Merion #4 and #11....Too Narrow?

« **Reply #25 on:** January 07, 2008, 05:57:19 PM »

Quote from: Tom_Doak on January 07, 2008, 10:55:39 AM

I've also got to ask whether Mike Sweeney is correct that those fairways have "always" been narrow. Just because they have been so since 1980 (the first time I saw the course) doesn't mean they were that way in the 1920's.

Tom,

"Always" as referenced by my mentioning 20 years was meant in the context of my playing lifetime. I first played The West in '77 and The East in probably '79, and watched the The US Open in '81.

Thus you ask the age old question of what year should they pick to restore the bunkers and maintenance meld. If we widen the fairways to the 20's should we also slow down the greens and let the fairways grow longer in 1920'2 style.

The shiftng of the second shot fairway on #4 left seems like in the last 5 years.

« **Reply #26 on:** January 07, 2008, 07:41:17 PM »

[quote author=Mike Sweeney link=board=1;threadid=32783;start=0#msg649140

Thus you ask the age old question of what year should they pick to restore the bunkers and maintenance meld. If we widen the fairways to the 20's should we also slow down the greens and let the fairways grow longer in 1920'2 style.

Quote

Mike

The concept of appropriate fairway width will always change with the times. This is especially true on holes where it doesn't matter much where your ball is placed in the fairway because the approach is exclusivley an aerial shot. Why would you think that fairway width, green speeds, bunker aesthetics and length of fairway height all need to be in agreement from a certain time period?

Ciao

« **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2008, 08:19:30 PM »

Have you guys all failed to mention that the second fairway on #4 is actually movable? Movable may not be the right word because it actually cannot not move...as soon as your layup is in the air it shifts out of the way...Tell them the truth Wayne or Sweeney...

#11 is what it is.

« **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2008, 08:33:45 PM »

I love Merion, always have, but I’ve never liked “ribbon” fairways” (and that has nothing to do with where I hit the golf ball)

I'm just afraid that they will only get narrower in the coming years as the Open approaches. Let's hope "the rough" doesn't become the focal point of discussion in 2013 as everyone will miss one outstanding golf course!

« **Reply #29 on:** January 08, 2008, 06:14:17 AM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 07, 2008, 07:41:17 PM

Why would you think that fairway width, green speeds, bunker aesthetics and length of fairway height all need to be in agreement from a certain time period?

Ciao

Please don't take asking Tom Doak a question as supporting a concept.

I have only one rule at Merion, don't touch the greens and they may not listen on that one either.

« **Reply #30 on:** January 08, 2008, 09:55:34 AM »

On when the fairways of Merion got narrowed (and didn't return that width) from what they once were or were designed as, I'd say the best available source and information on that came from one Wilson Greenwood who was the green chairman at Merion for about thirteen years.

At a restoration forum in Philadelphia less than ten years ago he explained that the fairways got narrowed in one of the US Opens of that era (either '71 or '81) and in his opinion the club just sort of forgot about it and widening them back out was basically not thought of for a pretty good number of years after that.

We do know that a few of the fairways were taken back out in selected areas in recent years. The most significant example on the course is the widening back out on #5 along the right side and particularly as you get down near that big right side bunker near the green.

Personally, what I'd like to see on #11 is to leave the right side of the fairway alone and take the whole left side right to the creek. All things considered I think that would make the hole more interesting in play but naturally it would also make it somewhat easier in play, but so what if it's more interesting in play?

« **Reply #31 on:** January 12, 2008, 12:30:12 PM »

On topic: The "lower" part of the 4th fairway has not been shifted to the left over the years although the right rough has been brought in circa 3+ yards which, in a way, does have the effect of "moving" the landing area. The left rough was never further to the right than now and the best line has always been further left than most people instinctively want to play because they can't see the "dogleg" in the fairway that starts past the cross bunker. The fairway in the drive zone "points" you straight ahead towards the right rough in much the same way that the (now members') 3rd tee box encourages the golfer to aim at the right bunker instead of the center of the green.

Slightly off-topic but relevant: The lifelong members who remembered playing the East Course with the 1.62" ball in the 1920's before the watering system (they're gone now) would say that the hardest part about the 2nd shot on #4 was keeping a good one from BOUNCING 75 yards down the hill and into the creek. The shot to play in those days was a hickory shaft draw/hook into the right-most part of the fairway so that it ran across the hill and not straight down towards the agua. That's the sort of problem CBM created on nearly every hole at National.

Think the game was played differently back then?

« **Reply #32 on:** January 12, 2008, 01:11:28 PM »

Looking at the 1939 photo by Dallin the interesting thing is the width of the 4th fairway to the left off the tee. It comes over to the second bunker on the left.
With today's long hitters going for the green in two this would be the area to drive toward if one was a true gambler. If his payoff was a miss, he would have to play short of the cross bunker - maybe ?

« **Reply #33 on:** January 13, 2008, 12:04:35 AM »

Chip,

What you also have to factor in on # 4 is the slope of the fairway, which makes the fairway even narrower.

Years ago when I played Merion with TEPaul, I mentioned that # 4 fairway had been narrowed and that it needed to be returned to its original or intended width.

Subsequently TE informed me that they were going to widen the 4th fairway, but, not back to the original width. Now, with another Open on the way, I'm sure it will be shrunk to ribbon like dimensions.

What continues to befuddle me is the fixation clubs have with respect to providing a challenge for the best players in the world for 4 days out of 10 or 13 or more years, at the expense of the enjoyment of the members.

I've advocated horizontal elasticity for decades, but clubs never seem to return the rough/fairway lines to their original or intended configuration.

And, with the advent of the insanity of planting bluegrass roughs, many fairway lines will never be returned, unless the club sees the light and spends a fortune.

« **Reply #34 on:** January 13, 2008, 10:25:29 AM »

Patrick,

And with some of the best bunkering on the course protecting the the 4th green you would not think the USGA would have to trick up the landing area to "protect par" assuming that is why the landing area has been narrowed since 1981 (and not grown back out to the original width since...according to folks on this thread).

It just stinks that rough is the only tool in the "par protection" shed for the folks in Far Hills. If Merion plays firm and fast in 2013 as the USGA likes to do, then holding the 20-25 yard wide fairway with your blind layup shot will become very hard being the ball runs down to the left with the slope of the fairway.

« **Reply #35 on:** January 13, 2008, 12:00:09 PM »

Chip,
When I worked there fron 1973 to 1976, the fairway seems to be in the same location and width that I remember. I definitely recall having to play the second shot more left than I was comfortable with. I also remember playing my third shot out of the right rough more times than the fairway.

Chip Oat or Bill Dow could confirm this, but I believe that the fairways weren't widened after the '71 Open

« **Reply #36 on:** January 13, 2008, 02:01:29 PM »

Chip,

I think the answer is: You can't count on Mother Nature, but, you can count on man narrowing the fairways.

Firm and fast can only exist if Mother Nature co-operates.
So many times rain has made a golf course soft for a tournament.

The failsafe method is to narrow fairways, and I can understand the sponsor, USG/PGA not wanting to take the risk.

What's interesting about this process is that it's SOP to begin depriving the greens of water, making them super fast and firm to the point that it brings them to the brink.

And then, the other horror is, recommending that the very character contained in the greens, their slope and contour, be wiped out, to accomodate the need for faster and firmer greens.

I don't know all of the factors involved with WF's rejection of the 2015 Open, but, when I heard that it was suggested that certain greens be softened to accomodate the tournament, I was horrified and philosophically opposed to that disfiguration, for any reason.

The unfortunate factor with respect to narrowed fairway widths is the club's failure to restore them to their original or architecturally intended lines.

« **Reply #37 on:** January 13, 2008, 03:19:07 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 13, 2008, 02:01:29 PM

Chip,

I think the answer is: You can't count on Mother Nature, but, you can count on man narrowing the fairways.

Firm and fast can only exist if Mother Nature co-operates.
So many times rain has made a golf course soft for a tournament.

Pat,

Do you think firm and fast would happen more often, or less, if thing were totally left up to Mother Nature?

Rain on top of a green, irrigated turf is going to make for soft conditions, every time.

Joe

« **Reply #38 on:** January 13, 2008, 03:32:55 PM »

Quote from: Joe Hancock on January 13, 2008, 03:19:07 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on January 13, 2008, 02:01:29 PM
Chip,

I think the answer is: You can't count on Mother Nature, but, you can count on man narrowing the fairways.

Firm and fast can only exist if Mother Nature co-operates.
So many times rain has made a golf course soft for a tournament.

Pat,

Do you think firm and fast would happen more often, or less, if thing were totally left up to Mother Nature?

Is the golf course near Palm Springs, Las Vegas, or Miami Beach ?[/color]

Rain on top of a green, irrigated turf is going to make for soft conditions, every time.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. that wonderful brown/yellow/green color in greens and fairways is persona non grata.[/color]

« **Reply #39 on:** January 13, 2008, 04:20:05 PM »

Pat,

In that regard, shouldn't we just accept the narrow fairways, as we have accepted green and soft?

On another note, and back to Merion, I don't recall the visuals that #4 and #11 presented, but I do remember #18. Playability aside, I distinctly remember how out of place the narrow fairway on #18 looked from the tee. It was unsettling, and almost begs for negative criticism on elements of visual scale alone.

Joe

« **Reply #40 on:** January 13, 2008, 04:38:21 PM »

Joe-

Not to beat a dead horse on blind shots, but I don't remember being able to see the fairway from the tee on 18.

We played a little further back, but I took this pic as we were walking off the front of 18th tee.

With that said, the fairway on 18 seemed wider than the other blind shot to ribbon thin fairways.

Here is a pic of 18 as I was walking to my ball.

« **Reply #41 on:** January 13, 2008, 04:42:29 PM »

Thanks, Chip....

I probably remember the view from the end of the valley that you tee over. Perhaps it's been widened in the past two years as well.

Joe

« **Reply #42 on:** January 13, 2008, 06:24:45 PM »

"Playability aside, I distinctly remember how out of place the narrow fairway on #18 looked from the tee. It was unsettling, and almost begs for negative criticism on elements of visual scale alone."

Joe:

I was out there at Merion with you but I don't remember you being that tall. How the hell tall are you anyway to see the 18th fairway from the 18th tee---about fifty feet tall? Man, they grow them big out there in Michigan, don't they?

Where I think the 18th fairway looks a tad silly in narrowness is when you look back at the hole and the entire landscape across #14 and #18 from the 18th green.

« **Reply #43 on:** January 13, 2008, 06:33:40 PM »

Joe

I thought this pic made the fairway look out of scale with the surrounding rough. In a way its amazing that there are no trees lining this fairway. I wonder if this is the sort of look that existed at clubs after irrigation and before tree planting? I know this look makes me a bit nervous because it must be an awful temptation to plant trees if only to complete the scale.

Its also surprising because it leads one to believe there is loads of room when I am told that property is actually a bit tight.

Ciao

« **Reply #44 on:** January 13, 2008, 07:17:36 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 13, 2008, 06:33:40 PM

Joe

I thought this pic made the fairway look out of scale with the surrounding rough. In a way its amazing that there are no trees lining this fairway. I wonder if this is the sort of look that existed at clubs after irrigation and before tree planting? I know this look makes me a bit nervous because it must be an awful temptation to plant trees if only to complete the scale.

Its also surprising because it leads one to believe there is loads of room when I am told that property is actually a bit tight.

Ciao

thanks Sean, you have just identified for me one of the things I really like about Merion East - the trees issue (or lack of trees in playing corridors).

Merion is on 130 acres, it doesn't have significant loss of ground to practice facilities, it plays to the edges of the boundaries (note #2, #7, #8 and #15 as well as the proximity of tees/greens to boundaries on #10, #11). It is not a par 72. Put all of those things together and there can be great width, especially when playing lines are not narrowed by trees. (note - some holes have great width of fairway, as per #5 which is a great hole. Others have great widths of blue grass roughs.)

I would love to have 130 acres for a golf course - In the US it might be a small parcel of land (LuLu and Wannamoiset have less than 100 acres I believe) but in the Commonwealth countries it would be a large parcel of land.

James B

« **Reply #45 on:** January 13, 2008, 08:49:54 PM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 13, 2008, 06:33:40 PM

Joe

I thought this pic made the fairway look out of scale with the surrounding rough. In a way its amazing that there are no trees lining this fairway. I wonder if this is the sort of look that existed at clubs after irrigation and before tree planting? I know this look makes me a bit nervous because it must be an awful temptation to plant trees if only to complete the scale.

Its also surprising because it leads one to believe there is loads of room when I am told that property is actually a bit tight.

Ciao

Here is a pic of the amount of space and rough between #4 fairway (right) and #9 tee.

« **Reply #46 on:** January 13, 2008, 08:55:08 PM »

Joe Hancock,

No, I don't think we should accept narrow fairways.

Part of the difficulty in returning them to their intended widths is the cost involved in realigning the irrigation system.

« **Reply #47 on:** January 13, 2008, 09:05:48 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 13, 2008, 06:24:45 PM

"Playability aside, I distinctly remember how out of place the narrow fairway on #18 looked from the tee. It was unsettling, and almost begs for negative criticism on elements of visual scale alone."

Joe:

I was out there at Merion with you but I don't remember you being that tall. How the hell tall are you anyway to see the 18th fairway from the 18th tee---about fifty feet tall? Man, they grow them big out there in Michigan, don't they?

Where I think the 18th fairway looks a tad silly in narrowness is when you look back at the hole and the entire landscape across #14 and #18 from the 18th green.

Tom,

I employed my telescoping leg functions when you weren't looking. That kind of superpower can be intimidating and upsetting....neither of which I wanted you to experience.

« **Reply #48 on:** January 14, 2008, 06:44:54 AM »

Quote from: James Bennett on January 13, 2008, 07:17:36 PM

Quote from: Sean Arble on January 13, 2008, 06:33:40 PM
Joe

I thought this pic made the fairway look out of scale with the surrounding rough. In a way its amazing that there are no trees lining this fairway. I wonder if this is the sort of look that existed at clubs after irrigation and before tree planting? I know this look makes me a bit nervous because it must be an awful temptation to plant trees if only to complete the scale.

Its also surprising because it leads one to believe there is loads of room when I am told that property is actually a bit tight.

Ciao

thanks Sean, you have just identified for me one of the things I really like about Merion East - the trees issue (or lack of trees in playing corridors).

James B

Here are aerials of Merion East, with the greens numbered according to their hole #. I cannot recall the line of play being affected by trees, and the aerials seem to support that conclusion. Can anyone identify a tree that affects the regular line of play?

Holes 1 and 10-13.

Holes 2-9 (note - the 5th fairway has been widened towards #2 away from the creek since this aerial was taken, as TE Paul mentioned.)

Holes 14-18

By the way, if you hit a drive really wide on #5, wide of the bluegrass roughs and onto the 2nd fairway, you can still have a shot at the green. Of course, with that skill level, you are likely to fail, and playing down that slope towards the creek is pretty scary (as is the downhill putt from pin-high left).

James B

« **Reply #49 on:** January 14, 2008, 10:10:33 AM »

James - I recall you need to drive over a tree (OK, a dwarfish tree, so it's not really in line of play) from the new championship tees on #5. Merion, IMO, has done an exceptional job in tree stewardship on both thier courses.

News:

Mike Sweeney

Sean_A

JESII

Mark_Fine

Mike Sweeney

TEPaul

ChipOat

Willie_Dow

Patrick_Mucci

Chip Gaskins

Bill_Spellman

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

Chip Gaskins

Joe Hancock

TEPaul

Sean_A

James Bennett

Chip Gaskins

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

James Bennett

Dan Boerger