News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Matthew Essig

  • Karma: +0/-0
Did today's (partial) round prove...
« on: June 13, 2013, 09:03:11 PM »
that a course doesn't need to be long to be difficult?

Does the distance of the ball truly need to be shortened?

Does a course have to be 7600 yards?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2013, 10:27:49 PM by Matthew Essig »
"Good GCA should offer an interesting golfing challenge to the golfer not a difficult golfing challenge." Jon Wiggett

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Didn't today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2013, 09:08:56 PM »
yes (of course length isn't the only factor in difficult)

YES

NO, especially if the ball is rolled back.

Matthew, did you see the mowing lines?   The bunkers are way out in the rough.  The course is excellent, but it is/was the absolute bomb with wide fairways (but the score would be insanely low).

Bart

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Didn't today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2013, 09:22:55 PM »
The flight time and distance of 3-5irons on #9 was frightening.  Watching coverage of that hole alone is enough to understand how ridiculous the equipment is for pros and how soft Merion is playing. 

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Didn't today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #3 on: June 13, 2013, 09:30:56 PM »
Ben,

It's that and more.

At most PGA Tour events, golfers merely hit from the rough onto the green.

With Merion's rough on steroids, they just play out to an optimal position.

And, the long holes at Merion were lengthened.

With the talent of the players and the improvements in the I&B, it's difficult for any member course to defend itself.

Shinnecock may be the rare exception with an altered WFW another.

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Didn't today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #4 on: June 13, 2013, 09:37:15 PM »
that a course doesn't need to be long to be difficult?

Does the distance of the ball truly beed to be shortened?

Does a course have to be 7600 yards?

Matthew,
I guess that depends upon how often you want to watch 3,4 iron-wedge, despite super soft fairways.
1/2 the par 4 tees are as chewed up as par 3's.
Again, I'm enjoying Merion, and would love to see it return to the rota,
AFTER they roll back the ball.

ANY course at any yardage can produce high scores, if you narrow the corridors enough and render the designed hazards meaningless, or worse yet, points of refuge ::).
I do get a kick out of how often you hear the phrase "identifying the best player" that week is used.
Hard to argue with that as the best player that week is the guy who shoots the lowest score.

To be fair,it is interesting to watch
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Jeff Goldman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #5 on: June 14, 2013, 02:40:39 AM »
According to Golfweek, Shinnecock is adding more than 400 yards. That will make it over 7400, no?
That was one hellacious beaver.

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2013, 06:29:53 AM »
Bart,
   I think your assessment is right on.
I enjoyed watching the golf more than ussual because I know the course personally, though I admit I have never played 3, 9, and 17 from the tees the qualifyers are playing from and I have not played the rest of the course at the new all the way back yardage. I did expect that Merion would play easier because of the lighter winds and wet on Thursday, and was glad to be wrong. It's too bad the course has been ribboned down as much as it has, but to keep par relevant given the equipment, ball, and strength of the modern player, that had to happen.
   If we get wind and if the precipitation holds off, Merion will dry pretty quickly. I predicted 10 under would be the winning score due to the rains of the past 7 days. A good wind will make the course much tougher, due to firmness and effect on the ball in flight. I would like very much to see that happen and have a winning score lower than I factored.

Matthew Petersen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2013, 12:25:43 PM »
This isn't the first time we've seen a "short" Open venue hold its own. In 2010, Pebble was "short" at 7,040 and yet no one broke par. And Merion is holding its own this week, though we shall see what the ultimate winning score is.

The thing you must consider, though, is what has to be done to protect par in such a circumstance. Extremely narrow fairways and high rough at Merion, Pebble Beach was harder and drier than many parking lots.

Remarkably, though, they really have to do that to even very long courses in order to truly "protect par." Congressional certainly wasn't playing short two years ago when McIlroy tore it up.

danielfaleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2013, 12:33:29 PM »
Six under might be all that's needed for the win. This course seems confusing to your average tour player...   :)

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2013, 12:38:33 PM »
As the putts start to fall here in rnd 2, the slow greens yesterday, were likely the biggest reason scoring was difficult for most.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

David Ober

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Didn't today's (partial) round prove...
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2013, 01:52:55 PM »
The flight time and distance of 3-5irons on #9 was frightening.  Watching coverage of that hole alone is enough to understand how ridiculous the equipment is for pros and how soft Merion is playing. 

How long does that hole actually PLAY? How downhill is it, and how was the wind during the first round? Were they playing it downwind? crosswind?