[DMoriarty]

David,

I think a "2 irons" were 24* because the more flexibile shafts decrease the effective loft at impact...not just because they felt like it. The modern day equivalent would be a 1 iron and yes, hybrids replaced 1 irons...

You are mistaken about this Jim. The hickory shafted clubs played by better players were far from whippy.  Between the wood, the thickness and taper, and the whipping (twine) the stiffness could be somewhat controlled, and the shafts could be as stiff is you could ever want, and sometimes stiffer.  

If you think the "No. 2 Iron" was really a "1 iron" then what was the Jones' "No. 1 Iron," with about 20 degrees loft? A zero iron?  And what about his Driving Mashie ,with 17-18 degrees loft?  Both of these irons had less loft than his "No. 2 Iron."  His no. two iron was only his third longest iron!

To give you and idea how these things worked, my favorite longer hickory shafted iron is a Robert Forgan club Stamped "IRON" with an original shaft quite a bit stiffer than the steel shafts (R flex) in my modern clubs.   The "Iron" generally became a "No. 1 Iron" in numbered sets. (So longer and with less loft than the Jones "No. 2 Iron."   It won't surprise you to learn that I cannot hit a modern "1 Iron!"    Yet I use my hickory shafted "Iron" or "No. 1 Iron" as I would my 3 Iron or 4 Iron in my modern set.   The top quality competitive hickory player who owned the club before me stamped a big "4" on top of it because he used it as the equivalent of his 4 Iron.   I wish I remembered the flex, which he provided me.

[JESII]

David,

I think Bobby Jones' 2 iron likely had a much more flexible shaft than todays top players and a result of that shaft flexibility is decreased loft at impact...would you agree?

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think Bobby Jones' 2 iron likely had a much more flexible shaft than todays top players and a result of that shaft flexibility is decreased loft at impact...would you agree?

No.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jim,
I just passed your question on to the tech heads at Nike golf.
I will let you know their opinion when I hear from them.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

  "Maybe. I'd have to see an old slo-mo. On the surface, I'd definately say yes. My hesitation is--you've seen some footage where the higher bend point(hickory) actually bends slightly forward at impact-hence higher loft! "


Here is the answer from the tech heads at Nike....I spoke to this guy a few minutes ago and he said shaft flex like Hickory was so darn unprecitable it could actually go both ways.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I think the difference in what a player would score from the old Hugh Wilson tees to those prepared for the US Open very much depends on what kind of a player you are.
For someone like me, who would be considered on the shorter side even in mid amatuer golf, the changes and extra length has got to be the equivalent to about two to three shots a round.
To some of those guys who hit it farther than me..say Jim, perhaps less than that.
He can take the extra clubs on numbers six and 18 for instance and probably not see that much difference.
For me that extra length means hitting the respective fairways in places that would provide less roll and leave me way back.
So for Jim a 40 yard addition may result in say 2/3 extra clubs, but due to where my ball lands, more into the upslope and less roll, it could be the difference in reaching par fours in two and not being able to get there at all.

So the same applies to those playing in the US Open.
How you "protect" the course for all is the difficult part.
Like the set up or not last week at Olympic appeared to give all types of hitters the same chances.
I hope Merion si the smae.

[DMoriarty]

Michael,

If the experts at Nike expanded on that, I'd guess that they would tell you that steel shafts provided predictability, uniformity, and consistency.  But when properly chosen and suited to the player, hickory provided excellent performance and didn't necessarily provide more flex!  I have a hickory driver with a stiffer shaft than my modern driver.  (I cannot hit either worth a lick.) The above describe hickory shafted Forgan "IRON" is as stiff as any Iron I own.
____________________________________

Jim,

I agree that these guys generally may not have hit the ball as high, but I don't think this was a product of less loft or delofted clubs at impact. Rather I think it was more than likely different ball characteristics, different spin characterististics, different swing style, and a different playing style.  

You keep saying "2 iron" as if it was the same as what we think of as a modern "2 iron" but it wasn't.  He carried two longer irons in is bag, and three (or four) woods longer than those!
Here again was how Ralph Livingston did the conversion for Bobby Jones' mixed set of clubs  .  .  .

Driving Mashies are around 17-18 degrees and would be about a modern 2-Iron.
The 1-Iron would be about 20 degrees and match a 3-Iron.
The 2- Iron at 24 degrees would match a modern 4-Iron.
Mashie Irons are usually about 27 degrees and it would match to a 5-Iron.
The 4-Iron at 31 degrees matches to a 6-Iron.
The Mashie at 36 degrees is between the 7 and 8-Iron.
The Spade Mashie at 39 degrees is like a weak 8-Iron.
The Mashie Niblick at 42 degrees matches well to a modern 9-Iron, except for the short shaft.
The Niblick at 50 degrees falls about half way between a PW and SW.

It is very similar set up to to what any golfer might have carried before hybrids.  How Jones' irons compare to 2000:

2000      1930
  2I     Driving Mashie
  3I     1I ("Iron")
  4I     2I
  5I     Mashie Iron ("No. 3 Iron")
  6I     4I
  7I     Mashie
  8I     Spade Mashie
  9I     Mashie Niblick
  PW   Niblick

Add to that a funky sand only wedge and a putter.  

[The reason I use 2000 is I think lofts have changed enough in the past 12 years so as to be around a club different by now!  Like women's dress sizes the numbers on the clubs keep changing to appeal to the vanity of the customers.]

[ChipOat]

JMEvensky:

At the risk of being repetitive, I truly do not believe that adding tee boxes for a U.S. Open that the members will never play constitutes a compromise of the East Course's architectural pedigree (so long as the fairways are re-widened, which I believe will happen).

The routing hasn't been changed, the greens are mostly the same (except for the better, IMO) and the problems in/around the green complexes will be the same for TW as for thee and me - just slightly more slippery than the way Hugh Wilson and William Flynn intended them to be.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.  After the fairways are re-widened, IT WILL BE THE SAME GOLF COURSE.

[JMEvensky]

Chip,given your description of the changes,I was wrong to use the word disfigure and apologize.

If it matters,I was inelegantly trying to make the same point as others--the USGA would be better served by fixing the problem on the equipment end rather than trying to lengthen/toughen classic golf courses.

That said,I'd probably be one of the few who'd argue that if the members of MGC wanted to alter every square inch of the property for the Open,no problem. It's their (and presumably your) golf course to do whatever they/you like.None of has any right to question it.

[Brian Colbert]

Mr. Doak,

I just wrote out a long drawn-out response to your questions but my session timed out and I lost it (#@#!) so here are the cliff notes:

#3: +.33
#4: 0
#5: +.5
#6: +.25
#9: +.33
#14: +.5
#17: +.33
#18: +.5

Probably about a 2.75 shot difference per day in my opinion. I think the course is better from the new tee boxes (other than perhaps 14, which I think is a bit gimmicky) for the tour-caliber player because it returns the course to its original "shot values." 9 is really not that much behind the other box on the same line (maybe about 40 yds), to the point that they had the actual markers on the very back box. I think 3 and 17 will play just a bit higher, it's already a long club from the original tee! Another example of the definite improvement is when I played 18 the first time from the original back tee I was about 80 yards past the Hogan plate. When I played it on Saturday, I was pretty much right even with it.

Brian:

Thank you for taking the time to make these estimates, but I think the influence of the changes is exaggerated in your mind, if you really believe the changes will make an ELEVEN SHOT difference in the winning score over four days.  It might make an 11-shot difference for someone like me, but my guess for the pros would be more along the lines of Jim Sullivan's estimate, or at most, one shot on each of the holes where signifcant changes were made.  I would love to have a few more very good players chime in on this.  My thought has always been that the USGA overdoes the changes because they are afraid of the numbers, but that the changes don't make as much difference as they think.

If your estimates were right on, and technology changes have made that much difference to elite players, then their computed handicaps would be two or three shots better than the best players of 20 years ago, and scoring averages on Tour would have dipped precipitously.  Was the winner of the Vardon Trophy last year shooting 2.75 strokes per round lower than Nicklaus and Trevino used to?

Admittedly that was a bit on the aggressive side of an estimate. For me the course is about 2-3 shots harder from back there but I'm not on tour and I'm never going to be, so it's really not a fair comparison. The tour guys won't tear this place apart with the tees all the way back but the winner will shoot under par for the week.

[DMoriarty]

Chip,

With the exception of the greens they have changed and perhaps some of the tees they have built, I agree that they could return Merion to an earlier state simply by bringing back earlier fairway lines. The question, though, is will they.  You might have missed the question, but I am curious as to your answer to Joe Bausch's question in post 99.

If they do significantly widen the fairways after the USOpen, they will be bucking the trend of history.  Compare the fairways before this most recent narrowing to the fairways shone in the 1930's aerials and you will see what I mean.  How much will they widen the fairways?  To what they are now?  Almost to what they are now?  To what they were before 2005?  To what?   Whatever it is, I assume you will agree that it will still be a heck of a lot narrower then it was initially.  
______________________________________________________________

. . .
Otherwise, why don't you post the hole lengths (your interpretation of them as opposed to what may have been listed) and I'll tell you what the approach club would be to each hole based on the features on the hole. That might put your ideal into perspective...

Jim,

Here are my approximate estimates of the distances from 1930 using the Golf Illustrated images and old architectural drawings as a guide and (except as marked) using a 250 yard elbow for doglegs and using Google Earth measures.  Whereas Merion reportedly measured from the middle of their tee boxes, I tried to measure from near the back of the tee boxes which still exist.  Fairly rough estimates so don't hold me to them  I'd be glad to change any if they are wrong.

1.  Listed 360.  Estimated 350.  Tee near current location.
2.  Listed 523.  Estimated 490.  Tee near current location.  Green short and right of current green.
3.  Listed 195.  Estimated 185.  From near back of current front tee.
4.  Listed 595.  Estimated 595.  From tee near back of 3rd green.
5.  Listed 436.  Estimated 415.  From near back of large tee short of creek.
6.  Listed 442.  Estimated 420.  From back third on long tee.
7.  Listed 355.  Estimated 345.  From middle of large tee.
8.  Listed 350.  Estimated 335.  From near back section of the fat part of the tee.
9.  Listed 170.  Estimated 170.  From right tee.
10.Listed 335.  Estimated 295   Measuring as dogleg w/ 225 yd layup. Approx. 265 direct line to middle of the green.
11.Listed 378.  Estimated 360.  From near back of long tee.  
12.Listed 415.  Estimated 370.  From back third of long tee.
13.Listed 125.  Estimated 125.  From near the back of current tee.
14.Listed 412.  Estimated 400.  From a bit behind the stop sign on the long tee.
15.Listed 370.  Estimated 340.  From even with left green side bunker on 16th.
16.Listed 435.  Estimated 420.  From well back but no all the way back on long tee.
17.Listed 215.  Estimated 210.  From back half of "members" tee.
18.Listed 455.  Estimated 450.  From next to front part of first right green side bunker on 17th.

Many of the distances are close to the same as now, as there really was very little room to expand the course past the changes made in the first few decades. It seems like the USGA may be  trying to make up for this inflexibility through out of proportion increases to a few holes (including the first too par threes) and the extremely narrow fairways.  

[JSlonis]

If the club were to recapture all the fairway area that has been taken away, I'd applaud right away. They'd have to strip out rough and re-sod on most holes, and take out a couple newly added bunkers on a few holes. Not a huge project. The big question is "Is there a past track record of this fairway recapture occurring at Merion or any other course that's been altered for a major?"

From what I've seen, the narrow just keeps getting narrower.

[Terry Lavin]

OMG, this is like poring over the body parts of a woman that none of you has ever slept with!  It's just a golf course. And it's a golf course that allows itself to be altered to suit the governing body's whims. It's just a golf course. It ain't a shrine.

[Mike Nuzzo]

OMG, this is like poring over the body parts of a woman that none of you has ever slept with!  It's just a golf course. And it's a golf course that allows itself to be altered to suit the governing body's whims. It's just a golf course. It ain't a shrine.

Shrine or not, these changes are changing golf, not for the better.

better = more people can enjoy the game

[Terry Lavin]

Mike,

I agree with what you're saying, in the main. I'm just tired with the perseverations of the core group of Merionaphiliacs hereabouts. A guy started a thread about playing a round at Merion and it devolved into another circle-jerk Merion autopsy. It's a great course now and has been forever, but it's just a golf course, it isn't sacred ground.

[DMoriarty]

Terry,  There has been little or none of the usual Merion nonsense in this thread. 

While comparing the 1930 course to today's course obviously doesn't appeal to everyone, some of us might find it interesting.  It ought to go without saying that no one is forcing you to read the thread (and I doubt you have read much of any of it) so please don't let us keep you here. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

ChipOat,

I'd agree, I think fairway width, not championship tees are the critical element.

I recently played WFW and reviewed the Championship tees and didn't find them obtrusive or offensive.

However, having first played WFW in the 50's, the fairways are narrower today as are the playing corridors due to tree planting.

It's a wonderful golf course and I only missed one fairway, # 11, but, the fairways need to be returned to their 1959 or earlier widths.

As to Merion, it's not a question of returning fairway widths to pre-2013 widths, but much earlier widths.

Rich Goodale,

The chances are far less than infinitesimal 

[ChipOat]

JMEvensky,


This is a public forum and anyone can question anything they want.  My point is that only the length has been changed as it's too late to roll back the equipment.  Also, the fairways have been narrowed - as you would expect.  The rest of the East Course is "as is".

David,

While history shows a clear precedent for fairways remaining narrow following a championship at most every host club, I'll say the same thing to you that I posted earlier to Pat Mucci.  This time, since the fairways had been WIDENED and "firm and fast" really has been the maintenance meld in the last 5-6 years, I predict that, by September, 2014 the members will have their pre-2012 golf course back.  Also, I have a source or two that is the genesis of my prediction.

[DMoriarty]

JMEvensky,


This is a public forum and anyone can question anything they want.  My point is that only the length has been changed as it's too late to roll back the equipment.  Also, the fairways have been narrowed - as you would expect.  The rest of the East Course is "as is".

David,

While history shows a clear precedent for fairways remaining narrow following a championship at most every host club, I'll say the same thing to you that I posted earlier to Pat Mucci.  This time, since the fairways had been WIDENED and "firm and fast" really has been the maintenance meld in the last 5-6 years, I predict that, by September, 2014 the members will have their pre-2012 golf course back.  Also, I have a source or two that is the genesis of my prediction.

Thanks Chip.  Do you stand by that if Merion remains in the USOpen rotation?

[JSlonis]

Mike,

I agree with what you're saying, in the main. I'm just tired with the perseverations of the core group of Merionaphiliacs hereabouts. A guy started a thread about playing a round at Merion and it devolved into another circle-jerk Merion autopsy. It's a great course now and has been forever, but it's just a golf course, it isn't sacred ground.

From my first round at Merion, its became one of my favorite courses. The fact that we can play where Bobby Jones and Ben Hogan both strolled the fairways to victory makes it sacred ground to me. I agree it's a great course and always has been but you can't gloss over the fact that the changes that have occurred detract somewhat from the original design. The architecture and technology debate go hand in hand here.

My interest in golf course architecture initially came about from a players perspective. What does the course offer as a challenge? How does the architect present that challenge? In the case of Merion, the big challenge are the greens. They are world class in their design. In studying the course, there are definitely preferred lines of play. On many holes, those preferred lines often presented a greater risk to the golfer. With the shifting and narrowing of the fairways, some of those preferred lines are taken away and with it the strategic challenge as well. I've always equated better courses and better architects by the way they make the golfer think.  I think this is especially true when it comes to challenging the very best players. Better players have more shots they can play well, therefore they have more options.  The best courses present opportunities for the golfer to contemplate, they make them think.  The more this occurs, the better.  I think the biggest issue people have in regard to a course like Merion is that's it's loaded with outstanding architecture, it should offer options galore but in a modern US Open setup it becomes too one dimensional.

Chip,

I hope you are right about the eventual re-widening.

[ChipOat]

Joe Bausch re: your post #99.  I believe the answer is "yes" because the Open wouldn't return for at least 10 years.  Let's hope the scenario you described plays out and we have the chance to see if my prediction is correct.

Tom Doak re: your post #66.  I had been told as far back as 2003 by sources I respect that the USGA was hoping that the 2005 Am qualifying scores would allow them to bring the Open to a (short!) 7000 yard course (i.e. Merion!) in order to show that the equipment really hadn't gotten out of hand.

I don't want to get into that argument because I'm not really qualified to comment.  However, the ball, etc. is what it is these days and the "long" holes at Merion are now NOT long without new tee boxes.

To me, the most interesting aspect of the added length is on the two par 3's (3 & 9) and the par 5 #4.  Also, if the tee markers are set as far left on #14 as many on GCA believe (and they could be right), that will have a material impact on the play of the hole.  As for the rest (#'s 5,6,15 and 18) - that's just length off the tee.  The approach to the green on those holes will present (generally) the same problems as in 1950, 1971 and 1981 although I would be naive to think that the club selection will be exactly the same.

Is the golf course "better" as a result?  For a U.S. Open, I vote, "yes".  Otherwise, I don't think it matters because, as I've said before, the members, guests and contestants in the club championship will never see those tee boxes in competition.  The routing and the green complexes are unchanged and I am confident that the fairways will be re-widened by late 2014.

[ChipOat]

David, Per my post #120, yes I do.

[JSlonis]

chipoat,

There's a little more than just rewidening the fairways. How about the new bunker in front of #2, the new fairway bunkers on #15, the new left fairway bunker on #16? If proper width was restored, those bunkers on 15 & 16 would have to be removed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

But, are the 2012 fairway widths the ideal widths to return to ?

[JSlonis]

Chipoat,

But, are the 2012 fairway widths the ideal widths to return to ?

Pat,

You know that answer is NO. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()