In spite of all the effort put on by USGA to bastardize the course, the absolute BRILLIANCE of the golf course architecture was undeniable.
While reflecting on the tournament, it became apparent to me that the lack of space at Merion was a major benefit to the course instead of hindrance like what all the media heads were parroting going into the tournament. Let me explain...
What really impressed me about Merion (other than the greatness of its greens which, THANKFULLY, was beyond the reaches of USGA), was the great combination of short and long holes. While short holes gave plenty of chances for birdies, the long, brutal holes took those birdies away with no remorse. The absolute roller coaster of a ride added greatly to the enjoyment of viewers (and I am sure it took huge mental toll on players).
But that probably would NOT have been the case if Merion was not so limited by its real estate. Is there any doubt that given enough land, that the vast majority of those short par 4's would have been lengthened to 450+ yard brutes, taking away all the intrigue? Conversely, if those short par 4's were lengthened to brute distances, USGA probably would have shortened long par 3's and the longest par 4's to "make it more fair".
How tragic would that have been? I am very thankful this morning that Merion's "limitations" turned out to be so liberating. Do you agree?
P.S. I am even more convinced now that the great greens are what is required from US Open courses. A course with flat greens like Bethpage, has no defense when softened, even with its length. However, a great set of greens, like at Merion, can still go toe to toe with the pros today even in the softest of the conditions.