No need to be defensive.

I have a solution.

When the pros play any given course, they should be only allowed to use the equipment (or exact replicas) from the year the course was first open for play (or century, in case of TOC).

That would be fun to watch.

"Is the issue really about internal ego and the desire to "prove something?"

"Might it be the insecurity rests with the folks there? Clearly, the pedigree of the design speaks for itself -- why go through all the tap dancing in doing the changes made to date and likely even more in order to hold an event that comes for just one week?"

You know what, Matt?  I don't think you are capable of understanding just what the mindset might be for a club like Merion.  

It is evident that this membership does take great pride in their club, their course and their history and directs that pride in positive ways.  But it is not in any sense out of insecurity or anything base you might attribute that initiates anything over there. The club closed down for nearly a month to get things in order for an amateur.   A month!  A gesture like that is not about ego but about doing the right thing.  

During the event both courses were at the disposal of the players.  The membership gave up their courses for the good of the tournament and the good of golf.  Of course other Philadelphia courses opened their courses to the Merion members for that is the spirit of cooperation in these parts.  

Merion and the membership doesn't have anything to prove to anyone.  I know many of the gentlemen from the club involved in these matters.  They really are gentle men and recognize the special place in golf the club holds in US and world golf.  The Quaker spirit still runs deep at Merion and they share the course with the sport because it is the right thing to do.  Yet you denegrate this spirit with your superficial and incorrect analysis.  I think it shows more of your character than theirs.  Twist it anyway you like.  If the club wants to hold a US Open it is not for any validation--they don't require it.  Can you understand this?

Mark,

I'm not so sure that all of the back and forth is based upon any sort of defensiveness.  There are some strong differing opinions--nothing wrong with that.  I think the course is fine for an Open but outside logistics certainly weigh against.  I think if they don't have one it isn't a mark against--the course is a stern test for all players.  The fact that most tour players have better game plans would yield lower scores but in June with course conditions far more likely to be ideal, with rough at that time of year causes the ball to sit lower and more difficult pin positions, the course does not have to be over the top to provide a great tournament and identify a great champion.  

If it doesn't happen, the club will likely be somewhat disappointed because they think the use of the course would benefit the game.  They can console themselves with future amateurs, Walker Cups and other prominent championships.  And best of all, they can just go out on the course and enjoy a stirring round of golf.

Wayne:

If the architecture of the course was thaaaaaat good for thaaaat long why the need to "improve" it?

Don't the folks know that in order to host a U.S. Open you have to go through a series of steps that in a number of ways may compromise the original intent of the architecture. All for the fanfare of one week.
 
Merion's standing in golf is secure -- this isn't about Bethpage Black or Torrey Pines or some other layout that needs to shackle itself next to the brightness of the Open spectacle.

Wayne -- you need to see the situation with a bit of distance involved -- I don't doubt the intent of the people involved but clearly bringing in Tom Fazio says something. Maybe it's your understanding that needs adjustment.

P.S. Partner -- don't forget you also still owe me a dinner since the 2012 US Open is at Olympic not Merion as you previously bet it would be. Maybe the club can grab the 2013 spot now since TCC is not really on firm ground for the event.

Jim,

I agree.  For someone like Matt that sees so many courses and visits so many tournaments it is an odd question, a flimsy platform to base a weak conclusion upon.  Just what does he see when he is out there?  His concepts do boggle the mind.

I guess the improvements he is speaking of refers to the tee lengthening.  Is that it, Matt?  If so, it is hardly worth answering.  But here goes anyway.  Why do you think most courses are lengthening?  Including some of your favorites.  It might have something to do with technology gone amok.  Duh.  At least they did not lengthen for lengthening sake alone.  I think the tee lengthening was well done and well considered.  It did not result in a 650 yard par 5 that boiled down to the strategy of a 130 yard par 3.  In my opinion the lengthening returned the shot values and did not create long slogs with framing penalties the length of the hole.  

There are a number of short holes (1,7,8,10,11 and 13) but there are also a number of long iron/fairway wood approach holes as well as the course used to play.  With some amateurs hitting driver and 3 wood but some hitting 2 through 5 irons (yes 5 iron) on the 250 yard par 3 17th, I think it fair to say that the lengthening returned the shot value.  This is true of 2,5,6,9,12, 14 (I think the tee on the new putting area is a nice idea as it can be brought back pretty quickly),15 and 18.  The long approach from 18 is a return to the high shot demand the hole once had.


The other improvements include a return to fairway widths prior to the 1971 US Open.  There were big changes for the better on holes 5,6,12 (tree removal) and14 (as indicated on a Flynn plan).  They did not pinch in the fairways and move bunkers as one course in your neck of the woods did--they did sell out.  

The bunkers needed to be fixed without question.  The consistency of sand and drainage were both big problems.  They brought in Fazio's group to work on the project.  What does this say?  I'm not sure I get your meaning.  Was I entirely happy with the results?  Not completely but they are effective and they are doing far better than I thought a few years back.  They work and look just fine.  Not like they did in 1971 or 1981, but they've had periods of change before.  The fact remains they are perfectly positioned and look distinctive.

I guess since Olympic did get the 2012 Open.  I owe you a  dinner.  How about cheeseteaks at Jim's?  Best in town!

Matt,

In your post reply #2 you state, "Clearly the pedigree of the design speaks for itself", please explain what you mean with that statement.

It's a deal!

I'm embarrased to admit   that I thought the "tourist trap on South Street" was the original. Regardless, a round of golf at Rolling Green and a cheesesteak, can't beat it.

Maybe I should restate the question - Is a course such as Cypress Point viewed less favorably because of the challenge or lack there of that it would provide for the best players in the world?  What role if any should this play in an evaluation?

None, unless you are specifically asking for an evaluation of how the best players would play it.

If there is one thing that all of the experiences of the last few years have shown, it's that the only real defense for courses is fast and firm, with challenging green complexes. Length simply doesn't matter, unless you are fixated on what clubs people are hitting into greens.

IMHO, the only real solution - short of new equipment rules, which appear unlikely - is to try to keep things as firm as possible, and simply live with the results. Constantly stretching things isn't helping anyone but the person getting paid to stretch.

P.S. Is Jim's still owned by the people that own/owned Abner's on Penn's campus? I'm pretty sure ownership was the same when I was in school, 15 years ago, but I think the ownership of Abner's may have changed. Abner's was always my favorite, as much for sentimental reasons as anything else. I think my friends and I personally paid for a few of the owner's kids to attend Penn, if they so chose.

I realize I'm in the minority here, but firm everything. I couldn't care less if they're driving it 350 - there's a much better chance it will roll into trouble - rough, a hazard - if the fairways are firm. One of the commentators this past weekend during the Buick even said that the real problem (I think it was Lanny) is that you can't control where it will roll to when fairways are firm. Lanny might be boring to listen to, but I think he has a good grasp on what is challenging to the pro golfer.

George,

I think the Jim's Steaks people at one time owned Abners.  I'm not so sure anymore.  The cheesesteaks are pretty darn close.  Jim's has been around since 1939 and are among the oldest cheesesteak places in the city.  They have a couple of stores on South Street and Baltimore Pike in Springfield, Delaware County.  They don't come close to the original!

Classic era courses in general do benefit from firm and fast through the green and firm greens.  A course like The Creek which is on the short side though terrific plays best when firm and fast.  It is much more of a challenge.

I agree that firm fairways bring shot shaping and accuracy far more into play especially when there is contour and slope to the fairways.  We've got lots of that around Philadelphia, maybe none better than Huntingdon Valley.

I supposed that nowadays, in the era of big-money, golf architecture is only a small part of the equation when deciding the US Open location.  I'd venture to say that the area allocated to corporate tents and merchandise villages is more important than the length or difficulty of the course.

I've not played or visited Merion.  From what I gather on this forum, it has been said that the course has no room for 40,000 spectators and all the tents needed in this modern era.

Transport us back in time to the 1970's and Merion might be a good US Open venue... even if you take all the modern equipment with you in the time machine.

Merion's problem is an infrastructure issue, one that is insufficient for modern tournament requirements for all the non-golfing stuff.

Gary, I do believe not having an open at Merion says more about the USGA, and their priorities, than it detracts from the golf course.

 Merion should embrace the Am, and forget about the open circus.
Either that,
 or convince the board, that by 2013, they will have the capability of photgraphing every angle from every spot on the property, sell it as pay per view/ remote / closed circut / whatever, and make 100 million dollars.

TEPaul:

If memory serves, the Open has been to the existing Merion Cricket Club four times times (1934, 1950, 1971 and 1981).

I think the fuss in getting an Open can often mean a pursuit that is never ending. The laundry "to do" list can sometimes compromise the original spirit of what makes the design of a classic course so appealing in the first place.

No doubt the members feel pride in their course -- they should given the storied history.

The US Open today is less about architecture than ever before. It's a big time spectacle -- and like every circus there needs to be plenty of room to handle all the three rings of activity. It's also a big time business matter -- tickets today are an important necessity to raise $$ for the USGA and the idea of keeping tickets to a maximum of 18,500 -- which I believe was the cutoff for the '81 event will mean a shortfall unless tickets prices were substanially raised. Ditto the falloff of corporate tents and the like. Plenty of these reasons were tied to why TCC pulled out of hosting the '05 PGA Championship.

Merion is one of America's treasured courses and I would hate to see this courtship continue as a one-sided enterprise. If the USGA really has no intent on going to the club simply say so and let's move on. This tap dance has continued for so long it reminds me of the "who shot J.R. episode on Dallas?"

Unfortunately, the USGA is so hooked up on what the final score will be that you get the standard heavy influence of man's hand on the designs -- just check out the courses from the most recent of times that have been "tweaked" by the governing body of golf here in America.

Frankly, I don't care what the final round scores are so long as a deserving champion is crowned. Too often people associate low scoring with an inferior course -- that is simply not true.

Merion is a superb golf club and candidly whether it lands an Open or not will not change that conclusion IMHO.

Tom P:  If you think clubs are standing pat and the USGA is afraid to make architectural suggestions to host a major championship, may I suggest you are not paying very close attention to what's been going on!

The people running the USGA today are not the same guys Merion was dealing with in the late 1970's.  There's a lot more money at stake and they are much more interested in it than they used to be.

Do you really believe that the lack of an Open invitation was a non-factor in stretching the fifth and eighteenth holes to 500+ yards?  I don't.  I think some of the key members started to get a complex about their guests saying it was too bad the course could no longer host the Open, and they temporarily forgot they had a great course and they shouldn't really care about that other stuff.

Mark F:  I don't think it's the same for Cypress Point.  The pride of the members is not wrapped in US Open fever because the club has never hosted one and has never been seen as "lacking" because it didn't; the course is appreciated for what it is and not chastised for what it isn't.

Interestingly, if Merion's membership just identified themselves with the 1930 US AMATEUR, and not the Open, all would be well today and we wouldn't be having this discussion.