Changes at Pine Valley and Merion

[JohnV]

I just read in the Forecaddie section of Golfweek that there are changes being made at Pine Valley and Merion.

At PV, Tom Fazio is adding new championship tees on 7, 9 and 13 and adding new fairway bunkers on the right side of 9 and 18 where the "big hitters are now driving their balls."

At Merion new tees have been built at 8 holes and 3 others have been enlarged.

Any comments from those who know what is happening?

[Brian_Gracely]

JohnV,

This topic has been discussed several times in the past few months.  The Pine Valley changes were recently announced as a means of bringing the driver back into the hands of better players.  The Merion changes are mostly centered around the upcoming U.S. Amateur in 2005.  

[larry_munger]

I have also heard that at Merion they are altering some of the fairway mowing patterns, I think # 14 might be the best example, moved I believe to the right as one looks from the tee bringing the bunkers more into play.

[JohnV]

I guess I missed the discussions.  I appologize for bringing it up again.

[Brian_Gracely]

JohnV,

No problem.  The Pine Valley discussion turned more into a Fazio bashing thread (what's new), and the Merion thread was by someone that had recently played the course and was explaning some of the things he had seen.  That person has since left the group, so you'd probably not be able to find it in a search (my bad..)

[SPDB]

I know a decent amount about the work at Merion, the boldest and most outlandish move is that they may recontour the practice green behind 14 to create a a very small flat spot where tee markers could be placed for the Amateur. This would bring the corner and the bunkers to about the 300 yd point. With the recapturing of the fairway out to the bunkers, it will make for a very interesting hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V,

Is Fazio adding those championship tees and new bunkers or is Pine Valley adding them, and Fazio is supervising the work, which I understand is done mostly "in house" ?

There is an important distinction, especially on this site.

The question is, what is, or who is the genesis for these changes ?

How were the needs determined, and by whom ?

As TEPaul knows, Fazio is just hired help, doing the owners bidding.

[TEPaul]

JohnV;

What would you like to know specifically about the recent changes to either Merion or Pine Valley?

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

In all your infinite wisdom -- are the "changes" reactive or proactive?

Second question -- why now?

[Tim_Weiman]

Not sure I understand the point of the new tee on #7 at Pine Valley.

Can anyone explained what is gained?

[Robert Thompson]

Folks:

Though I know this has been covered, I had an opportunity this fall (along with Ian Andrew) to play both PV and Merion.

I found the changes at Merion to be most interesting. In an attempt to keep the long-hitting kids who play the U.S. Am from making the course irrelevent, Merion has decided to search out every extra yard. That means tees in strange, and in my opinion, occasionally dangerous spots -- like just off the second fairway, where the new sixth tee now sits.

While they haven't ruined a great thing -- I do wonder what the course is trying to accomplish by placing tees in places where they clearly don't fit. So what if someone shoots a low number during the Am -- I don't think anyone will argue that Merion is not a great tournament course. The USGA's infatuation with par is putting a lot of pressure on some courses to make changes that border on silly -- as is the case with Merion.

As with PV, I was too in awe of the place my first time round to actually note any changes. There was simply too much to take in....

Robert

[Mike_Cirba]

Merion seems to still be holding out hope for another US Open.

Wasn't the USGA supposed to shat or get off the pot re: holding out this carrot to the club some months back?  Did anyone hear the final report on that situation?  

It seems that as Robert Thompson reports, every inch is going to be squeezed out of the property, no matter how ungainly the result.  

Like an aging starlet getting implants, it seems that any means possible will be employed in attempting to keep her viable for the role of a modern ingenue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

Not sure I understand the point of the new tee on #7 at Pine Valley.

Can anyone explained what is gained?

It could be that the longer players were laying up with a low to medium iron off the tee, and lengthening the hole might be an attempt to force those players to use more club, (read riskier play)

But, that's just a guess on my part.

[TEPaul]

TEPaul:
-- are the "changes" reactive or proactive?
Second question -- why now?

Matt:

I'm not sure I'd know how to answer that even if I'd asked the club about it which of course I haven't. But to hazard an answer I might say the tee length additons were reactive to what's been happening there amongst certain types of players. Why would the club care about "certain players" and how they play the course and why now?

I think we all know there really has been a big spike in distance amongst certain players in the last few years. Pine Valley also has an opportunity to see this in play during its annual Crump Cup which does have a few players who are amongst some of the best in the country in the amateur ranks. Players who can really launch the ball and are competitve and accomplished. The ones I know of such as David Eger, Jay Sigel, Jim Holtgrieve (now pros), Mike McDermott, Trip Kuehne etc. play the course in a way that the original design obviously did not intend. That type of thing is perhaps what PVGC is reacting to. Basically they tend to play the course the way Davis Love did in the Walker Cup of 1988--almost exclusively with long iron tee shots.

I put a post on this website a few weeks ago about how I think PVGC could get at least the option of a driver back in this type of player's hands on tees if it really wanted to. Some holes would need to be lengthened tee wise (basically the ones that just have been) and others (that have no elasticity) would simply need to be cleared in various ways. A few other holes might extend or cut fairway where rough now exists throughout cross bunkering to accomplish this.

Would this all be reactive or proactive? Probably a little of both. The tee length additions to #7, #9, #13 and #18 all have some pros and cons, in my opinion.

So this thread doesn't get too long I'll just mention #7 and #9 for now since they're in some way connected. The tee length addition on #7 will be benefical in one way--and my personal feeling on tee length addition is it's OK if it makes sense on the hole and it doesn't get invasive on another hole. For #7 itself adding 40-50 yards is OK as that will get the driver option back for extremely long players and make the hole perform more as it was designed to perform.

The tee length addition on #9 is fine too for that hole as that too will probably get the driver option back for the long player. However, the new back tee on #9 backs right into the left side of #7 fairway which ordinarily to me would be very "invasive" to the 7th hole.

However, there's a very interesting historic story to this. From BOTH "remembrances" following Crump's death it's evident that Crump meant to do precisely what the club just did with the tee on #9 by bringing it back almost into the left edge of #7 fairway! I'm not certain if the club is aware of this intention of Crump's but they may be.

However, there's more to it than just that. From BOTH "remembrances" it's crystal clear that Crump meant to throw a bunker in on the left of #7 fairway logically next to and in front of this tee on #9. Part of the reason for this was to turn #7 into a real "double dogleg" par 5!

The second half of #7 was intended to be played well to the right of how the hole now plays. The entire left side of the fairway on the second half of the hole was intended to be turned into a rough waste area and the far right end of Hell's Half acre was intended to have an "ALPS" effect to it. This was all intended to force the proper play of the second shot well out to the right and if accomplished ideally the player was then in a postion to play his third shot right into the "orientation" of the length of #7 green which had been redone by Crump to "orient" out to the right side of the second half of the hole's fairway thereby accomplishing a real "double dogleg" hole.

There're many who believe that PVGC has definitely earned the right to be left completely alone architecturally and preserved as it was finished. I certainly largely concur with that sentiment. However, on a hole like #7 I truly believe they should carry through with EXACTLY what Crump wanted to do on #7--as the instructions in BOTH remembrances are crystal clear and making this hole into Crump's "Double Dogleg" would be truly awesome.

And I also know it sounds completely contradictory to say this but if it was not completely clear that this was George Crump's intention I would never dream of saying that something like this should be done now. But it was his intention, there's no doubt of it, and I believe because of that it's something the club should consider doing now.

As for the way #9 plays--it is the way Crump left it because he died before he finished what BOTH "remembrances" clearly say he wanted to do with this hole which was to turn it into much more of a dogleg left!

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

Here are some words by Gordon Brewer as quoted by Joe Logan in his article posted on a thread on this topic in December:

"....new back tees on three holes,stretching the 7th, 9th and 13th holes by 25-30 yards each. In addition, at the 9th and 18th, fairway bunkers will be expanded to take away landing areas on the right side that were favored by long bombers."

"We simply want the holes to play as they were designed," said O.Gordon Brewer,president of Pine Valley, downplaying the work.

"All courses have to recognize that the game today is different from the game as it was when these courses were designed many years ago," Brewer said.

Steve

[TEPaul]

Steve:

I saw Joe Logan's article but putting in those back tees is something that really is for golfers like some of those Crump Cuppers and a field such as PVGC had in 2002 with the Philadelphia Open where many of those players would've played those added yardage holes differently. PVGC has held very few outside tournaments over the years and the added length would not be something that would be much used by probably 95% of the players who play the course day in and day out. But for their annual Crump Cup it will do as Gordon Brewer said and get some of those holes playing a bit more like they were designed to be played.

[Brian_Gracely]

TEPaul,

How far will it be from the back tee on #7 to Hell's Half-Acre?  How long will the hole now play from that back tee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When GCGC was evaluating the lengthening of some holes, such as # 15, the consensus was, that it only benefited the LONG hitter, who was forced to lay up on that hole.

If the hole was lengthened 40-50 yards most golfers couldn't get close enough to the cross bunker to get home in two, but the long hitter could, especially into that severely sloped green.

My question is, is this process viewed primarily in a medal play context ?

[TEPaul]

The tee length addition on #13 will definitely help get the driver back in long hitter's hands and make that hole play more like it was designed by Crump to be played.

This hole also has an interesting story according to BOTH "remembrances". Crump apparently definitely intended to "connect" the 13th tee (with probably the additional tee length they just added) to the back of the 12th green by a 'gradual slope' and to also raise the tee up enough so that the driver could 'see the flag on #13 green from the tee.'

Just think about that--seeing the flag on the green from the tee!!! One would probably have a hard time today imagining that the way the hole is today! But if one looks carefully at some of the old aerials from the 1920s one can see that Crump cleared the entire left side of this hole HUGE!

If you lay a ruler on the left side of the hole on one of those old aerials from the tee to the green you can see the entire left side was cleared enough for a player's sight-line to the flag (perhaps 50 yards on the left side compared to today)!! One can also see that there's probably a good 150 yards distance from the fairway on #13 to the fairway on #15 so there was all kinds of room for that clearling and perhaps still a 100 yard wide tree barrier between the holes too!

I have no idea whether PVGC is aware of this or would consider clearing back today they way Crump planned this hole but if they did I think it would be absolutely awesome.

Just imagine the visual width the hole would have with this restored clearing on the left side. It'd make it trickier for a good player to key in visually off the tee with that kind of visual width and the flag waving off to the left (at which a player certainly COULD NOT hit is tee ball) might have that wonderful effect of pulling his aim at it (which I'm certain was Crump's intention). All this would frankly work just perfectly with the fact that much of that big wide fairway is raised enough, particularly from the left teeing area, for a golfer from the left tee to not be able to see that much of it---which again makes aiming the tee shot particularly tricky!!

Crump also had plans to throw an enormous carry bunker into the left side of this fairway into the upslope of what is now called "Holman's Hollow" that now takes tee shots that are weak and slightly left away sharply to the left and generally into the woods.

[TEPaul]

BrianG:

From the back tee before the recent tee length addition I believe the fairway ends at Hell's Half Acre at around 300 yards or a bit more. I've never actually stepped off how much real estate is behind the back tee but there's quite a lot before you run into the back patio and such of Ernie Ransome's old house. Frankly I don't know if the recent tee length addition is behind the right side tees or the left side tees. I hope it's the right because those are the tees and the angle Crump primarily wanted on that hole (double dogleg). I thought I heard they added about 40 yards to #7 and if so off the card that would take the tip length to about 620yds.

The thing about both par 5s at PVGC is they were designed by Crump with the hope they'd NEVER be hit in two shots!!

[Brian_Gracely]

TEPaul,

At 300yds, assuming PVGC is playing firm and fast, that probably isn't going to be a length that would encourage the top players to use the driver as many of them will probably find their balls rolled into HHA.  

And if the angle off the tee is require a more exacting shot, that will add to the decisions to go with 3wood.  This is obviously a longer club than a long iron, but the risk of going into HHA would be more than the reward of 10-30 extra yards.  

Now if there were a few small islands of fairway within HHA, that might entice the longest hitters.  I doubt that would ever happen.  Leave the true 3-shot Par5s alone!

[TEPaul]

Brian:

With the new length on #7 long hitters will most likely be able to hit driver without going into HHA. But the primary reason not to hit driver there will probably still be the same as it was before the recent length addition. It really doesn't much matter to long hitters on that tee what they hit off that tee since they know if they hit the fairway all they need to do next is put the second shot in the very large next fairway. Virtually noone no matter how long they are tries to reach that green in two simply because HHA begins too far back from the green.

This type of thing is one of the reasons that even if good long players play this hole exactly as they're supposed to the hole is somewhat one dimensional. This is another good reason Crump's plan for a real "double dogleg" would probably make the hole better than its been. In that case you're not talking only about length consideration options, you'd be talking about both length and direction options on the first two shots!!

[TEPaul]

Brian:

I don't believe the club would ever think to fool with HHA itself, nor should they---that bunkering area is just too famous. But if one carefully analyzes the way HHA used to be, particularly in the beginning of the course one can see that it was far more rugged than it is now and I believe one can also see that particularly the far right side of it used to actually be much more of the ALPS effect that Crump planned for on that hole and wanted to do (had he lived). Again, this hole as the true "double dogleg" he planned on would be a magnificent hole for a variety of reasons!

[Brian_Gracely]

TEPaul,

When you say that Crump had some intentions of making oneof the doglegs have Alps characteristics, do you think he meant that alot of the right side would need to be built up, or that the left side would be lowered?  Granted PVGC can afford any amount of dirt needed, but would this appear completely out of place?

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul & Pat Mucci:

Your perspective on #7 at Pine Valley is interesting and maybe even a good case can be made for it.

But, I'll leave that aside and merely point out that constructing a new tee clearly demostrates how ridiculous the golf technology arms race is. All the new tee does is take the hole back to what was originally designed. The so called technology "improvements" didn't help the golf hole, they just encouraged another change to offset the damage this technology did to the golf hole.

The game is the BALANCE between player skill, the ball and club equipment used and the configuration of the playing field.

Bigger isn't better as #7 at Pine Valley clearly demonstrates. The changes just get back to where the hole was previously before money was wasted on technology.

The game of golf is played by reasonably bright people. Why is it so hard for them - us all - to recognize the folly of the golf technology arms race?