Just finished 18 at Merion

[JMEvensky]

Here's what I'd like to know David...is the 7th hole at Merion a good hole for the US Open? I'm not interested in a comparison to the old hole and what you think Bobby Jones hit, I'm curious if a 4 iron to a blind fairway bordered closely by OB and trees on the right and heavy rough on the left which will result in a 100 - 125 yard shot uphill to a very interesting green complex is a worthy hole for US Open contestants in 2013. Other than a 4 iron, players could hit 6 iron to 150 and have a longer approach or potentially driver to the vicinity of the green with the risk of a very difficult pitch from well below the surface of the green.

Care to analyze todays hole for US Open guys?

I'm not crazy about 4-iron,sand wedge holes for anybody.Where could they get a driver that's a relatively easy up and down?Are greenside bunkers OK,is long OK?

Obviously,I've never played the golf course.

[JESII]

Just in front is really the only good place for driver and I think some will take it...although not many. The OB fence is about 10 feet right of the green (which is fairly narrow itself) and the slope down off the left side is 20 or 30 feet. I think you'll see more 6 irons than drivers. Over the green would be fine, but unrealistic I think...believe the hole is 350 with the green at least as high as the tee after dipping 20 feet in the middle.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jimmy, I love your gumption, but are you really, honestly asking whether that golf hole you describe is a fitting test for today's US Open golfers, on a course set up by the USGA?

Over the weekend I watched Tiger Woods hit a PW 150 yards uphill and stick it to a few feet. (Sure, not everyone is TW, and I'm sure the greens at Merion are much more interesting than at Congressional).  But all that palavar you're spinning about "a blind fairway bordered closely by OB and trees on the right and heavy rough on the left" means nothing at all when the fairway can be hit with a 6 iron (!) and the green can be hit with a PW (!).

Of course, if the weather cooperates and everything is playing very fast and firm and the greens are rock hard and running at 14, I'm sure everything will work out for the best....

Peter

[JMEvensky]

Just in front is really the only good place for driver and I think some will take it...although not many. The OB fence is about 10 feet right of the green (which is fairly narrow itself) and the slope down off the left side is 20 or 30 feet. I think you'll see more 6 irons than drivers. Over the green would be fine, but unrealistic I think...believe the hole is 350 with the green at least as high as the tee after dipping 20 feet in the middle.

Sounds,um,challenging.

From what you're describing,the best play is 8,9,or wedge to a narrow green that is 20 feet uphill.Miss left for bogey and miss right for double.I hope the green is easy to putt.

That's an awfully difficult 350 yard hole.

Any chance of you doing a Mucci Magical Mystery Tour of Merion? For a couple packs of Marlboros,TEP might loop for you.

[JESII]

Peter,

The two holes immediately prior are 1,000 yards Par 8.

[JESII]

Any chance of you doing a Mucci Magical Mystery Tour of Merion? For a couple packs of Marlboros,TEP might loop for you.

I don't have Mucci's panache...

[DMoriarty]

Hello...anybody home?

We've had this conversation and you agreed it was a futile exercise...

No . . . You suggested that I provide you with the actual 1930 yardages so you could tell me what clubs they would hit today . . . I thought that was a futile exercise but I nonetheless provided you with the information you requested. I suggested a better exercise would be to figure out how long the course would have to be to represent the same "shot values" today.  I entertained your suggesting and I am asking you for the same courtesy for my suggestion.

Here's what I'd like to know David...is the 7th hole at Merion a good hole for the US Open? I'm not interested in a comparison to the old hole and what you think Bobby Jones hit, I'm curious if a 4 iron to a blind fairway bordered closely by OB and trees on the right and heavy rough on the left which will result in a 100 - 125 yard shot uphill to a very interesting green complex is a worthy hole for US Open contestants in 2013. Other than a 4 iron, players could hit 6 iron to 150 and have a longer approach or potentially driver to the vicinity of the green with the risk of a very difficult pitch from well below the surface of the green.

You aren't interested in a comparison with the old?  You just wrote, "We're talking about the difference between the modern game and the game 82 years ago"    I think converting the course will give us real insight into the difference between the game then and now.

I think the 7th at Merion is a tremendous hole for anyone and from about any distance, but I think it would be much better if an approach from what was the best position wasn't blocked by tree branches, and if the fairway extended well down to the left, so that that cowardly golfer from the tee would be tempted to hit the ball safely away from the out of bounds and try their luck at a blind second shot to a green above them and out-of-bounds long, and if the golfers were staring at the out of bounds with a driver or three wood in their hands instead of a four or five iron.

The hole might not be relatively long enough any more for the original strategy to be as effective, and the scores would be lower than back then, but I'd still like to see it and think it would make for more interesting golf.  But ideally I'd like to see it with the golfers with a three wood in their hands off the tee, but even if they had four or five irons it might be interesting.     

[JESII]

Jimmy, I love your gumption, but are you really, honestly asking whether that golf hole you describe is a fitting test for today's US Open golfers, on a course set up by the USGA?

Over the weekend I watched Tiger Woods hit a PW 150 yards uphill and stick it to a few feet. (Sure, not everyone is TW, and I'm sure the greens at Merion are much more interesting than at Congressional).  But all that palavar you're spinning about "a blind fairway bordered closely by OB and trees on the right and heavy rough on the left" means nothing at all when the fairway can be hit with a 6 iron (!) and the green can be hit with a PW (!).

Of course, if the weather cooperates and everything is playing very fast and firm and the greens are rock hard and running at 14, I'm sure everything will work out for the best....

Peter

Peter,

A few things in here piqued my interest...

Do you think "fitting test" should be part of the USGA's goal when setting up a US Open course?
Would Tiger's shot have been a lesser or greater shot if it were with an 8 iron?
I wonder what "work out for the best...." might mean to you and three or four...

[JESII]

David,

My point has been that there is no reason to think about trying to replicate "shot values" because every shot is different now. Just saying Tiger hits Driver 9 iron 475 yards doesn't mean playing #7 at 475 would mean Tiger and Bobby Jones had the same experience.

Putting is easier
Bunker shots are much easier
Chippins more difficult
Approach shots are more predictable
Tee shots are easier

No part of the game today is the same as 82 years ago.

[DMoriarty]

Tiger at 475 wouldn't be the as Jones at 350, but it would be a heck of a lot closer than Tiger at 350.  

[JESII]

Tiger at 475 wouldn't be the as Jones at 350, but it would be a heck of a lot closer than Tiger at 350.  

Who cares? What does the conversation prove? That todays equipment in the hands of the top 0.1% goes incredibly far??? So what?

[DMoriarty]

I care.  The comparison suggests that the top 0.01% do not fit on these great old courses, and that we are kidding ourselves if we think that they do.  
    It also suggests that this notion of returning traditional "shot values" to these courses by employing ribbon fairways and rock hard lightening greens is likewise a fantasy. The USGA is manipulating the final score, not reestablishing "shot values."  
    It also provides a more accurate frame of reference for comparing between generations, and for understanding the original design of the course.   The seventh is a very good example.  It was a sophisticated strategic hole where the line and distance very much mattered and where the golfer had to push the distance  and the line to get the preferred approach.  Now by your description it sounds more like a gauntlet than a golf hole.

     Also Jim, we don't often get a chance to go back in time and actually examine how the great players of the past played these courses, and the GI article gives us this chance.  And understanding what Jones did in the terms of modern times helps us understand how great his accomplishment was.

[JESII]

Why do you care about how Tiger plays a course as opposed to Bobby Jones?

[JMEvensky]

 
    It also provides a more accurate frame of reference for comparing between generations  
 

   To me,this is the argument that has the most resonance.I just think the train is too far down the track.More importantly,I'm not sure many people care about what Jones did at Merion versus what Hogan did versus what Woods might do.

     Baseball fans eat up this stuff but golf fans don't seem to have the same sense of history.

     Maybe it's because baseball fans don't keep playing for 50 years so there's no self-interest in technological advances in the equipment.If 50 year olds still played baseball,MLB would probably be playing with titanium bats.

[DMoriarty]

Why do you care about how Tiger plays a course as opposed to Bobby Jones?

I think I just explained why.    Add to that my interest in the history of the game.  Also add to my interest in the architecture of these old great courses.    Comparing how Jones played then vs. how Tiger plays now tells us something about how the best players interacted with the architecture then vs. now, and with the state of architecture generally.   

Do you really have no interest in what Merion would have to look like to challenge Woods in a similar manner as it challenged Jones?   I think that comparison is interesting on a whole host of levels.
______________________________________________________


JMEvensky, 

I'll grant that most don't care. But I think that those concerned with the architecture of these old courses as well as architecture generally should care. 

[JMEvensky]

JMEvensky, 

I'll grant that most don't care. But I think that those concerned with the architecture of these old courses as well as architecture generally should care. 

 

Unfortunately,I think we're too far along--it might be more accurate to say that people should have cared.

[DMoriarty]

All it would take to set things straight is a little backbone on the part of the USGA.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Jim won't be interested but I thought others might, so here the image of how Jones played the hole in 1930, along with a more modern aerial (not sure if it depicts the width for the USOpen.)  The image in the middle is an overlay with the old fairway highlighted in yellow.  Funny now part of the new tee on the 4th used to be part of the 7th fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Good discussion and I agree that a more direct comparison between eras would be fascinating.  Of course, the "whose the greatest" debate can never be solved, much like the game of golf itself.

By coincidence, I was reading the Baltusrol club history at lunch today, and it details some of the changes for the 1954 Open, with letters from RTJ comparing the playabiltiy and shot values then and now. (actually, back then, and then)  He said the equipment changes had favored the player and that his changes were set up to test how accurate the 1954 competitors were and to determine what should be considered a good and a poor shot.

RTJ goes onto say that he has concluded that players hit it further and that they hit the center of the FW more often than in the past.  "Therefore, it is my contention that values ought to be tightened to meet the high standards which the great improvements in clubs and balls have made possible.  In doing this, traps must be moved out to where they will have the same meaning they had in the Bobby Jones era, and fw must be narrowed to develop a comparable latitude for the error as when they were playing wooden shafted clubs."

As always, therein lies the rub.  Course may stay the same, but with clubs different, how can we truly compare players?  Just what variables can we keep constant?

Interseting, that other than faster and faster greens, the USGA really hasn't changed its playbook with respect for Open courses too much, although Merion will be the biggest departure from the norm we have seen.

[Matthew Petersen]

David,

Good discussion and I agree that a more direct comparison between eras would be fascinating.  Of course, the "whose the greatest" debate can never be solved, much like the game of golf itself.

By coincidence, I was reading the Baltusrol club history at lunch today, and it details some of the changes for the 1954 Open, with letters from RTJ comparing the playabiltiy and shot values then and now. (actually, back then, and then)  He said the equipment changes had favored the player and that his changes were set up to test how accurate the 1954 competitors were and to determine what should be considered a good and a poor shot.

RTJ goes onto say that he has concluded that players hit it further and that they hit the center of the FW more often than in the past.  "Therefore, it is my contention that values ought to be tightened to meet the high standards which the great improvements in clubs and balls have made possible.  In doing this, traps must be moved out to where they will have the same meaning they had in the Bobby Jones era, and fw must be narrowed to develop a comparable latitude for the error as when they were playing wooden shafted clubs."

As always, therein lies the rub.  Course may stay the same, but with clubs different, how can we truly compare players?  Just what variables can we keep constant?

Interseting, that other than faster and faster greens, the USGA really hasn't changed its playbook with respect for Open courses too much, although Merion will be the biggest departure from the norm we have seen.

Good post, Jeff.

It is ever the same in comparing eras of any sport.

How do you compare basketball players of different eras? There are so many factors, it becomes impossible. How does LeBron James stack up against Jordan, or Magic, or Wilt, or Russell? There's no way to answer it. You can't control for the differences in competition, the style of the game, the relative level of athleticism, etc etc.

It's the same with golf, as you say. To complain solely about how long guys hit it today misses all the other things they do much, much better with more easy. And that's largely thanks to technology, but also to better conditioning and other factors (not wearing formal clothes probably doesn't hurt, for example).

[Neil_Crafter]

Neil,

I have played three golf courses in my life that were 1-3 weeks away from hosting a U.S. Open.  All of those experiences were between 25-41 years ago (Winged Foot in '74, Shinnecock in '86 and Merion in '71/'81).  I was a better golfer then (although not really a "good player") and, at least in 1971, the added degree of difficulty from regular member play was not so dramatically pronounced.  The same was not true of the other occurrences.

Either way, I was struck by two things:  First, like you, it was incredibly difficult and not something I'd want to do very often.  Second, it impressed upon me just how really, really, REALLY good those guys are.  I hit a lot of good shots in all those rounds but every mistake made bogey a good score.  My personal delta back then was 10+ shots and the only reason it wouldn't be any higher now is that my  "base case score" has moved up considerably over the years.

In 1971, Jim Simons was obviously a factor and Lanny Wadkins was competitive.  Ben Crenshaw had been in the mix the year before at Hazeltine.  By 1981, amateurs were, and have remained, an afterthought on the weekend (except, it seems, at Olympic).

Good luck in October.  Rather than view your round as a chore, you might think of it as a case study re: a touring pro's ability and that of, even, a top amateur.  Then there's the comparison to your own game (and mine).

Also, your death march won't last more than 4 hours because your host will know that your group will be on the clock and that he (she?) will hear about it if that time is exceeded - even if you aren't holding anyone up in back of you.  This is especially not easy for a first-time player but the club is committed to it for a number of good reasons, IMO.  So, be prepared for having to be "in the linen" several times and take a double bogey for handicap purposes.  On the other hand, savor your many successes.  And next year, remember the day when you watch the tournament and be 1) respectfully in awe of the good scores being posted and 2) empathic to the very high scores that will also be posted.

Enjoy!

Chip, thanks for the reply. I have played professional tournaments here in Australia as an amateur back in the 80s, including Australian Opens, so have participated in these sorts of set ups on occasions, although the Aus Open I played at Royal Melbourne in 1984 didn't need the rough to be too thick as the greens were the course's greatest defence!

I'm looking forward to playing Merion - and Pine Valley the day before  - but I hope my impressions of the course are not affected by chopping out from thick rough after a drive that was slightly errant. And its good to know our round will be quick!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim - I don't share the USGA's love for slivers of burnt out fairways and dying greens rolled and baked to a tawny brown. I don't like the way that looks -- the artifice of it, with islands of sand lost in seas of rough -- and I don't particularly like the kind of golf it produces.  (Two benchmarks for wonderful championship golf: JN with that back nine 30 in 1986; and Tiger weaving his way around Hoylake in 2006). Now, I can understand why the USGA wants to honour its 'brand' and continue to present the toughest mental and physical tests in professional golf; what I don't understand is why it insists on jerry-rigging a course that doesn't suit the USGA's own purposes/goals instead of adding courses inherently better suited to the modern game to the US Open 'rota'.

Apologies by the way - I was being sarcastic with the last remark, suggesting that the 'fast and firm' mantra seems to have become a desperate prayer to Nature to step in a save the day (i.e. prevent Merion from being totally 'embarrassed', at least in the context of what the USGA values.)

Peter

[ChipOat]

David,

To respond to many of your points:

I completely agree that the shot values in 2013 will be much different than in 1930, but the problems to be solved on each hole will be, for the most part, much the same.

The shot values HAVE to be different because the conditions and equipment - ESPECIALLY the 1.62" ball - have completely changed.  However, most of the greens are near-identical albeit much faster.

As I have commiserated with Pat Mucci, pushing back equipment is no more likely to happen than returning greens to their originally intended "stimp".

There isn't MUCH room to expand the great old courses, but it can be done.  Merion and Shinnecock are the two with which I am most familiar, but Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Bethpage and Olympic seem to have also found the necessary real estate.  It can get in the way of gallery flow, so it isn't ideal, but it seems to work.

The great old courses can only play the way they were originally intended if:

1) fairway watering systems are removed;
2) the 1.62" ball comes back;
3) any wedges with "bounce" are declared non-conforming;
4) green speeds are limited to whatever was possible "in the day" (6?, 7??, 8 max???).

Since those will likely never happen, it's too late and it has been too late starting in about 1931 when the 1.68" ball became mandatory.  I think Sarazen's sand wedge was a mid-30's invention, etc. etc.

I agree that the best players no longer "fit" the best old courses FROM THE ORIGINAL CHAMPIONSHIP TEE BOXES.  Shinnecock has done fine with "Open tees", Olympic has done fine and so will Merion.

You say "force fit" and I say "adapt when it's inevitable and necessary".  That's why there's chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

I happen to believe that the routings, green complexes and pure golf architecture of the Golden Era courses are too memorable to be discarded without every conceivable effort to keep them do-able for national championships.  In my opinion, it hasn't always been perfectly executed the first time (e.g. Bethpage), but the results do seem to be markedly better after the maiden voyage (e.g. Bethpage).

Since I think I understand that you disagree with the above, do you have any suggestions for courses where U.S. Opens, etc. SHOULD be played?  Or haven't those courses been built, as yet?  That is not a snide remark, but a truly serious question.  If not Merion, Olympic, Shinnecock, Oakmont, etc. - then, where??  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Do you think the courses designed by the modern greats are treated with kid gloves because of the architect?

Yes.

I think clubs are timid when it comes to tinkering with a course designed by a modern day architect who's still alive, especially if he's retained a relationship with the club.

Atlantic and Rees Jones come to mind.
Atlantic has been tinkered with, but with consultation with Rees, even it the idea for the tinkering came from other sources.

I can't see a C&C or Doak course being tinkered with without the club consultating with them.
It's certainly possible, but, not probable.
Hidden Creek comes to mind.
Anything done there is submitted to C&C for approval or suggestion.


I think, just like 90 years ago, the person/people who fund a golf course see it as their own and make changes whenever they see fit.

Would you cite just five (5) modern day examples ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nope...we're talking about the difference between the modern game and the game 82 years ago. Equipment is certainly a part of that, but every couple years produce an equipment "upgrade" that changes the game somewhat. I think setup philosophy is a better conversation, don't you?

The USGA wants really narrow fairways, why?
The USGA wants to plan on greens 13+ feet on the stimp meter, why?

What is it about the way todays top players play that makes these setup goals so important to the USGA?

Protecting Par !

I think that goal differs, perhaps subtlely, from the goal that Joe Dey enumerated years ago.

I think Tom Doak hit the nail on the head.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's what I'd like to know David...is the 7th hole at Merion a good hole for the US Open? I'm not interested in a comparison to the old hole and what you think Bobby Jones hit, I'm curious if a 4 iron to a blind fairway bordered closely by OB and trees on the right and heavy rough on the left which will result in a 100 - 125 yard shot uphill to a very interesting green complex is a worthy hole for US Open contestants in 2013. Other than a 4 iron, players could hit 6 iron to 150 and have a longer approach or potentially driver to the vicinity of the green with the risk of a very difficult pitch from well below the surface of the green.

Care to analyze todays hole for US Open guys?

Jim,

In general, I'm not a fan of a par 4 whereby a contestant hits a 6-iron off the tee, then a 9-iron to the green.

Is that the test you want to conduct to determine the US Open winner ?