30) out of 600+ have the length to play from those Open tee boxes and actually have a chance at a reasonable score.  It just won't happen.

As for guests, if a round on the East Course isn't completed in four (4) hours, letters get written.

I'm also willling to make a small wager that the fairways will be widened by the end of August, 2012 unless there's a good agronomy-related reason not to do so that I'm not aware of.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

What I said about the evolution of the fairway acreage at Shinnecock is essentially what you said above.

I don't think so.

You tried to isolate the discussion on fairway width to the post 2004 Open widths, ignoring the fact that the fairway widths had been previously shrunk for the 1986 and 1995 Opens.

You knew that Shinnecock had taken their fairway acreage from 50 to 20 to 30 acres, but couched your post solely in the context of the 2004 Open whereby the widths went to 20 then back to 30, rather than disclosing that the fairway acreage had previously been 50 acres, a material error.

Some might question if, due to your relationship with Shinnecock, you were being protective rather than objective.

You have an interesting way of repeating me and what I have just said to you and then telling me I'm wrong about something. Why is that?

In this instance, because I felt you misrepresented the facts.
That you tried to mislead and/or conceal the truth about Shinnecock's fairway acreage by contexting the acreage solely within the realm of the 2004 Open and subsequent to the 2004 Open, neglecting to cite the fairway widths prior to the 1986 and 1995 Opens[/size]

Is it that you just keep forgetting that most of what you know about the details of the architecture of some courses historically and otherwise does come from me in the first place?

While some of "the details of the architecture of some courses historically" has come from you, the preponderance of that information has come from other sources.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"They keep getting narrower and narrower and are NEVER returned to their original or earlier widths."

TE,

Here's your post along with my comments


Pat:

That would not be wholly correct with Shinnecock.

It is "WHOLLY CORRECT"

Shinnecock's fairways were once 50 acres whereas today they're about 30 acres, that's a 40 % reduction.

Thus, my statement is "WHOLLY CORRECT"



While the fairways may never return to their original widths which was app. 50 plus acres, they did return them from their 2004 US Open widths that was in the mid-20 acre area back to the mid-30s which was what they were before their narrowing for the 2004 US Open.


That's irrelevant.
What about their pre 1995 Open acreage ?
What about their pre 1986 Open acreage ?

Are those widths not material ?

It was all preconceived and it was done by sodding in and then sodding back out which is a whole lot faster.

That's irrelevant to the issue.

Actually that would not be wholly correct either with Merion's fairways.

It is "WHOLLY CORRECT"

Only a moron would deny, challenge or contradict my statement, especially in the face of the photographic evidence.

How can you make these outlandish, factually incorrect statements in the face of irrefutable photographic evidence ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Currently there are probably up to eight threads on this website within the first 2-3 pages that are about Merion somehow.

On most all of them, you, Tom MacWood and David Moriarty have participated. Most of the posts of you three on those current threads reflect a common theme. It’s obvious that theme is all about proving some people on here wrong about something. It is also obvious its about trying to prove the histories of some significant clubs wrong about something.

Perhaps you three believe you have done that somehow over the years. It certainly appears you three think you have done that with Merion in one way or another. However, is there something else underlying this that has motivated you three on this subject and a few others for some years now?

The posts from you three on these current threads seem make it obvious there is something else underlying all this and it seems to be all about who does the best research and who gets credit and attribution for any of it. The most obvious indication to date is David Moriarty completely flashing out (on the current Francis and also the Herbert Warren Wind thread) over something I said on here about Wayne Morrison knowing about a letter years ago that is solid indication that Hugh Wilson was abroad in 1912. From that he accused Wayne Morrison and me of taking his research and his information and ideas and using it in our Flynn book without crediting him for it or attributing something to him. His accusations that went on for days and pages were really ugly with what he accused us of being for doing that.

This is really what all this is about with you three isn’t it? If so, I think it should be presented and aired out. I welcome it, so would Wayne. So would Merion and some other clubs and probably an awful lot of other people who are aware of what has gone on here on this website on this subject and some others somehow related to it.

Are you three going to avoid this or deny it or would you prefer to present it and discuss it? I think it should be presented and discussed and I encourage all three of you or any of the three of you to create a separate thread just dedicated to this specific subject. I guarantee I will remain civil when I participate. I’ve discussed the arguing and the tone on here just recently with Ran Morrissett and he has come in with a prescription of how he will handle it if and when he becomes aware of it. His email went to David Moriarty and me and it appears there is a resolution to over the top tone and attitude on this website.

In the last year or so I’ve become a big fan of Jeff Evensky who is on this website and looks at these things in an over-view way. Jeff rarely participates but when he does I find his posts concise and really to the point and to the heart of what is really behind this decade long debate by perhaps up to only ten people on this website. He put a post like that on one of these eight or so current Merion threads. If I can find it I will posted it again because I think, as he does, there are a few underlying issues that go right to the heart of this whole decade long subject on here that generally seems to go back to and always revolve around Merion somehow.

This post should probably be included on all eight of those current Merion related threads on here.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In specific response to your last few posts on Shinnecock and also Merion, all I can say is I think they are unnecessarily argumentative and largely irrelevant, and therefore not worth additional discussion or comment. I think there is a much larger and much more important subject to be discussed on here.

[ChipOat]

Not sure what Tom Paul has in mind re: the bigger picture, but I have a point to make.

A late, former President of Merion, the Lesley Cup and the PA Golf Association once told me that "a major tournament is an excellent mid-term exam for a golf course."  I will interpolate his opinion to mean that a U.S. Open is a "final exam".

I happen to agree and I believe that adding tee boxes that the members will never see and, probably, the Philadelphia and PA Golf Associations will see very little of, hardly qualifies as "disfiguring" the essence of Merion.  Shinnecock is another great track that is none the worse for wear after building their "way back" tee boxes although I do agree with those who wish they would lighten up on the narrow fairways and super-deep rough.  Talk about HARD!!

Yes, I am in favor of of softening the slope of Golden Era greens that are now unputtable at Stimps > 9+ regardless of whether a championship is imminent or not.  I haven't yet seen #2 at Pine Valley but, with all due respect to the opinions of my good friend Pat Mucci, I confess it sounds pretty good to me.  So far, #'s 12 & 15 at Merion appear to be successful assuming you share my point of view.  IMO, #5 could use a little of the same.

So long as the regular tee markers aren't eliminated for member play, what's the big deal?

When I compare Merion in 1937 to 1930, I see a lot of Flynn (and Valentine?) changes that suggests an appreciation for the progress of the game even back then.  I wonder if Flynn would be having the kind of heartburn today that many in the Treehouse are experiencing?

Just a thought - and, admittedly, unanswerable.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Chip,

There is one type of course where I wonder less about changes and that would be these so-called "championship courses." Pinehurst #2 was designed to be one, and Merion East was, too, wasn't it? If the sole purpose was to host some kind of championship, then one could argue the architecture is subservient to current requirements whatever those may be, just as that course's architecture has always been subservient. On top of that, if you have a history where the original architect "tinkered" with the course well after it opened for play, that's another indication of where he would have gone with things were he alive today.

Two major caveats to this thinking:

1) Many of the recent changes such courses have undergone is in response to dramatic recent increases in distance.
2) Who makes the changes? Are they as gifted as Donald Ross or Alister Mackenzie? That's when I catch myself and ask, why not change the ball and keep the original test, or at least the test of 1990? What's wrong with that? Why is that such an apparently unrealistic thought while adding a tee that requires the removal of a stop sign and the repainting of a fire hydrant considered a sane thought?

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Re: Your #36, you just keep on keeping on your message and your opinion!

I don't think there is any quesiton that this website is populated with a small, vocal bunch of self-professed "purists" on golf course architecture (want me to list or name them or would that be considered on here personal and insulting? ) It's ironic to me that the most vocal and the most crtical of them particularly about all things MERION and its US Open architectural prep changes don't even belong to a golf club, including a private club or one anything like Merion!

What's up with those people? Where do they come off with their criticisms when they have absolutely zero skin in the game? I guess they come off that way because they have NEVER had any skin in any game when it comes to golf course architecture and any golf club.

[ChipOat]

Mark,

As in slowing the now-unputtable greens, the championship ball is also a good idea and one that Jack Nicklaus suggested at least 25+ years ago (I still have two sleeves of his Cayman Ball).

However, I'll be as surprised to see it implemented as I will be to see Golden Era greens returned to their originally intended speed.

So, I applaud your idea, just as I applaud Pat Mucci's (and others).

But, since I don't believe that we will see either one in my lifetime, I default to the Plan B which purists hate and even I wish could be avoided.  But, I'm afraid it can't.
 

[Tony Ristola]

No, but I will guarantee that is what they are planning to do.

Some thoughts on this "secret". (Please... Not to be taken seriously):

Use tarps. Import the squads that drag them in and out from Wimbledon.
Each green has a geodesic dome that can be erected in 15-minutes.
Topdress with gravel; or gravel-like sand to ensure the greens are so crusty they wear down steel spikes.
Topdress with Portland Cement in the days before the tournament.
Use synthetic greens with a concrete subgrade.
Did someone say Subair running 24-7... to the point the greens would be so dry... like popcorn that the rootzone would be sucked into the irrigation line?
Helicopters for every hole on stand-by.
Lots of praying.

Anyone know the program used for the slide system to compare the photos?

[Rich Goodale]

The only time I played Merion was in November 2001 (through the very kind courtesy of Bill Dow, and in the company of Bill, Tom Paul and Mike Cirba).  Amongst my memories of that day are Tom insisting that we play off some newly placed "tiger" tees, beginning with a rough dot of mowed truf 20 yards or so behind the (then) "championship" tees and ending with a journey behind the 17th green (I think) to play from an 18th tee 40-50 yards behind from where Hogan played from in 1950 (and Graham in 1980).

What I also remember from then is that playing off a 6 or so handicap and age 55, and with the course anything but fast and firm, I was able to pretend I could experience the course that the pros would play, parring 5, 6, 16 and 18 (don't ask about the other holes), the latter from 15-20 behind where Hogan hit from the now front tees, with Driver, 1 iron (Cirba hit his drivel to the Hogan plate and probably hit 3 iron to the green).

As I understand it, today's pros will be hitting driver 8-iron to the 18th, which in my wildest dreams I could never have been able to do.  I'll watch the tournament, but will not be able to empathize with the pros, as I and most reasonable players could do (at least in their dreams).  I am sad about this, but Hogan must be apoplectic in his grave........

Ooops!  Make that 2001.....

[Mark Bourgeois]

Why was the bunker short left of the 5th green removed and why were the two bunkers down the left side of the fairway added? Re the fwy bunkers, couldn't they just have closely mown the grass to bring the stream into play? It almost seems like those are "saving" or framing bunkers -- why not just let the stream do the work?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I can't speak about the history of the bunker you referred to down near the 5th green but I can with those along the creek in the LZ on the tee shot. Those were put in just before the 1930 Open in which Bob Jones ended up winning the Grand Slam at Merion. Those bunkers were taken out not long after that and were not put back in until around 1999 or 2000 during the now somewhat famous (on here) Merion "bunker project" which got so much criticism from some on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. That one was the first of two controversial subjects on here about Merion that were argued for years. The first one even made it into the newspapers and Sports Illustrated.

The essential rallying term for that bunker project which was in preparation for the 2005 US Amateur which was looked upon as a bit of a prep or test to figure out whether another US Open could or would be held at Merion was "Back to the Future" and the club decided the high point for various reasons was probably Bob Jones's Grand Slam that ended at Merion so 1930 was the "back to" part of the "Back to the Future" term used.

That is the story with those fairway bunkers along the creek on #5 as with some others on the course such as fronting the 4th green just over the creek.

[paul cowley]

I'm beginning to think that width was more important when the ball moved more left and right in the pre metal wood past....then it was shape the shot...now it's pick the line.

Today's 'pick the line' strategies are a result of equipment that creates a straighter and longer ball flight....with less overall deflection.

Maybe skinny fairways are a more appropriate test for the average Pro.

One can't worry or design around the Bombers.

[DMoriarty]

I have trouble understanding how it is "pick the line" with fairways 22-24 yards wide.   Isn't "the line" pretty much picked for them at this point? And if there is no line to pick then "strategies" are pretty much reduced merely to club selection, are they not?  

[Dan Herrmann]

David - I couldn't agree more.

Merion is one of the greatest golf courses in the world, and to me, the golfer's clever ability to use angles in its design gives it a lot of its greatness.

[paul cowley]

David...yes, you pick the line and select the distance to the point in the fairway that you feel is most advantageous as per the holes strategic layout...and then you select the club that best gets you to that point.

[DMoriarty]

David...yes, you pick the line and select the distance to the point in the fairway that you feel is most advantageous as per the holes strategic layout...and then you select the club that best gets you to that point.

"As per the hole's strategic layout?" What "strategic layout" is left when the fairway is only 22-24 yards wide? I can see on a few holes where one might choose to lay back for visibility or an even lie, but isn't the real consideration how far you are comfortable trying to hit the ball into such a narrow space?

I guess I see where some club selection and distance control is required, but surely this is a pretty pale notion of strategy, is it not?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()