Merion's 14th---an interesting conceptual case study

[TEPaul]

The other day I mentioned that I would recommend that Merion restore the original fairway width on both #14 and #18. If this were done it would be an enormous fairway expansion on both holes. I'll leave aside for a while what I think this would do on #18 and concentrate on #14.

Originally (or in the 1920s and 1930s) #14's fairway stretched from app. where it is now on the right all the way over to Clubhouse Rd.

Perhaps for one of the early Opens Flynn redesigned the green somewhat extending the back left and perhaps putting in the center swale. In 1930 there was no greenside bunker left which was later added and which lasted for many years until removed recently with the inclusion of a mound in its place that's in fairway height grass as well as everything in front of it, to its left all the way to the road and behind it.

In one of Flynn's design iterations (we have his drawing) there was a fairway bunker included that would be right about where the rough left now creates a virtual right to left dogleg to the tee shot.

I think the hole would be awesome if that bunker Flynn drew in one of his iterations was installed. Apparently Bill Kittleman and the Green Chairman (Bill Stitt who just happens to be Emil Loeffler's nephew) during the 1981 Open thought it would be a great idea to install that bunker too.

Quite ironically, the USGA apparently told them both if they fiddled around with a great design like that they wouldn't bring the Open to Merion (My goodness how times did change).

So the bunker was never installed. I think it should be and I think the fairway should be taken all the way back to the left to Clubhouse Rd as it once was.

What would this do to the strong player off the tee compared to the way the hole now plays for him? Now long players actually often settle for a 3 wood off this new tee that has added 30 yards to the length of the hole recently (more later on the really interesting way they did that tee--eg it's a combined tee and part of the practice putting green! ). They seem to settle for a 3 wood off the tee sometimes so as not to challenge the rather severe and narrow swing of the fairway right to left that's demarcked by the really long rough on the left.

I believe if a bunker was installed where that rough/fairway cut now swings left players would be presented with a whole variety of tee shot options where now the demand on a long driver is pretty one dimensionally challenging.

I visualize this bunker actually surrounded by fairway on all sides. A long player, or any player actually, would then have the options of driving the ball to the right of the bunker (where the fairway now is) in front of it (which is now in rough), and for the long player over it which is not part rough and part fairway or TO THE LEFT OF IT which is now completely in very long penal rough (either long, short or medium lengthe driver).

If someone tried to drive to the left of it they would be taking the most direct line to the hole but would be bringing Clubhouse Rd (OB) into the equation.

It gets more nuancy than that, though. If a long driver drove the ball up the fairway to the right of this bunker (where the fairway now is) he can see a little of the flag but not the green. Interestingly if he drove a ball to the left of the bunker he really couldn't even see the flag because it'd be blinded by the bunker face up the fairway on the left.

So why would someone choose to drive the ball to the left of this proposed bunker that would be basically in the middle of about 75 yards of fairway width.

To me it's simple why they might do that. It's a bit shorter on that line and from over on the left the angle into the right side of the green is better when you take into consideration that mound to the left of the green that can cast a ball right at OB. From the left side of the fairway you have an opportunity to sort of play away from the mound and OB better than you do from the right side of the proposed bunker (which is now where the only fairway is).

Would this make #14 and easier hole? It might do that but it would make it far more interesting, in my opinion, and at least two or even three times more multi-optional off the tee.

Plus it would be sort of a restoration with a wrinkle---the restoration would be the fairway width and the wrinkle would be the fairway bunker that Flynn proposed in one iteration but was never built.

[Mike_Sweeney]

If someone tried to drive to the left of it they would be taking the most direct line to the hole but would be bringing Clubhouse Rd (OB) into the equation.

Birdie vs 6. Sounds like a great championship hole !

PS. I would also extend the fairway all the way to the bunkers on the right to that balls can bounce in.

[TEPaul]

"PS. I would also extend the fairway all the way to the bunkers on the right so that balls can bounce in.  
 
 
Michael, you magnificent man----Merion, in their on-going restoration has already done that. Unfortunately they borrowed from Peter and paid Paul (they added fairway right next to the bunkers and shrunk it left). A ton of US Am competitors got into those bunkers and perhaps even in some attempt not to go left (into the rough) even hit their tee shots to the RIGHT of those bunkers. (Hmmmm, maybe that could be a cool fifth option if they'd only extend the fairway far enough right on #18!  

I forgot to add an important facet to my conceptual work-up on #14 on this thread. And that is that there is a bit of tree encroachment on the left side of this tee shot making it somewhat cumbersome for players to hit the ball down the left side if my recommendation of fairway expansion to the road was done.

You might say---no problem---a little tree clearing or tree trimming shouldn't be a problem for Merion since they've already done a good deal of it recently.

WRONG! They may be inclined to trim those massive trees on the left of the tee shot on #14---only problem is they aren't on Merion's property---they're on the properties of the residences to the left of Clubhouse Rd!!!!!

Check out some of the aerials from the 1920s or 1930s. Those enormous trees that're on the other side of Clubhouse Rd.  weren't any taller back then than you are now.

[ChipOat]

Original Doyen (now Ultra-Exalted Doyen):

First, it's Golf House Road - not Clubhouse Road.  You're not excused on this since you've only been around there for 60+ years plus you've probably had umpteen relatives that lived along that road and you've surely been to at least 100 cocktail and/or dinner parties in those houses since you were in college.  Every one of those homes is older than you!

Now to the golf architecture part.

There's a couple of stories about that proposed bunker that was talked about off and on even before the '71 Open but never got built.  Bill Stitt knows the real deal, but the other legend besides the USGA ultimatum (which gets more popular with every passing year), and the one I heard at the time, was that no consensus could be reached that it was a good idea as there was a question whether the bunker was more likely a Flynn idea than a Wilson idea - otherwise HW would have included it in his original bedsheet drill.  The other story is that those who were unenthusiastic did agree to sort of a weenie-sized compromise bunker which the supporters
decided was missing the point.  Since they couldn't sell a full-sized "white face" and get an enthusiastic thumbs up, they just let it go rather than end up with a West Course type thing that would end up being more trouble than it was worth.  If that's what happened, I'm glad they passed.  A good bunker would have been terrific, but a bad one would have been awful.

I suspect the "no consensus" anecdote is closest to the truth but your sources on that are better than mine.

Since the club's master plan is now (mostly) 1930, it would take a David Fay-type suggestion to get any non-1930 bunker on Merion's map.

Now to your main point because what you're suggesting sounds a whole lot like MacDonald and National, IMO.  That being the case - 2 things must be always operative for your most excellent inspiration to work.

First, the bunker must be big enough so that it really is next to impossible for anyone to carry it.  Second, and most important (you'll like this), THE MAINTENANCE MELD ON THE GROUND TO THE LEFT OF THE BUNKER MUST BE HARD AND FAST SO THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PERFECT EFFORT WILL BE IN DANGER OF BOUNCING OUT OF BOUNDS.  That's how MacDonald's genius has been restored at NGLA - with fairways that are now pre-watering system hard and fast.

Notice that the ground to the left of #14 green MUST also be maintained at "really hard and fast" or shots that bounce around where the bunker used to be will never kick enough towards the OB to mean anything.

Do you agree?

[TEPaul]

"First, it's Golf House Road - not Clubhouse Road."

Chipper:

I knew that---I just wanted to see if you were paying attention. Good show--you may now advance to the next level and a chance to answer whether it really was Prestwick from whence the Merion basket flagpole emanated.

[Shane Gurnett]

Geoff Shackelfords website gave an interesting overview (complete with the old and new aerials) of the hole last Friday.

www.geoffshackelford.com

[TEPaul]

Chip Oat said:

"The other story is that those who were unenthusiastic did agree to sort of a weenie-sized compromise bunker"

Chip;

That's more magnifent than either Heidi Klum or Elle MacPherson!

A WEENIIE sized bunker!! That would be just perfect. Face it, there's potential catastrophe on the right wiith those right side bunkers and that disgusting rough around them and OBlivion to the far left! A WEENIE sized bunker is just what's called for in the middle of that restored 75 yard wide fairway. A bunker in that positon does not need to assert itself any more than to get squarely between the good and long player's ears----and a WEENIE sized bunker fits quite nicely between most good and long players' ears---thank you very much!

"I suspect the "no consensus" anecdote is closest to the truth but your sources on that are better than mine."

My source on all this both years ago and again at the amateur last week was Bill Stitt (we served on the GAP Board together).

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

I spent a hell of a lot of time putting my original post together about the importance of maintenance meld to your concept and asking you for your reaction to my thoughts!

And all you can do is acknowledge my smart-ass comments about the name of the street???

Not only did you boot that part completely, but I think your enthusiasm for a pissant little bunker out there is way off base.  It needs to be a big, deep sucker with lots of penal dune grass therein and some Scotch Broom along the top/front for good measure.  And I don't really care if Tommy doesn't like the way it looks so long as it plays tough.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Sorry about that. I got so excited about the first part of your post I forgot to read the last part.

You said:

"Now to your main point because what you're suggesting sounds a whole lot like MacDonald and National, IMO.  That being the case - 2 things must be always operative for your most excellent inspiration to work.

First, the bunker must be big enough so that it really is next to impossible for anyone to carry it.  Second, and most important (you'll like this), THE MAINTENANCE MELD ON THE GROUND TO THE LEFT OF THE BUNKER MUST BE HARD AND FAST SO THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A PERFECT EFFORT WILL BE IN DANGER OF BOUNCING OUT OF BOUNDS.  That's how MacDonald's genius has been restored at NGLA - with fairways that are now pre-watering system hard and fast.

Notice that the ground to the left of #14 green MUST also be maintained at "really hard and fast" or shots that bounce around where the bunker used to be will never kick enough towards the OB to mean anything.

Do you agree?"

Ahhh, not really, but I'm very flexible on these types of things. I'll sleep on it and tomorrow I promise we can have a truly good philosophical and conceptual discussion on the strategic nuances of a man-eating bunker in this positon or a WEENIE sized bunker that gets between pea-brained good player's ears.

On your side of the argument may be C.B. Macdonald but on my side of the argument just may be the incomparable Max Behr!  

Be prepared to accept the fact that ultimately and in a golf architectural sense Macdonald became a besotted, depressed, defensive old curmudgeon while Behr was the most refined of the sophisticated Renaissance men!

Good luck--not that that's fair.

[ChipOat]

Alas Doyen, Max Behr will have to wait as I will be in the office tomorrow.

Besides, any extended discussions of this type really require a couple of hours, some scratch paper, and at least one bottle of wine.  So I pass until you can arrange that.

[TEPaul]

Ok, we'll just get together and discuss this between ourselves. The hell with the rest of these wonkers on here---they probably aren't interesting in things like this anyway if they can discuss what the top seventeen courses in New Jersey are and whether or not Hidden Creek is #5 or #16.  

[Michael Dugger]

Here is the hole in question, courtesy of C. Rood's golfarch.com website.

[AndrewB]

So why would someone choose to drive the ball to the left of this proposed bunker that would be basically in the middle of about 75 yards of fairway width.

To me it's simple why they might do that. It's a bit shorter on that line and from over on the left the angle into the right side of the green is better when you take into consideration that mound to the left of the green that can cast a ball right at OB. From the left side of the fairway you have an opportunity to sort of play away from the mound and OB better than you do from the right side of the proposed bunker (which is now where the only fairway is).

How many pin positions does this green have on the left vs. the right?  How are these pin positions currently utilized (more left or more right)?  Would the changes you describe change the way these pin positions are utilized?

I ask because with the fairway the way it is now, it seems like one wants to get as close to the fairway bunkers on the right hand side as possible.  (Does it in fact play this way?)  Putting pins on the left side of the green would encourage this and benefit a player who hit it closer to the bunkers.  So, I might assume that it is more common to see left pins than right pins on this green (a complete guess).  How were the 6 pins for the Amateur divided in left vs. right?

With the changes you describe, it seems like the right hand side of the green could be utilized more and, as you mentioned, serve as the reason to encourage going down the left side of the fairway.  For today's top amateurs and pros, I think this is a more significant reason than shortening the hole, given their length.  The decision to play down the left or right could be dictated by the pin position of the day, giving the hole a different feel/strategy each day.

I'd like to see the bunker located to the right of center in the expanded 75 yard fairway, such that the left portion looks easier to hit than the right portion.  This way, many players may decide to always go down the left, bringing both the OB and greenside mound more into play.  Also, when a player tries to take it down the right for the good angle to a left pin, it would feel like a risky play.  For this, though, the bunker would have to be long enough to effectively separate the portions of the fairway.  (Certainly not a weenie-sized bunker.)  I guess I still see the right hand side as favorable and would want to make that more challenging.

Andrew

[AndrewB]

I forgot to add an important facet to my conceptual work-up on #14 on this thread. And that is that there is a bit of tree encroachment on the left side of this tee shot making it somewhat cumbersome for players to hit the ball down the left side if my recommendation of fairway expansion to the road was done.

You might say---no problem---a little tree clearing or tree trimming shouldn't be a problem for Merion since they've already done a good deal of it recently.

WRONG! They may be inclined to trim those massive trees on the left of the tee shot on #14---only problem is they aren't on Merion's property---they're on the properties of the residences to the left of Clubhouse Rd!!!!! ;)

I just took a look at the NBC fly-over of 14 from their Amateur coverage.  (Gotta love the DVR!)  I forgot how much the hole turns right-to-left and those trees would definitely need to go for your proposed changes to have an effect.  In fact, it appears you cannot even see the left rough once the fairway bends left for the dogleg, where the proposed bunker would go.  One might only be able to see part of the proposed bunker because of the trees.

There's also a very interesting picture in the "Golf at Merion" book I picked up in the shop last week.  The main picture for the 14th in the hole-by-hole is of the green from just behind the existing left fairway bunker from about 100 yards out.  This clearly shows the advantage you described of being on the left hand side (what is now rough) to a right pin -- it's even a right pin in the photo.

I just checked and the same picture is in the US Amateur program.  Maybe someone out there has access to a scanner and can post it here.  Unfortunately, I don't.

[Shane Gurnett]

Taken from Geoff Shackelfords website (the green lines indicate I believe where the old fairway was cut)

Tom, where are you going to put that bunker?

[TEPaul]

Andy:

They used pins in the amateur all the way across the back of the green. On Saturday the pin was incredibly close to the back right fringe (a pretty hard pin to get to from the middle or right of the present fairway).

The bunker I propose in that fairway should probably be out about 275-290 and the configuration of it would take a good deal of thought to achieve maximum effect of whatever over-all strategic concept is trying to be achieved.

In a general sense I'd like to see a concept whereby for the good and long player the options of driving over it, short of it, right of it or left of it are all in the most achievable "balance" or "equilibrium" possible. On a hole like that one the tee shot should be a pyschological challenge in exactly which way is best or worst to go at any particular time. That's when holes like that are architecturally best, in my opinion.

And, you're right, a couple of those massive trees on the other side of Golf House Rd certainly do encroach way too much on the left side of that hole if fairway was restored over there. Those trees need to go or to be severely trimmed back or else the option of driving the ball down the left near the road would be too much of a trick shot and that option would not be functional enough and wouldn't work well.

If Merion ever did that I'd also suggest they check that their insurance policy is up to date as the broken car windshield factor will definitely go up. I'd suggest that Merion install some signs at both ends of Club House Rd such as you see around Military artillery ranges---such as "WARNING, Artillery practice in session---Proceed at your own RISK!!"

(Many of the residents along Golf House Rd are pretty rich and a lot of them may have the latest in those HUMMERS, so they're probably pretty well prepared already).

[JESII]

"Tom, where are you going to put that bunker?"

I'll let Tom correct me if I'm wrong, but the intended area seems to be just a bit short of the last fairway bunker on the right and about on the present rough/fairway line on the left.

Very interesting concept.



Andy,

The approach from the present right/right-center of the fairway is a bit awkward to get to any pin right of and past center. This alteration would be an attractive avenue because I would guess that quadrant has more pinned days than any other. This is purely speculation, but is based on the contours of the green.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I agree with your suggestion to extend the fairway on the left of 14. But for different reasons. My memory of the hole may be bad, but doesn't an approach from the left have to carry the mound on the left of the green? Which means a semi-blind (or totally blind) shot from that side? Even worse, if it is mishit it will carrom heaven knows where off that mound. Given the difficulty of approaching the green from that side, having difficult rough on that side too is, in effect, a double penalty and superfluous. Or am I not remembering the 14th's green surrounds correctly?

Width is almost always a good thing. While we are on 14, I think extending the fairway to the right, beyond the current bunkers, would also be a good idea. A shot to that area lengthens the approach shot. With high rough, its impossible to reach the green from there. Without rough, a heroic recovery (with all of the attendant risks posed by the green surrounds, incuding OB left) is an option on the second shot.

As someone noted above, you would bring more birdies and double bogies into play. (Which would give the hole a very high TEP Value. And that's a good thing.)

Bob



 

[mike_malone]

 Tom,


    What do you think the neighbors across the road will think of your idea? I'll bet they prefer "slow  and grabbing " to "firm and fast"

[JESII]

BCrosby,

I would bet I am as big a fan of width as you, but on that particular hole fairway to the right of the right bunkers means an approach from there must go directly over the 15th tee. Understandably, that is the case now for those in that position, but as rough very few people are capable of even thinking of the green from there so they (I would imagine) pitch up to a spot on the crest of the rise about 100-120 from the green.

Part of your memory of the left side is good, you certainly have to challenge the mound from over there. It only must be carried when going to the back left pin. As far as the double penalty, if you're in todays rough over there you are not attempting to hit it over the mound, you are trying to bounce it up onto the front center of the green.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Ok, we'll just get together and discuss this between ourselves. The hell with the rest of these wonkers on here---they probably aren't interesting in things like this anyway if they can discuss what the top seventeen courses in New Jersey are and whether or not Hidden Creek is #5 or #16.  

Au contraire... some of us find this very enthralling.  #14 kills me everytime I play it (3x total), because I'm always in that left rought... right where this bunker - Weenie or not - would be.  And, while allowing for fairway to wrap-around the bunker on all sides would seem to make this an easier hole, my initial reaction to this "concept" is "shit, I'd probably overcook my draw and hit it OB".  

So, keep up the discussion... you have one interested reader.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'd agree with you with respect to restoring the fairway widths at # 14 and # 18 at Merion, but, I'd go a step further, I'd restore ALL of the fairway widths at Merion.

Why not return ALL of the holes to their intended design ?

I thought the intent of the recent project was to restore the golf course to 1930 (circa)

Am I correct or incorrect ?

If I'm correct, then why haven't the fairways been widened and restored to their 1930 configuration ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

That's right, the intent of the recent Merion restoration was to restore the course to 1930. Some fairways were expanded, most notably the 5th and others were recontoured to expand near fairway bunkers. The fairway widths on all holes is not as wide as it was in 1930 though. If you're asking me why it wasn't expanded back exactly to the widths of 1930 I'd say the club probably thought that would make the course too easy. But perhaps it also had to do with the cost of maintaining the additional fairway area.

[TEPaul]

BobC:

I don't think it would make much strategic sense to put fairway just on the other side of the right fairway bunkers. That was never that way although fairway on #18 came a lot closer to those bunkers (actually it was one bunker back then)on #14 that the 18th fairway does now. And yes, to play to the left back of the green on #14 one would basically have to play over that mound on the left of the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the incremental costs to maintain fairways to 1930 widths would be minimal.

As to why they haven't been returned, perhaps that's a function of the process of trying to attract and host the US Amateur and US Open.

It's a wonderful golf course that would be enhanced with restored fairway widths.