[Steve Lapper]

The two major changes to greens at Merion made them easier, not harder.  The rough is always long at Merion.  Yes there was some fairway shifting and some narrowing but I think there is overstatement of what was done at Merion.

The belief among many is that Merion is child's play and was "tricked up" for the US Open.  That is laughable.

Merion's fairways were dramatically reduced for the Open. If that isn't tricked up, I don't know what is. I hope they bring back some of the missing fairways for the members.

I don't know that I'd call fairway reduction "tricked up."  I think of tricked up as building new bunkers, changing the construction of greens to make them more difficult, speeding up the greens to ridiculous numbers, etc.

Reducing fairways can be changed back with mowing patterns.

I'm also not convinced they were "dramatically" reduced.  I played there in Fall 2010 and they weren't exactly 50 yard fairways back then.

JC is mostly right. Fairways have never been historically very wide at Merion and I've played it several times every year , lastly just 3 weeks prior to this Open. The club, I'm told, will be replacing them to their "members" widths and re-situating them to their previous locations sometime next season.

Yes, most of the changes made to the course specific for this Open did in fact make the course easier (save for the fescue lines on the right of #8, the shifts of the fairway lines on #'s 2,5, 11 & 15, the removal of bunker rough collars on #1 and the re-placement of bunkers on #15). Does this define "tricked out?" I don't know and frankly my only opinion is that the club and USGA did what they felt they had to do to defend against the modern ball. I abhor the emasculation of the 12th green, but otherwise think the work done did exactly what it set out to do--allow Merion to quite adequately challenge the Pros and their modern technology.

What many are failing to discuss is how difficult even very short putts were at Merion. The Pros rarely see this place and don't have their usual encyclopedic knowledge of prevailing micro-breaks derived from years of experience. How many really good approaches failed to convert to birdies? How many short par putts failed to drop?? These guys were mostly befuddled and most failed to prepare adequately for having their cherry popped by Merion's unique green surfaces. J. Rose rose to the top on the heels of strong putting, as most great champions usually do.

I know I'll likely be in the minority around these parts, but I think Mike Davis & the club did the cause of great Golf Architecture a wonderful service holding this event on Ardmore Ave.. With the Open scheduled to go in the near future to the likes of Erin Hills and other big brutes, the dichotomies of charm and challenge, elegance and terror, and beauty and beast all worked perfectly to identify the best golfer. We can sit back in our barcaloungers and critique everything, but in the end, we saw one of this country's greatest layouts not only survive the onslaught of today's titanium-infused, COR-based, uber-technological humanoids, but emerge as the penultimate winner. Merion, in whatever form and shape it happens to be presented in, handily stands the test of time.

[Bill Brightly]

Very good post. I agree with most of what you wrote, especially noting that the pace and break of the greens probably had more to do with the high scoring than the rough. (Of course high rough and difficult greens go hand in hand to increase scores as players struggle to hit to proper places on the greens.)

I agree that the USGA did us all a favor holding the event at Merion; there can be no argument that it was awesome to see the event return to such an historic site. I just have a REALLY hard time using "great golf course architecture" and "US Open set up" in the same sentence. US Open set ups dull great golf architecture. I don't dispute that shrinking fairways and maintaining nasty rough lengths are required to fully test players in the manner that the USGA wants them tested. It is great theater and I truly enjoy watching it. But is once per year trial for the world's best players and it should NOT be replicated for the other 99.99% of golfers. But I fear the powers that be at many clubs watch US Opens and think about ways they can introduce these elements to their home courses. And that is sad. (Did anyone see the interview with USGA President Glen Nager? I give him a ton of credit for stating that US Open conditions should NOT be the standard.)

The best thing you wrote was that the changes at Merion were done to defend against the modern ball. I dream that a tipping point may have been reached. A tournament ball is needed to stop the madness.

[jeffwarne]

Very good post. I agree with most of what you wrote, especially noting that the pace and break of the greens probably had more to do with the high scoring than the rough. (Of course high rough and difficult greens go hand in hand to increase scores as players struggle to hit to proper places on the greens.)

I agree that the USGA did us all a favor holding the event at Merion; there can be no argument that it was awesome to see the event return to such an historic site. I just have a REALLY hard time using "great golf course architecture" and "US Open set up" in the same sentence. US Open set ups dull great golf architecture. I don't argue that shrinking fairways and maintaining nasty rough lengths are required to fully test players in the manner that the USGA wants them tested. It is great theater and I truly enjoy watching it. But is once per year trail for the world's best players and it should NOT be replicated for the other 99.99% of golfers. But I fear the powers that be at many clubs watch US Opens and think about ways they can introduce these elements to their home courses. And that is sad. (Did anyone see the interview with USGA President Glen Nager? I give him a ton of credit for stating that US Open conditions should NOT be the standard.)

The best thing you wrote was that the changes at Merion were done to defend against the modern ball. I dream that a tipping point may have been reached. A tournament ball is needed to stop the madness.

Steve, BIll,
very good posts-agreed on nearly everything.

I will say that if one deems the setup and architectural adjustments a success in defense against modern equipment, that we are in for more similar setups on a daily basis at any and all clubs that host top amateur and professional events, and all others that want to keep up with the Jones'.

Wouldn't it just be simpler to adjust the ball and leave the courses alone?
EVERY change costs money, and adds time to a round of golf.

[Terry Lavin]

Merion's greens are great and they provided plenty of defense, but not enough to protect par for a US Open.  That's why the USGA and Merion decided to add back tees, move fairways, grow rough (raking it in an unfelicitous manner) and put hole locations in areas that were markedly inaccessible even to the best players in the game.  That's called defending par, it's not using the architecture to identifiy the best player.  I don't have any problem with this.  If this is what it takes to have an Open at a place such as Merion (even though we are now supposed to believe that there is NO PLACE IN THESE HERE UNITED STATES LIKE MERION), then I have no problem with such machinations.  My ONLY beef is the unwillingness of those who made these decisions to admit that they monkeyed with the architecture in order to defend par.  The word du jour is "transparency".  It is transparent that this is what was done, but instead of a frank admission, we have Mike Davis spouting platitudes about the magic and mythical architecture of Merion which he thinks is unable to be duplicated.  Who needs to duplicate it when you just go and alter it! He was on television praising the "architecture" of Merion.  He used the word twenty times in a five minute segment.  The same architecture that he contorted, changed, upbraided and debased (even if much of it can be mostly undone).  He did it to defend par and to host an Open at the USGA's favorite course.  Fine, it's their championship and if the Merion members agree, let's just admit it.

Finally, on this golf course architecture website, it would be refreshing to see somebody praise the work of the architect who helped the USGA inflict pain on the pros while maintaining the look, feel and overall vibe of this great golf course.  His name, as I recall, is Tom Fazio.

[Kirk Moon]

Patrick:

That used to be the case, until last year at Olympic, when the USGA decided it would install a bunker on the 17th hole a month before the tournament.  The deal there was, they would pay to remove it after the tournament, if the club wanted to remove it.

That's the new normal.  The USGA does what it wants, and they'll pay you for the privilege.

Not that it changes the point you are making, but that bunker is still there.  Stockholm Syndrome?  : )

[Steve Lapper]

Bill & Jeff,

  Thanks for the kudos and I mostly agree with what you both added. US Open style setups most definitely do dull great architecture to some degree. The modern ball and equipment have dictated such. Mr. Nager is spot on----these conditions should NOT be the standard elsewhere.

  I do, rather optimistically, believe that the guardians of great architecture have learned a critical lesson over the past decade (one taught by a myriad of influences*) NOT to emulate extreme setups and arbitrary resistances to scoring. They have finally reached a collective understanding of the precepts of " being a positive guardian and leaving a course better than they found it." Critical inflection points  like Oakmont's big de-weeding have made for a big difference. They now seem to understand what they have and simply do a very good job of optimally presenting their architecture and strategy without trickery. I'd say all of our home courses have definitely learned that lesson (Please feel free, however, to blame Brian Chapin for any upcoming 4 putt at Paramount! .  

 Lesser venues, especially many of those that pursue the false idolatry of hosting the PGA Tour, will likely never learn this lesson. They chase the wrong targets and no matter what the USGA says or does, they want more green, more speed and higher roughs and tougher hazards.

*Critical influences: So many of the wonderful GC Archies working the game right now, shrewd golf journalists like Brad Klein, et.al., younger, better-educated supers, younger savvy Green's chairs, act.....including even some GCA.com posters!

Terry.....if you want to see praise for the architect who helped the USGA inflict pain.....then substitute the name: Marucci for Fazio. Buddy was the guy who convinced both the USGA and the club to make most all of the bigger changes.

[Terry Lavin]

Well, I guess we will add Buddy Marucci to the list.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I happen to think that once the decision was made to return to Merion for a US Open, that you couldn't leave the course as the members play it.
To my recollection only SHCC and WFW come close that status.

What about Oakmont?  Is it just legend that they have to raise the blades on the green mowers when they host?!  Didn't the club simply add some tees?  No greens were changed nor mowing lines drastically altered?

Will,

I would include Oakmont in that category, understanding that they have a unique culture centered around the difficulty of the course.

However, changes were made to the course for the Open.
It was not the course the members play.

And I think you'll find the statement about greenspeeds being slowed down, more myth than reality.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know that I'd call fairway reduction "tricked up."  I think of tricked up as building new bunkers, changing the construction of greens to make them more difficult, speeding up the greens to ridiculous numbers, etc.

That's your definition and it differs from the definition of others

Reducing fairways can be changed back with mowing patterns.

I didn't happen after the prior two Opens, why would you expect it to happen after this one ?

I'm also not convinced they were "dramatically" reduced.  I played there in Fall 2010 and they weren't exactly 50 yard fairways back then.

That's because you don't have an adequate frame of reference.

If a fairway was 50 yards wide, and reduced to 40 when you played it, and 30 for an Open, just because it was returned to 40 doesn't mean that it's been restored to it's proper width.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JC is mostly right. Fairways have never been historically very wide at Merion and I've played it several times every year , lastly just 3 weeks prior to this Open. The club, I'm told, will be replacing them to their "members" widths and re-situating them to their previous locations sometime next season.

Steve,

Your problem is that you're too young, hence your frame of reference is extremely limited.

Merion has seen their fairway shrink, as has almost every course and especially courses hosting Opens.
Shinnecock and Newport immediately spring to mind.
I'm trying to recall Prairie Dunes as well

Yes, most of the changes made to the course specific for this Open did in fact make the course easier (save for the fescue lines on the right of #8, the shifts of the fairway lines on #'s 2,5, 11 & 15, the removal of bunker rough collars on #1 and the re-placement of bunkers on #15).

Those aren't inconsequential.
And, you're forgetting about the added distance, which was substantial to the long holes

Does this define "tricked out?"

Yes, it does.
And the test to determine if it's "tricked out" is, "would you want to play it every day ?"

Anybody who says yet is full of it.
It's not enjoyable.
Slogging through the rough, IF you can FIND your ball.
Breaking your wrists to advance the ball........ if you can.

Please, let's not create another myth where it's maintained that Merion didn't do much to host the Open, that they just tweaked a few minor things.

I don't know and frankly my only opinion is that the club and USGA did what they felt they had to do to defend against the modern ball.
Agreed

I abhor the emasculation of the 12th green,

What about # 15 ?

but otherwise think the work done did exactly what it set out to do--allow Merion to quite adequately challenge the Pros and their modern technology.

Agreed, they did what they had to do to present a meaningful challenge.
I happen to think scores would have been higher had it been dry.

What many are failing to discuss is how difficult even very short putts were at Merion.

Now you sound like one of the announcers.
When a guy runs his ball three feet past the hole and misses it coming back, it's got nothing to do with reading the green, it's about a BAD stroke.


The Pros rarely see this place and don't have their usual encyclopedic knowledge of prevailing micro-breaks derived from years of experience.
YIKES

Now you're trying to create another myth.
The incredible breaking 1 to 3 footers at Merion
Please, I'm sure your host will extend ongoing invitations without your having to create another myth 

How many really good approaches failed to convert to birdies? How many short par putts failed to drop?? These guys were mostly befuddled and most failed to prepare adequately for having their cherry popped by Merion's unique green surfaces. J. Rose rose to the top on the heels of strong putting, as most great champions usually do.

What do you consider short par putts ?

It was the rough, not the greens that presented the major challenge.

I know I'll likely be in the minority around these parts, but I think Mike Davis & the club did the cause of great Golf Architecture a wonderful service holding this event on Ardmore Ave..

I think most were happy to see the Open return to Merion, but, at what price for future Open setups ?

As I've stated previously, I could make the winning score at Sebonack, 288, 300 or higher.
To what extent do you want to deviate from normal member play in order to present a challenge the best players in the world ?

As I stated, some clubs have to make very few amendments.
Shinnecock, WFW and Oakmont to name a few.
But, as you move away from those clubs, you have to dramatically alter courses not adequately prepared to face the onslaught of the PGA Tour Pro.

With the Open scheduled to go in the near future to the likes of Erin Hills and other big brutes, the dichotomies of charm and challenge, elegance and terror, and beauty and beast all worked perfectly to identify the best golfer.

The best golfer will be identified irrespective of the venue.

Would the best golfer not be identified at Trump Bedminster, Plainfield, Ridgewood, Hollywood, Paramount, Mountain Ridge or Baltusrol ?

The onlyl question is, how much is necessary, in the way of amendments, to protect par.

We can sit back in our barcaloungers and critique everything, but in the end, we saw one of this country's greatest layouts not only survive the onslaught of today's titanium-infused, COR-based, uber-technological humanoids, but emerge as the penultimate winner. Merion, in whatever form and shape it happens to be presented in, handily stands the test of time.

I think our difference in opinion centers on the extent of the alterations necessary to protect par.
The more amendments that you have to make,  the more the course isn't qualified to host an Open.
But, hosting an Open should not be the criterion by which courses are judged for their architectural merit.

Case in point, NGLA and GCGC.

Wonderful member courses that would have to drastically alter their very fabric in order to provide a challenge for the PGA Tour Pro.

So, I ask, at what price are you willing to sell your architectural soul ?

[Steve Lapper]

Pat,

  Though Ran thoughtfully reminded all of us to IGNORE YOU , I'll take some of the bait and throw it back into your boiling cauldron of green alzheimer's-riddled verbal pea soup!!

  My problem isn't that I'm too young (at 55)...it's that you are too OLD already and your mind is slipping into a Moronic mess. Never since the early 1970s has Merion had very wide fairways...it's a small and formerly claustrophobic layout that has finally shed enough trees and relied on their rough as a defensive feature. The rough ALWAYS helped shape the often acute "angles" of Merion.

  Never said the changes were inconsequential, but the majority of the changes (other than added distances) made it relatively easier. The length had to come to defend against the ball and retain the difficulty of holes like 2,3,4,5,6, 14, 15 and 18.

  If your test for "tricked out" is whether one would want to play it every day, then you are correct, it's "tricked out." Try naming me ANY US Open course that hasn't been "tricked out" and you'd want to play every day? Hell no, I'd not want to play any US Open set up every day (though my Monday-after round at WFW in August of 2004 was my career best on the West ..75 from the Am tees). Only a rare Vulcan-like mind meld on the greens made that happen.

   Merion did plenty to host the Open...NEVER said they "tweaked a few minor things."

   #15 green's changes weren't as neutering as those on #12 and the rejection/acceleration knob on the front left side of the green appears to be a very cool feature to have to contend with from the left side of the fairway approaches.

   I couldn't agree more...had the course been dry and fairways fast the winning total would've closer to 288-290. Of course had that occurred, everyone would be screaming "bloody hell & massacre." I do believe Mike Davis was prepared to offer more benign pins, tees and rough heights had that been the case.

  The announcers didn't get into the missed short putts. Plenty of GOOD strokes deflected off the edges or ran past thru the breaks. I spoke to one competitor (who made the cut) who said the nuances of those greens were vastly different than what the Pros see most all year with only Oakmont coming close. It's no myth that most touring Pros (and especially those who've been at or near the top for the past 5-10 years) have near encyclopedic memories of putt fall lines and breaks. Ask a few and they'll tell you that's why Tiger & Phil have gotten certain courses down to a science. Clearly, Merion can't be learned in a week.....unless, of course, it's by an Italian from Bergen County.

   I don't disagree that it was the rough that caused plenty of havoc, but many, many guys struggled even with terrific approach shots from ideal fairway spots. You must've been wearing that tin-foil golden dome to miss this much!!

  As JeffWarne and Bill Brightly correctly alluded to, so long as the unregulated distance associated with the modern ball exists, the unfortunate consequence will be a severe price to original architectural intent of the home venue. Sadly, the BlueBloods lacked the cohones to take on the manufacturers years back and now that the proverbial cat-is-out-of-the-bag, it's too late to believe ANY course won't be considerably tweaked to defend itself from the Pros and protect par. That's a fact, sad nonetheless, of the modern National Open.

  An interesting analogy might be understanding that certain masterpieces of fine art, i.e. The Mona Lisa, The Sistine Chapel , Picasso's "Guernica," Munch's "The Scream" or even more modern works like an East Hampton barn floor Pollock....all had to be restored, coated, or manipulated for us to continue to view live. Like it or not, great works of golf architecture will continue to see such tweaks if they wish to appear in professional tournament rotas. Of course, a new question of whether they should evolves, but thats an answer that belongs only to their memberships and the tournament organizers....not us.

  I didn't sell my architectural soul...I merely suspended the vanity of it's purity in order to see it shine on a public stage.

  Now onto more important subject: do we need to get you a "walker" or a "cane" along with the coke-bottle lens you'll need to circumnavigate Paramount?


  

[Patrick_Mucci]

My problem isn't that I'm too young (at 55)...it's that you are too OLD already and your mind is slipping into a Moronic mess.
Never since the early 1970s has Merion had very wide fairways.

You're probably unaware of this, but Merion was around prior to the early 70's, for about 60 years.
To help you out, go to HistoricAerials.com and take a look at the course in 1950, the year of Hogn's win.
You'll be shocked by how very wide Merion was

.it's a small and formerly claustrophobic layout that has finally shed enough trees and relied on their rough as a defensive feature.
The rough ALWAYS helped shape the often acute "angles" of Merion.

That's also not true.
Please look at the 1950 aerial
And when you do, take notice of where the 2nd fairway is relative to Ardmore Ave.

Never said the changes were inconsequential, but the majority of the changes (other than added distances) made it relatively easier.
The length had to come to defend against the ball and retain the difficulty of holes like 2,3,4,5,6, 14, 15 and 18.

If your test for "tricked out" is whether one would want to play it every day, then you are correct, it's "tricked out."

Isn't that the true or ultimate test ?

Try naming me ANY US Open course that hasn't been "tricked out" and you'd want to play every day?

Shinnecock

Hell no, I'd not want to play any US Open set up every day (though my Monday-after round at WFW in August of 2004 was my career best on the West ..75 from the Am tees). Only a rare Vulcan-like mind meld on the greens made that happen.

I think WFW had very little in the way of amendments.
They made the mistake of planting trees after the 1959 Open and that impacted drip and fairway lines in the years that followed

Merion did plenty to host the Open...NEVER said they "tweaked a few minor things."

#15 green's changes weren't as neutering as those on #12 and the rejection/acceleration knob on the front left side of the green appears to be a very cool feature to have to contend with from the left side of the fairway approaches.

I couldn't agree more...had the course been dry and fairways fast the winning total would've closer to 288-290.
Of course had that occurred, everyone would be screaming "bloody hell & massacre."
I do believe Mike Davis was prepared to offer more benign pins, tees and rough heights had that been the case.

And water

The announcers didn't get into the missed short putts.

Yes, they did.
When a golfer missed a putt of less than 3 feet they commented on how difficult Merion's green were to read, clearly implying that 3 footers were tricky at Merion

Plenty of GOOD strokes deflected off the edges or ran past thru the breaks. I spoke to one competitor (who made the cut) who said the nuances of those greens were vastly different than what the Pros see most all year with only Oakmont coming close.

He must not have played WFW.
Putting is a combination of break and pace and Merion is no different from any other classic course with sloped/contoured greens in that regard.let's not create another myth about phantom breaks that are unreadable.

It's no myth that most touring Pros (and especially those who've been at or near the top for the past 5-10 years) have near encyclopedic memories of putt fall lines and breaks. Ask a few and they'll tell you that's why Tiger & Phil have gotten certain courses down to a science. Clearly, Merion can't be learned in a week.....unless, of course, it's by an Italian from Bergen County.

As good as Italians from Bergen County are at reading greens, those from Essex County are even better.

I don't disagree that it was the rough that caused plenty of havoc, but many, many guys struggled even with terrific approach shots from ideal fairway spots. You must've been wearing that tin-foil golden dome to miss this much!!

I've been playing and enjoying Merion for 50+ years and it doesn't need brutal rough to enhance the architecture or the playing experience.
It ONLY needs brutal rough to defend against par

As JeffWarne and Bill Brightly correctly alluded to, so long as the unregulated distance associated with the modern ball exists, the unfortunate consequence will be a severe price to original architectural intent of the home venue.

I think we all agree with that

Sadly, the BlueBloods lacked the cohones to take on the manufacturers years back and now that the proverbial cat-is-out-of-the-bag, it's too late to believe ANY course won't be considerably tweaked to defend itself from the Pros and protect par. That's a fact, sad nonetheless, of the modern National Open.

Also agree, that's why ANGC could be the key to a competition ball.

An interesting analogy might be understanding that certain masterpieces of fine art, i.e. The Mona Lisa, The Sistine Chapel , Picasso's "Guernica," Munch's "The Scream" or even more modern works like an East Hampton barn floor Pollock....all had to be restored, coated, or manipulated for us to continue to view live. Like it or not, great works of golf architecture will continue to see such tweaks if they wish to appear in professional tournament rotas. Of course, a new question of whether they should evolves, but thats an answer that belongs only to their memberships and the tournament organizers....not us.

I didn't sell my architectural soul...I merely suspended the vanity of it's purity in order to see it shine on a public stage.
Is that akin to a guy suspending his marriage vows when he's away on a business trip ?

Now onto more important subject: do we need to get you a "walker" or a "cane" along with the coke-bottle lens you'll need to circumnavigate Paramount?


I'm prepared to accept as many shots as you wish to bestow upon this feeble, near sighted relic.
I've also asked the Brinks truck to arrive at around 6:00 pm to pick up my winnings

Reviewing the 1950 aerials of Merion, the year of Hogan's victory, should open a lot of eyes when it comes to the misconception that Merion needed brutal rough to exhibit it's architectural merit.

Stay well



  

[Steve Lapper]

Oh, I give up!!!

It's impossible to make any headway with such a prehistoric codger as you!! How could I have forgotten that you were around and playing back in the days of horse & buggy and pre-electricity. Heck, I'm shocked your name wasn't noticed on all those ship manifests when looking for Wilson and CBM.

You free to play one of our dog tracks next week? Maybe we can get the Brightly fellow to join us? I know The Hickory Commissioner is too busy out on LI.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

The 1948 and 1950 aerials are very interesting.

It almost looks like some holes shared fairways.

What's also interesting is how the bunkers are mostly protected by a buffer of rough in 2010 versus 1948-1950.

Mark, this would be an excellent course for you to do your time warp imagery from 1948 to 2010.
And, 2013 would be even better.

Notice how # 2, # 14 and # 15 are right up against the roads.

So, the USGA brought the course back to it's 1950 configuration in some apsects.

[Will Lozier]

When did the left fairway (really looks designed to slowdown snap hooks from heading for #3 green) on #7 get removed and why?  I'll throw out there that it was removed for crowd navigation purposes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()