Report from Merion; the 14th tee box and the Stop Sign - follow up

[ChipOat]

With apologies to those who have not played Merion.

About a month ago, I put up a thread saying that the angle of the tee shot from the new "U.S. Open tee box" was on the same line as the current "members championship tee" and, therefore, that the Stop Sign, overhanging trees and Golf House Road were simply not a factor unless the player hit a pull/snap hook.  That is, same hole - just longer.

My position was based on information I received from a former club champion as to where the teeing area would be (it's a practice putting green at the moment).  The place that I was directed to was the only flat ground in that area.

There was immediate evidence that I could be mistaken including replies from Joe Bausch and Tom Paul.  Most importantly, a link was posted to a YouTube video where the Superintendent was quoted as saying the Stop Sign would come down.

I happened to be at Merion last week and I returned to the "scene of the crime" to have another look.

It turns out - no surprise - that I had been directed to an incorrect place and that my thesis was (and still is), therefore, incorrect.  In fact, if one walks 35 yards FURTHER BACK, not only is the entire width of the short grass completely flat, but the angle of attack is much closer to Golf House Road and the straight line is, in fact, up the edge of the street with the Stop Sign dead smack in front of the golfer.

The least important part of this is that I was wrong, so mea culpa.  No golf architecture story there.

The MOST important aspect of this is the incredible difference in the tee shot.  In fact, I believe that #14 may be the most changed hole from an architectural perspective at Merion in preparation for the tournament.

A wise old pro once said that any golfer who couldn't hit a draw when necessary could never make it as a touring pro.  Truer words were never spoken when standing on the 14th tee in the U.S. Open!   The power fade, especially with a left-to-right breeze, just has no landing room as the the dogleg left begins about where the landing area will be for most players.  The straight ball is no better (maybe worse) as the drive would have to be aimed diagonally across the fairway at the right rough and bunkers.

I'm not sure I like a hole where ONLY one kind of shot will work.  I'll let you all know next year after I watch about 50+ contestants and how they handle the drive on #14.  I predict many more tee shots will end up in the right rough than not.  I know, I know - these guys are GOOD.  But the angle of attack combined with the terrain in the landing area doesn't appear to offer any options.

It's still a strategic hole in that the drive sets up the approach just as Hugh Wilson intended.  However, there now appears to be only one way to get there.

I'm all for holes where there is a PREFERRED shape to play in order to maximize the likelihood of a good result.  Merion is full of those.  But #14 looks like "if you can't hit a draw, you can't play it."

Whether I'm right or wrong, #14 will be a long, VERY tough hole.

[Dan Herrmann]

Honestly, I wonder if someone will play it as a 3-shotter...  Hole makes no sense to me as it stands from that tee.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Thanks for the update.

I think your source may have been in denial about the reality of alterations to the course, alterations felt necessary in order to defend Par.

I also don't think anyone at Merion and/or the USGA has forgotten Tom Meeks's admonition.

The reality is that great old courses like Merion can't present a stern test to the best golfers in the world without altering their architecture and depend upon super F&F conditions
Unfortunately, sometimes those alterations take on grotesque proportions.
Sometimes they distort and disfigure the underlying architecture and playability of the course.

Often, there are those within a membership that want to host a major tournament.......irrespective of it's consequences.
And, there are those within the membership that are opposed to hosting a major event
I would imagine that there are factions within Merion that are divided over this issue.
Baltusrol and Winged Foot certainly had their factions.

What concerns me is the following.

If the course can be substantively altered, today, for an event, will it lead to future alterations, absent an event ?

Certainly the precedent for alterations has been clearly established.

[ChipOat]

Patrick,

First, the only alterations have been 1) new tee boxes that are only intended for national championship use and 2) the "softening of the 12th and 15th greens which I am on record as endorsing. 

Yes, there was a bunker added on #2 near the green and #15 in the drive zone.  Both of them are, IMO, strategically positive and, importantly, the members can handle them from the good old regular tee markers.

Therefore, I have to go back to my (slightly amended) position that Merion is the same golf course - just longer for those who can handle the extra length.

The possible exception that I now see is #14 as the tee shot has been significantly altered.  For better or worse?  We'll have to wait and find out.

Also, it is clear that the extra length on the par 3's of the front nine (#'s 3 and 9) really will not allow for a front pin from the "way, WAY back tees".  That, to me, isn't a radical change of the playing characteristics of either hole.  After all, you can't have everything.

While I am not arguing with the points you made, I don't believe they are especially relevant to Merion.  As an aside, I don't believe Shinnecock was architecturally altered for their U.S. Opens, either.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Chip, would this now play similar to #12 at Bethpage Black, considering the crossbunker and angled fairway found on #12 BPB?

The straight ball there, and the over-powered fade also run out of FW as the 12 the fairway comes up at a pretty good diagonal.  

[Joe Bausch]

Honestly, I wonder if someone will play it as a 3-shotter...  Hole makes no sense to me as it stands from that tee.

Dan, nobody will play it as a 3-shotter, IMO.  From all the way back most will play the hole 3-wood at the right fw bunkers, then 4 or 5 iron in.  That is how long these players are.

[Dan Herrmann]

Joe - you're right.  Amazing how different their game is from most of ours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Any time you alter and soften greens you remove vital elements of their inherent character, that which distinguished them from others.

Softening greens represents a significant change.

I don't view the addition of longer tees as a material alteration as long as the existing tees are preserved.

Narrowing fairways does represent a material change if the fairways aren't returned to their former width.

Shinnecock narrowed their fairways, but is mostly intact today, other than additional tees.

If a club alters/disfigure two greens, when do they stop ?  After they alter/disfigure all 18 ?

You support the two alteration/disfigurations,  but don't be surprised if other members, at a point in the near future begin lobbying for the alteration/disfiguration of additional greens.   And, they'll offer, as support for their proposed alterations/disfigurations, the previous alterations/disfigurations that you presently support.

This is how the architectural "domino" effect takes place.

If you approve of the curent changes, others will approve of future changes,  irrespective of whether or not  you agree with them because you set the precedent.  (royal "you")

[noonan]

Why didn't you take a picture?  We could all see then!

[Dan Herrmann]

[Mark Bourgeois]

The stop sign totally makes that hole.

In addition to its playability improvement, it stands sentinel to the changes wrought by modern equipment, a sad and lonely Evangeline weeping bitter tears for we golf lovers to return to our senses.

I can't believe they're going to take it down. Maybe we could superglue it to the ground? Get Mucci to chain himself to it as honorary chairman of Golf Firsters?

[Dan Boerger]

It's been said before but worth repeating - it's friggin medal play, who cares where anyone stands in relation to par? Or, if you really want to protect "par" call every par 4 at Merion less than 450 yards a par 3. I guarantee you an over par finish.

[ChipOat]

Pat:

We've gone 'round and 'round on softening Golden Era greens and, as friends, we've agreed to disagree (haven't we?).

The existing tee boxes have most definitely been preserved.  No foursome of members or, especially, guests could get around from the new tee boxes in less than five hours.

As I said before, if my sources are correct, the fairways will be re-widened to pre-championship widths.

I don't see that softening two greens (that needed it) will lead to all 18 being considered for same.  #5 is the only other surface where putting/chipping off the green is a high probability event.  I will spend much time by that fifth green if the weather is dry to see if those guys are awesomely good and it's just me or, instead, if I have a case.

Also, you previously agreed that "disfiguring" was too harsh a term.

Doug:

I don't recall BPB #12 well enough to confirm or deny.  However, your description of the playing characteristics sounds remarkably similar to what I think I see at Merion's #14.

Dan Hermann:

You have the real picture and, furthermore, there is room to the left towards Golf House Road for an even more awkward angle for the tee shot.

Unfortunately, without a step ladder, the mounds obscure the landing area at the dog leg that I referred to.  Also, those same mounds block the view of the line that the straight ball has to take towards the right rough.  However, since step ladders would only be permitted for official purposes, thank you for your still-helpful effort.

Mark Bourgeois:

Sorry - I can't agree.  The Stop Sign is a man made obstruction under the Rules of Golf.  To leave it in place would be worse than having a Stupid Tree there.  If it was 100 yards further and down the slope - maybe.  but not where it is now.

Jerry Kessler:

The softened greens are too subtle to show up in a picture.  I'm afraid you have to drop balls and putt them.  It also helps to have a pre-softening frame of reference.  Just think, "Payne Stewart on #18 at Olympic" or "#7 at Shinnecock in '96".

Dan Boerger:

Your point has been made before re: #5 at National.  That isn't my issue (although I think #14 would be a lousy par 5).  My point has everything to do with the (non?) playability of anything other than a draw off that U.S. Open tee location.  I'm just a mediocre club player, but I just don't see any other good options.

Joe Bausch:

You may be right as a 3 metal should be easier to hit the high cut or the soft draw.  The straight ball would still be a non-option, IMO.

[Paul Jones]

I think they should replace the Stop Sign with a HUGE Waterfall

[Howard Riefs]

About a month ago, I put up a thread saying that the angle of the tee shot from the new "U.S. Open tee box" was on the same line as the current "members championship tee" and, therefore, that the Stop Sign, overhanging trees and Golf House Road were simply not a factor unless the player hit a pull/snap hook.  That is, same hole - just longer.   

The thread in question...

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,52483.0.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Time will tell if the "domino" effect takes hold at Pine Valley, or Merion, Winged Foot and other Major venues.

"Disfigure" may be a strong term, but, perhaps the intent of its usage is to highlight the distinction between form and substance in and out of the context of the "Domino" effect.

In form, the alteration of a great green at Merion, Pine Valley or Winged Foot, is disfiguring.
Although, substantively, the alteration might be on a minor to medium to drastic scale.
I don't view the change to # 2 at PV as minor, while I tend to view the change to # 5 as minor.
Others may see it differently.  

The other component affecting changes is the method or structure of the governance of the club.
I tend to favor leadership via monarchy or oligarchy rather than democracy.
I say that because the former two seem to groom their successors, while the latter tends to be a crap shoot depending upon popularity and other factors.

So, in terms of "degree", perhaps the altered greens weren't disfigured, but, it's now clear, the greens are no longer sacrosanct, they are open to alteration, and therein the danger lies.

When I reflect back, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years ago, none of the greens were slow.
The greens of 50 years ago are only slow in comparison to the greens of today.

Over those intervening 50 years, some really, really, really great greens were disfigured in the name of speed.

As speeds increase, which really great greens will be next ?

If you NEVER permitted the alteration of any greens on your course, you wouldn't be prone to altering any in the future.
But, if you've already altered greens in the past, what's to stop you from altering them in the future.

It's the precendent setting process I object to, whereas I think you're comfortable with the degree to which the two particular greens have been altered, without considering the long term effects of the precedent.

So, we'll have to just continue to agree to disagree