[D_Malley]

"By 1981, amateurs were, and have remained, an afterthought on the weekend (except, it seems, at Olympic)."

Chip,
It just so happens that my brother was caddying for Amateur Joey Rassett in the 1981 US open.  
He shot two even par rounds on thur. and fri. and was clearly in contention going into the weekend.
He ended up shooting two high 70 rounds on the weekend, but still finished as low am.
He was the only Am to make the cut.

Joe was an amateur playing out of Wake Forrest at the time.
He was in one of the last few 3rd round pairings in 1981.
I think he also played in the very last pairing at Oakmont the next year on saturday.

[Joe Bausch]

"By 1981, amateurs were, and have remained, an afterthought on the weekend (except, it seems, at Olympic)."

Chip,
It just so happens that my brother was caddying for Amateur Joe Rassett in the 1981 US open. 
He shot two even par rounds on thur. and fri. and was clearly in contention going into the weekend.
He ended up shooting two high 70 rounds on the weekend, but still finished as low am.
He was the only Am to make the cut.

Joe was an amateur playing out of Wake Forrest at the time.
He was in one of the last few 3rd round pairings in 1981.
I think he also played in the very last pairing at Oakmont the next year on saturday.

Joey shot 78-76 on the weekend in 1981.

At Oakmont two years later he was a rookie on tour and was tied for the lead after Friday, then ballooned over the weekend.

[Peter Pallotta]

Neil - I watched a bit of the AT&T from Congressional. The fairways there are narrow but, judging from the way the bunkers hug those fairways (with little or no rough in between), it seems clear that the course was always intended to play that way, i.e. that the original architecture envisioned/utilized that kind of narrow-ness.

Peter

[ChipOat]

D_Malley:

First, I should have said AFTER 1971 because Jim Simons did finish fifth at Merion and was leading after 54 holes.

Also, it was intended to be a more general statement emphasizing the ever-increasing expertise of your basic touring pro - let alone the multi-major winners.  No criticism intended.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Neil - I watched a bit of the AT&T from Congressional. The fairways there are narrow but, judging from the way the bunkers hug those fairways (with little or no rough in between), it seems clear that the course was always intended to play that way, i.e. that the original architecture envisioned/utilized that kind of narrow-ness.

Peter,

Not true.

Today's Congessional is a far cry from the original and a far cry from the Congressional that Venturi conquered in 1964.

The original Congressional was not intended to have such narrow fairways

[DMoriarty]

Chip,  Thank you for your thoughtful commentary on the course.  While I don't agree with much of what you say, I do appreciate your perspective.

David,

Obviously true and "that was then and this is now" isn't much of a substantive reply unless I add that Jones' likely spoon + niblick combo is not much different in terms of degree of difficulty than today's 5 iron + 9 iron/wedge that I believe we'll see.

According to GI, he approached the green both days o stroke play with a mashie niblick.  I can't say for sure what club Jones hit off the tee, but looking at the Golf Illustrated schematic, his two drives went approximately 250 yards and 265 yards.  Comparing this to the other of his drives, I'd guess that he hit either his driver or his driving brassie off the tee. (He reportedly carried a brassie with a loft of only 11 about degrees for use off the tee for more carry than a driver but less roll.)

You suggest that the "degree of difficulty" will be not much different from when Jones played.   Even if so, it is not really even the same hole for these guys as for Jones, is it?   I guess I don't understand the point of having the tournament at a great historic course at Merion if the course they are playing only superficially resembles the old one from a player's perspective.

Also, because of the lack of overhanging trees on the right, Jones had a good 20-30 extra feet of fairway to work with down the right side and, as noted, his angle from the tee box was less directly at the OB.

And he also had 20 yards or so more fairway on the left!   So he had a choice of whether to try and hug the out of bounds for the best angle in!

Since the current tall fir and pine trees are not on club property, the right 20 feet of the fairway now leaves the player with an obstructed approach to the green - it has been that way for at least 50-60 years.  They are, therefore, Stupid Trees about which the club can do nothing (they've tried).  

Too bad.  

[JESII]

David,

There's not a course that meets your criteria. The game is light years different than 80 years ago and Merion is still an amazing golf course...why not play a 21st century US Open there?

[DMoriarty]

I am not so sure that there are no courses which would meet "my criteria," but I am not sure what "my criteria" are though, so it is difficult to say. Whatever my criteria, it differs from that of the USGA. Their primary goal seems to be to beat the hell of the players to the extent that a finishing score of "par" can be protected.   They could accomplish this at plenty of courses were they could grow nasty rough and make the greens hard, and with much less jury rigging than at Merion.

Courses like Merion ought to be honored and celebrated.  I'd love to see a US Open there where the greatness of the course was truly in the spotlight.  I am just not sure that this is the case with today's equipment and with the efforts to protect par.

[DMoriarty]

Given the nature of the terrain, how long would the Merion's 7th hole have to be for the hole to play Driver then 9I/PW for the modern professional?  

[ChipOat]

David:

First, because the seventh hole is downhill until 100 yards before the green, I'm guessing 475+ yards would be about right for a driver and 9/PW today.  However, because of the angle of the tee shot towards the OB, the hole will actually play like a modest dogleg.  Either way, what's your point?

Second, I agree with Jim Sullivan - why NOT play a 21st century championship on a Golden Era course?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, by inference, it sounds like you think the Masters ought to be played somewhere other than ANGC.

Finally, since the essence of any Merion (or any great course I've ever played) is the routing and the green complexes that create the shot values, I believe that the East Course will be honored and celebrated - and rightfully so.

For about the eighth time, the "jury rigging" that dismays you is JUST A BUNCH OF OPEN-ONLY TEE BOXES THAT ADD LENGTH WITHOUT CHANGING EITHER THE PROBLEMS ON THE TEE SHOT OR THE APPROACH (#'s 3 and 9 MAY be an exception - we'll have to wait and see).  The premise that the playing characteristics of the East Course have been altered when the length was added is, IMHO, a giant misconception.

I just don't see the problem.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Having played Baltusrol Lower, WFW, SHCC, Oakmont and Bethpage, creating Open tees for limited use wouldn't seem to qualify as desecration.

But, in conjunction with the disfiguring of greens and the narrowing of fairways, it appears to be part of a process of "transformation" that never gets corrected.

Don't know of any greens, altered to accommodate a Major, that were ever returned their previous form.

And it's a rare course that ever returns their fairway widths to their original widths.

One of the dangers that I fear in these "transformations" is that it gives the green light to other classic clubs to forever alter their courses.
They can cite the BL's, WFW's, SHCC's, Oakmont's and Bethpage's of the world as exhibit "A", in defense of the changes to their classic courses.

[ChipOat]

Patrick,

The perma-narrow fairway issue is, often, disappointing.  As before, I do hope my sources re: Merion's post-Open intentions turn out to be accurate.

I'm not familiar enough with any Open venues except Shinnecock and Merion to comment on the "disfiguration" of any greens.  As for those two, no greens at Merion have been disfigured (IMO, of course) and I'm not aware of any issues in that regard at SHGC.  The fiasco of #7 (Redan) during the tournament proper was a set-up issue, as I recall.  Nothing had been done to add "Redan power" prior to the tournament, if memory serves.

As for other clubs imitating something, that demon has already run amok re: green speeds that are up to 2X what the contours and pitch were intended to have.  Your evangelism is admirable and I hope you're not tilting at windmills.

As you know, I've given up the battle and reluctantly endorsed Plan B.  Human nature is a lot bigger than I am.

[DMoriarty]

David:

First, because the seventh hole is downhill until 100 yards before the green, I'm guessing 475+ yards would be about right for a driver and 9/PW today.  However, because of the angle of the tee shot towards the OB, the hole will actually play like a modest dogleg.  Either way, what's your point?

My point is we are kidding ourselves if we think that the "shot values" in this tournament will remotely resemble those from Jones' era.   Merion would have to be well over 8000 yards to present the same shot values.  

Second, I agree with Jim Sullivan - why NOT play a 21st century championship on a Golden Era course?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but, by inference, it sounds like you think the Masters ought to be played somewhere other than ANGC.

No, I'd rather it be played at ANGC, but not if it means messing with the course.  Just like I'd love to see a USOpen at Merion, but with conditions more befitting the course.  Leave the great courses alone and let them shoot what they shoot-- it might be a good lesson for all of us one way or another.  Or, better yet, since the best golfers in the world no longer fit on the best courses in the world, then push the equipment back until they do fit!  There is no room to expand the courses!

Finally, since the essence of any Merion (or any great course I've ever played) is the routing and the green complexes that create the shot values, I believe that the East Course will be honored and celebrated - and rightfully so.

You and I have very different ideas on "shot values."  Where it looks like Jones hit Driver/Brassie then Mashie Niblick to a very large fairway where it was possible for the ball to run left to a very poor position, these guys will be hitting 5I then PW to a 22 to 24 yard fairway surrounded by rough which will keep the balls from going out of bounds or running too far out of position, and position "A" is blocked by tree branches!   These are not the same "shot values."   Maybe the USGA can jury rig the same score, but their methods of getting to the score will take the course very far away from the way it was originally meant to play.

Here again is Jones, driving club in hand, trying to place his ball within a few yards of the out-of-bounds so as to keep his ball from running well left and leaving a very difficult angle.   Do you really think that Bubba Watson with a 5I (or less) will be facing anything like the shots Jones faced?  

For about the eighth time, the "jury rigging" that dismays you is JUST A BUNCH OF OPEN-ONLY TEE BOXES THAT ADD LENGTH WITHOUT CHANGING EITHER THE PROBLEMS ON THE TEE SHOT OR THE APPROACH (#'s 3 and 9 MAY be an exception - we'll have to wait and see).  The premise that the playing characteristics of the East Course have been altered when the length was added is, IMHO, a giant misconception.

Chip, while I respect your opinion and have understood it every time you have presented it, I don't share your confidence that things will be put back, but I hope you are correct.

Judging from your post I must not be expressing myself very clearly as I am not sure you understand what I am saying, because what you say above is not my main premise.  

My premise is that "the playing characteristics of the East Course have been altered" NOT by the changes, but by the equipment. In short, with today's equipment the best players no longer fit on the best courses, Merion included.  The changes to the length, the width, and even the green contours are NOT the root of the problem.  They are after the after-the-fact reaction; the last ditch effort at triage; the band-aid trying to slow the hemorrhaging.

Let me put it this way. Even if you are correct and the course will be put back to what it was, I still feel the same way.  The best players just don't fit on our best courses anymore.  The USGA is making my case for me by going to such lengths to try and force-fit the Open onto the course.  

I hope that better states my position.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Had I used the term "altered" rather than "disfigured", I think you would have been in 100 % agreement with me.

Our difference of opinion is merely one of degree.

I've always been concerned about alterations and the "domino" effect, which in most cases unfavorable when it comes to preserving the architect's design and intent.

One of my observations is, that as more time expires between the date the course was built, the less the new member feels connected to that architect's design and intent.  The less sacrosanct the features become.

So, while I still care, I'll continue to defend the fort.

I haven't given up the fight, but sadly, my peer group and the influence they exert is diminishing as they age and the younger generations become the curators.

[JESII]

Pat,

It seems to me that the great majority of golf courses are altered over any modest amount of time. Tree plantings, or lack of clearing, is perhaps the greatest example across the board..but with democratic rule at the majority of clubs and occassionally changing leaders at the less democratic clubs the idea of making ones mark on the course has proven too much temptation to resist all too often. I don't think time since design is a factor in more than a couple places.

[JESII]

David,

I thought you didn't want this to be an equipment debate...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

It seems to me that the great majority of golf courses are altered over any modest amount of time. Tree plantings, or lack of clearing, is perhaps the greatest example across the board..but with democratic rule at the majority of clubs and occassionally changing leaders at the less democratic clubs the idea of making ones mark on the course has proven too much temptation to resist all too often. I don't think time since design is a factor in more than a couple places.

Jim,

Tree planting was a fad, tree removal is the current fad.

Tree planting/removal doesn't impact the foundation or skeleton of the architecture of the golf course.
It's almost a neutral exercise in terms of the architecture

It's true that there are those that want to leave their fingerprints on the golf course, including architects, but as time passes, the original architect's work often becomes less sacrosanct.   Many new members don't even know who designed the golf course.

[JMEvensky]

   Many new members don't even know who designed the golf course.[/b][/size][/color]

[/quote]

   Or care.

[JESII]

Pat,

Do you think the courses designed by the modern greats are treated with kid gloves because of the architect?

I think, just like 90 years ago, the person/people who fund a golf course see it as their own and make changes whenever they see fit.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I thought you didn't want this to be an equipment debate...

Jim,  If you go back and look I think you'll find that while I said the technology issue was at the root of all these discussions, I agreed we should set aside addressing it directly.

But when we talk about (temporary or permanent) changes being made to the course to try and preserve or reestablish "shot values" then we are indirectly discussing the equipment, are we not?

[JESII]

Nope...we're talking about the difference between the modern game and the game 82 years ago. Equipment is certainly a part of that, but every couple years produce an equipment "upgrade" that changes the game somewhat. I think setup philosophy is a better conversation, don't you?

The USGA wants really narrow fairways, why?
The USGA wants to plan on greens 13+ feet on the stimp meter, why?

What is it about the way todays top players play that makes these setup goals so important to the USGA?

[Peter Pallotta]

What is it about the way todays top players play that makes these setup goals so important to the USGA?

Good question/potential discussion, Jim.

Here's another:  "Given the way today's top players play, why is it so important to the USGA that it hold its Open at a golden age course wholly unsuited to the purpose"?

[DMoriarty]

ope...we're talking about the difference between the modern game and the game 82 years ago. Equipment is certainly a part of that, but every couple years produce an equipment "upgrade" that changes the game somewhat. I think setup philosophy is a better conversation, don't you?

If you say so.  But the unprecedented blowup in technology over the past decade or so is what is driving the need for the "setup philosophy."

The USGA wants really narrow fairways, why?
The USGA wants to plan on greens 13+ feet on the stimp meter, why?

The USGA also wants all the length they can squeeze out of the these courses, even if it means playing a par three at 275 yards when the hole was designed to be played at 100 yards less.  

My guess is that the reason for all of this is because the USGA hopes that the setup will keep the scores at or near level par. I also suspect that they think that by keeping the scores near level, they will create the (false) impression that the "shot values" are the same as they once were.

What is it about the way todays top players play that makes these setup goals so important to the USGA?

Because, largely for reasons you don't want to discuss, the top players hit the ball loads farther than they did 80 years ago or even 20 years ago.  
______________________________________________________

All that said, I am game to talk about "the difference between the modern game and the game 82 years ago."  Let's try to come up with an idea of how Merion would have to be "set up" to recreate the shots Jones had in 1930.   That will give us a good indicator of the difference.

Here are Ralph Livingston's 2004 Conversions for the clubs Jones carried.  
  2I  =   Driving Mashie
  3I  =   No. 1 Iron ("Iron")
  4I  =   No. 2 Iron
  5I  =   Mashie Iron ("No. 3 Iron")
  6I  =   No. 4 Iron
  7I  =   Mashie
  8I  =   Spade Mashie
  9I  =   Mashie Niblick
  PW =  Niblick

He also carried two driving clubs, a Driver and and 11* Brassie, as well as a Spoon (3 or 4 Wood) and a funky sand club and a putter.    

Here are Jones' converted  clubs for his two 1930 two stroke play rounds, according to Golf Illustratred.  Where GI doesn't specify the tee club I am assuming one of the two driving woods, and given the distances of the drives I think that is a pretty safe assumption.   Where two approach clubs are marked is where GI indicated Jones hit different approach clubs for the two rounds.  I have marked pitch or chip or sand where Jones was close to the green for his approach shot.

1.  Driving Club - 9 iron
2.  Driving Club - 4 wood - sand/chip
3.  4 iron
4.  Driving Club- 6 iron/ 9 iron
5.  Driving Club - 5 iron
6.  Driving Club - 4 iron
7.  Driving Club - 9 iron
8.  Driving Club - chip (nine iron)
9.  5 iron
10. Driving Club- chip (5 iron)
11. Driving Club - 8 iron/ 9 iron
12. Driving Club- 9 iron
13. 9 iron
14. Driving Club - 6 iron/8 iron
15. Driving Club- 9 iron
16. Driving Club - 8 iron/5 iron
17. 4 iron
18. Driving Club - 7 iron/8 iron

How long would the holes have to be for the modern player to have the same approach shots?    If we were really looking for the same "shot values" that would be the best way to do it, wouldn't it?  

So for example on the first hole Jones hit the equivalent of driving club then 9 nine iron.  How long would the first have to be for the modern players to have to hit driving club nine iron?

[JESII]

Hello...anybody home?

We've had this conversation and you agreed it was a futile exercise...

[JESII]

Here's what I'd like to know David...is the 7th hole at Merion a good hole for the US Open? I'm not interested in a comparison to the old hole and what you think Bobby Jones hit, I'm curious if a 4 iron to a blind fairway bordered closely by OB and trees on the right and heavy rough on the left which will result in a 100 - 125 yard shot uphill to a very interesting green complex is a worthy hole for US Open contestants in 2013. Other than a 4 iron, players could hit 6 iron to 150 and have a longer approach or potentially driver to the vicinity of the green with the risk of a very difficult pitch from well below the surface of the green.

Care to analyze todays hole for US Open guys?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()