NGLA and SHCC

[DMoriarty]

Jim,  No doubt, which I why I hope it never happens.  

As for the cryptic message, that is interesting but not really relevant to anything written thus far in this thread that I can see.   I was referring to the preparation for the USGA events in the past decade. Those are the 2005 Amateur, the 2009 Walker Cup, and this year's US Open.   I doubt they had begun preparing for the 2005 Amateur between 1934 and 1998.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

NGLA would not go untouched if it ever signed up for a US Open...sorry to say.

I received a cryptic voicemail from some guy studying some kind of Hunger Games type society that says Merion went from 1934 until 1999 or 2000 basically untouched. That covers 3 US Opens and an Amateur and probably 5 other USGA events.

Jim,

That's not true.

The fairways were shrunk and shifted for Opens between 1934 and 1999/2000

[Patrick_Mucci]

Merion didn't challenge pros or defend par. Mike Davis' setup did.

I respectfully disagree.  Sure, the rough was high, but likely no higher than at any other championship in recent memory.  I played tougher rough last week in West Tennessee.    Sure, the narrowing of the 2nd and 11th fairways was silly as was the landing zone at 18.  Possibly, the sum total of Davis' handiwork added a total of 2 to 4 strokes over the course of four days.  

I wish Merion had been left alone.  I think the course is good enough to defend itself as there is so much great architecture there and the greens are vastly underrated among the world's greatest courses.  Davis' use of the term "boutique" was grossly inaccurate and an afront to Hugh Puff Daddy Wilson.

Mike,

Without the narrow, shifted fairways and dense rough, Merion could not defend par against the best golfers in the world.

And, that's true for most courses, with a few exceptions.

Mike Davis didn't make any substantive changes to the rough.
In modern times the rough at Merion is amongst the most difficult of any course you'll play.
They depend upon it to defend par.

As to fairway width, modern day Merion has not been known for width like NGLA, GCGC or Shinnecock.
Again, they depend upon narrowed fairways to defend par.

Some clubs have a "culture" that promotes and thrives on difficulty.
Plainfield, for decades, made a concerted effort under "Red" to protect par at all costs.
And, they did, but, it wasn't a fun course to play.

Different clubs use different methods to defend par and those methods are often dictated by the assets available.

Where length can be employed, it's used.
Where it can't be employed, narrow fairways, dense rough and super fast greens are employed.

My concern isn't with defending par, per se, but, in retaining and/or restoring the integration of the features with the golfer as he plays the holes.

As an example, the 7th and 18th at NGLA need to be lengthened to return the critical bunker complexes back into play.
On # 7, it's the hotel bunker conplex and the bowl in the DZ that leaves the golfer with a blind second shot.
On # 18, it's the cavernous left side fairway bunker.

On # 7 they lengthened the hole to a degree by utilizing the teeing footpad to the left of # 12 green, intended for # 13.
In an ideal setting, that tee should be further lengthened, across the old service road.

On # 18, the tee needs to go back 50 yards, next to the front gate on the 17th green side of the road.

The neat thing about NGLA was that it had natural, built in obstacles which punished distance.

On # 3 it's the huge hill fronting the green.
On # 5 it's the cross bunker
On # 8 it's the centerline and Principal's nose bunker complex
On # 9 it's the deep cross bunker complex
On # 11 it's the road
On # 14 it's the tidal bunker complex
On # 16 it's the cross bunker complex
On # 17 it's the cross bunker/berm complex.

But, unfortunately, distance off the tee has taken a quantum leap and many of those impediments have become like the Maginot Line.
Ergo, lengthening at the tee is necessary if you're to preserve the intended integration of the features with the golfer.

Seniors on my son's high school golf team routinely drive the ball 300+ yards.

So, tell me, without lengthening the holes, how do you retain the architects intended plan for integration between the features and the golfer ?

When I saw what was being done to lengthen Shinnecock, my mind immediately raced to ANGC.

As I see it, they alone are in the position to introduce a competition ball in the next decade.

Without dialing back I&B, courses will continue to be lengthened in order to return vital features into play.

[George Pazin]

I'd guess the only reason they are considering adding length to Shinney is the 2004 U S Open. It's widely listed when people talk about conditions getting out of control. Seems only a few of us actually loved it (the few, the proud...). People don't seem to understand when you take things to the max, you are going to have the occasional blip. I say live with the blips, but the prevailing thinking today seems to be do everything you can to make it impossibly tough but also impossibly fair.

Some might say that's, well, impossible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

I think the blips had more to do with Mother Nature's fickle behavior.

I think the lengthening is purely a function of the distance today's PGA Pros hit the ball.

[Jim Nugent]

Pat, which of those holes could NGLA reasonably stretch out, to keep the hazards/features/land forms still in play for today's long-ball hitters? 

[George Pazin]

George,

I think the blips had more to do with Mother Nature's fickle behavior.

I think the lengthening is purely a function of the distance today's PGA Pros hit the ball.

I agree on point one, I just don't think others do.

On point two, I think Shinney did a tremendous job dealing with today's idea of strategy. Read my bottom quote, which was provided by the wise Pat Brockwell 9 years ago and still hasn't been surpassed for simple wisdom on here. It's just that most people didn't like how Shinney dealt the "hit one far, hit one high", so they have opted to go the more conventional route of "add more length".

We - members of Shinney and indeed all golfers at large - are all less for this decision. Sad, just sad. Some might say pathetic. I certainly would.

It's no longer "If you can't beat them, join them", it's "if you can't stand their whining, join them". And that's too true for our general society as well.

It's pitchfork time, folks. I'm going to buy one right now...

[JMEvensky]

We - members of Shinney and indeed all golfers at large - are all less for this decision. Sad, just sad. Some might say pathetic. I certainly would.

We might be less for this decision,but I'm not convinced the membership at SH is--or,at least,thinks so.

I'd guess the membership at SH(and probably Oakmont,Oakland Hills,Merion,and some others) care less about architectural "purity" than how their golf course holds up against the best players.If that requires intensive surgery,that's a trade-off those memberships are willing to make.

I concede that these decisions are possibly made by a small,influential minority of these clubs and a lot of members would prefer no changes made--but that's the clubs' own business.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, which of those holes could NGLA reasonably stretch out, to keep the hazards/features/land forms still in play for today's long-ball hitters? 

Jim,

I guess you could create two categories of hole lengthening.
Potentially and wishfully.

Under the potential, provided you got some assistance from Sebonack,
probably # 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18,
But, I don't think you can get enough meaningful distance and I don't know if it would make a significant difference for the best golfers in the world.

Put another way.

I would love to see the best golfers in the world have to hit a 3 iron into # 11, 12 and 15, but, it's not going to happen.
Ditto with # 8, I'd love to see them have to decide which side of the centerline fairway bunkers they'd hit to, as opposed to just flying them.
But, again, it's not going to happen.

I think there comes a point when you just have to concede that wonderful courses like Prestwick and NGLA don't possess the length necessary to challenge the best golfers in the world.

Yet they, and courses like them, remain a wonderful challenge for the broad spectrum of amateurs.