[TEPaul]

Merion Lurker:

Thanks so much for coming on here and posting your opinions. As far as I'm concerned you may be the first true idenifiable Merion member to do so (except a few that we definitely know).

Everything you said should be seriously considered on this site. I'm amazed, and somewhat stunned if you really did read all that has been written on these threads. Some of it, in my personal opinion, is definitely not worth reading. It would be benefical and instructive to any club, even Merion, if somehow we could stick to architecture and the analysis of it, but I guess that just doesn't happen on the Internet.

At the risk of admonishment, again, from Rich Goodale (a good contributor) I really wish this character BarnyF would surf on down the net to wherever he was going before he found this website. Remarks like his "penis envy" crap about Fazio really isn't needed around here! To date I cannot remember BarnyF making a single cogent and sensible remark about golf course architecture!

But I'm fascinated and genuinely interested in what you said about the "playability" of the bunkers comparing the old with the new. You said you felt the old bunkers were "easier" to play out of. Do you really mean that? Was the sand and playability of the unrestored bunker really more consistent than the new ones are? Were they really easier to play out of? Does the "inconsistent" playability of the new bunkers really make you feel that they should be avoided at all costs and more so than the old bunkers?

You see, bunkering is a good architect's vehicle and tool of strategic creation and expression and almost all on here believe that bunkering should have a "playability" that gives the golfer incenitive and reason to avoid them at all costs. So that is truly an interesting report of yours about how the new bunkers play.

Just one more serious question for tonight though. You mentioned that the old bunkering of Merion had gotten to the point of needing serious repair. Do you understand the distinction and difference between the relatively simple task of reparing the drainage in those old bunkers and also doing some "sand" repair as well, and the far more complex and questionable project of ripping apart that part of the Merion bunkers we call the "surrounds"? The "surrounds" are all of the bunkering at Merion that is not sand. So many of the contributors on this site felt that the "surrounds" are the part of the Merion bunkers that were the true character of the "White Faces" of Merion.

The sand of the bunkering is really a simple matter and the coloring of it is not a difficult matter to control either. But those "surrounds", Merion lurker, were the part of the "white faces" that had taken all those decades to get to look that "natural" and good! And the club ripped them out and built something new and quite different. Maybe what they built that's so new will come to look like those beautiful old "surrounds" again someday, although that's questionable, but the question is what was so wrong with those beautiful old "surrounds" and why did they have to touch them too?

Drainage and sand work is quite simple to do (and sand coloration too). But those "surrounds" are so hard to recreate and require so much handwork as well.

So, my very simple question to you is this: Why did they have to touch those "surrounds"? What was wrong with them in your opinion? Do you know how beautiful they were, or didn't you feel that they were? Did you think they had gotten to the point of such disrepair too that they had to be ripped apart and totally discarded?

Basically, it's the "surrounds" that made the "White Faces" of Merion what they were. Please tell me why they too had to be redone. They had taken so long to get to look that good to many of us. Do you personally feel that they were really "falling apart"?

No accusatory remarks here, just simple and basic architectural questions. Thanks again for coming on here and I hope you answer these few questions. Some of them are the essence and crux of all this discussion about the Merion bunker project all this time!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Barny F,
I would like to address your accusations of my being "offhanded" and "ill-informed."

First off, I have yet to see you bring up one sensible post on golf architecture other then retorting to others peoples posts. Give me some facts. Educate me why these bunkers are so much better then the old famed bunkers that have left such an undeniable impression on a person such as myself, a person who relishes the stuff.

What do you know about the old bunkers? Are you really a member and are just using a psuedo? Have you ever really been to Merion? What did you think of the original bunkers and which was your favorite one? Do you understand the history and the process that made the bunkers so great, and do you know the reasons why they were changed?

Give me some substance to make me go away on this subject or at least change my opinion. You fancey yourself as an intellect, well, lets hear some intellectual reasoning why I'm so wrong. This of course takes facts and knowledge of what was there to begin with. I'm not neccesarily talking of how many times you have played the course, but how much you have studied it up close and from afar.

Yes, I may have been to Merion only two times**, but I have studied and read of Merion for so many years and value the course in a relative like fashion. Why would someone like myself risk ever being excluded from playing there again to take such a hard line stance?

(**Counting the time I made my ride take me back by there on the way to the airport, just to see her again.)

Barney, It is unfortunate, but so far you are starting to sound an awfully a lot like "BY," hiding behind the screen of that computer.

Merion Lurker,
I think it is a great honor for you to be a member at what I feel is one of the greatest courses in the history of this game. Hearing your experiences at the famed club will only better these discussions and I encourage you to post as often as you can.

I too love the history of the game and just exactly where Merion takes its place in it.  Just like you, I think that anyone that would want to change that clubhouse is equally uninformed. But unfortunately this decision making that has gone on with the East Course is the same decsion making that will more then likely modernize the clubhouse in the future. This project has more then sealed that fate. It's unfortunate that so many want to leave there mark isn't it?

There are many things I have not attacked in my diatribes, but I do feel that this whole debacle is the result of some, not all of the members wanting to distance themselves from one of the games great characters--Bill Kittleman.

They can change the bunkers all they want, but they will never take away the gifted and unselfish talent that Mr. Kittleman bestowed upon the club. I'm afraid that this bunker project had a lot more to do with firing Bill Kittleman again and allowing the biggest name in modern golf architecture take over. After all, he was doing the project for free, correct? I don't think there is a person that knows Bill K. that can tell you of the passion he has for the East Course. In truth, there maybe no one more knowledgable about it.

As for the clubhouse at Merion, I have three places in my life where I have stood and experienced an epiphany of sorts.

They are:
-Behind second base at Dodger Stadium. It was there I realized just how great the game of baseball really is, despite all of the high salaries and multi-million dollar egos.

-In front of one of those old steel lockers inside the Merion's mens locker room.

The vision turned into a sepia-toned picture of Hugh Wilson standing on the top balcony, smiling down on me. The suns rays were peaking through all of the heat and humidity, into the windows and giving off shadows that Steven Speilberg couldn't assimilate. I felt as if I was transported back in time.

-In the R&A parking lot with the right side driver's door open to my rental car, standing with mouth gaping lot at one of the the most perfect picture my eyes have ever seen--The Old Course.

This is where I realized how great the game is in it's most natural "evolved" state.

Merion East wasn't too far behind it.

[BarnyF]

Tommy,

I only respond to state that I am not a member of Merion and have never played there or anywhere in the northeastern United States.  I would be happy to join Merion if they would have me and if I could afford any terms we might agree on.

One reason I would join a club like Merion is that to your dismay it is not a museum.  I enjoy going to the St. Louis Art Museum and looking at the furniture displays set behind ropes and I admire the craftsmanship of days gone by, but if you look carefully the beds are too short and the chairs too small for a majority of modern men.  I don't need to talk about the advances of modern golf technology and if they are good or bad all I know is that they do exists and if you are going to have a golf course and not a museum you need to deal with it.

Quoting Tom Doak from The Anatomy of a Golf Course "The good player can be aggressive in attacking the hole near a bunker when he is confident of getting up and down from the bunker even if he should find it." Given the fact that there is little dispute to the argument that modern technology has made shorter courses like Merion less chalenging than before I think making the bunkers more difficult to offset the technology is a good thing.  Make the player who is hitting less club into a green have the same fears a player had in the past and you preserve good architecture not destroy it.

As Tom Doak has said "It is important that the student of architecture understands the forces of change constantly at work within the game, because as the playing of golf changes, so must the interpretation of every course which already exists. Indeed, the history of golf architecture is defined by changes in equipment, course conditioning, and playing technique, which have forced architects to alter the demands of their designs."

I believe this is what the membership of Merion has done and I applaud the courage it must have taken to achieve.

[TEPaul]

BarnyF:

Maybe it's Augusta National that you should try to join--your archtitectural thinking would probably fit in with their architectural philosophy very well.

My feeling is you're making architectural assumptions (based on your understanding of technology advances) about Merion without really understanding the golf course.

You see, it's possible and very likely that Merion has the type of architecture and some design features that can offer a defense against modern advanced technology just fine--and the course may not really need to add additional total yardage to up that defense. They have maxed the place out now on all but probably about one or two holes anyway.

So your characterization of Merion as a "museum piece" is probably far from accurate.

But here's a question for you. Why do you think the "surrounds" of the old bunkers needed to be redone or even touched? That's most of the issue here. Maybe they did look like museum pieces, but so what? Unless you just don't like museum pieces.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Well said Tom Paul.

Barney, I have met in person exactly two members from Merion. One of them an exceptional golfer and the other of an exceptional character. Guess which one "got it" and which one didn't?

I don't see what would be wrong with a golf course being a museum piece, especially Merion. I also don't compare Merion to a bed or chair from an age gone by. I respect it for a golf course that stood the test of time (At least until the year 2000) and like a fine wine, got better with age. (once again everyone, 1,2,3....."It evolved!")

Merion's green committee at one time experessed concern over the Hanse/Kittleman bunkers being too difficult because of the taller grasses. (A view of these grasses can be seen in the above picture I took in May of last year.) The concern of a top amateur player's golf ball being swalloed up in those grasses became a concern. Doesn't this equate to the bunkers becoming more of a penalty and the course becoming tougher for the stronger player who risks challenging them?

If not then, what led to Gil and Bill's dismissal?

I just don't think you are conceptionalizing just how strong of a golf course the East Course was before any of this remodel took place. Also given the fact if the course really wanted to play EVEN tougher, is go back to the hard fast and firm specifications that the course was originally designed to.

(Please, anyone that has played the East Course comment on that!)

I'm sitting here typing this stuff about Merion East, and just absolutely in amazment of how great a golf course it is. I don't think that there is a person that knows me that can't vouch for my love of the place.

Pat Mucci is correct in asking what was the mission statment of these committee members, because it obvious that there was a group of members that did this thing as they went along and totally in the dark. They did it for all of the political reasons and not for how the course has evolved into the classic that it is. I think this question may give the truest answer as to what has happened.

All of this for a US Open Championship that will never happen, simply because of room to house the hoopla of the event.

Barney, I urge you to go back into the GCA archives and see how I and others, last year in the spring exulted in the strength of Merion the golf course as it existed and how it is fully capable of challenging the top players in the world.

Especially if it is during a hot, humid, and windless week. Something I know a lot about!

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I know that Barny has been a naughty little puppy from time to time, and my have even pooed on Merion's carpet, so to speak, but asking him to try to search the GCA archives is cruel and inhuman punishment for anybody, man or dog.  Recant or I shall report you to the ACLU and the SCPA.

Rich

PS--Of course, if you have those archives at hand and can bring them forward, I would love to see them as they predated my stay here and I would like to learn a little more about this subject.

[Mike_Cirba]

Barny,

If the intent of the Merion bunker project were to create more difficult hazards and thus, a more challenging course, I would understand;  I would understand EVEN if that resultant work destroyed the heretofore incredible "look" and psychological trauma of the bunkers.

However, that is not the case by a long stretch.

This little tidbit may not have been published in the article, and it's doubtful that it was mentioned at this stage, but my very strong sense is that the original idea behind the bunker recreation was to "CLEAN UP" the bunkers.  

Almost all of the early discussion of the project that I heard dealt not with any 1930 "restoration", and certainly not any effort to make them play more "hazardous".

Yes, all along there were the well-stated concerns with drainage and sand quality; work DID need to be done, no question.  The question of the bunkers "caving in", however, just stretches the imagination.  Barny..or anyone...have you ever seen any bunker ANYWHERE cave in without the impetus of a flood or earthquake???

Instead, there seemed to be a sense that given the inconsistent, and yes, PENAL nature of the old bunkers, particularly with the love grass and funky surrounds, that, as Jeff Brauer stated, they may take more than one shot to escape.

Well, heaven forbid!  More than one shot to escape a hazard!  What could be worse?

I believe that a big part of the rationale for the bunker project was to make them more "playable" and "FAIR", particularly for everyday member play.  

Ask Jack Nicklaus if the old bunkers played too easy.

[JamieS]

Mike, et al,

Let me in the first sentence say that I prefer the older look to the newer, and wish that the bunkers could've  been restored/repaired without it looking like they were ever touched in the first place, but...with that being said...

I've been purposely quiet on this issue, but after reading the previous posts, I'll give my two cents worth. After being introduced to the greatness that is Merion, a few years ago, I can fully appreciate the views and concerns of all above.  There is a charm and mystique about the place that is very hard to describe, but very easy to love.

I don't want to rehash much of the above, it has been covered ad nauseum, but as for the bunkers becoming more "playable and fair", I would disagree strongly that it was a main reason for restoration.

The project was about half completed when I last played Merion in May. I think some of the newer bunkering is actually more difficult than before. It seemed to me that many were a little deeper than they used to be, and I think the newer sand is also a bit more difficult. I hit enough poor shots in a few days to visit both versions of the bunkers, and from my recollection, difinitely, the harder shots I faced were from the newer versions.

I understand the outcry of many GCA'ers, but the fact remains that something had to be done, they were in need of repair. Whether the extent of repair that took place will be good in the long run remains to be seen. I trust that a club such as Merion will "get it" right. Although, I'm sure some above will disagree... the committee, and membership at Merion, know what they have is a treasure, and I'm sure that they, as much as anyone here, wants the best for the course in the long run.

I realize that the bunker surrounds are very different from what was there previously, but upon closer inspection the "faces" were in need of work. I don't know how many of the critics have played Merion in the past year. Many of the areas of repair could only be seen from up close, not from a photo, not from a car window. There were many areas in the bunkers that had become infested with tunneling bees/wasps. This had to be a problem for members. I recall some bunkers with many, many holes riveting the faces and bees all over the place. While this is only a small reason for work to be done, I'm sure it was one of a cumulation of many factors that led to the final decisions.

As for the surrounds, we'll see over time what becomes, but I don't think that what you see currently is the finished project. If in fact, by the time the US Am rolls around in 2005, there is no discernable difference between what you see now and what you will see then...

Then...
the critics can make a better case. Until some time passes...let's just keep our eyes open and see what nature or architect reveals.

In the meantime, let's enjoy the other "fruits of the restoration": wider fairways, bigger greens, faster, firmer playing conditions, which will undoubtedly lead to more strategic choices for golfers of every level. This cannot be a bad thing.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jamie,

Thanks for sharing your informed opinion.  I also saw some of the problems you described up close last year (i.e. nests in the bunkers between 11 & 12), and agree that work had to be done.

I've also seen the new bunkers up close.  The newer, softer sand has yet to settle in many of them so I can see them playing a bit more iffy for the time being.  Some also seem deeper, and I think the best new bunker is the one to the left of the 11th green which is an improvement on the "temporary" one that existed last year.  

I hope someday they can regain the rugged look, unpredictable playability, and integration with nature, as I'm sure you do.  Looking at the way they were constructed, however, I think that may take a lot longer than you and I may see in our lifetimes.  I wish I felt differently, because there is no golf course on the planet I feel more emotionally about.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jamie,
Very well said.

I agree with everything with the exception of the bunkers being the same come Am time. They may look the same to the casual observer, but to those of us that know......

Bees and Wasps? Yikes! That would have to be one of the most dagnerous hazards in the game wouldn't it?

[TEPaul]

Very good and level-headed posts in the last day or so! Very informative too. It seems almost everything that would ever need to be known, is now known. It seems that this entire two year discussion on the Merion bunkers is and should be winding to a close. Who knows, maybe even Pat is about to find that mission statement.

So without further ado, I'd like to say, as did the great Durante; "Goodnight Mrs. Callabash, wherever you are!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I certainly hope so.

The Mission Statement, or its equivalent is the linch pin to understanding what took place, from concept, through design and construction, to the finished product.

Hopefully, with time, more will be known, and with time hopefully we'll see honest, unbiased evaluations, internally and externally.

But I'm not ready to announce, case closed until that information surfaces.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're not ready to announce case closed until that information surfaces?

Remember what old Adlai said to the Russian Ambassador to the United Nations?

'Sir, I'm prepared to wait for your answer until Hell freezes over.'

Are you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I do have other things to do in the meantime.

What's been lost in our discussion about the bunkers is the other aspects of the project, the tree removal, green enlargement and fairway widening.  

It is important that other clubs become aware that Merion has removed an abundance of trees and widened their fairways.
This creates the positive domino effect, sending the signal to other clubs that look to the Merion's of the world, that these types of endeavors are worthwhile and should be embarked upon at their respective clubs.

[TEPaul]

And if you will notice Pat, that's exactly what I've been saying in the exact same specific detail on these threads for about one year now!

But it seems like some people just aren't listening or they just don't want to hear it!

They want to take Merion to task for the bunker restoration portion of their restoration project and overlook some of the other impactful things that may happen and may be happening.

They say that Merion may even be flying by the seat of their pants on this entire restoration project and just letting it evolve as things go along. Some members have even appeared to complain that they're in the dark and they aren't sure how all this evolved or where it's leading.

You say if they don't have a mission statement they can't do much right or else noone can ever tell if they got what they wanted in the first place.

I don't know if they can or not. All I know is that as far as I'm concerned the proof will be in the product and anyone can see that on the ground and analyze it too when they play the course.

It's possible that Merion may have started with the bunker project and then just went on to take the course back to some of it's original playabilities with expanded fairways and increased firmness through the greens. It may even be possible that Merion took some of their ideas on those other improvements and restoration planning from this odd-ball website called Golfclubatlas, since those suggestions have been made on here quite regularly for about 2 1/2 years now. It is certainly known that members of Merion's green committee regularly read Golfclubatlas.

I think too that some of the things in the works and some of the things planned can be really great for Merion and also send an excellent message to the world of golf about some restoration practices just because it's Merion. I would still like to know why they had to touch those bunker "surrounds" and have asked countless times--but still no answer. Maybe they just don't really know--maybe that too just evolved with their planning!

But feeling and then seeing these other things coming is one of the primary reasons I've been saying let's not bash Merion senseless and into defensiveness--let's see if we can start to speak with them and share some ideas. Again, I would love it if some of the "powers" would get on here and start a dialoque of research and information. I would love it when the time comes when they feel they can do that without getting slammed!

I think it's just better for everyone that way.

I think you're starting to come around to focusing on some to the potential positives that may be comeing up, so please Pat, let's stay out of their internal affairs and let's cool it on this mission statement. Let's focus on architecture and research!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

But, wIthout the Mission Statement it is difficult to understand the intent, scope and results of the project, in the context of what they were trying to achieve and why.

[T_MacWood]

Who gives a crap about a mission statement? The results speak for themselves. Do we need to know what Hitler's mission statement was in order to judge the results of his evil?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Great analogy, don't know how I missed that one  

The final product may not be crap, in the context of the original intent, that's why you need to find out what they intended from the very begining.  

We know what Hitler intended from the begining, hence no mystery to his MASTER PLAN.

Do you know what Merion intended, what their MASTER PLAN was ?  And, did they succeed in implementing their plan ?

TEPaul,

A friend of mine who is a long time Merion member called me today.  He explained that one of the things the committee was trying to accomplish was the reestablishment of the chipping areas, in the hope that in returning the golf course to 1930, it would also include playing stymies, which, as you know were abolished in 1951.

You know that Gil Hanse also tried to do the same thing at Applebrook, as I overheard him say so to Ed Abram's, when Ed posed a question about the area around a green we were standing on.  I believe you were standing near Ed and Gil when they had that exchange.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You and I need to talk. I think I'm starting to see the light and agree with you that the elimination of the elimination of the stymie just might save the world!

[T_MacWood]

Pat
What has Hitler's mission statement? And what bearing does his mission statement have on our judgement of the results? The results speak for themselves, irrespective of any mission statement.

The time to worry about the mission statement is at the beginning of the project. Then you can say, that is a wise and acceptable mission or that is an idiotic unwise mission. After that initial judgement you can go on to judge if they succeeded in fulfulling their mission, which may or may not be futile excercize based on your view the original mission.

At this point the only reason you would want to determine what the mission statement was, is if you are interested in 1)evaluating if the mission was ill advised to begin with or 2)if they met their mission or not.

Neither of which is important when evaluating if the work is ultimately good or bad -- it ain't going to reverse the damage or improvements.

The question is not what is the mission statement, the question is are the results good or bad. And the answer to that question has been mostly bad with a few lets wait and see, time may help improve the results, because Merion would never do anything to hurt their course and of course one or two who cares because I'm a blind Fazio supporter and you fellas are only jealous.

I'm still pissed I didn't get the Shadow Creek project.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Hitler knew there were secret summit conferences between the Allies as early as 1939, mostly in Scotland and New York.

He knew that the sole purpose of these secret meetings was an attempt by the Allies to abolish the stymie.

This outraged him, and set him off in his quest to conquer and rule the world, and preserve the stymie.

Hitler was a closet golfer, only playing golf in his bedroom closet.

"Heil", in certain German dialects is a euphemism for "Save the Stymie".  

Able to persuade many to his cause,  
the phrase "Heil Hitler" became their rally cry.

Either the reconstructed bunkers at Merion look like their 1930 predecessors or they don't.  If they don't, why don't they ?  
The answer to that may be in the "Process",
Was it the committee intent, the architects design or the contractors interpratation ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I'm glad you have dropt your mission statement nonsense. Now you need to work on this 1930 nonsense -- if you believe that 1930 was the goal or should have been the goal, I've got some land in NJ I think you might be interested in.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I have no problem with Merion selecting 1930 as their target year, provided they remained true to that restoration date, with the exception of tee locations.

If they selected 1924 I would have no problem with that date either.

I don't see anything wrong with a club picking a significant target date for their restoration project goal.

I feel GCGC should pick 1936 for a variety of reasons, and can think of no reason not to return the course to that target date, save for some tee locations.

You yourself championed returning Augusta to the days before all the changes, so I don't see why you object to the same thing at Merion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()