Report from Merion; the 12th and 15th greens

[ChipOat]

With apologies to those who have not played Merion.

I made a quick visit to Merion yesterday specifically to see the 12th and 15th greens - both of which have been "softened" regarding their pitch in certain places.

BACKGROUND:  Some months ago, I started a thread regarding the planned changes referred to above.  I approved (then and now) of these changes as one of my pet peeves is Golden Era greens that were built to "stimp" around 6-8 and are now simply ridculous as mower technology and agronomy allows clubs to keep their greens at 12+ (or higher).  If you can putt off of a green, it's too damn fast.  As an idealist, Pat Mucci continues to call for clubs, Boards and Golf Committees to maintain the original contours of these greens and slow them down closer to that which the original architect intended.  Being a more pragmatic observer of human nature, I have thrown in the towel that these clubs will ever do that, so I endorse the less-desirable, but inevitable Plan B - which is to do what Merion has done and remove the "clown's nose and windmill" effect by reducing the pitch of the greens in those places where reasonable putting has become impossible.

REPORT SUMMARY:  Because my testing was done rather late in the day, and especially because the 12th green is quite shaggy for reasons I will explain, I believe the results are "somewhat inconclusive but appear promising" (based on my point of view, of course).

DETAILS:  I took a putter and three balls to each green and, basically, putted for about 10 minutes from/to places that I know, from unfortunate experience, have become next-to-impossible in the last 10+ years regarding any ability to stop the ball within 5 feet of the hole - or, even, keep the ball on the green.

#15:  To my surprise, the back of the green was left "as is" - the only work that was done was to raise the front (yes, to "flatten" it) so that approach shots wouldn't roll back off the green and downhill putts wouldn't do the same.  Also, the effect of that "flattening" was to reduce the left-to-right pitch on a 30 foot uphill putt from 12 feet to about 6-7 feet.  I rather liked that.  However, the rear of the green is still impossible, IMO.  I stood on the back of the green and DROPPED a ball STRAIGHT DOWN ten times.  Every single one rolled down towards the middle of the green between 25 - 35 feet.  Remember that iit was already late in the day and the greens were about as close to "less fast" as they will ever be.  The good news is that, when I putted UP the hill to the back of the green, every single putt rolled back to me.  Therefore, it will be impossible for a shot to stop up there UNLESS the ball makes it to the fringe.  In that case, AMF because you are S.O.L.  The further good news is that, because of the raised front, it is no longer a worry that a gently  tapped putt from the back fringe will roll 30 feet past the hole and off the green (and down the slope).  BOTTOM LINE:  It is now easier to keep the ball below the hole on the approach shot.  If a player mis-clubs, or catches a flyer from the rough - well, they probably will get what they deserve and that's alright with me.

#12 is still a work in progress as the entire green was pretty much rebuilt and the putting surface is rather shaggy.  The front was raised and the back was lowered.  I hit about 20 putts from different places that I've come to know all-too-well and it appears that putting off the front of the green is going to be unlikely - and THAT, folks is a very good change.  Also, I think that stopping a side-hill putt within five feet of the hole will now be do-able.  If I'm around in September, I should get a better read once the mowing and rolling is more normal than now.

Net - net, I think most of what I endorsed has happened given that Plan B is the only solution (anywhere) that will achieve (my) desired results.



 

[TEPaul]

Chiperino:

Good thread, and one that may be controversial and provactive if and when it gets going (odd it hasn't gotten traction yet).

Chip, I've known you for quite a lot of years, and we have had some really fascinating conversations on architecture and its evolution. I remember so clearly meeting you at NGLA's Singles Tourney more than a dozen years ago and how you launched into a semi-lecture of what golf and bunkering would or could be if everyone had to play from them with something like a 9-iron (per-Sarazen's invention of the "sole-bounce" that essentially invented the "sand wedge").

It is a good and thoughtful question you ask about the recontouring of Merion's #12 and #15. Obviously most haven't seen the changes as you have. It is very good to test it and putt on it the way you did. I would lend a caveat though---eg one needs to test it at US Open speeds (generally the US Open set-up appears to be 13) to completely understand how it is working. I know this as I was the pre-tee-off pin tester for a number of GAP and Pa Golf Association events when I was officiating and I have really learned this reality over the years.

My purist friends like Wayne Morrison apparently are not happy with the recontouring of #12 and #15 and feel those greens should've been left as they were. I think we all who know Merion understand if that were the case they would be pretty intense in the 2013 US Open if they hit a target speed of 13 or more and perhaps a bit light on five different pin positions which apparently are a USGA Open requirement.

Nevertheless, this is a good thread and a thoughtful one. Those two greenn (and a few others) were designed for greenspeed that were obviously no more than about 3/4 or less of what they can and do today.

So the question becomes---practically, do they----the club day to day or the US Open set-up back down from a target speed of 13 or so for the 2013 US Oeen at Merion or do they change those two greens to accommodate a target of say 13?

My thought and my belief is that they should've backed down the 2013 US Open target greenspeeds for Merion East just enough to acccommodate those two greens as they were. I don't know exactly what they were stimpmeter-wise in the 2005 US amateur but they both worked well enough!

As for the changes they have made to those greens, some of my friends over there hate them----me---I don't hate them quite so much. I actually think that little nuancy slightly convex shelf front left on #15 might be quite interesting as a pinnable location and as a pretty interesting and tough thing to get to correctly with chipping or even putting from around the green above it. Some say that little front left shelf looks out-of-character. I don't know that I agree but I probably need to take another look or two.

As for #12-----ummmmph---I just don't know yet. My thought has been they may've been able to use it at even 13 on the stimp but that would put the pinnnable space down to probably less than 20% of its greenspace and of course that brings up what constitutes a DIFFERENT pin location for the US Open (where they say they need five).

Did you notice that the front left bunker on #12 actually covers a bit more of the approach since they had to bring the front of it a bit more left to tie-in with the up-lift they did with the front of the green?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

You misstated my position.

I'm not an advocate of returning green speeds to what they were on opening day.

And I'm also not an advocate of disfiguring great greens, greens with character, so that they can accommodate speeds of 13+ for four(4) days every 13 years or so.

TEPaul had an idea with merit concerning green speeds.
Mow all your greens to the pace that your most severe green can accommodate.

That would present 18 consistent, reasonable putting surfaces, while retaining the individual character of every green. .

[Bradley Anderson]

Firmness has a much bigger effect on scoring than speed. A firm 11 is much more of a test than a soft 13.

In places where the pros play every year we have been documenting the effect of firmness and speed on scoring and speed has almost no effect on these guys, but firmness has a big effect on the scores.

I don't think clubs should remodel greens for speed. I would rather see them spend the money of drainage and firmness controls and leave the classic contours alone.

[ChipOat]

Original post is now complete - let the slings, arrows and brickbats begin!

Tom:  I think those greens (and #5) have been too fast for member play for over a decade.  I didn't notice the left bunker on #12 - hope to have another chance this year.

Patrick: Sorry to misstate your position.  My original thread was a while back and chronology is no longer my friend.

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:

What I can tell you is that every time I've had to take apart a green and put it back together on a great course, I feel like a heart surgeon -- one slip and the patient might wind up dead.  Some heart surgeons are probably so confident in themselves that they don't mind that feeling.  But, they have the advantage of knowing that the patient will probably die if they DON'T have surgery. 

Where my analogy breaks down is that greens like the 12th at Merion are not in bad health.  It's the club and the USGA that have been trying to kill them, by pumping up the green speed to 13, where they don't work anymore.  But you probably already knew I'd be aligned with Tom Paul on this one.

You know Merion well.  Do you really think that if the greens had been dialed back to 11 1/2 and the contours left alone, that the course wouldn't have presented a proper challenge for next year's event?

[Mike Sweeney]

Chip,

I am guessing that none of the greens on The West have ever been touched. Are there any greens on The West that are as severe as 5 and 12 on The East?

I really don't remember. Maybe #5?

Obviously the two courses have two different audiences. Just wondering if The West has any issues with modern green speeds?

[Willie_Dow]

Mike:  Number seven green on the West is a monster back to front.  It was especially difficult when the bunker behind the green was raised and flat.  But we still love that hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

The other critical problem is:

WHERE DOES IT STOP AS GREEN SPEEDS INCREASE.

What great greens will lose their character, their contours and their slope in the need to accommodate more speed ?

[Dan Herrmann]

How's the drainage on #12?  I've heard that there may be issues, but I have no first hand knowledge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

I forgot, is # 2 at Pine Valley another exhibit "A" ?

Where does it end ?

[ChipOat]

Tom:  Of COURSE it would be wonderful if all the greens on these great courses were to be dialed back - not just at Merion, but at National, Shinnecock, Pine Valley, Piping Rock, The Creek, etc., etc.  but, it's not happening and it won't happen, I'm afraid.  So, Plan B is, in my mind, an un fortunate necessity.

Mike:  Bill Dow gave you a good answer re #7 green on the West Course.  However, I would add the following:

#5 is much like a mini-version of #12 on the East; near-impossible to stop near the hole unless you're putting from the very front - which is unusual since both approach shots and downhill putts often roll off the green.

#6 is so fast now that a well struck wedge to the front third of the green will often spin back off the front.

#8 is VERY quick with a big rainbow break from anywhere on the green to anywhere on the green. Anything above the hole - especially chipping from the back - is like #15 on the East from the back.

#10 - my comment re: #6 applies although to a lesser degree.

#11 - Very fast from back right to anywhere.  A front right hole location presents "off the green" possibilities from most other places on that green.

#18 - Impossible to chip from the back if you're long and putting from the back shelf to a front hole location also has "off the green" possibilities.

One of the reasons that the West Course is more challenging than most people appreciate is that many of the greens now make scoring quite difficult because of their speed (see above) in addition to their (mostly) small size.  20 years ago - less so.  But now..............

Pat:  It will only stop when technology and agronomy reaches their limits and/or the budget for these ultra-expensive mower blades tops out.  As long as dues increases can be successfully absorbed, though......................

Dan Hermann: I didn't inquire about the drainage on #12 although I will add it to my list of inquiries.  I have to assume that, if it isn't already ok, it will be by the Spring of 2013.  Tom Paul may already know the answer to that.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Chip
Please define how 12 & 15 were too steep at US Open speed.

i.e.
Were there no pin placements that would work?
Were there only 3 pin placements that would work at US Open speeds, and the USGA requires 4?
Were there only 5 pin placements... and the USGA needs 6?
Were the pin placements too much in the middle? - the last several years US Open placements are mostly on the edges.

Happy US Open

[ChipOat]

Mike Nuzzo,

At regular members' speed, on both the 12th and 15th greens:

1) Putting off the green with just a gentle tap was either a distinct possibility or, in some cases, virtually inevitable.

2) Stopping a side-hill breaker or a downhill putt within 5 feet of the hole was often impossible.

3) The number of realistic hole locations was limited (i.e. less than five).

The East Course is, by policy, maintained in "championship condition" on a daily basis.  As a result, member (and guest) conditions and USGA championship condition are pretty much identical.

P.S.  At the risk of being overbearing (I am old and stuffy, after all), there is no such term as "pin" in the Rules of Golf.  The correct terms are "flagstick" and "hole".

[Mike Nuzzo]

Thank you Chip

1.  Putting off the green is too vague of a definition for me
2.  Leave your shot below the hole
3.  If I were running the open I wouldn't rebuild the greens to go from 4 to 5 hole locations or even from 3 to 4 locations

I'm not going to push about these greens as they were already rebuilt
I'd assume they had contour maps made to make the decisions

I'm curious as to the number of hole locations required to hold an open and how different do they need to be from one another
Cheers

[Paul_Turner]

This sets a poor example for other less famous clubs.  If "Merion" can soften their greens then why can't we?  Greens committees are  often looking for any excuse to water down their architecture to be more "fair".

[ChipOat]

Mike:

"Putting off the green" seems pretty specific to me, but I'll try to be more descriptive.

When a ten foot down hill putt - literally - trickles by the hole, picks up speed and continues another 30-40 feet past, off the front of the green and goes another 10-30 YARDS down the false front into the fairway, that constitutes putting off the green.  It is also ridiculous.

If your comment about "leave the ball below the hole" was serious, I consider your remark both unrealistic and arrogant.  If it was that easy, the leader of the U.S. Open would be many more under par and golf wouldn't be FLOG spelled backwards.

As to the number of desired hole locations in which to place the flagstick, I defer to Tom Paul who, from when I was just a small baby, has always told me that four or five is considered the optimal number.  

[jeffwarne]

Mike:

"Putting off the green" seems pretty specific to me, but I'll try to be more descriptive.

When a ten foot down hill putt - literally - trickles by the hole, picks up speed and continues another 30-40 feet past, off the front of the green and goes another 10-30 YARDS down the false front into the fairway, that constitutes putting off the green.  It is also ridiculous.

If your comment about "leave the ball below the hole" was serious, I consider your remark both unrealistic and arrogant.  If it was that easy, the leader of the U.S. Open would be many more under par and golf wouldn't be FLOG spelled backwards.

As to the number of desired hole locations in which to place the flagstick, I defer to Tom Paul who, from when I was just a small baby, has always told me that four or five is considered the optimal number.  

Why would a club spend time,effort,and money to maintain their greens at a speed where the above problems become common?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JeffW,

I agree.

Why maintain unplayable conditions.

TE's concept is what should be employed, otherwise great green after great green will be disfigured.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Chip

Any green can be de-putted
Your description doesn't mention the hole location and where the approach landed - there is no way for me to discern if that is reasonable
Was there an option to putt indirectly to the hole and accept a two putt?

Aren't 12 & 15 under 375 yards?
The US Open champion will keep a wedge below the hole

Cheers
Happy US Open Sunday

[ChipOat]

Jeff:

I think the simple (simplistic?) answer is "because we can and because it's become the thing to do."

Unlike almost everybody else on GCA, I do wish the many Golden Era clubs that could follow Merion's example would do so.

But, they won't.

Mike Nuzzo:

You'll just have to trust me re: the small details.  I've seen it over and over again at multiple Top 20 Golden Era courses in the last 5-8 years.  IMO, Merion has made a big step in the right direction.  Whether it was a club decision or a USGA decision is unknown to me.  The important thing is that it happened.

[ChipOat]

Pat,

As I have posited before, I believe those great greens have ALREADY lost their character by becoming unputtable when, up until fairly recently, that was not the case.  I can point to several examples with which both you and I are intimately familiar under tournament conditions.

Therefore, while we both want such greens to regain that character, and we are of the same mind as to how it SHOULD be done, we differ on what the realistic, do-able solution needs to be.

Since I've seen it at so many Top 20 Golden Era courses, I blame my endorsement of Plan B on human nature.

Perhaps you will join TEP et moi as suggested in my recent post on the other Merion thread I started.

Chip

[Mike Sweeney]

Pat,

As I have posited before, I believe those great greens have ALREADY lost their character by becoming unputtable when, up until fairly recently, that was not the case.  I can point to several examples with which both you and I are intimately familiar under tournament conditions.

Chip,

A couple of examples of the opposite.

1. Here is Mike Whitaker on the front right pin position at Yale 10. There is no way that green, specifically that pin, could handle a green speed more than 11 and maybe 10.5. Yale holds regular NCAA tournaments, and during the NCAA Regionals, a number of USGA officials were there.



Yale at 6750 holds up just fine to the college bombers and that is due to the greens which would in general are slower than USGA conditions.

2. National, Newport, Fishers - These greens are built with wind rather than slope in mind as they some pretty windy days. If Merion has some sort of weird windy day during the US Open, they would have to raise the mowers, probably.

3. "because we can and because it's become the thing to do." - That just does not work for me with many things beyond golf, but that is what makes the world go round.

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps you will join TEP et moi as suggested in my recent post on the other Merion thread I started."


Chip:

I would've done that with Pat up to maybe two years ago but not anymore. It takes most people about 3-5 years to graduate from my Master Class in architecture, combined maintenance practices and playability ramifications (eg--The Maintenance Meld). Pat was in the Master Class for about ten years and he never made it to its minimum standard requirements. So I flunked him out of it about two years ago. Putting him back in it tends to demean the caliber of the class and depress some of its students! Plus when I teach, Mucci tends to interrupt too much with irrelevancies and petty arguments which really does annoy too many in the Master Class.

[ChipOat]

Tom,

It's your call.

Mike,

I'm afraid National has also let a couple of greens get away from them that were already legitimately treacherous 30+ years ago.  There are multiple examples at other marvelous clubs.  It has become "the natural order of things" if you remember the movie "Network".