[Mark Bourgeois]

I have become enamored of this hole. Architecturally fantastic and the USGA set it up masterfully. It is frightening to ponder that the powers nearly decided to flatten its green.

What can we learn by studying the 5th:
Architecturally for both golfers and floggers?
For best practices in setting up courses for major championships?

Where is its place in major championship golf? What analogous holes exist in golf? Does Kapalua 18 owe an architectural debt to it?

Feel free to make any point, ask any question. I just want the opportunity to talk about this hole.

[Mark Bourgeois]

On Saturday, the hole was 10 paces forward of the back and 13 paces in from each side. So: about two-thirds of the way back and laterally in the center.

We saw several second shots finish within 5-6 feet of the cup, with Snedeker's finishing an incredible 2-3 feet away. In all cases those shots landed on the green up to the right and gently trundled down. Some shots that landed above the green also trundled down onto the green. But a number hung up because back of that bunker there is a small but significant ridge running perpendicular to the slope. Balls that carried the bunker but hit into that slope lost a surprising amount of momentum. At that point all the ball had going for itself was gravity. (Small point of order: I was told the slope is 6 percent.)

Something we found surprising was how many misses off the tee were to the left. We saw only 5-6 groups come through (threesomes, though); of these only Dustin Johnson missed to the right. The surprising thing was the left misses seemed like unforced errors: clearly with the stream, crazy terrain, rough, and bunker a left miss could exact a steep penalty.

Of those hitting from the fairway it was a little nerve-wracking to see how direct a line to the flag they chose. Many shots seemed aimed right at the flag or only a little right. Didn't they know the penalty for a left miss? Didn't they know the grade of the slope?

But credit the USGA for setup on the green end. In addition to slowing the green -- note: that green was *not* slow! -- they cut the stream-side collar of the green high enough for balls trundling down to stop. Only relatively hot balls ("relatively" referring to shots hit by floggers not golfers like you and me) really had much chance of going in.

From a spectator perspective one of the most enjoyable things about watching full-blooded second shots into the green was the John Kirk Theory of Time was in full effect. There was suspense, drama, terror, comedy and relief. Sometimes all in one shot.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,

I am enamored with it, too.  I love the "hit it here to get it there" kind of feature.  Played with Fuzzy Zeoller once and he hit one way right that kicked on to the green with a similar slope, and he was saying, "Oh, s^^t, Oh, S**t, Oh S**t its perfect!"   It became my new design mantra......

My guess is that it is more of a fun feature than one designed to identify the best player.   They did talk a bit about Phil's creativity (such as the on the green pitch shot) and the USGA and PGA would have to decide that creativity is something that should have a high reward priority to incorporate too much of that.  The USGA does it, knowing, as most players say, that its okay once a year in the US Open, but I doubt the PGA tour would design too many courses for their tournaments that way.

Even if they did, it would be both softer, and probably with some more standardized option for play.  Which of course, would dilute the fun.

Just my pre coffee opinion today.....

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff, before we damn this hole for championship play as being "fun," I will note that, for Saturday's hole location at least, a thin green line ran between par and bogey. Par (or birdie?) required a well-struck drive followed by a truly superior second shot...followed by an excellent first putt. Anything outside 3 feet was a big-time knee-trembler.

[Mike Sweeney]

As one who was VERY against the changes to 12 and 15 greens (I was wrong, Pat Mucci just say it slowly   ), I have to say that MERION needs to look at the 5th green. 12 and 14 seemed to play great and with modern grass speeds even the "slowed down" #5 created a one dimensional hole from my TV viewing. If you stayed above, it was an automatic three putt. Below went to the fringe too many times for 2 putts.

I have seen 4 putts on #5 in Merion Club Championship play (just happened to be playing nearby).

In addition, I would prefer the edges of the creek be shaved down in the driving landing areas and you can take that fairway super wide right because the penalty is a ball above your feet right. You get a flat lie and shorter distance near the creek, with a penalty threat from the lateral hazard.

Somewhere in there the hole probably played too long for yesterday's conditions.

All of the above is mainly from TV viewing.....

It is a great hole, but the mix was a little off on that hole, imo.

Here are the hole stats, with the 2nd round (played over two days) being the only "easy" day at 4.55:

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/course/hole.html?n=5

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think to get the scoring lower all that would have been needed was more fairway to the right. We saw two-putts from above the hole and we were watching guys who barely made the cut. (Maybe the pressure was off?) With more fairway to the right the angle alone would provide plenty of challenge. But I think if the fairway right is widened then moving up the tee may not be the right call.

Based on my limited viewing it seemed most of the bad scores came from misses to the left off the tee and not from getting down / putting, and those misses seemed unforced in the sense they could have chosen to play further right. My suspicion is a) they wanted the A position and b) they wanted to hit slinging hooks for max distance.

Was it hard to get down in two from on or around the green? Yes. Could enough players get down in two? IMHO: yes.

I wish we knew how the scores on the hole were accomplished.

[Mike Sweeney]

I wish we knew how the scores on the hole were accomplished.

Just click on the ORANGE + figures/circles:

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/course/hole.html?n=5

everything is there, by day and total. 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Thanks, Mike, I hadn't seen that. It still doesn't tell us enough. Fairways missed left or right? Greens missed where? And how is "greens missed" defined? Is it "non GIR"?

But working off those figures provided, we see 55 percent hit the fairway and 25 percent hit the green. 75 percent who hit the green got a par; 9 percent birdied. What figures would you like to see? Fewer doubles, more fairways hit, etc? What should be the target stats?

[Mike Hendren]

I arrived at the 5th before 7 a.m. Thursday and couldn't pull myself away until the final group played through.  The dynamics of the hole remind me of Augusta National's 13th.  The ideal play is a draw off the tee followed by a fade from a hook lie.  Yip, in I believe the second group of the day was the only player I saw bold enough to cut his second shot into the sloping green - he was rewarded with a 3 feet birdie putt straight up hill.   Most players compromised their seconds for fear of going long or being too far right when in fact the farther right a player's approach the most likely the ball was to finish within 20 feet of the hole.   

KBM, I hope you saw Cabrerra's up and down from the rough right of the green! 

Bogey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()