Merion "softens" the pitch of the 12th and 15th greens

[ChipOat]

I looked for a thread on this and couldn't find one - apologies if this has already been beaten to death.

I'm all for it.  After Stupid Trees, my other pet peeve is Golden Era greens that have become impossible to putt because they now "Stimp" at speeds for which the architect never envisioned would ever be possible.  I have given numerous examples of this in older threads including Pine Valley, National, Shinnecock, The Creek, Piping Rock and Merion (including the 5th green along with #'s 12 and 15).

In the last 20 years, at least 1/3 (more?) of the 12th and 15th greens at Merion have become - well - ridiculous as the technology of both turf and mowers has made it possible for clubs to increase greens speeds way past the "red line".  I've never been a great putter, but I've hit enough good putts at all of the courses I mentioned to know that the difference in playability over 44 years isn't just my eroding skills.

Merion's green complexes are wonderful just as they were designed.  They don't need to be impossible in order to be top notch.  The same can be said of the other courses I mentioned above.

Merion's much discussed, and much maligned, bunker project returned them to their original degree of difficulty as Wilson and, later, Flynn (others?) intended.  I applauded that at the time and my opinion hasn't changed.

IMO, softening the pitch of #12 and #15 returns those greens closer to the degree of difficulty that Wilson and Flynn (et al?) had in mind.  A good move.

Let the fur flying begin.

[Tyler Kearns]

The major issue is that the greens will be over-softened, and lose much of their character. With the money being spent and the tight timeframe before the 2013 US Open, a golf course architect is going to err on the side of caution, and flatten the putting surface more than necessary. The last thing they would want to see is similar green speed problems arising after the work is complete.

Ultimately, it pains me to see this constant tinkering, which is both disruptive and expensive. Raising the height of cut slightly would enable the greens to stay as is, and cost nothing. I realize the work is being completed in anticipation of the US Open, but really, a 4-day professional competition that may very well never return to the course after the 2013 tournament does not seem worth it.

TK

[Ed Brzezowski]

They are only raising the fronts of both greens to add more hole locations. I worked with the GAP and the Fazio group during the 2005 Am as a spotter and graphed shots on 12. At current speeds there are very few holes locations on that green, and having played there alot the same holds true for 15. You cannot have a meaningful event there with the same hole locations day after day.

Also should play at 6999, some fun eh??

[JESII]

You cannot have a meaningful event there with the same hole locations day after day.

I'm curious about this line Ed...not disagreeing with it, just curious.

Why can't you have a green in which all of th ehole locations for four days at 12.5 feet are within a few yards of each other? What are the objections?

[Tyler Kearns]

How many hole locations would the greens in question hold at 11 on the stimp as opposed to 12.5?

TK

[JESII]

Triple the square footage would be my guess Tyler...

[Mike_Young]

Ed,
I think they are raising the front and lowering the back about 9 inches on 12 and don't know bout 15. 
Part of the problem with just raising the HOC is the practice rounds and the overall number of shots that will be hit into the green over that week.   The ball marks and the foot traffic in the small areas would cause too much damage. 

[Tom_Doak]

It was inevitably going to happen, but it saddens me to hear that the club has softened these greens at the USGA's bidding.

They only worked well for 90 years or so before "technology" [manned by idiots] got the better of them.

[ChipOat]

Tom,

I'm not sure I think that those three greens (5, 12 & 15) have worked as well as intended in the last ten years.  There are places where putting to within 10 feet of the hole is well-nigh impossible.  On 15, you could play your approach short on purpose and then chip/putt uphill from the fringe.  However, the steep rise leading up to #12 precludes that strategy and most approaches to #5 now finish in the rough just left of the green no matter what you try.

Tyler,

#11 is a relatively flat green so the Stimp isn't a big issue except that buried-lie shots from the left front bunker could run off the green if the speed is excessive (however you define that).

Chip

[PCCraig]

If a section of a green is unable to handle a pin placement and high green speeds are needed, wouldn't it be easier to just not place a pin their during the tournament, then slow the greens down a bit once the Tour guys leave town? 

Haven't we seen in the past that when clubs soften their greens when chasing faster putting surfaces the pros rip the greens apart. It seems to me the top level golfer has more trouble with slower greens with a ton of break then fast, flat surfaces.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I'm not sure I think that those three greens (5, 12 & 15) have worked as well as intended in the last ten years.  There are places where putting to within 10 feet of the hole is well-nigh impossible.  On 15, you could play your approach short on purpose and then chip/putt uphill from the fringe.  However, the steep rise leading up to #12 precludes that strategy and most approaches to #5 now finish in the rough just left of the green no matter what you try.

Did you leave out #5 from the title thread so I wouldn't be as upset?  Aaargh.

P.S.  My quote was "90 years" meaning from 1911-2001.  I'm sure that the club didn't start messing up and making the greens too fast just this year, it's been going on in lots of places for some time now.  But, there was a time when the members of a place like Merion didn't behave like sheep and just follow along blindly with the herd.

[Adam Clayman]

The ego is terrible thing to waste, and a powerful force to overcome. Even for a club that respects it's history more than almost any other.

[John Kavanaugh]

It all started with the blanket acceptance of the big ugly noisey intrusive fans. There are far more people to blame than the USGA. The turf schools...

[Peter Pallotta]

What P Craig said seems to be the worst irony of all, i.e. that these changes are being made not to test the professionals but to coddle them.  As Chips thread shows, men like Bobby Jones could read the writing on the wall way back in 1968.

Peter

[Jud_T]

In the contract with the USGA does it stipulate who has final say in these matters?  Could the club tell 'em to take a hike if they don't like the greens as is?

[Mike_Young]

When we constantly speak of "these guys are good" and how far they hit the ball etc....what's wrong with a misplaced wedge leading to a three putt?  I have played those greens enough to know they can seem unfair but at the same time the areas were puttable if the ball was in the right place.  A seasoned pro in a US Open with a short iron should realize such and place the ball in the least vulnerable area.  It's one of the few things left that can make up for the distance factor.  It's a small area..so...nothing anywhere says one should be guaranteed a two putt for being on a putting surface.

[Mark McKeever]

I saw the letter sent out to the members and read this.  Unfortunate I must say.

mark

[Terry Lavin]

In the contract with the USGA does it stipulate who has final say in these matters?  Could the club tell 'em to take a hike if they don't like the greens as is?

Matters such as green remodeling are almost always negotiated between the club and the USGA.  The lure of a major is a powerful inducement for modifications. Even for the Merions of the world.

[Tim Passalacqua]

They can always restore the greens after the open.  At Olympic, they took some slope out of the 18th green after the 1998 open.  It amazed me because a pro golfer couldn't control a wedge and hit it short of the pin, so they complained.  The members didn't like the change and we restored much of the slope when the greens were rebuilt with bent.  Hopefully, they return the greens to the original design at Merion after the open, if that is what the members want.

[jeffwarne]

Glad I didn't respond right away.

Far smarter people than me seem to share my opinion.
Surpried and pleased to see no apologists for the usga who seem oblivious to their continued contributions to the unsustainability of the game.

Did scotty Cameron sponsor the changes?

Glad to see the hottest architect in the game builds greens designed to be played at slower speeds for max enjoyment and encourages the clubs to stick to this.
Some do...........some don't then members criticise the design

[Ed Brzezowski]

You cannot have a meaningful event there with the same hole locations day after day.

I'm curious about this line Ed...not disagreeing with it, just curious.

Why can't you have a green in which all of th ehole locations for four days at 12.5 feet are within a few yards of each other? What are the objections?

i believe the foot traffic stresses the green area. I saw this on #12 back in 05. Just my opinion.

[Sean Leary]

We could wait to see how it turns out before we pass total judgement.

C&C/Axland softened the very severe 2nd green at Prairie Dunes a couple of years ago and expanded the back right corner to add a hole location. Turned out great and I have heard no negative feedback from the members, only positive. Tom's work at 11 at Pasa seems well received as well. Members I have spoken to like the work done at the second hole at Pine Valley

Chip seems to think its going to work. Wouldn't surprise me that many wouldn't even notice the work if it wasn't publicized. I sincerely doubt that any of these greens are going to be considered too flat when the work is done. These decisions at Merion of all places surely do not get made easily without a lot of people involved, and surely they can't all be idiots.

To change it for 7 days every umpteen years seems absurd, for sure. But I am not sure it won't be better for the members and the maintenance of the green going forward. Lets wait and see and then we can cast judgment

[Ronald Montesano]

Is there enough work out there for anyone to be considered the "hottest" architect in the game?

[Terry Lavin]

The thing I think is funny is that the hobbyist crowd thinks it is smarter than the USGA when it comes to questions like this. I'll listen to Doak's carefully worded lamentation, but the rest of the hand wringing is a tad comical. Merion wants the event; the USGA wants the modifications. They're not painting a mole on the Mona Lisa, for Chrissakes. They're moving dirt.

[JMEvensky]

The thing I think is funny is that the hobbyist crowd thinks it is smarter than the USGA when it comes to questions like this. I'll listen to Doak's carefully worded lamentation, but the rest of the hand wringing is a tad comical. Merion wants the event; the USGA wants the modifications. They're not painting a mole on the Mona Lisa, for Chrissakes. They're moving dirt.

I think I agree with you.The course belongs to the members--they can do whatever they choose.But,you always wonder just how many of the members were involved in the decision and if the "historical purity" side was given any voice.

Has any club ever been offered an Open on the condition that changes be made--and said no?