The 17th at Merion Then and Now

[DMoriarty]

While there were plenty of complaints (some by me) on gca.com about the par three setups for the USOpen, I admit that had I been there live I'd have been watching the action at the 17th hole for Saturday's round when the hole played at 254 yards.  Unlike the 3rd and 9th holes, the 17th hole was actually designed for a very long tee shot, so I'd have cherished the opportunity to see the world's best golfers going after the hole with long irons or even woods.

That said, had the USGA actually wanted to capture the real design intent of the hole, then the hole probably should have been set up to play a quite a bit longer than 254 yards, so that at least some of the golfers would have had to try and land their tee shots short of the putting surface and let the ball run up the bank and onto the green. (Longer probably wouldn't be possible given the constraints of the site.)

I was considering all this the other day as I reread an old account of a match which took place at Merion, circa 1916.  The (possibly apocryphal) match was between a two accomplished amateurs and featured a younger, stronger player against an accomplished middle aged player who could not hit it as far as the younger man. The match ended on the 220 yard 17th hole, and the description of how the two golfers played the hole provides a telling perspective on just how the game has changed over the years, and also on how the 17th at Merion originally played.  

The younger, stronger golfer had honors on the tee and chose a driving iron, which is about the equivalent of a one iron or a two iron and was used to hit low running shots.  And that is apparently the shot he hit.  His ball flew straight, disappeared short of the hole, then reappeared as it climbed up the steep embankment and onto the green, settling not far from the cup.  The older gentleman hit a long tee shot with his driver, but his shot was offline and his ball landed short of the green and ran into a bunker. Neither carried the ball onto the green.

My question is, how long would Merion's 17th hole have be today in order to replicate the challenge presented by the hole back then?

[Tom_Doak]

It would have to be somewhere between 260 and 300 yards, depending on whether you're trying to make it play that way for a 2-handicap member, or for a Tour professional.  300 if you're talking about the best college players.  But, I don't know if you would ever get them to hit a 2-iron and run it onto the green, if they could fly it onto the green with a hybrid or a 4-wood.  The green and approach would have to be hard as a rock.

[Alex Miller]

David,

Witht today's golf ball and the rain that the course received early in the week, I don't think that shot was recreatable at ANY yardage. A 1 iron (which nowadays would have at least the loft of a 2 iron) still flies high enough with the modern ball that from an elevated tee players would still choose to land the ball on the green. Ditto with a 3 wood or driver even.

Length alone will not replicate the challenge,  but I'm not going to debate the merits of whether it's worth trying to in the first place  .

[Mark Bourgeois]

Yeah, it used to be the ability to hit the high arcing long iron separated the great from the good. Then along came new ball and club technology, not only unlocking that shot for all but making that shot the dominant strategy. This is an exhibit in the case that shotmaking is dead, murdered.

I suspect not only would you need new (old) maintenance practices but the old balls and clubs. This is the point I made on the width thread, that maintenance adapts or evolves to fit the available I&B.

So I think maybe you'd need not only the old maintenance practices but the old I&B. Probably. Maybe.

[DMoriarty]

Tom and Alex,  I agree that it is in part about the conditions.   To replicate the experience today, the green would have to be very difficult to hold via an aerial attack.  That is the only circumstance where I can imagine where the best players would ever attempt bounce it in, unless they just could not reach the hole.

And while the description doesn't spell it out, I get the feeling that the longer hitter in the match probably could have carried the ball onto the green even then, but was opting for the smarter, safer play perhaps because the green would have been a challenge to hold.  That sort of decision making doesn't seem to ever be required on par threes today, does it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I'd echo what Tom and Alex stated, namely that "Mother Nature" dictates whether playing options can be employed.

In 1916, I wonder what the irrigation capabilities were, green and tee, or entire hole ?

The run up shot you seek has become such a rarity today.

Heck, the club manufacturers aren't making 3-irons any more, so you can forget about 1-irons and 2-irons.

Today, it's airborne all the way, which is unfortunate.

Perhaps, as the cost of water and chemicals increase, universal firm and fast conditions will see a revitalization.

One can only hope.  

[john_stiles]

It is interesting and fun to consider David's question.    But could it ever be as it was ?

Maybe on a links course, firm ground, proper grasses, on a links course for an " amateur "  given a downhill shot to a green.

At Merion, the downhill 17th, I don't think many have thought of that shot in last 75 years.  Maybe into a stiff headwind.

[Jim Nugent]

 His ball flew straight, disappeared short of the hole, then reappeared as it climbed up the steep embankment and onto the green, settling not far from the cup.  

Similar to a Biarritz?

My question is, how long would Merion's 17th hole have be today in order to replicate the challenge presented by the hole back then? 

The real long par 3 is not extinct nowadays, but I think it's much more rare than it used to be.  This is one reason pro golf has had to lengthen courses so much.  If we simply built more long par 3s, we wouldn't have to lengthen the rest of the course so much. 

[Wade Whitehead]

We watched the 17th for quite some time during Friday's round.  I don't recall seeing a single shot land short and stop on the putting surface.  Several landed short, ran on to the green, and ran back off the front.

If the greens had been hard enough to reject shots carried in the air, the run-up might occur.  Requiring a run-up shot is more a factor of how firm the place is than the length assigned to each hole.

WW

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wade, not sure its only softness.

I recall Oakland Hills 14, played as a 514 par 4 in the last PGA.  It has a reverse slope green and with long irons, they all played it to run in.  Had the reverse slope been used on a shorter par 4, I had little doubt they would just try to spin it harder.  So, a long shot and drier conditions are probably both required to ask good players to hit the run up shot.

[Tom Bagley]

When I was in high school and college (late 1970s) I played a lot of golf at my home course with three very good senior players, two of whom were, at one time, among the best amateurs in New England.  A few of the Donald Ross greens featured a swale in front of the greens.  These were principally on downhill holes where Ross lowered the area in front of the greens and used the removed material to build up the greens.  The effect was not dissimilar to Biarritz greens where only the back portion of the "green" is mowed to fairway height.

These senior players could not hit the ball as far or as high as I could, but would play the longer approaches through the swale using fairway woods, the key being to land the ball short of the swale so that it could catch the downslope, gaining enough acceleration to run through the swale onto the green.

These were shots played purposefully with a high degree of skill.  One of the players would actually hit a slicing, running shot that seemed to land with over-spin.  He could even work the ball around a front-right bunker if necessary.  Another player executed the shot by appearing to roll his wrists over through the shot, almost as if hitting a top-spin forehand in tennis.  Both players were playing for the run of the shot and could manufacture this result even when conditions were relatively solft.

David:  It is interesting that you should bring up this topic, because I was thinking of these players the other day while playing my home course, fondly remembering how skillfully they could play the game, in an era when the best players were "playing shots" rather than just "making a good swing".

In another thread, I read a comment critical of #18 at Merion because Justin Rose's "perfect" shot to the 72nd hole ran through the green.  But was it really a "perfect" shot?  The perfect shot might have been to play the shot as the old-timers would have, intentionally allowing for the run of the ball - a shot that I am afraid has disappeared permanently from the game.

[Charlie_Bell]

Wade,

Thanks for the first-person account.  Perhaps if the greens weren't cut to U.S. Open height -- a hundred years ago they probably stimped at 8-9 -- the fun shots would run onto the green and stay on it.

[DMoriarty]

Similar to a Biarritz?

Jim,  
It sounds like it to me. The original biarritz concept featured a 30 yard "dip" short of the green, and called for the types of shots described. But hopefully we can stay focused on the playing characteristics of the golf hole itself and leave aside questions of attribution.  
=========================================================================

We watched the 17th for quite some time during Friday's round.  I don't recall seeing a single shot land short and stop on the putting.  Several landed short, ran on to the green, and ran back off the front.

Wade,
Thanks for the description. It sounds to me like what is supposed to happen on this type of hole.  A high ball hit just short ought to be rejected by the upslope, and I am glad to hear that this was the case.  (I saw a bit of this happening on t.v., but not enough to draw any conclusions.)

Swales just short of the greens were largely defensive in nature.  Balls which carry into them don't often come out of them.  So an almost perfect shot ought to be rejected by the bank.  This was how the feature was supposed to work!   The golfer had to make a choice between trying to carry all the way onto the green, or he had to try and hit a running shot which landed well short but would run through the swale.   (Well short is no longer an option at Merion because the ground short of the swale is no longer maintained at fairway height.)

While discussing a hole with similar playing characteristics in 1913, H.J. Whigham described the two basic options as follows: Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with . . . a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there.

This second, highlighted, aspect is often overlooked.  A shot landing "in the dip" will "stay there."  If one wanted to run it up, then one had to land the ball well short and play the correct type of shot.  

The above is why I do think that length is (or was) an important element for this type of hole. The distance to the green on these long par threes was meant to be just out of reach of many golfers, and those who were nonetheless tempted to try and make the carry would end up having their shots rejected.   Or shots that did carry on would be too hot to hold the surface.  

Nowadays a par three that was just out of reach of better golfers would be a long hole indeed.
=======================================================================


Tom Bagley,

Thank you for your terrific description of they types of shots which used to be played on these types of holes.   I have nothing to add except that to note that agree with your assessment.

[ChipOat]

David,

It has been noted above, but I will try to add a little.

Ever since the snap valve watering system was removed after the '71 Open in favor of an automated system, the area short of #17 is simply not firm/fast/hard/dry enough for that shot to work EXCEPT with a low, boring shot e.g. a "stinger" - perhaps with a driver for the average member.  Also, it is a low area, so keeping it bone dry was not so easy even back then.

In addition, the green is now so fast, that keeping a successful "stinger" on the green is difficult - the margin for error is much less than even 30 years ago.

Finally, the "small ball" was in use in 1916 and I can attest from a few rounds in the UK in the mid-1970's that it was a much better ball for the ground game.

Final thought, given how the current ball promotes "bomb and gouge" how many of today's players besides Bubba Watson could even envision that shot - let alone try it in competition?

[DMoriarty]

Chip,  I appreciate your comments and agree with them.

I don't think any of the top players would envision that shot today, at least not with the hole playing at 215 or even 250.   But if the hole was playing at 300 yards a few might be forced to envision the shot or suffer the consequences.

And I think that is key.  Then, golfers tried shots like that because the distance required the golfers to get creative. Most couldn't carry to the green or if they could it wasn't without great risk.  So it made more sense for most to play a runner, even for very skilled players. Nowadays the hole would have to be 300 yards to create that scenario for better golfers, and that isn't going to happen on this hole or many of the others meant to offer a similar challenge.  

Are there any similar par three holes anywhere that actually play long enough to challenge the better golfers in this manner?  I doubt it.

Here are a few Hagley Archive clips of the hole from 1930 Amateur.  Obviously the hole is still very good now, but it would have been fun to have played the hole under early conditions with the early equipment.

[ChipOat]

David,

Charlie Bell said it first and I confirmed it (for what that's worth) - like all greens, the 17th "Stimps" too high for the run-up tee shot to stay on the green most of the time.

Also, given the distances these guys now hit it, along with their "bomb and gouge" mindset, 300 yards downhill would still be "short" enough for almost every player to rely on their aerial game.

However, I do think that a Luke Donald, Steve Stricker or a non-tour qualifier (e.g. Jay Don Blake was the oldest in the field at 51 years of age) would figure out how to hit that shot out of necessity.  Or, maybe they would just play the hole as a par 3 1/2 and pretend they were Paul Runyan.

Lastly, while the image is really quite interesting, it would preclude a front hole location and front/right is the traditional second round placement for all the guys "on the bubble" that need a par (or birdie) to get to the weekend.  Of course, the "short" 254 yard tee box could be kept available. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Play as you describe can only be achieved if Mother Nature co-operates.......... AND...........  you reduce and/or eliminate irrigating your fairways/roughs.

Water restrictions and/or increased costs for water might accelerate your desire, but, with the weekly PGA Tour telecasts depicting lush green fairways with unique mowing patterns, don't hold your breath.

Great photos

WIDTH was king when they were taken.

[ChipOat]

A 325 yard par 3 (downhill, but think how that sounds and looks).

I still think most of today's players would just bust a Driver or strong 3 Metal from that distance.

Remember when #10 at ANGC was considered extra-super long for a par 4 at 485 yards?

[DMoriarty]

325 and different maintenance would probably pressure at least some of them to consider bouncing it in. You are probably right that some wouldn't be dissuaded from trying to carry it on anyway. Crazy.

Maybe 254 could be the senior tee, although that wouldn't be nearly long enough for top seniors.

Hard to tell from the photos but it looks much more playable short of the swale where no one would ever think if being today. 

[ChipOat]

David,

Not sure what the photo's show (I don't really know how to read them), but you are correct that the shot you envision was very playable pre-WWII.

Evidence: 1)The recounting of the 1916 match you mentioned; 2) small ball; 3) no watering in front of the green; 4) hickory shafts promoted the low draw for the good ball strikers; 5) slower green and 6) as you pointed out - necessity.

Finally - let's face it.  Although many holes at Merion were, in fact, designed for the aerial game (i.e. #'s 3,4,8,9,11,13,16 plus, arguably, 15 and the "new" #12), the ground game was still the norm and #17 fit that bill quite well.