[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

But, are the 2012 fairway widths the ideal widths to return to ?

Pat,

You know that answer is NO. 

Jamie,

Yes, I do know the answer, but does Chip know it ? 

[ChipOat]

Pat and Jeff,

Not the 2012 widths, but 2008 -2010 = absolutely, yes.

Pat:  I do believe I know the answer on that one because I was playing some golf back then.  Also, I believe that GCA and, believe it or not, even Tom Paul had some influence on both "firm and fast" and some attention to the 1930 fairway widths.

[Terry Lavin]

Mike,

I agree with what you're saying, in the main. I'm just tired with the perseverations of the core group of Merionaphiliacs hereabouts. A guy started a thread about playing a round at Merion and it devolved into another circle-jerk Merion autopsy. It's a great course now and has been forever, but it's just a golf course, it isn't sacred ground.

From my first round at Merion, its became one of my favorite courses. The fact that we can play where Bobby Jones and Ben Hogan both strolled the fairways to victory makes it sacred ground to me. I agree it's a great course and always has been but you can't gloss over the fact that the changes that have occurred detract somewhat from the original design. The architecture and technology debate go hand in hand here.

My interest in golf course architecture initially came about from a players perspective. What does the course offer as a challenge? How does the architect present that challenge? In the case of Merion, the big challenge are the greens. They are world class in their design. In studying the course, there are definitely preferred lines of play. On many holes, those preferred lines often presented a greater risk to the golfer. With the shifting and narrowing of the fairways, some of those preferred lines are taken away and with it the strategic challenge as well. I've always equated better courses and better architects by the way they make the golfer think.  I think this is especially true when it comes to challenging the very best players. Better players have more shots they can play well, therefore they have more options.  The best courses present opportunities for the golfer to contemplate, they make them think.  The more this occurs, the better.  I think the biggest issue people have in regard to a course like Merion is that's it's loaded with outstanding architecture, it should offer options galore but in a modern US Open setup it becomes too one dimensional.

JSlonis,

Thank you for that articulate response to my snarky post.  Well said.

[JESII]

My guesses as to how that course would play in a US Open...

Jim,

Here are my approximate estimates of the distances from 1930 using the Golf Illustrated images and old architectural drawings as a guide and (except as marked) using a 250 yard elbow for doglegs and using Google Earth measures.  Whereas Merion reportedly measured from the middle of their tee boxes, I tried to measure from near the back of the tee boxes which still exist.  Fairly rough estimates so don't hold me to them  I'd be glad to change any if they are wrong.

1.  Listed 360.  Estimated 350.  Tee near current location.  3 iron wedge - with a couple hitting driver over the cross bunker. This brings OB left into play but a couple will also be at the edge of the green
2.  Listed 523.  Estimated 490.  Tee near current location.  Green short and right of current green. Just a long par 4...Driver 5 iron...replicating the old fairway width eliminates any concern about the road
3.  Listed 195.  Estimated 185.  From near back of current front tee. 6 or 7 iron
4.  Listed 595.  Estimated 595.  From tee near back of 3rd green. Easily reachable for at least half the field...the rest would hit 3 wood 5 iron sand wedge...a good hole either way.
5.  Listed 436.  Estimated 415.  From near back of large tee short of creek.Used to be a beast and would now be a rescue club and a 9 iron...players that want to hit driver could do so and have a sand wedge in
6.  Listed 442.  Estimated 420.  From back third on long tee. Another beast turned cupcake. The green is big and receptive to mid irons...whatever club these guys know they can hit in the fairway and at least 240 will leave them no more than a 6 iron. I could hit driver wedge ...
7.  Listed 355.  Estimated 345.  From middle of large tee. 5 iron wedge
8.  Listed 350.  Estimated 335.  From near back section of the fat part of the tee. 4 iron to inside 100 yards
9.  Listed 170.  Estimated 170.  From right tee. 8 iron
10.Listed 335.  Estimated 295   Measuring as dogleg w/ 225 yd layup. Approx. 265 direct line to middle of the green. Rescue club to the front apron...very few would try to fly to middle of green
11.Listed 378.  Estimated 360.  From near back of long tee.  5 iron wedge with few distance options and not much advantage to width options
12.Listed 415.  Estimated 370.  From back third of long tee. Driver left to right to about 70 yards...takes away alot of the teeth of a very interesting and challenging green when you're chipping it onto the green...
13.Listed 125.  Estimated 125.  From near the back of current tee. wedges and sand wedges...
14.Listed 412.  Estimated 400.  From a bit behind the stop sign on the long tee. the big issue this hole presents is reaching the top of the plateau off the tee...you can get more roll AND a view of the green...it's probably 150 from the center of the green. You can do the math. From 250 yards away these guys have three clubs they cold get on top of the plateau in the air...Bobby Jones had none. Three wood wedge or 9 iron
15.Listed 370.  Estimated 340.  From even with left green side bunker on 16th. Three iron wedge
16.Listed 435.  Estimated 420.  From well back but no all the way back on long tee. Hybrid 9 iron
17.Listed 215.  Estimated 210.  From back half of "members" tee. 5 or 6 iron
18.Listed 455.  Estimated 450.  From next to front part of first right green side bunker on 17th.Frighteningly short!!!  Driver wedge

Many of the distances are close to the same as now, as there really was very little room to expand the course past the changes made in the first few decades. It seems like the USGA may be  trying to make up for this inflexibility through out of proportion increases to a few holes (including the first too par threes) and the extremely narrow fairways.  

I'm not sure what degree of "Test" you think the US Open should present but I think more than this...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

In my limited observations, it would appear that different factions within a membership vie for different goals.

One goal is to host tournaments, especially major tournaments.
Another goal is to make the golf course harder.
Another goal is to restore the course if it's been previously altered
Another goal is to plant trees.
Another goal is to remove trees.
Another to lengthen the course.
Another is to preserve the status quo.

A goal that seems to be gaining some traction is "making the course fun to play"

That goal takes many forms.
One is to "play it forward"

Another is to restore or introduce one of the critical elements in enjoyment.......width.

While the trend, thanks to the televising of Tour events, especially Majors, has been the narrowing of fairways, there's an emerging counter culture, the widening of fairways.

Unfortunately, there are physical, financial and philosophical impediments to widening fairways.

Today, few, if any members are aware of the widths that existed when their course opened, and as such, they have no frame of reference.

That's what's so great about Mark's project that allows one to see how courses have morphed over time.

While it's probably unrealistic to believe courses can return to their original widths, it remains a noble goal.

[ChipOat]

Pat:

I agree with everything in your most recent post.  Let us hope that my sources are, indeed, correct about the philosophical commitment to re-widening the fairways.

It is much more complicated and time consuming than intuition would lead us to believe.  On the other hand, the budget for the East Course hasn't been an issue for 15+ years, so there's hope on that front, too.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Thanks for your response above.  I was dubious about the exercise and I am left wondering what if anything it tells us. As I said above, for the sake of the USOpen I don't really have a problem with some reasonable adjustment to the length over the past 70 years, provided there is room to do it and provided the underlying hole concepts are preserved.  My issue is more with the narrowing and the excessive lengthening of a few holes to make up for the inelasticity of other holes.   

I am somewhat surprised by the dismissive nature of merits of the shorter course, though, because for me going through the holes really drove home how many of the holes are not much different distance wise than they were in 1930.   I am not sure your idea of a "test" either, but do you feel like the holes that couldn't be altered much distance-wise don't present much of a "test?"  Is the extreme narrowing a way to jury-rig a test where none would otherwise exist? 

[JESII]

David,

I think the narrowing is one way to allow for the options you so desire to be present. If there's a hole better approached from the rough than a bad angle in a narrow fairway you can bet these guys will hit it into the rough.

[Peter Pallotta]

David,

I think the narrowing is one way to allow for the options you so desire to be present. If there's a hole better approached from the rough than a bad angle in a narrow fairway you can bet these guys will hit it into the rough.

Bad news for any architect who likes fairways, I guess....

I can picture the iron sets of the future -- no numbers, just names: "Roughie", "First Cuttie", the "Spinner"

Peter

[ChipOat]

David,

I don't believe that the the longer holes at Merion were lengthened in order to offset the inelasticity of the shorter holes.

IMO, any lengthening that was done was based on each hole's own merits.

For example, #'s 5,6,14,15 and 18 NEED to demand long carries off the tee to be relevant in today's game.  Even if #'s 7,8,10,11 and 12 could have been lengthened, #'s 5,6,14,15 and 18 STILL would have needed the new tee boxes.  Also, while #4's new tee box is in a somewhat awkward place, the extra 50+ yards should change the nature of that par 5 to more of a 2013 U.S. Open test (I hope #16 at Olympic isn't the new prototype!).

I AM very interested in how the two par 3's (#'s 3 and 9) will play from 250+ yards if the ground is dry and firm - especially down breeze (no real "wind") at Merion unless a storm is brewing or it's early March/late Autumn.

Afraid I can't agree with you on this one.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jamie,
So you think increased length and the set up fairway width wise as for the Hugh Wilson back in the day?

[JESII]

David,

I think the narrowing is one way to allow for the options you so desire to be present. If there's a hole better approached from the rough than a bad angle in a narrow fairway you can bet these guys will hit it into the rough.

Bad news for any architect who likes fairways, I guess....

I can picture the iron sets of the future -- no numbers, just names: "Roughie", "First Cuttie", the "Spinner"

Peter

Could be...but really what I'm saying is that a Tour player can hit a 150 yard shot from 3 inch rough with more accuracy than a 5 handicap can from the fairway. For the sake of prepping a course for the US Open, I see playable rough as a more viable option than keeping fairway for the false notion that it provides options and strategy. A 150 yard shot from the 'wrong' position yet still in the fairway doesn't cause a fraction of a stroke difference to the guys on TV.

[JMEvensky]

Sully,that presupposes reasonably receptive greens.

The late,great TEP suggested that Merion would try to firm up the greens as much as possible.If true,the fairway becomes a much more valuable place to land.

[JESII]

Jeff,

With firm greens and wedge approach clubs, do you think these guys are picking sides of the fairway from the tee? I don't because they control the distance really well and stop it really fast.

I don't completely disagree with you but the case that wider fairways gives these guys options/strategy and "gets them thinking" is wrong in my view...it just gives them more room for error.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff,

With firm greens and wedge approach clubs, do you think these guys are picking sides of the fairway from the tee? I don't because they control the distance really well and stop it really fast.

I don't completely disagree with you but the case that wider fairways gives these guys options/strategy and "gets them thinking" is wrong in my view...it just gives them more room for error.

My point was only that if the greens are firm enough,the rough will be a bad place no matter how much shorter the approach.

To your point about wider fairways and PGAT strategy,I completely agree.

[JSlonis]

Jamie,
So you think increased length and the set up fairway width wise as for the Hugh Wilson back in the day?

Yes, I could see that setup for a US Open but I think you'd see low scores.  Unfortunately added length was needed.  As you know, the problem Merion faced regarding length is that the shorter holes couldn't be lengthened due to the property and a lot of the long holes became even longer.  I'm not a fan of having 3 of the 4 pars 3's maxing out at 240-260.  I'm sure that given the way the current USGA likes to use elasticity in the setup that they won't all be maxed out everyday.  I can understand the view that the USGA has with narrowing the course to provide the test that they feel they want. I just think that for members and guests going forward the course won't be as fun as it should be if the Open fairway widths are maintained.

You've played with enough top level tour players to know that Merion was a dicey choice as a current US Open test.  The amount of short iron/wedge approaches even with the added length is unprecedented among modern US Open courses.  While the great green designs will combat some of that, the fact remains that these guys are phenomenal from 150 yds and in and at Merion, they'll get a lot of those shots. I see possible 8 iron to wedge approaches on holes 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 & 16. Granted guys will have to hit the narrowed fairways but that's a lot of opportunity for a top level player.

Here's the length of the course from the tips during the 2005 US Am.  Since that time there was yardage added to holes 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15 & 18. I'm sure it wasn't lost on those present from the USGA that Eduardo Molinari birdied 7 out of the 15 holes in the afternoon round.  Conditions were softer that week due to some rain and very hot temps in August but that had to raise some eyebrows.

1.  350
2.  556
3.  219
4.  597
5.  504
6.  487
7.  345
8.  359
9.  206
10. 303
11. 367
12. 403
13. 120
14. 438
15. 411
16. 430
17. 246
18. 505

[DMoriarty]

Chip,  What about those two par threes?  Surely they have been lengthened well beyond providing similar shot value?


Jim,

Your post about playing for the best angle out of the rough made me think of the last USOpen at Pinehurst, where it seemed like golfers with the best angle were often well into the rough.  Seemed nonsensical to me.  

As for your contention that angle doesn't matter much to the pros, let's test that a bit.   Reportedly the 11th fairway will be a narrow ribbon on the far left over by the creek.   Assuming a very firm USOpen green, and assuming a back left pin position, would you go for the pin from a layup in the fairway over next to the creek?  Or would you play your short shot conservatively?    What if the fairway was on the far right and you could laid approach from the far right?   Do you really think that a top player would be indifferent to fairway positioning with such a pin placement?  

[ChipOat]

David,

Like I said in my previous post, I am "very interested" in how #'s 3 and 9 will play at 250+ yards.  We'll have to wait and see if the shot values have been rendered near-impossible, or not.  I do agree that 275 yards uphill to a front hole location on #3 would be inconsistent with what Wilson and Flynn had in mind unless it happens to be raining that day.

Jeff Slonis,

In 1971, the players were approaching with 8 iron - wedge on #'s 1,2,4,7,8,10,11,12 (shorter tee box),13 and 15 (not #16).  So, not any real difference on all but #16, right?

Also, the yardage added to #7 is negligible.  However, the angle that is now directly at the OB could be interesting.

[Mark McKeever]

Agreed Chip.  The slope sure does not help keep balls in bounds on hole 7 from that new angle.  It's not much of a change, but enough to get into someone's mind.

Mark

[ChipOat]

I predict lots of middle irons for the tee shot on #7.

[DMoriarty]

Wasn't a middle iron for Jones . . .

[ChipOat]

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.

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.

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). 

[Patrick_Mucci]

If the weather permits, and the greens are prepared such that they are extremely firm to hard, the tournament set-up will be severely criticized by the players, media and most GCA.com'ers, save perhaps, for the Merionettes.

In that environment, you can't have very narrow fairways, overly harsh rough  and unreceptive greens in order to protect par.
It's a formula for disaster.

Tom Doak cited the rationale behind extreme set-ups on a course like Merion

[Neil_Crafter]

one other aspect of the narrowing of the fairways is that from the aerials and other photos I have seen the fairway bunkers have become islands out in the rough, dislocated from the fairways. They are now rough bunkers rather than fairway bunkers. And I am betting there will be more than a few players hoping their balls end up in those bunkers rather than the rough grass when they hit an errant one. I'm playing Merion this October and looking forward to the experience, but not looking forward to the task of hitting such narrow fairways. I'll have my sand iron at the ready for the hack shots to get back out onto the fairway. Golf? Not as I'd like to see it.

[ChipOat]

Neil,

I have played three golf courses in my life that were 1-3 weeks away from hosting a U.S. Open.  All of those experiences were between 25-41 years ago (Winged Foot in '74, Shinnecock in '86 and Merion in '71/'81).  I was a better golfer then (although not really a "good player") and, at least in 1971, the added degree of difficulty from regular member play was not so dramatically pronounced.  The same was not true of the other occurrences.

Either way, I was struck by two things:  First, like you, it was incredibly difficult and not something I'd want to do very often.  Second, it impressed upon me just how really, really, REALLY good those guys are.  I hit a lot of good shots in all those rounds but every mistake made bogey a good score.  My personal delta back then was 10+ shots and the only reason it wouldn't be any higher now is that my  "base case score" has moved up considerably over the years.

In 1971, Jim Simons was obviously a factor and Lanny Wadkins was competitive.  Ben Crenshaw had been in the mix the year before at Hazeltine.  By 1981, amateurs were, and have remained, an afterthought on the weekend (except, it seems, at Olympic).

Good luck in October.  Rather than view your round as a chore, you might think of it as a case study re: a touring pro's ability and that of, even, a top amateur.  Then there's the comparison to your own game (and mine).

Also, your death march won't last more than 4 hours because your host will know that your group will be on the clock and that he (she?) will hear about it if that time is exceeded - even if you aren't holding anyone up in back of you.  This is especially not easy for a first-time player but the club is committed to it for a number of good reasons, IMO.  So, be prepared for having to be "in the linen" several times and take a double bogey for handicap purposes.  On the other hand, savor your many successes.  And next year, remember the day when you watch the tournament and be 1) respectfully in awe of the good scores being posted and 2) empathic to the very high scores that will also be posted.

Enjoy!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()