[JSlonis]

In 1967 Jack Nicklaus said the following regarding Merion:

"All sports are improving.  They're running the mile faster, swimming faster. So it's only natural that golf scores should be better.  To try to make players shoot the same score they shot 20 years ago when the Open was played here [Merion] by changing the course is wrong.  There are too many great players today."

Would Mr. Nicklaus still say the same thing today or with the huge advancement in technology, would he at least allow for a few changes?  As a staunch critic of the current golf ball distances, it would be interesting to hear his thoughts regarding the return of the US Open to this storied venue.

I had the opportunity to play Merion last week.  As always, it was a special treat. The green speeds were very quick, they were rolled just before we played in advance of a Member Guest the next day.  I can't imagine a US Open setup with speeds any faster than what we played.  With these speeds, a couple of greens were questionable for playability.  Specifically #12.  The hole location was middle front, about 12 feet from the front edge.  My approach shot finished 5 feet behind the hole.  I was faced with a downhill left to right slider (break was close to two cups) that I just missed on the low side and watched it "trickle", I literally could read the lettering on the ball as it tumbled to about 8 feet past the cup.  It could have easily rolled all the way off the green.

I bring this particular incident up because I'd hate to see the green changed , but given the speeds that you'll likely see at the Open, I'm afraid that change is inevitable.

[Phil McDade]

Jamie:

Interesting thoughts. It's notable to me that the US Open has had far more winning scores -- and final scores overall -- under par post-1967 that prior to 1967.

As a fairly accomplished golfer, what are your thoughts about differing green speeds? Is that too big of an adjustment during a round? If we can have somewhat arbitrary set-ups and outcomes re. US Open rough, fairway width, and green contouring, why not green speed? Curious about your thoughts (and those of a similar caliber on this board ).

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

I actually heard about that putt of yours on #12 before you posted this thread. 

Good post and good thread!

I don't know---it seems like what will happen with #12 and perhaps #15 green in preparation for the 2013 Open is a secret and a very carefully guarded one at this point. If those who may be advocating it really are advocating it I think they all realize it is a complicated and potentially controversial issue and subject.

As I suspect with your opinion, mine is that those greens are probably just as fast now and as you played them as the target speed for the 2013 US Open. Are they too fast for the likes of greens #12 and #15? I would say they might be or are very close which most certainly does raise the question of why greenspeeds need to chase increased speeds and stimp readings on greens like Merions? The ultimate point here is none of us are going to change basic physics and at the greenspeeds Merion is capable of running and does run regularly basic physics is speaking to all of us loud and clear!

[Mike Cirba]

Phil,

That's my initial thought, as well, and one I mentioned to Jim Sullivan a few weeks back on a related thread.

The whole idea of consistent greenspeeds across all greens on a course during a day is a myth anyway.   There are all sorts of factors that make that impossible, so why even pretend that it's somehow necessary and/or desirable?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jamie,

Nicklaus hosted a pre-tee off clinic at MV last week.

He had a number of the PGA Pros talk about and demonstrate a particular club.

Erik Stensen (sp?) was one of the first.
He was demonstrating a 9-iron.

After he hit a few shots,
Nicklaus asked him how far he hit it.
He said, 160 yards.
Nicklaus was taken back and said, that's how far I hit my 6-iron and it may be a 5-iron.
Nicklaus then presented a disertation regarding the ball, equipment, conditions and conditioning.
I came away with the feeling that Nicklaus was saying that I&B had made a quantum leap in producing unconscionable results.

I know that he lobbied for a limited ball a few years ago.

The problems I see are as follows.

The golfing universe doesn't want to see the US Open turned into a desert scoring binge where par is meaningless.
Many great courses are land locked.
If your objective is to test or present a thorough examination of the golfer's skill and execution, how do you do so on a short golf course ?

It's clearly a dilema.

Major league baseball opted NOT to have aluminum bats.
The NBA chose to keep the same ball and not develop a smaller one ala the WNBA.

Yet, golf has allowed the combination of the ball and equipment to produce what would previously be described as Herculian results.

How many of you recall Nicklaus commenting on John Daly's final round at the British Open that Daly won ?
Nicklaus was describing how to play each hole, and Daly, oblivious to Jack's comments/recommendations was playing his own game and hitting it distances Nicklaus couldn't comprehend.

If a PGA Tour Pro can drive the ball within 100 yards of a green, is there much of a chance that he won't make birdie or par ?

Is that what Jack's suggesting ?

Allow the PGA Tour Pros to shoot anything ?

Question:

Has Jack Nicklaus beefed up MV in the last decade or so in an attempt to thwart scoring ?

If so, isn't he contradicting his stated position about Merion ?

[TEPaul]

Jamie:

I'll tell you another thing about greenspeeds. My own club, GMGC, is now running greenspeeds and consistently very close to the ideal target speeds for the US Open. I know what those US Open target speeds are and I know our super is not lying when he stimps our greens. I don't think he enjoys or admires these speeds but they asked him to do it consistently and he has this year and part of last year. The membership is just beginning to grumble but to date sort of sub rosa.

This is a strange new world, Jamie. In a certain sense the proverbial trains seem to be about to meet at the station, if you know what I mean!  

[Phil McDade]

Mike:

I guess I've never understood quite why the US Open requires differing demands on golfers off the tee, or in approach shots, or dealing with greens with different contouring, but is fairly obsessive about consistent green speeds. It just seems slightly illogical, but maybe there is something about putting at that level of play that demands common green speeds.

[TEPaul]

"The whole idea of consistent greenspeeds across all greens on a course during a day is a myth anyway.   There are all sorts of factors that make that impossible, so why even pretend that it's somehow necessary and/or desirable?"


Mike:

A myth? Would you mind explaining why you think that or how you know that?

[JSlonis]

Phil,

At first thought, I wouldn't be a fan of varying green speeds throughout a round based on the severity of a green.  When we are talking about green speeds at 12 and above, a foot or two slower is quite a difference. I think there are enough variables to contend with on a course like Merion.  Differing green speeds shouldn't be one of them.  Developing a feel and a touch for really quick greens is not all that difficult on a flat green, but when you add the complexity of Merion's surfaces, it's a whole different ballgame.

In regard to lower scores post 1967, I would say that a combination of better players, better equipment, better agronomy and more consistent conditioning have all played a part in that trend.

Pat,

Good thoughts. I saw that clinic as well. My first thought for Henrik Stenson after hearing is 9 iron distance was..."how many wedges does he carry?"  Your last question is the one that I asked myself after reading the 1967 quote.  I would imagine Mr. Nicklaus' thoughts have probably changed a bit since then due to technology.  If the implements were still the same in 2010, I would think his position would be similar to that of 1967.  Nicklaus made another comment on distance during the broadcast yesterday. After Mickelson drove it pin high in the greenside bunker on #14 (About 340 yards), Nicklaus quipped, "Oh yeah, and they tell me the golf ball isn't travelling any farther."  

Mike,

I don't think it is a myth or far-fetched to have very precise green speeds from green to green on a course. Will they vary throughout the day a little bit? Sure. But with the advancement of agronomic practices, newer equipment and the ability of good superintendents to put that all together, it is achievable.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom,

I don't know how average recreational golfers at GM can tolerate high stimps on a day to day basis. Why do they want them?

I've played in member guests at Philmont North and LuLu,for example, when the greens were like ice. At LuLu, the greens were posted at 12.5 but the super said they were more like 13.5. Nevertheless, someone in my group( a 2 handicap) had 6 birdies and an equal amount of bogeys but he won low gross for the day. He followed Hogan's advice by hitting his irons closer to the hole on many holes. I didn't and stopped counting my 3 putts.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I don't know how average recreational golfers at GM can tolerate high stimps on a day to day basis. Why do they want them?"


Jamie:

I don't believe they can; some of them at least.

[JESII]

Jamie,

The real question is...how did you handle the treacherous 13th?



Regarding consistent greenspeeds: I am a big proponent of consistency, but not at all because it's difficult, or unfair, to adjust mid-round. I just think that's a real sign of superior maintenance preparation.

Mike, I know and understand that there are differences in speed as the day goes on but I think that should be the players job to figure out. Telling them #12 is going to be 2 feet slower doesn't actually retain much mystery.

I just see it as a sign of a really great superintendent to be able to prepare greens in varied micro-climates to a consistent point...it's then our job to figure how fast the grass is growing...

[Chip Gaskins]

Hey, a better answer....don't use that pin placement on #12!  How simple would that be...

I have had that same pin there and it turned a decent round into dust with a putt off the front of the green.

Instead of changing the green, just don't use the position.  Easy enough.

[JESII]

My preference when the situation is pretty dire would be to maintain all the greens at what works for #12 and make a point to use more aggressive hole locations on the rest of the course...some course might not have them but Merion sure does.

it might take a little more homework from the prep team but would be well worth it in my opinion.

[Mike Cirba]

Chip,

Evidently the USGA needs a minimum of six hole locations on every single green.

So, rather than risking reusing Tuesdays on Saturday (oh the horror!! ), and the obvious ensuing calamity, it apparently makes much more sense to permanently alter a green that has done just fine the past eighty years.

[JESII]

Hey, a better answer....don't use that pin placement on #12!  How simple would that be...

I have had that same pin there and it turned a decent round into dust with a putt off the front of the green.

Instead of changing the green, just don't use the position.  Easy enough.

Actually Chip, I think they're considering building a few berms in front of each long iron shot to make them blind, just to add a little challenge...oh wait, the long iron shots are already blind...

Seriously though, there just aren't many spots at all on the 12th green when speeds are over 12 feet...not just that one spot.

[JR Potts]

From what I've heard, that was the only place they could put the pin on #12.

[JESII]

What do you mean?

I've played the hole 20 or so times and have seen the pin in a pretty wide range of places.

[Phil_the_Author]

Jamie, Jim, Phil & others...

You stated, "Regarding consistent greenspeeds: I am a big proponent of consistency, but not at all because it's difficult, or unfair, to adjust mid-round. I just think that's a real sign of superior maintenance preparation..."

Also, "I guess I've never understood quite why the US Open requires differing demands on golfers off the tee, or in approach shots, or dealing with greens with different contouring, but is fairly obsessive about consistent green speeds. It just seems slightly illogical, but maybe there is something about putting at that level of play that demands common green speeds..."

The USGA is not making every green run at the same speed any longer. This was first changed at Winged Foot in 2006. The reason for doing so is that on some greens it meant that much of the putting surface would be unusable. An example of this is the 10th green. By changing the green speed from 11+ to a 10+ the back half was then able to have some great hole locations used. In fact, the players lodged a number of complaints because some of the greens rolled at different speeds.

I think you'll find the same thing at Pebble... and it will definitely occur at Merion...



 

[Chip Gaskins]

Hey, a better answer....don't use that pin placement on #12!  How simple would that be...

I have had that same pin there and it turned a decent round into dust with a putt off the front of the green.

Instead of changing the green, just don't use the position.  Easy enough.

Actually Chip, I think they're considering building a few berms in front of each long iron shot to make them blind, just to add a little challenge...oh wait, the long iron shots are already blind...

Seriously though, there just aren't many spots at all on the 12th green when speeds are over 12 feet...not just that one spot.

Jim-
That's a fantastic idea

Mike-
God forbid the pin be in the same place on Sunday as it was on Tuesday on ONE green on the course....the horror!

This lends to the question I have posed here before.  Who drives the boat on decision making when it comes to rebuilding a green like #12 at Merion just to get two more pin placements?  The club?  USGA?  Consulting architect?  And better yet, what if the USGA asks but the club says no...though I suppose those things are pre-negotiated before the tournament is given to the course.

[JESII]

Thanks Phil...that's what we've been talking about...whether or not it should be practiced as opposed to if it would be the first time.

For what it's worth, to my knowledge Southern Hills had a couple greens at different speeds a few years prior to Winged Foot.

What do you think the need for 11+ on the front and 10+ on the back of a single green accomplishes?

[JR Potts]

Jim:

 I have not been there or played there but I will on Thursday.

From what I've been told (I think it's 12), that the greens were running so fast that the only place the pin could have physically been placed (without making the green totally unplayable) was that location.

[JESII]

So fast always? Or on some particular day? Or what? If they have the greens at 10 feet you can use a huge percentage of the green...that percentage shrinks rapidly as you approach 12 feet and when it gets above 12 there's not much there, a couple small spots, but I wouldn't say front center is one of them...from Jamie's description in the opening post.

[JR Potts]

Then maybe I have the wrong hole - but I was told that they were running at 14.

In fact, here's the email I got last week:

"Here you go!  11:36am and the greens stimping at 14!!

See you at noon!"

[JESII]

OK


You'll have a good time, but I'll take the under on 14 feet...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()