Pat,

I guess I can't really disagree with you about Pebble.

Tell me something though, in regards to defending par at the greens, would you say that the degree that Merion does this makes up for the lack of distance it may suffer from?

JES II,

It's a difficult question to answer.

I don't know that Merion can defend itself at the greens against the greatest players in the world without approaching extreme conditions.

Let's look at the first two holes.
How can they defend themselves at the greens against the best players in the world ?

What can they possibly do except narrow the fairways, grow the rough lush and deep, and make the greens as hard as concrete ?

I realize the Merion is three courses in one, but, in shoring up the robust holes, will the softer holes get goofy ?

The problem I see with this discussion is that the forward looking answer is NO.  But, Merion's not alone.  The answer will be NO, universally, for all other clubs because the best players in the world will continue to hit the ball farther, straighter and higher, rendering every venue obsolete.

You and others have fallen into the same trap.

The answer is not in the continued altering and beefing up of US Open courses, defending them as if the Huns are coming.
The answer is, the USGA has to do something to with respect to the ball and equipment.

Change the ball and the equipment, not the venues.

Limit distance, increase flight variation, decrease club head size, limit shaft length, DON"T lengthen tees, move bunkers, narrow fairways, grow deep, lush rough.

You've taken your collective eyes off of the ball.

The manufacturers, like magicians, have you focused on one object while they continue to misdirect you by changing the other.

Pat,

I thank you for that post because it explained your position well and helped further the conversation, not all posts on here do that.

I do want to clarify though that I by no means support lengthening and altering golf courses for the purpose of hosting an event, any event. research my prior positions or just take my word for it.

I am into dealing with reality, Merion has made its decisions for their own reasons, and the reality is many of the powers that be at both Merion and the USGA think Merion would be a great course for a USOpen. I happen to agree with them but we all obviously understand the logistical concerns. this thread asked, at least in part, is the golf course capable considering the performance of the champion on Sunday.

As far as defending par at the greens, and the vulnerability of #'s 1 and 2. Let's look at Merion in total as it compares to the other US Open stalwarts. Do its green complexes compare favorably to those mentioned above? I think so. People are going to argue Pebble's are tougher, or Oakmont's are harder, or whatever but nobody can argue that Merion's do not stand up and demand solid decision making and execution. Even on #'s 1 and 2 (which I was dodging until this occured to me ) You rarely have a 10 - 15 foot putt that looks and is easy. You may make birdies there, but you will have hit a good approach and a good putt.

I agree in principle with all of your positions and posts about equipment, but I simply do not see a reversal ever coming. I have no interest in expending energy on something I see with very little chance of happening. As it is, if the advancement of equipment technology is shut off right now the scientific ability to match each individual golfer with the perfect equipment as well as strength training focused on golf will add small increments of yardage all the time. this is the best case scenarion I can see. Not a pretty sight by any means.


Bill,

It is not a case of Merion must host another Open, it's that they want to. Their decision, not yours or mine.

 

redanman:

If Merion East is set-up something like the Hugh Wilson tournaments have been set up (very tough and only once or twice slightly over the top) there is no way in the world any US Open Champion at any time is going to shoot 20 under par on that golf course in 72 holes. And if you think so you know less about golf, golf architecture and particularly Merion East than I previously suspected you do. No matter how hard you and others on here try to take the pieces apart and analyze them to come to an assumption like that I can guarantee you that would never happen (providing the ideal set-up could be maintained weather-wise)----no way, no how.

That certainly is a valid point Patrick, but how often do players have 21 or 22 putts during a major championship? Molinari was heading for that, does that mean they all will? If someone goes around Merion with 22 putts they deserve to shoot 63. Do you think that will keep up for 4 days? I did not see much of the live golf on Sunday but apparently he made most of his putts outside of 10 feet. In my opinion you can chalk that up to out-of-this-world putting and not assume it will be the norm in an Open.

Just caught up with this thread, so I'm quoting a message from a few days ago.

I'd recommend that the fairway on #14 be taken all the way to Club House Rd the way it once was but I'd put Flynn's proposed bunker right in the crook of the elbow of the dogleg out about 290-310 with fairway right of it, left of it, in front of it and over it. This would be some awesome multi-optional tee shot that would probably be almost too much choice for most players to deal with.

TEPaul,

This is interesting, but are there pin positions on 14 that would give a better angle to those coming in from the left hand side of the fairway?  With the mound to the left of the green, I would think one would always want to be coming in from the right hand side of the fairway.  And, I wouldn't expect going down the left to shorten the hole enough to warrant taking that into consideration.

Given that the OB is certainly more risky than the right bunkers, would anyone go up the left side?  It would certainly have to be a much wider half of the fairway to get me to do it.  (Not that I need to worry about bunkers that far out.)

I've only walked Merion East twice during last week's second qualifying round, so I'm not familiar enough with the course to know the answers to these questions.

The changes you mentioned for 5 and 18 are also very interesting to think about.  Particularly 18.

Andrew

Shane:

As to what the USGA feels about taking the US Open to any golf course regarding making money is hard to say---at least its hard for any of us to say because none of us sit on the board of the USGA. The USGA does not have some set policy about what they must make on any Open, at least not that I'm aware of. This kind of thing obviously eventually gets discussed and decided through committee and then at the board level as golf courses are awarded the US Open a number of years out. The Open has what might be called a "tight rota" of courses that the Open will be going back to app a bit less than every ten years. Outside that there's sort of a "loose rota" of courses they consider and plan to consider. Is Merion going to be one they'll award an Open to on that "loose rota"? No one knows yet, not even the USGA but there clearly are some within the USGA who're probably considering making that offer. Would the club take another Open? That's hard to say too but if it was offered my bet would be yes.

Could the Open make as much money for the USGA as some other course? Probably not. Bethpage made them over $40 million and that may be the USGA's modern benchmark in Open revenue. Do they think they have to match that number with every Open? Probably not, but again that's hard to say without being on the board.

Could Merion put 35,000-40,000 spectators a day on that course or around it? Well, they probably could but it would put new meaning in sophisticated roping, rope gating and volunteer staffing. My sense is the way to do it would be to make Ardmore Ave and Club House Rd massive spectator corridors and that could be done but it might compromise other logistical traffic in some ways and become a liability problem. Frankly, the one major concern with the USGA and the club is egress in dangerous weather. That issue alone is more important today than most on here understand. That item right there could kill consideration of another Open at Merion.

Could the club fit as many corporate tents on that property as other high revenue Opens? They probably could do that too with a lot of structural alteration to land not effectively used now, such as all along the creek to the right of the club and the maintenance building and the practice range. There's no question the entire practice range could be used for corporate tents, as many of them as they have for other Opens but that would put some real pressure on off-site parking and on College Ave and Haverford Rd in getting spectators to and from the course. But it could be done with a lot of cooperation from the general community.

But this thread is basically about whether or not the golf course itself could stand up to tour caliber play without getting clobbered score-wise.

My feeling is if the course was set up as it can be without being what redanman calls freakish it most certainly could stand up to tour caliber play without getting clobbered score-wise.

Of course that necessary set-up would need the cooperation of the weather, as is true with all golf courses at that level of play. If the course was soft they'd score low on it. If it was firm and fast, particularly the greens they wouldn't. It's basically as simple as that, because set up ideally with firm and fast condtions, particularly on the greens, anyone who really knows Merion understands the reality of that---even for tour pro caliber golfers.

And anyone should understand at this point that the reality is if the USGA or anyone else puts a field of US Open caliber players on any golf course, even if its 7,600 plus yards and it's soft and receptive a number of these world class caliber players are going to score low on it.

But if they put them on a course like Merion East, even at its new tips of slightly less than 7,000 yards and it's set up ideally for championship play (and by ideally I do not mean what redanman calls 'freakish') they just will not clobber that course score-wise.

Somebody, even with an ideal Open championship set-up at Merion and cooperating weather yielding firm and fast condtions, may shoot a 62, 63, or 64 just as Miller did at Oakmont years ago but I doubt any golfer would or could shoot a 72 hole score of less that -10 on that course if it remained through 72 holes the way it ideally can be set-up.

I think an Open at Merion under ideal set-up conditons would have some serious scoring separation---that's just the way the course has always been. It'd probably be something like Shinnecock without those two anomalie holes (#7 and #10) which I thought was a great Open set-up without the playability issues of those two anomoly holes which were definitely over the top most of the tournament and particularly on the weekend.

Andy Biggadike:

Glad you asked about #14 if the fairway was expanded to the road and that Flynn bunker installed at the inside of what's now the rough/fairway dog-leg.

Strategically what would that do? I'd love to take you out there and show you what it would probably do in something like an Open or US Amateur.

In my opinion, the strategic ramifications would be fascinating and anything but obvious. In a whole hole sense there is so much interesting stuff going on at that hole both actually and particularly potentially. There's an interesting history to the hole architecturally as well---even that Flynn bunker I mentioned.

Matter of fact, it's all so interesting, in my opinion, I think I'll just cut this post off and start a separate thread about Merion's 14th. It should be a good and dynamic discussion and case study in the concept and strategic implications of a golf hole. Naturally some may agree and some may violently disagree with my opinon of it, particularly if the fairway was restored to what it once was and that Flynn bunker installed. But so what? A dynamic architectural discussion is what this website should be about. And one could even say a wide spectrum of opinion about a hole or how it should be played can be just what a hole should acheive---and IN PLAY!

Tom,
How many U.S. Open courses are "left as is" in preparation for the tournament?  Do you really like some of those new back tees at Merion?  "Forced" is not a strong enough word!  And that is just the tee work.  If the USGA had any doubts about scoring out there, they would try to do more than you might think to other aspects of the golf course.  
Mark

redanman:

Post #89 is just another example of how "out in right field" you really are, in my opinion.  

Tom,
Are you suggesting the course is as tough as it can get?  Could it be made harder?  Sure it could and you can think of as many ways as the rest of us to do so.  Would we want to make those changes, probably not.  But all those ways would be options that "someone" out there might consider implementing.  It is not worth the risk.  
Mark

"Tom,
Are you suggesting the course is as tough as it can get?  Could it be made harder?  Sure it could and you can think of as many ways as the rest of us to do so.  Would we want to make those changes, probably not.  But all those ways would be options that "someone" out there might consider implementing.  It is not worth the risk.  
Mark"

Mark:

Why do you say things like that--eg "Is Merion as tough as it can get"? Merion doesn't need to be toughened. The course is really tough and challenging for anyone to play given the ideal set-up. If weather or whatever nixxes that then basically no course cannot be liberally scored on by the best of the tour quality players today.

On many of these threads about whether the golf course of Merion East can stand up to tour level players, in my opinion, is truly beginning to show the lack of understanding by some on here about Merion East and perhaps what great golf architecture really is all about with the ideal set-up to legitimately (not over the top) challenge those guys.

Tom,
I think you are the one missing the point.  Are you sure many of those who would be involved in "the U.S. Open course setup" understand great golf architecture?  If they do, why then are so many U.S. Open courses prepared the way they are?  Tom Doak alluded to this in another thread.  

The point I am trying to make has little to do with how well some of us understand the design.  It has more to do with those who don't and who will be the ones inflicting all their ideas to "make the golf course play harder" and to "defend par".   That is what you are missing.  

Trust me, the course would risk a lot of change.