Just finished 18 at Merion

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm Ok with the extension of #17 at Merion to up to 247 for the 2005 US Amateur but I do think #3 and #9 are too long now.
How do you reconcile your endorsement of lengthening Merion and your opposition to lengthening NGLA ?

That seems wildly hypocritical at the very least

I am particularly not a fan of how they dropped the grade where the original left back tees were and swaled the whole area down.
 Thank God for that glorious little 135 yard 13th.

The Faz is quite imaginative with distance increase. I think he was trying to figure out how to get a tee for #13 across Ardmore Ave before everyone involved apparently nixxed that. And he did suggest trying to put a new back tee on #16 across Golf House Road on the Halls lawn, but everyone really nixxed that. I did run into Bob and Joanie Hall one day at GMGC and I told them about that. Their reaction was to laugh and say; "They should've asked us; we might've considered letting them do it."  

Then you shouldn't have any problem at NGLA  with lengthening # 7 across the maintenance road and # 18 back to the gate.

Or, is it just okay to only lengthen Flynn courses to keep them relevant ?

[Anthony Butler]

Is it just me, or does anyone else think it's weird to lengthen a golf course to the point you have to hit your tee ball back in-bounds?

[JSlonis]

RE #9: The hole is about 250 from the new back tee, but I was able to get there with a 2-iron to the back of the green. That would mean 3-4 iron to the middle. For those guys it will be between 5-6 iron. My caddie said he had carried for a guy on tour whose name escapes me (not a big name) and he hit 6-iron to the front edge. I would consider that to be pretty reasonable.

Brian,

Do you really think that tour players are two clubs longer than you?  

I don't want to suggest that the green is not reachable from the back but how will it play with firm greens?  ie, the back right portion of the green is quite shallow and I cannot imagine anyone holding it from 250.  I think they would struggle to hold it from 175. So if the pin is back there, they will probably play the forward tee, which is, like I said, very forward.   With firm greens those great slopes that feed off the bunkers will also reject balls a lot more, won't they?  I have not seen Merion played in extreme conditions, but I would imagine the target area on that green is actually really quite small.  Too small for 250 yards, IMO, but I could be wrong.  

David,

I've played the 9th at Merion at yardages from 170-220, and I've played it under very firm conditions. It's difficult from any distance, with the front hole location being the toughest. I can't imagine playing to that green from close to 250 yards. Seems a bit silly to me. Actually, the very long par 3 is one of the biggest things I dislike about the modern game. A par 3 doesn't have to be 210+ to be challenging. The 3rd hole at Merion played at 260-270 is over the top and with firm fast conditions it's just goofy golf. It's an outstanding par 3 from the normal tees with one of the best greens in all of golf. The green is enough of a challenge for the best players, I don't understand the need for 30-50 more yards.

I'd consider my own game length wise to be consistent with the average on tour and although I haven't seen Brian's game up close, I would doubt that except for a handful of players, the tour guys are not 2 clubs longer with their irons.

I don't think I'd be out of line saying that except for #13, the par 3's at Merion played from the new "tips" will be the hardest in relation to par of any US Open course.

[DMoriarty]

Bobby Jones was playing hickory clubs in 1930, but by choice. Steel had been legal for six years and many top players had switched to steel. It may sound strange to those who haven't played much with hickories, but there is not a tremendous distance advantage of steel over quality hickory shafts, at least for iron clubs.  Consistency was easier with steel, but a good hickory shaft could (can) propel the ball as far as steel at least with irons.

As for the club selections in those days, we have to take the numbers on the clubs with a grain of salt. The numbers just don't correspond with today's clubs.   For example, the five iron replaced the mashie, yet mashies sometimes had as much as 40 degrees loft! Nowadays some five irons have less than 25 degrees loft.  Over time, the five irons have become six irons have become seven irons, etc.  So we think we hit the ball farther.  [This is why we have to keep adding more clubs at the lofted end of the scale (the pitching wedge, the gap wedge, the sand wedge, the lofted wedge.)]  Bobby Jones' two iron was probably about the equivalent of today's four iron, maybe even a five iron.
____________________________________________________________

RE #9: The hole is about 250 from the new back tee, but I was able to get there with a 2-iron to the back of the green. That would mean 3-4 iron to the middle. For those guys it will be between 5-6 iron. My caddie said he had carried for a guy on tour whose name escapes me (not a big name) and he hit 6-iron to the front edge. I would consider that to be pretty reasonable.

This is astonishing.  The hole originally played around 160 yards, and from an angle more straight into the bias of the hole.   When Bobby Jones won in 1930 the hole was listed at 170 yards but looks to have been closer to 160 yards.   Jones reportedly hit a "three iron" which probably had the loft of today's five or six iron.   Now 250 yards?   Wow.

[TEPaul]

"How do you reconcile your endorsement of lengthening Merion and your opposition to lengthening NGLA ?
That seems wildly hypocritical at the very least."



Pat:

It would seem hypocritical to most who don't understand what I've been saying, as apparently you never have. I think when one looks to add length on any hole they have to look very carefully at the hole itself and everything about it.

As I've just said on here tonight, I think adding length to #17  at Merion to 247 from the tips does work well for first class players, and I've also said I don't think it was necessary to add all the length they have to #3 and #9 at Merion.

With NGLA and #7 and #13, given what those holes are I think it would be far better for the club to just leave those holes alone and simply call them par 4s on a championship scorecard. Thankfully, they did just that with #5 and given the course was a 73 they had those strokes to play with. Merion at the 70 its always been doesn't have that kind of latitude.

Personally, I think Merion got a bit excessive with yardage increase for the Open on holes #3, #4, #9, #14, #15 and #18. Take that out and take it back to around a 6,800 yard classic, hope it gets the weather to present it firm and fast throughout, and I think that old gal would do just fine in the 2013 Open! I think they could also virtually double the total size of its fairway acreage for the 2013 US Open and she would still do just fine if she could play F&F throughout!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"How do you reconcile your endorsement of lengthening Merion and your opposition to lengthening NGLA ?
That seems wildly hypocritical at the very least."

Pat:

It would seem hypocritical to most who don't understand what I've been saying, as apparently you never have. I think when one looks to add length on any hole they have to look very carefully at the hole itself and everything about it.

That's obvious !
Why do you think # 8 and # 14 were lengthened ?
To keep the "Bottle Hole" centerline bunkers relevant and to keep the carry over the inlet relevant.
Both, the same principle that applies to # 7 and # 18

As I've just said on here tonight, I think adding length to #17  at Merion to 247 from the tips does work well for first class players, and I've also said I don't think it was necessary to add all the length they have to #3 and #9 at Merion.

With NGLA and #7 and #13, given what those holes are I think it would be far better for the club to just leave those holes alone and simply call them par 4s on a championship scorecard.

That will NEVER happen !
NGLA will retain # 13 as a par 3 for as long as NGLA is there.

What you don't know or won't admit, because I thought of it, is that you have to retain the relevance of the architectural features, and how they were intended to INTERFACE with the golfer.

You've supported that concept at Shinnecock and Merion but have rejected it at NGLA, and that's pure hypocrisy

 Thankfully, they did just that with #5 and given the course was a 73 they had those strokes to play with.

That's nonsense and ONLY because the lay of the land didn't allow them to lengthen # 5.

When it cones to NGLA, you just don't know what you're talking about

 at the 70 its always been doesn't have that kind of latitude.

Really ?  Why not ?   What's par at wannamoisett ?

Personally, I think Merion got a bit excessive with yardage increase for the Open on holes #3, #4, #9, #14, #15 and #18. Take that out and take it back to around a 6,800 yard classic, hope it gets the weather to present it firm and fast throughout, and I think that old gal would do just fine in the 2013 Open! I think they could also virtually double the total size of its fairway acreage for the 2013 US Open and she would still do just fine if she could play F&F throughout!.

You're the second person that I've heard referring to Merion as "She" in the last few days.
Is Merion a ship or a golf course ?


Why do you endorse  Shinnecock lengthening their course in order have it's architectural features remain relevant, but decry NGLA when they do the same thing ?

Surely even you see the double standard and hypocrisy

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I meant #7 and #18 as par 4s, obviously not #13.

[Mark McKeever]

"Gotta love modern advances in equipment- a 5'7" runt like me can hit the ball further than anyone could about 20 years ago."


Brian Colbert:

You are the guy who won the Philadelphia Amateur and just shot a 74 from the new tips at Merion, right?

And you say you're a 5'7" runt who hits the ball farther than anyone did 20 years ago?

If that's all true I would like to ask you over to Gulph Mills Golf Club to play. If you hit the ball that far over there and shoot let us say a 66 or something I will watch it all with awe and wonderment and then somewhere within the approximately 100 yards between the 18th green and the lockerroom to which one must walk across a beautiful lawn right behind the patio on which many members sit and look out on the golf course, since I am 6'0," somewhere within that 100 yards of lawn I will sneak up behind you, jump on you with something like my old 1-iron and I will proceed to beat the ever-living red-blooded American bodily fluids out of you right there on the lawn in front of the collected membership sitting there sipping one thing or another.

Contact me anytime.

Brian,

I will caddy for you.

Mark

[DMoriarty]

I have a question for you good players who have played Merion and/or for others who have seen how top players play the course.  

Approximately what club would top level players use from the front portion of the regular tee box on the 17th?    Obviously you'd probably be playing it from further back, but if you were to tee it up from near the front of the edge of the quarry, what club would you be using to try and carry to the middle of the green?   The actual distance is about 195-200 yards.

Also, what is the club and yardage from all the way back?

Brian Colbert, Jim Sullivan, jslonis, Doug Braunsdorf, or anyone else who might know?  

Thanks.  

[JESII]

David,

From the very front edge I would be confident I could get a 6 iron over the front ridge but would need wind to get it past the center of the green. They've added some tees/length since I played most of my golf in the late 90's but I think there's a tee 40 or 45 yards longer than the front edge...which I would estimate at 195 or 200 to the center of the green.

If that's correct, 245 to the center from all the way back...that means 235 or so to get on top of the ridge...no wind it'a a hybrid for me. some wind helping I could get a 3 iron there. Into the wind and it's a 3 wood.

[ChipOat]

David,

From the front edge of the original (now members') tee box to a downhill green that is about 200 yards to the middle - that sounds like about a 7 iron to me for a touring pro.

The hole plays 1 - 1 1/2 clubs shorter for a decent club player.  So, that means 2+ clubs shorter for a championship caliber pro and about 4 clubs shorter for a flat belly college kid who lets it all hang out!

The new back tee is about 250-ish.

What's hard to believe is that #17 will no longer be the most difficult par 3 on the course!

[JESII]

Chip,

Why do you think a hill impacts longer players more than shorter players? I've always assumed a steeper decsent because of a shorter club in hand meant less impact.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Chip and Jim.  Interesting you guys differ by a club or a club and a half, but you are both close to the range in which I was guessing.  Chip I too am curious as to why you think the elevation change has more impact on top players and especially the college kids?

I am trying to reconcile how the course played for top players (particularly Bobby Jones) in 1930 as compared how the course plays now, and I am first looking at the four one shot holes.    Jones hit a mashie niblick on the 13th at about 125 yards, a "No. 3" iron the 9th from about 165 yards, and a 2 iron on both the 3rd and the 17th.   As I said above, I don't think it reasonable to conclude a 2 iron then was the same as a 2 iron now.  Judging from what I have read and from my own experience with hickories, I think the modern club equivalents of the above shots would be about an 8 or 9 iron on the 13th, a 5 or 6 iron on the 9th, and about a 4 or 5 iron on the 3rd and 17th.  (When I played Merion with my hickories I miraculously hit pretty good shots on both the 3rd and the 17th, and used the same club on each, about the equivalent of a 4 iron for me.)

It seems to like three of the par threes may end up being significantly more challenging from the tee in this Open than they were originally.  Doesn't this seem likely even if I am substantially off above?

[Mark McKeever]

I hit a 3 iron (every bit of it) to the bottom of the ridge from the back tee last time I was out there.

Mark

[Brian Colbert]

David, I must confess I don't know the exact yardage of the tee box you are talking about. If it is around 195 to the center as the prevailing opinion seems to be, I would say a hard 5 would be the stick.

For what it's worth, we played all the way back and I had to hit 3-wood. Pin measured 260 and I was about pin high.

To answer the question of if tour guys are 2 clubs longer than me, yes. Part of that is because they bend their lofts stronger and part of it is because they have better swings and make better contact (see McIlroy, Rory). I think 9 will be a reasonable par 3 for them, I feel like I could get about a 5-iron to the front edge if I had to.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks Mark and Brian.  Mark, that is a heck of a 3 iron.  Brian, the yardage looks to be about 195-200 from the front section of that tee box, which I think Jim and Chip confirmed.

Upon further consideration, I think I was wrong about I said above about shot values, at least in regard to the 17th.  As strange as it may sound, the 17th hole at around 250 yards might be playing at close to its "shot value" equivalent as compared to 1930.  Maybe even a tad short. The hole was meant as a long par three requiring a longer club, probably initially even a wood for many players, and the ground option was available to get there. So the idea that some would have to resort to a wood or hybrid is not all that outrageous.  (Also, it is not entirely clear from where on the members' tee Jones was hitting.)

Bryan, regarding the 9th you may be right that it may be "reasonable" for longer tour players even playing at 250 yards.  But what I have trouble reconciling is how a hole requiring a precision shot of around 165 yards has morphed into a hole requiring a precision(!) shot of around 250 yards, from a more difficult angle no less.  Either the game is even more out of whack than I thought technology-wise (this may be,) or the modern hole will play a heck of a lot harder than the original hole.  Either way, it hardly seems the same hole.

You've seen the course and played it from the tips, and a very much appreciate your starting this thread and your comments.  You describe a game with which I am not familiar, so reading what you (and others like you) have experienced is very helpful and interesting.   After having played the course from the tips, do you think it possible that the USGA is ramping up the length and difficulty on the 3rd and the 9th in order to compensate for a perceived lack of difficulty and/or length elsewhere on the course?   Whether these holes play reasonably for the long hitters, they sure aren't going to have scoring clubs in their hands, are they? 

[Tom_Doak]

Personally, I think Merion got a bit excessive with yardage increase for the Open on holes #3, #4, #9, #14, #15 and #18. Take that out and take it back to around a 6,800 yard classic, hope it gets the weather to present it firm and fast throughout, and I think that old gal would do just fine in the 2013 Open! I think they could also virtually double the total size of its fairway acreage for the 2013 US Open and she would still do just fine if she could play F&F throughout!

This is the part of the argument that was most interesting to me, and which got skipped over entirely, except for Patrick railing about Shinnecock.  Why did the USGA decide to go back to Merion and then decide that they couldn't take Merion as it was, but had to change it?  Why are the governing bodies so afraid of playing any course for a championship without lengthening it?  Are they afraid that someone will shoot low scores and it will be attributed to the changes in equipment?

And to all the young stud players who have chimed in here, starting with Brian:  what do you really think the scoring difference would be over four days between the tees you played and the 6800 yard tees Tom Paul was talking about?  Is the course significantly different for you because of the new tees?  Is it significantly better, and if so, why?

[Brian Colbert]

Mr. Doak,

I just wrote out a long drawn-out response to your questions but my session timed out and I lost it (#@#!) so here are the cliff notes:

#3: +.33
#4: 0
#5: +.5
#6: +.25
#9: +.33
#14: +.5
#17: +.33
#18: +.5

Probably about a 2.75 shot difference per day in my opinion. I think the course is better from the new tee boxes (other than perhaps 14, which I think is a bit gimmicky) for the tour-caliber player because it returns the course to its original "shot values." 9 is really not that much behind the other box on the same line (maybe about 40 yds), to the point that they had the actual markers on the very back box. I think 3 and 17 will play just a bit higher, it's already a long club from the original tee! Another example of the definite improvement is when I played 18 the first time from the original back tee I was about 80 yards past the Hogan plate. When I played it on Saturday, I was pretty much right even with it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

This is the part of the argument that was most interesting to me, and which got skipped over entirely, except for Patrick railing about Shinnecock.  Why did the USGA decide to go back to Merion and then decide that they couldn't take Merion as it was, but had to change it?  Why are the governing bodies so afraid of playing any course for a championship without lengthening it?  

Are they afraid that someone will shoot low scores and it will be attributed to the changes in equipment?

Tom Doak,

You're a bright guy, how long did it take you to figure that out ?

And to all the young stud players who have chimed in here, starting with Brian:  what do you really think the scoring difference would be over four days between the tees you played and the 6800 yard tees Tom Paul was talking about?  

Is the course significantly different for you because of the new tees?  Is it significantly better, and if so, why?

Longer and more difficult ?  Yes.  Better ?  Depends upon the context.  Most would think not.

[JSlonis]

Personally, I think Merion got a bit excessive with yardage increase for the Open on holes #3, #4, #9, #14, #15 and #18. Take that out and take it back to around a 6,800 yard classic, hope it gets the weather to present it firm and fast throughout, and I think that old gal would do just fine in the 2013 Open! I think they could also virtually double the total size of its fairway acreage for the 2013 US Open and she would still do just fine if she could play F&F throughout!

This is the part of the argument that was most interesting to me, and which got skipped over entirely, except for Patrick railing about Shinnecock.  Why did the USGA decide to go back to Merion and then decide that they couldn't take Merion as it was, but had to change it?  Why are the governing bodies so afraid of playing any course for a championship without lengthening it?  Are they afraid that someone will shoot low scores and it will be attributed to the changes in equipment?

And to all the young stud players who have chimed in here, starting with Brian:  what do you really think the scoring difference would be over four days between the tees you played and the 6800 yard tees Tom Paul was talking about?  Is the course significantly different for you because of the new tees?  Is it significantly better, and if so, why?

Tom,

I had the good fortune to play Merion under tournament conditions for several years during the old Hugh Wilson invitational. The golf course I saw earlier this year is a vastly different course than what is was 10 years ago. Its significantly longer and tighter. My former preferred lines on tee shots on holes 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14 & 18 are now covered in rough and its a close call on holes 15 & 16.

From an architectural perspective, I don't think the new version is better. The added length and ever shrinking fairway's will only highlight how much technology has impacted the current game at the highest level. For the US Open version of Merion, I'd say strategy has been mostly taken away, unless you consider deciding what club off the tee will find the fairway a strategy. The strategy of width and playing angles is nearly nonexistent  with the shifting and narrowing of most fairway's. I guess as a current major championship test, the USGA felt all this was needed but I'd think for 99% of all golfers, the previous version of Merion would be the preferred choice for interest and enjoyment.

When Merion was awarded the Open, naturally I thought there would be some tweaking, but I'm surprised that it went to this extent. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

You bring up an interesting point.

Like marriage, some partners like/love a person as they found them, but, once they get married, they want to change them.

So, the question is, why did Merion and the USGA/Open want to get married in the first place ?

It would appear that Merion WANTED the Open as another notch in their championship belt, and were willing to do so irrespective of the cost to their architectural soul.

As to the USGA ?
Perhaps the fact that Philadelphia is a major East coast city.
That Merion has a pedigree.

But, the negatives are the logistics, the inability to host signficant crowds compared to other venues.

It would seem that both parties dropped their standards for mutual accomodation.

The question that I'm interested in is:  Will Merion ever return their fairways to their old, their real old widths.

[JSlonis]

The question that I'm interested in is:  Will Merion ever return their fairways to their old, their real old widths.

Pat,
 
While I'd say the answer is likely no...

I'd love to see it. It would be a really fun course to play.

[DMoriarty]

Brian,  
Above mention the new tee on the 9th hole as an example of "return[ing] the course to its original 'shot values.'"

Here is a clip from Golf Illustrated showing how the hole played for Bobby Jones in 1930 . . .



There is what looks like a very small tee in that location still, but in other 1930 photos this tee looks larger and extends back and toward the creek, so I have highlighted below the approximate location of this tee, 1930.



I assume the new tee you played is the one in the upper left.  Honestly, I really don't see how that new tee returns the course to its original shot values.   I've played a bit of golf with Bobby Jones era clubs, and there is no way the performance difference is as great as the difference between those two tees.  

[DMoriarty]

Here is a better photo of the hole in 1930, from the Dallin collection.   One can see the large tee beyond the green adjacent to the trees.   If the new tee were placed on this photo, it would be close to the lower left corner of the photo.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wow - what an unholy alliance of belt-notchers and pseudo-traditionalists. By honouring history, Merion must mean lining our pockets/egos; and by honouring great courses, the USGA must mean honouring great clubs. Sorry to be so harsh, but looking at the photos and reading the posts (especially Jamie's), it seems clear that neither Merion nor the USGA actually gives a rat's a-- about the architecture. That's fine, i guess - it's not a sin; but please, then spare as the paeans to the great course that hugh wilson designed, and that Jones and Hogan played like the champions they were.    

Peter