[Greg Holland]

What I dont get is that this part is a factual assertion and easy to check.   Take a look at the photos Wayne posted, and go to google earth and check for yourself.   No question that many of the listed yardages in 1930 and in 1981 were way off. 

I saw this posted by someone on another board in a discussion about making yardage books.  I have no idea if it is true or not.


"A warning for using Google Earth:

I'll try to keep it short.

A map represents a 3D world, onto a 2D surface, you lose: Area, shape, distance, and/or direction. Depending on how you 'project' the data onto the surface, it can be more or less accurate in a specific location... Google use a Simple Cylindrical projection with a WGS84 datum. That means, that the map is pretty accurate near the equator, but as you move closer to the polls, you see a gradual decrease in accuracy, specifically with the measurement of area. You'd receive much higher accuracy if you used a projection and datum more suited for your specific location."

[Mike Golden]

I'm far from an expert at course design, history, or architecture but, having spend over 40 years in careers requiring an understanding of both accuracy AND precision, this entire premise is flawed.

Every measurement technique has an inherent accuracy (the comparison of a measured value using the technique vs. a known, calibrated standard) and an inherent precision (the repeatability of such measurements).  Attempting to make judgements based on comparing two unknown measurement techniques (the early 1900's method of determining distance vs. an estimate based on a Google map) has built in errors than cannot be assigned to either technique for the purpose of reaching a conclusion to support a theory.   Measurements made using Google maps have errors that have not been quantified;  even 99% accuracy still leaves 50-70 total yards in question and in reality the errors for this kind of measurement are probably much larger.

The only true way to make a reasonably accurate comparison would be to measure the golf course from the historical tees and the current tees using the same measurement technique, period.  If that is important to Merion or any other club there is certainly sufficient resources and data to allow this to happen.   Anything less than that is just a mechanism to argue about uncertain facts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

There are some other measurment issues, like do you take the tee shot to the natural dogleg and then to the green, or presume a certain distance tee shot, regardless of whether it falls somewhere past the dogleg.

Every time a course gets measured, it comes out a little different depending on method and assumptions like above.

I have measured courses and based on my limited experience, I would wager that north of 50% of the courses in this country have padded the yardage.  I can recall being shocked back in the 70's at seeing some RTJ championship course plans for courses listed as 7000 yards that were measured from back of tee to back of green to attain that magic number.

[DMoriarty]

As I have said in the past, The Alan Wilson article addresses most these issues, including how to consistently measure doglegs.   It is his "contour method" that I take issue with.

Mike Golden, I understand what you are saying and agree generally, but what I question is the methodology.  Using the same flawed methodology to measure two different vintages of the course  would tell us absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the methodology. 

In fact this is exactly Wayne Morrison's mistake when he claims a degree of accuracy in the 1930 distances by comparing them to the 1981 distances.   Since the same faulty methodology was apparently still being used (at least in part) the comparison tells us nothing about the accuracy of the measures of either period.

In case you or others missed it, what they were doing was measuring along the contours of the ground, rather than in straight segments between the tee and hole (or between the tee, the elbow of the dogleg, then hole.)   

It is like using  1/2 the circumference of a circle as a measure of its diameter.   

And we are not talking small errors here.   We are talking errors that were sometimes 10% or more on individual holes.   That means a 450 yard par 4 might really only have been 400 yards.   

[Adam Clayman]

Shocking news, people overstate their yardage. What would one expect from a sport that involves balls and shaft's and has historically been predominately a men's game?

David has stated that, because of exaggerations in early GCA measuring, modern monstrosities are too big because they were based on BS numbers and mindsets. Where does it go from there David?

[wsmorrison]

David Moriarty,

You do not know how Merion's measurements were made.  You cite one of two articles Alan Wilson wrote on the subject and you assume to know how the measurements were made.  What proof do you have?  You also presume to tell me that I used yardages from 1981.  Not only did I not say that, I told you I was using today's yardages from a scorecard that came out several DAYS ago.

Nor did I ever claim a degree of accuracy between 1930 and today.  I presented information that clearly shows to nearly everyone but yourself, that the numbers are within a reasonable ratio to each other.  The several hundreds of yards of discrepancy is in your mind not in reality.  Just like you exaggerated that Jones hit consistently 300 yards and more in 1930.  He did it a few times and on holes that were downhill and under firm and fast conditions.  I agree with you and Jim Sullivan that the markings on the 10th hole are not accurate.  That doesn't make your whole case true.  There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.  You choose not to consider it.  It is no wonder that you push people away.  You show little regard for them or their information.  Why should we work so hard to convince you of anything?  Your mind is made up and you distort and ignore to support that mindset.  It is obvious. 

I welcome new information you may provide.  I am not emotionally invested in the first iteration of Merion, I applaud its rapid and continued remodeling over the next 20+ years.  So if you do find out something new and it attains a higher standard of proof and better reasoning than you have demonstrated so far, great.  I have my doubts that you will.  It will only delight you that much more if you are proved correct.  You fail to realize that we are not wedded to myths and oral traditions.  Your analysis leads you to other conclusions with so far much less support than others have presented you.  According to Pat, that will change.  I for one am ready to consider whatever it is you think you have.  I am not ready to concede your ability to draw the right conclusions. 

[JESII]

All I am suggesting is that reading that number "300" at the elbow right by the green to mean that the nearest (to the tee) part of the number "3" is 300 yards from the tee is probably not quite right, on our part.

If you pay attention to how the "300" is written it makes sense to me that the measurement was not a straight line to that point from the tee. The "300 is facing out in the fairway at a wide berth from the straight shot.

I don't know much about contour measuring versus straight line measuring but Bryan Izatt seemed pretty confident that the numbers would not change dramatically...certainly not as much as the difference between half of a circumference and the diameter...

Either way...what does any of it mean? I hope it's more than "Alan Wilson was a poor measurer and should probably not have been writing articles on it in the Green Section reports".

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty,

You do not know how Merion's measurements were made.  You cite one of two articles Alan Wilson wrote on the subject and you assume to know how the measurements were made.  You also presume to tell me that I used yardages from 1981.  Not only did I not say that, I told you I was using today's yardages from a scorecard that came out several DAYS ago.

One of your recent posts:

"Wayne,

Just for clarity, the "Today" distances that you list are today's members back tees of 6458 where the 1981 US Open would have been roughly played, correct? Not the new US Open tees which sound like they fall somewhere between 6900 and 7000."

Thanks, I should have clarified that.

If the members tees are the same as in 1930, except as you listed above, then many of the listed distances were still wrong as of a few days ago.   

Nor did I ever claim a degree of accuracy between 1930 and today.  I presented information that clearly shows to nearly everyone but yourself, that the numbers are within a reasonable ratio to each other.  The several hundreds of yards of discrepancy is in your mind not in reality.

If the two periods rely on the same flawed methodology, or if the later numbers rely on the earlier, then you have only proven that today's members tees are still wrong.   

If I am the only one who sees this then I am the only one paying attention. 

[TEPaul]

"Either way...what does any of it mean?"

My sentiments exactly, Sully, but I can pretty much guarantee you if it goes on another page or so all it will mean is just another David Moriarty thread of ME, ME, ME and how everyone is being so rude and unfair to him.

[wsmorrison]

You don't know how Merion's measurements were made in 1912, 1930, 1981, today or any time in between.  You presume to know.  For you to present your findings as if you do is improper.

No matter the measurement processes, the numbers aren't dramatically different as you tried to portray.  Yet you say in a previous post that according to your recent investigation the modern numbers seem to be more accurate.  Huh?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

It is like using  1/2 the circumference of a circle as a measure of its diameter.   

And we are not talking small errors here.   We are talking errors that were sometimes 10% or more on individual holes.   That means a 450 yard par 4 might really only have been 400 yards.   

I think that your analogy of circles, circumferences and diameters is off base as an analogy to along the ground measurement.  As an example, your analogy would work with a 50 yard high hill with a real 100 yard horizontal distance (100 yard diameter and 50 yard radius).  The diameter is 100 yards.  Measuring along the ground on the hypothetical semi-circular hill would give you 157 yards.  But then who has ever seen any hill on a course that goes up and down 50 yards (150 feet) in 100 yards. 

Perhaps you meant to say "chords" and "arcs" if you want to use a circle analogy.  There is no way that circumference and 1/2 diameter would in any way reflect the real world.  Arcs and chords might.

In any event, I guess you're rejecting my assertion in post #17 that the differences in measurement are minimal unless you're measuring up and down the sides of cliffs.

As a challenge to you, why don't you (and your playing partners) try pacing off (or use a laser if you have one) the 15th at Rustic (from the furthest back left cut of the teeing area to the front edge of the back right trap) and I'll measure it using Google.  There's a fair rise there, so according to your theory the ground paced distance should be significantly greater.

To the other Google Earth Distance Accuracy Doubters,

Last year when we had this debate, I measured several football fields using Google Earth and the measurement was exactly on 100 yards.  I have also measured my home course using Google Earth and using a (much reviled) laser range finder.  Google Earth is accurate (assuming we're not going to get silly and debate whether that is to 1% or .1% or whatever).  For the purposes of measuring and debating golf course distances it is accurate.

[Bryan Izatt]

JES,

I think the 300 marker is just mis-placed.  Even going up the middle of the fairway and then turning isn't 300 yards to any part of the "300" marker.  For perspective 300 yards straight up the fairway would get you to about the middle of the road.

[Bryan Izatt]

I know we can't get Wayne and David to agree on anything, but rather than going round and round on generalities of mis-measurement, why don't we agree on one hole where there is apparently an egregious difference between current distance and 1930 distance, preferably on a relatively straight hole so we don't get bogged down on turning points on doglegs, and then measure it with Google.  David, which hole do you think is most mis-stated?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  my analogy was  not to suggest exact proportions, but rather as a metaphor to explain what the

You don't know how Merion's measurements were made in 1912, 1930, 1981, today or any time in between.  You presume to know.  For you to present your findings as if you do is improper.

No matter the measurement processes, the numbers aren't dramatically different as you tried to portray.  Yet you say in a previous post that according to your recent investigation the modern numbers seem to be more accurate.  Huh?

Again Wayne, what I said was that I rechecked some of the distances from the 6800 yard US Amateur tees, and they appear to be more accurate.  For example, they list the 10th as only 303 yards from a tee that probably was built some time in the last 20 or 30 years, according to two posters with experience on the course.

Again, Wayne, when was the back tee built?   
______________

Bryan, 

I understand what you are saying, but my analogy was not meant to suggest a degree of error, but was simply meant to illustrate a concept that many seem to be missing.   I don't know if throwing in chords or arcs would have helped clarify.  Perhaps I should have used a saucer, but that is harder to picture for me. 

I like your idea of measuring a hole and have been suggesting it myself.   I suggest the 18th, as it is a pretty straight hole with rolling terrain.   Alan Wilson's article calls for measuring from the middle of the back tee to the center of the green.    The location of the back tee in 1930 is visible in the Jones photos, above.   If you want, I will try to post an old overlay I did on an earlier version of google earth where the tees are more visible.  I just need to remember how. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

OK, let's try the 18th.  Wayne's pictures list the yardage in 1930 at 455 yards and Wayne says the current yardage is 463.

The tees are very clear on Google.  I have trouble matching the starting point from the 1930 picture to today's tee block.  The bunkers right of the 17th green and the 17th green itself are not evident in the 1930 picture as a reference point.  Do you know where the 1930 tee was on the current tee block? Or, only by overlaying the old picture on the current?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

From the back tee on # 18 at Merion today, in 1930 there wasn't a Pro in the world who could make the carry to the fairway.

[JESII]

For the reasons Bryan stated (no reference points to 17 green) it is tough to say, but that tee on #18 looks a hell of alot closer to the fairway than the back tee I have played (not the newest back tee) which is parallel to the middle of the 17th green.

[TEPaul]

The old original 18th tee probably from 1930 was in the 450s range. In the last ten years the club added a new back tee in the 480s and then a few years later another back tee of over 500.

And I still fail to see the purpose of this subject. I very much doubt the contention on here that Merion's actual course distance was off by hundreds of yards is accurate.

Furthermore, if one wants to find the actual distance of the old back tees at Merion the best thing to do is measure it on the ground and not by some Googleearth yardstick.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

The back tee in the 1930 Aerial is nowhere near the 17th green.  It is hidden in the shadows a bit, but if you zoom in you can sort of make it out. 



Try at least 30 yards in front of the first tee by the 17th green. 

If one looks at the 1930 aerial of the 17th closely, one can see that the tee next to those two bunkers was not there in 1930.   

I quick measure gives me less than 420, from the very back of the tee. 

[DMoriarty]

And I still fail to see the purpose of this subject. I very much doubt the contention on here that Merion's actual course distance was off by hundreds of yards is accurate.

Furthermore, if one wants to find the actual distance of the old back tees at Merion the best thing to do is measure it on the ground and not by some Googleearth yardstick.

Tom,  the actual course distance was off by hundreds of yards.   In fact, if the 1930 aerials accurately show the location of the tees, then the distances were off by over 300 yards.

If you'd like to check the google earth numbers with survey equipment, I welcome it.  But measurements answer this question, not speculation. 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Here's my overlay.  I agree that the starting point of the Jones' lines is in the shadows short of the 17th green. 

From that point, point "D" in my picture, I measure the hole at 415 yards.  For reference a 455 yard tee would have been at point "C" on my picture.  The current yardage of 463 yards would be where I've marked  point "B".  And, the new, way, way, back tee is 505 yards.

In the end, does this prove that the hole was mis-measured in 1930?  I don't think the point is proven.  Just as likely is that the graphic artist placed the starting point in the wrong place.  I notice that on the 17th tee the starting point of the Jones' line is at the very front edge of the teeing area.  The hole is listed as 215 yards in the old pictures, but is only 189 yards (a full 25 yards shorter) from where the  lines start.  So, is that  a mis-measure?  Or, did the artist get sloppy with the starting point?  Or, is the distance really 215, if played from the back third of the teeing area and they just played the tees up those two days.  The same possibilities exist at 18.

I am fairly certain that the discrepancy between the listed yardage of 455 yards and a yardage of 415 yards from where the Jones' lines start cannot be accounted for by your theory of ground measurement as opposed to straight line measurement.  The only way to verify that would be to walk that line with a measuring wheel.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

My measures are based upon the tees, not from the exact end point on the photographs.  In almost all the photographs the actual tees are visible.   The artist definitely missed the tee on the 17th, but on most of the photos the lines start from the middle or back of the tee.

With regard to the 18th.   Take a look in the old picture at the area next to 17th green even with between the two bunkers.   This is the location of your B and C tee in your measurement.  There is what appears to be a mound where the tee eventually got built.   No Tee.

Let me put it this way:

If the 1930 photograph shows the actual back tee, then did the hole measure 450 yards?   465 yards?   Or did it measure 415 yards?

I am fairly certain that the discrepancy between the listed yardage of 455 yards and a yardage of 415 yards from where the Jones' lines start cannot be accounted for by your theory of ground measurement as opposed to straight line measurement.  The only way to verify that would be to walk that line with a measuring wheel.

Next time you play it, could you do that for us??   

The error seems to be about 10%.  The ground is very rolling, and the distance would be well off before the get to the fairway.   Perhaps it was a combination of course pride and a flawed measuring methodology, but the measure is way off, at least if photographic evidence is to be believed.

[JESII]

Not so fast David,

The area to the right of the right greenside bunkers on #17 looks to me like a constructed and maintained area. It does not look like a "mound where the tee eventually got built"...

Another thing, this "ground is very rolling" thought is interesting, and I would have assumed that rolling terrain like #18 at Merion would make more of a difference than Bryan has mathematically illustrated it does, but it doesn't. In other words, the ground is not so rolling as to make a 10% difference in measurement based on the numbers Bryan has laid out.

It is a very slow steady climb up to the fairway from the 18th tee, but probably no mre than 30 feet total over a 200 yard stretch. From there the fairway does a bit of a roller coaster with a 40 foot drop, a 30 foot rise, a 10 foot drop and a 15 foot rise in the final 220 yards. Not sure how that formula works out, but the very simple explanation to your issue with respect to #18 is that the artist started from the wrong teeing ground.

[TEPaul]

Sully or Bryan:

Do either of you know what the point of this is? Bryan, I agree with you, when it comes to Jones the guy who put those shots on there may've just done some of them from the wrong place. I can see a back tee on one of the aerials (1930) in one of GeoffShac's books that's right next to the first bunker to the right of #17 green, for God's sakes. That is definitely no 415. It's probably more like 445. In any case, the best way to shoot the real yardage is to go get the damn laser and go to that spot right next to that bunker and shoot the distance.

[DMoriarty]

Jim

Perhaps we are not looking in the exact same location. The area between the bunkers and around the bunkers looks maintained but to the right of that is a dark green blob with lots of shadow lines, which looks like a mound or some other patch of rough ground.   It looks nothing like a tee.   Look at Bryan's posted photo for the location of the tee.


I understand Bryan's point and it is well taken, but in practice I don't think it holds.  So long as they were trying to measure along the ground, by the contour method, a 10% error seems entirely reasonable.   Have you ever used a measuring wheel?   They are notoriously inaccurate because they exaggerate the measurement every nook, cranny and bump they pass over, and also because the user must walk a straight line.  Another way to measure on the ground is by pacing, but this too is very inaccurate especially because of the tendency to shorten our gait when walking up or down hills.   If they were using surveying equipment, then they were not following Alan Wilson's described methodology.    The contour method is akin to measuring by laying a rope on the ground.  T   here is bound to be some slack.
_______________________________


TEPaul,  I explained above the point above, a few times.

I am looking at the 1924 aerial and you must have miraculous eyesight if you can really make out a tee in the location you described in the photo from Geoff's fine book.      Perhaps you will fore caddy for me when I collect on the round at Merion I am going to win from Wayne?   While I tend to find my topped shots hit with hickories, I occassionally spray the ball with modern equipment and with your eyes I am sure you could find anything. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()