[Mike_Duffy]

Thomas Boswell, that wonderful golf writer, encapsulated Merion and its tribulations great and small in a syndicated article in The Bangkok Post last week with the following: Merion . . . where masochists play for the amusement of sadists.

Good, insightful golf writing is still alive and well in the highly capable hands of Mr Boswell.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

Boswell writes superbly well about many sports. I have never understood why he is not better known. Perhaps if he focused on only one sport....?

As for Merion, I think everyone there was surprised at how hard the course played. I watched Tiger and others, trying to play conservatively, fail to find fw's with mid-irons from the tee. Puzzling.

Merion is an interesting course in that it has few mid length holes. By that I mean Merion's holes are, mostly, either very short or very long relative to their par. A formula for land-constrained courses?

I hope all goes well.

Bob

[Terry Lavin]

I'm so tired of Merion, I'm starting to look for a Marian to pine over.

[ChipOat]

BCrosby,

From where the members play it, Merion actually has quite a few mid-length holes.  Of course, "mid-length" is accurate in the context of how far the average member hits it.  For participants in an Open or Amateur, you are correct.

Your point is well taken from the championship perspective.  However, other than Merion, how many championships will ever be played on such a constrained piece of property?

I struggle to think of any other candidates - even for a Walker Cup or a U.S. Amateur.  I don't remember L.A. Country Club well enough although I do recall chain link boundary fences all around the perimeter.

If your point is in regard to NEW CONSTRUCTION on a modest amount of otherwise-attractive ground, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head!  How much Merion is copied beyond that is up to the architect.  but very long + rather short without much (or any) in the middle sounds positively brilliant.

The only problem I see is that, for us average Joe's, avoiding a mid-length hole is more difficult than it sounds.  As above, even Merion has several and one medium length hole for the Open, #16, always has and always will be a long hole for the average member.

[Joe Bausch]

Here is the article by Boswell:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-14/sports/39976866_1_merion-golf-club-usga-holes

[Bill_McBride]

There are chain link fences all around LACC because it's smack dab in the middle of the country's second or third largest city!   But it's what, 200 acres?

[BCrosby]

Chip -

As you note, Merion offers a clear lesson for new projects with limited land. Specifically, on land-constrained courses, holes ought to be designed at the extreme ends (both short and long) of the par assigned to them. Mid-length holes should be minimized.

As set up for the USO, that's what Merion GC and the the USGA did with the course. It helps explain, I think, why so many of the best players in the world never got comfortable with Merion. They were missing shots - even lay-ups with mid-irons off the tee - that should have been routine for them. The course got in their heads.

I'd guess that is partly due to the fact that Merion asks such different things from players from hole to hole, as noted above.

Bob

P.S. A side note - Merion is further evidence of the unavoidable psychological impact of par.

[DMoriarty]

Chip -

As you note, Merion offers a clear lesson for new projects with limited land. Specifically, on land-constrained courses, holes ought to be designed at the extreme ends (both short and long) of the par assigned to them. Mid-length holes should be minimized.

As set up for the USO, that's what Merion GC and the the USGA did with the course. . . .

I am hesitant to accept the premise that Merion's setup at the USOpen ought to be a guide as to how to create a course on land-constrained property. 

Merion's golf course without the USGA setup would provide a better guide, and arguably Merion's original design would be better still.  And the lesson need not be limited to contrained properties. 

By design, Merion is supposed to present golfer with a variety of hole lengths across the entire spectrum, from very long to very short.  Variety is supposed to be the key.  I am not sure the USGA's setup captured this.   

[Peter Pallotta]

We don't tend to give the architectural opinions of the tour pros much weight around here, but Hunter Mahan seems to have a valid (and first hand) pov: "The course, obviously, was a big challenge and I think the USGA learned a lot about that golf course and how it could play and how they don't have to extend it and just let it be. It was so influenced by the USGA, I felt like we really didn't get to see its kind of true color there.”

What comes first: the chicken or the egg the great architecture or the even par score?

[ChipOat]

Bob,

You are so right about the psychological impact of "par" in medal play.

There were several good threads about it when NGLA decided their fifth hole should be a par 4 instead of a very easy par 5.  Now, more people play it to make 4 than when making a 5 felt "ok".  There may be more 6's made now (the aggressive play does have downside), but definitely more 4's - which no longer feels "really good" as when it was a birdie instead of a par.

Your reference to the Open is, of course, the inverse.  Even though the locker room talk amongst the players surely was about #'s 5 and 18 being "par 4 1/2's", you could tell from the look on their faces that a 5 on those holes didn't cut it - it was still a "bogey".  They didn't look so elated with 4's on those holes either (just a par, after all) even though it was worth 1/2 shot on the field.

I will return to my point that designing a course that has no mid-length holes for Joe Average strikes me as difficult - multiple tee boxes on each hole would be required on many holes, I think.  Short is short and long would be long for Joe Average - avoiding the middle 18 times and still having good golf holes, intuitively, sounds easier said than done.

[BCrosby]

Ron Whitten on twitter:

"Yes, long par 4s at Merion are really long & short ones really short; the key is the long 4s are really HARD & the short ones really tricky."

So I got Ron Whitten going for me.

Peter -

As for holding winning scores at around par, almost everyone I talked to during USO week at Merion assumed that the soaked/soft course would yield a winning score at 10 or more under. And everyone was fine with that. As it turned out the high scoring surprised most everyone. I include myself.

Chip -

The curious thing about the hole lengths for the USO is that Merion only had the space to move back tees on the holes that were already long relative to their pars. So that's what they did. They pushed back tees on 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 on the front; 14, 15, 16(?), 17 and 18 on the back. That is, they backed into the "minimize medium length holes" thing by leaving the short holes alone and making longer holes even longer.

Members won't play from the new back tees. That aspect of the USO set-up will self-correct. But I think the Merion/USGA approach to hole lengths (whether planned or accidental) resulted in strengthening a short course against top pros in ways I hadn't seen before. It is also a formula for other short courses that might want to host a major in the future.

Bob 

 

[ChipOat]

This is for all GCA'ers and not just Ron Whitten.

I have never understood what "tricky" means in reference to a golf hole.  For those who know it, are the 1st and 11th greens at NGLA "tricky"?  These are the two examples I can think of that some might agree upon.  Perhaps the left green on #8 at Pine Valley also qualifies - I don't know.

As for Merion's short holes, I have never found anything "tricky" about any of them.  In fact, under normal, non-U.S. Open conditions, they don't require any more precision off the tee or into the green than the longest, hardest par 4's (4 1/2's?).

Hit it in the best spot in the fairway in order to leave the best angle for the approach and hit that approach the right distance.  Miss the green and you've got a difficult chip, pitch, bunker shot, etc.  All 14 holes that aren't par 3's fit that description - where is the "tricky"?

Also, there is nothing really different about the greens on the short par 4's or #13 that make them more difficult or, somehow, "tricky".  In fact #'s 7,8,10 and 11 are, arguably, the least difficult greens to putt on the entire course.  Further, #'s 7 and 10 are two of the largest greens out there.  Where is the "tricky"?

[David Federman]

The psychologic effect of par is enhanced by the fact that scoring(except on one's scorecard) is kept strictly in relation to par. Thus, every bogey moves you down the leaderboard, whether at the end of the day, it actually did. I spent Saturday in the bleachers at the 5th green and what a train wreck that hole was (if getting a par 4 was the goal)! Five was "par", and sixes were more prevalent than threes. In reality, a 5 on 5 did not hurt you relative to the field, but it mentally challenged the player since it moved him down the leaderboard in relation to par. No body smiled after getting a 5 on 5. 3 and 18 were pretty much the same. Justin Rose had interesting comments following his Saturday round when he bogeyed 17 and 18. He said that he was upset with himself for about 2 minutes but  then  realized that "bogeys" on those holes were really "pars" for the field. All of sudden, he felt good about himself. Instead of ruminating about those bogeys, he went on to win.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()