News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


SS

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« on: August 25, 2001, 08:02:00 PM »
For those interested, Joe Logan's article on the bunkering project at Merion is now available in the early Sunday edition.

Article starts on the front page of Sports.

I'm more of a lurker on this site, so I won't post comments (I'm sure others will)

This web site is spefically mentioned as are some posters.

Happy reading


Slag_Bandoon

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2001, 10:46:00 AM »
  I tried ...  www.philly.com    Nothing there yet.  If anybody finds article on the web, would you please post link here?  Thanks.

Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2001, 04:52:00 PM »
Tommy's salvo on vandalism in the world of golf course architecture has not fallen
on deaf ears at the Inquirer. It was cited
by Joe Logan, along with other GCA criticisms
of the work at Merion in the story.

I thought the article was very well done, and
presented a balanced view of the work currently being done.

Just a few summations:

The bunker work is being done because:

1. Some, especially ones with steep wall, had begun to cave in, affecting both appearance and playability.
2. Several no longer drain properly. Many
have to be pump after even moderate rains.
3. If one bunker was restored, consistency
dictates that all must be.

Why 1930?

Merion was a mature course by then, and none of the subsequent changes by nature or by man had occured yet. The Depression and WWII
had not hindered maintenance efforts. In short, anything that was not there when Jones won his grand slam was subject to change.

Why Fazio?

No real comment on this. Marrucci says "this was not a design project for Fazio. We handed him the old pictures and said this is what we want."

A work in progress:

Committee members suggest evaluating the job
as "work in progress." They add that soon enough the Scottish Broom and dune grasses will be planted around the bunkers. They will look a lot more like they used to and
Mother Nature will eventually smooth the edges of the bunkers. "That pressed and dry-cleaned look will be gone in a season or two." "...The first bunker we did by the practice tee is already beginning to lose the rounded look and show wear."

At the very least, these fellas behind the project seem to be well-intentioned and
very much aware of Merion's sacred, holy grail status. They've no doubt done a lot of painstaking research.

But I still much prefer the old look.

I'm especially curious about your impressions of the "work in progress" comments.

The article should appear tomorrow in the website noted by Slag.


jcgpt

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2001, 06:06:00 PM »
Is the article available online.  What is the web address?  Thanks

C. Rokke


C Rokke

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2001, 02:51:00 AM »
Unfortunately that link didn't work. If you tap into Bandoon's link, followed by "Inquirer" and then "Sports", you'll be there.

jim_lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2001, 04:49:00 AM »
I don't know how this will turn out, but I am going to try to attach the entire Logan column.

 

Storied Merion turns back to move forward

By Joe Logan
INQUIRER STAFF WRITER
We have not heard much about it. The folks at Merion Golf Club have been very quiet, seeking no publicity. But for more than a year, the East Course at Merion, one of the most respected and revered golf courses in the world, has been undergoing the most sweeping face-lift and restoration project in its storied 90-year history.

"Back to the future," is how Buddy Marucci, a Merion member and a top amateur on the national stage, recently described the restoration.

Once the project is completed early next month, Merion will have gone a long way toward taking the course back to the way it was in 1930, the year Bobby Jones completed the Grand Slam on the 11th hole at Merion, perhaps the greatest individual achievement in the history of the game.

Even without Jones' celebrated accomplishment, it was also a great time for the golf course.

"In 1930, the course was 18 years old, and it had reached a certain level of maturity," said Bill Greenwood, chairman of the five-member Green Committee, which includes Marucci, that is overseeing Merion's restoration. "But it was still very much the vision of [designer] Hugh Wilson."

Returning the course to circa 1930 has meant big changes. The greens have been enlarged and the fairways widened, and between 80 and 120 mature trees have been taken down. Each of Merion's 123 unique and beloved bunkers has been reshaped, replanted around its walls and edges, and reinforced.

In perhaps the starkest visual change, at the par-4 16th - Merion's famous "quarry hole," often hailed as one of the 18 greatest holes in all of golf - more than 30 towering trees that framed the right side of the quarry have been removed. The result is an entirely different look, as well as the renewed option to play the hole around the right side of the quarry.

If this were most any other golf course, few people beyond Merion's several hundred members would care about the changes. However, this is a virtual shrine, a sacred golfing ground, in a game obsessed with its history and traditions.

With the 2005 U.S. Amateur slated for Merion, Greenwood and the club realize that soon enough every golf magazine, golf historian, golf architect and golfer with any contacts at Merion will beat a path to Ardmore to see for themselves, assess, and no doubt second-guess every detail of the restoration.

Already, there is some criticism, and from a most modern-day source. On the Web site http://www.golfclubatlas.com/,  a cyberspace hangout populated by passionate armchair architects, Greenwood has come under considerable fire, along with his committee, Merion in general, and even the architect (Tom Fazio) and construction company (McDonald & Co.) hired to do the work.

The Web site is a cacophony of voices. Some are reasoned, measured and knowledgeable, while others are uninformed and mean-spirited, punctuating their rants with personal attacks on Greenwood and Fazio. Regardless of the tone, the focus of the complaints is on what Merion has done to its bunkers.

In golf course architectural circles, Merion's bunkers have always been known as classics from the golden age of golf course design. Rather than having the neat, smooth edges so common today, Merion's bunkers were uneven, jagged, rough-hewn, seasoned around the edges with wild dune grass and Scottish Broom, the scruffy plant depicted in the club's logo. Worn and weathered by the years, the bunkers had a look, one might say, of a salty, craggy old sea captain's face.

The bunkers have come out of the restoration looking smoother, clean and modern.

They now look "rounded, puffy and upholstered," groaned one Internet critic, after someone posted pictures of the restored bunkers on the Web site. The critic said it was as if a "shiny chrome bumper had been attached to an antique car."

Another fan of Merion's old bunkers accused the club and Fazio on the Web site of nothing less than "act of vandalism" against the golf course.

At Merion, Greenwood and his committee members shake their heads in dismay over the criticism.

They believe they have done the right thing, the prudent thing, the thing necessary to maintain Merion for the next generation and to ensure that it remains among the elite courses in the world. And despite what the critics on the Internet say, Greenwood and the others are convinced that once the outside golf world sees the changes, the experts will agree.

"We are not architects and we are not golf pros," John Capers, a 50-year member at Merion, one of the club's top players and a member of the Green Committee, said recently. "But we know Merion's place in golf and in the game's history."

Capers, Greenwood and the rest of the Green Committee gathered recently to discuss the restoration publicly for the first time.

The restoration, it turns out, grew out of an earlier, smaller project in 1995, to recast the greens in order to get rid of an unwanted strain of poa annua grass.

It was during that project that Greenwood and his committee began examining old photos of the course. What they saw surprised them. Many of the greens, they could see, had been significantly larger years ago, in some cases 25 percent larger. As long as they were digging up the greens, why not take them back to their original sizes, thereby creating delicious new pin positions on several greens?

The improvements to the greens were such a hit with the members that Greenwood and the others began studying the old photos to see what other aspects of the course had changed over time.

First and foremost, they believed they could not ignore the fact that many of the bunkers were badly in need of work. The bunkers, many with steep walls, had begun to cave in, affecting not only the appearance of the bunkers but how they played. Several of the bunkers no longer drained properly, either. After even a moderate rain, they had to be pumped out. Something had to be done. Greenwood and his committee decided that for the sake of consistency, if they restored one bunker, they would have to restore them all.

The committee members could also see that several original bunkers were gone, while others had been added. Trees that had been planted in 1912 had been allowed to grow to the point that they obscured the sunlight from several greens, causing problems. One stand of trees between the 11th and 12th fairways had been planted apparently at the whim of a Green Committee 50 years ago, but nobody knew why. At the 16th, the quarry hole, birds dropping seeds had caused the entire right side of the hole to become dominated by about 30 mature trees. And why, wondered the committee members, had the fairways never been returned to their original widths after the 1971 U.S. Open?

By then, having gathered hundreds of old photos, Greenwood and the others had decided that a complete restoration of Merion was in order.

But to when? What era? What year?

There was no shortage of great eras and moments in the course's 90-year history. Was it at its best when Wilson, the designer, put the finishing touches on the course in 1912? In 1930, when Jones completed the Grand Slam? During Ben Hogan's win in the 1950 U.S. Open? Lee Trevino's victory in the 1971 Open? David Graham's triumph in the 1981 Open? In 1989, when Chris Patton claimed the U.S. Amateur title?

"That was the hard part, deciding on the year, determining when Merion was at its best," Capers said.

After weeks and weeks of discussion and debate, after consulting with the club's Traditions Committee, made up of former club presidents, and after meeting with the current board of Merion, they settled on 1930.

That year, they concluded, Merion was at its very best. Eighteen years after it had opened, the course was fully mature, yet none of the subsequent, unintended changes from man or nature had occurred. It was a time just before the Great Depression and World War II, a span during which even Merion was hard-pressed to keep up its meticulous maintenance of the course.

Once they had settled on 1930, anything that was not there the day that Bobby Jones won the Slam was subject to change. "The scariest part," Greenwood said, "was when you'd see a picture of something you liked from another era." Still, 1930 it was.

To do the physical work, Merion brought in Fazio, the Norristown native who is perhaps the biggest name in golf course architecture today. He was simultaneously redesigning Augusta National, home to the Masters, but he jumped at the invitation from Merion.

The selection of Fazio alone has been cause for howls from the critics on http://www.golfclubatlas.com/.  He may be big, and he may be known for his sweeping, big-budget creations, but he is a modernist, in their eyes precisely the wrong man to touch up a classic old design like Merion.

Other observers, including Ron Whitten, the respected architecture critic for Golf Digest, had their doubts.

"Was Tom Fazio the right man to do the job? I don't know," Whitten said. "A lot of architects pay great lip service to restoring courses, but it's hard for them to supplant their egos and styles to some guy who has been dead for 50 years. I can tell you that I've never heard Tom Fazio say he had tried to restore a course."

Whitten, who has yet to see the changes in person, questions whether the work at Merion qualifies as a true restoration or more of a renovation, an updating.

"If you really want to take Merion back to 1930, you've got to shut off the water," he said, referring to the modern irrigation system. "Then you've got to put in bluegrass fairways, rye grass greens, and make people play the course with wooden-shafted clubs. You can't really turn back time."

At Merion, they shrug over such talk. "This was not a design project for Fazio," Marucci said. "We handed him the old pictures and said, 'This is what we want.' "

Restoration or renovation, Merion is quite happy with the result. Once the golf magazines snap their pictures for the world to see, once the course gets back to normal life, the world of golf will approve, they say.

"This is a work in progress," said Bill Iredale, chairman of Merion's Golf Committee.

Soon enough, the distinctive, scruffy Scottish Broom and dune grasses will be planted around the bunkers. They will look more as they used to. Time and Mother Nature will eventually smooth the edges of the bunkers. Iredale believes that even the Internet critics will eventually fall silent.

"That pressed and dry-cleaned look will be gone in a season or two," Iredale said. "The first bunker we did, over by the practice tee, is already beginning to lose the rounded look and show wear."

In the meantime, Iredale feels for Greenwood, the man who has volunteered so much time and work spearheading the project, only to get lambasted on the Internet.

"I'm convinced that someday, years from now," Iredale said, "Bill Greenwood's work will be appreciated, and his picture will be hanging in the clubhouse."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Logan's e-mail address is jlogan@phillynews.com.

 

"Crusty"  Jim
Freelance Curmudgeon

ForkaB

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2001, 05:15:00 AM »
Craig summarized the article very well.

It seems clear that the members of Merion decided what they wanted to do, asked Fazio and MacDonald to do it, and are happy with the work that was done.  If anyone wants to blame anybody for what has been (or is being) done, blame the members, not the tradesmen.

It also seems clear that what has been done is part of a long term master plan, with clear objectives (restore the course back to 1930).  We should applaud them for this, even if we disagree with the objectives they have chosen.

Much of what has been done, and is being done, seems very much in line with what most people on this site say ought to be done with great old courses, i.e.:

--restore green sizes and shapes to their original design
--remove excess and encroaching trees

That Merion considers their plan to be a "work in progress" is refreshing to me.  It seems to indicte that they understand that restoration is an ongoing process integrally linked to the day to day maintenance practices at the course.  They also seem to believe that what changes have been made to the bunkers will blend into the "look" of the course over time, which seems logical.

I think Logan gave a reasonably fair account of GCA's criticisms, but was unfair to imply that those who criticized what has been done are "armchair architects", when we know that those who spoke up most on the subject were people who had on-the-ground experience with Merion and a a deep and honest passion for the place.

Overall, however, I give Round 1 to Merion.


TEPaul

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2001, 05:43:00 AM »
Just read the article in the paper--big article! Joe Logan's Sunday "golf interest" articles are enormous--and I say, good for the Inquirer, and Philadephia golf and golf architecture!!

Basically the article's theme is the entire 1930 restoration project of Merion but the subtheme is very much the bunker restoration part of the larger project.

Joe did a great job, in my opinion, presenting a very balanced look at a major (and significant) restoration project to a world famous golf course.

The bunker restoration part of the overall restoration project is well presented too, and Merion's committee, who is heavily quoted in the article, has gone public too,  with their thinking, their research, their architectural instructions (to an architect) and their desires and hopes with the bunkers of Merion.

The so-called "critics" of the bunker part of Merion's restoration project are mentioned comprehensively too. Golfclubatlas is mentioned as: "a cyberspace hangout populated by passionate armchair architects,...." And that's what we are!

"The website is a cacophany of voices. Some are reasoned, measured and knowlegeable, while others are uninformed and mean-spirited, punctuating their rants with personal attacks on Greenwood and Fazio. Regardless of the tone, the focus of the complaints is on what Merion has done to its bunkers." (If the latter was referring to TommyN, Joe is both right and wrong--Tommy may be a passionate ranter, but he's not exactly uninformed!).

And that's all true too! Even Golfclubatlas itself argues constantly among its contributors over the efficacy of architectural ranting and personal attacks and a more reasoned "just stick to the architecture" philosophy and approach to architectural restorations projects of other clubs.

But Joe Logan doesn't just mention Golfclubatlas, he goes into significant detail about what its complaints actually are! And this is where the specific architectural part of Merion's bunker restoration project will hit the road. He interviewed contributors and got their opinions and concerns and resported them as a counterpoint to Merion's project work, their hopes and their thinking.

Ron Whitten was interviewed and his opinions were mentioned. The selection of Fazio, as the correct choice of an architect, is mentioned and discussed as to his dedication (or lack of it) to "true" classic course restoration!

Merion's thinking about taking the course back to a time not long after Hugh Wilson, when, quote; "eighteen years after the course had opened, the course was fully mature, yet none of the subsequent, unintended changes from man and nature had occured", was discussed in Joe's article.

There is little doubt that that thinking, and mission, in fact, is the very one that has been questioned by critics (and Golfclubatlas); it appears to be a noble mission and an interesting one, but it sort of inherits the question and concern; "Before what unintended changes of man and nature had occured?"

In this context Joe (and maybe Merion too) may have missed a very important part and a very important question of the Merion bunker project issue. What man, what nature?

Critics have talked about the need to preserve literally decades of bunker "evolution". This they thought was much of the "character" of the "White Faces" of Merion and what was probably half of their unique and interesting ruggedness and style. In a sense part of the "evolution" was "nature" itself.

The other half of the evolution (unintended changes?) may have been no more than the constant hands-on work of a very small number of men--probably three to be exact,  in possibly over a fifty year span--Joe Valentine, Richie Valentine and Bill Kittleman.

These men have been described by some restoration architects as possibly the closest thing American golf architecture has ever come to the unique contributions of Old Tom Morris himself. At least one of them has been constantly described in classic restoration circles as "America's Old Tom Morris."

Curiously, none of these men were mentioned by Merion or Joe in the thinking and planning of Merion's bunker project.

And Merion explained that the bunkers were antiquated and in dire need of work. And further that if a few were "falling apart" all of them needed to be redone for consistency's sake. Is that a true statement architecturally or even specifically with Merion's bunkers?

We should let some of those in the business of architecture and those that really concern themselves with the details of really good classic restoration (and classic bunker restoration) answer that question.

The question specifically becomes, if old bunkers, like Merion's, are in dire need of drainage and sanding, does that necessarily mean that their decades old evolutionary grassy surrounds need to be redone too? If you do one or two things (drainage and sand work) do you have to do everything (the evolutionary surrounds) is probably the ultimate question and issue with this project. And if they actually need to be "resrtored" for consistency's sake does that mean that the "surrounds" need to be wiped away and completely reformed and taken back to day one (or year eighteen) of their unique and interesting evolution?

There are a few other questions relating to this particular question which logically relate directly to playability as well. Even if you totally redo everything of the bunkers and you happen to leave the heights  of various surrounds (like the green fronting bunkers on #8 and #13, which have been raised literally feet which even reformed the fronts of the greens they are attached and contiguous to--all due to decades of sand splash) in place and dig the bunker floors back to their original levels (much lower), have you therefore vastly altered the depth and playability of those original bunkers? Would it not be more prudent to analyze and estimate the height of the sand splash evolutionary build up and then raise the floors (or just leave them at their evolutionary level) but redo the drainage and the sand?

Again, probably a question for some of the well known restoration architects out there.

But Joe Logan's article is a good presentation of a golf club that is on an interesting and important mission in the context of "classic restoration". And that fact should not be lost on critics of "classic" golf courses, such as Merion.

Merion is not on a mission to "redesign" their course! They're not on a mission to "rennovate" it either. They're on a mission to "restore" it, although clearly in the minds of those concerned with classic architecture these terms and definitions blur sometimes.

But what Merion is trying to do, "restore",  is a term and a thought and a mission that can have a very benefical impact on many other classic courses and their memberships--because its Merion and she's famous and so well respected as a golf course!  

So again, let's all of us tone down the adverserity and try hard to both listen and talk. How could anything but good things come out of that? There could and will be better research and understanding and better results because of it. Merion's direction and their mission of restoration is one that even the critics should applaud--if it's really done well!

The architect selected may be a question to some critics and some of their detailed assumptions and decisions may be debatable to other critics, but at least they are going in the right direction.

Excellent article Joe!

 


Patrick_Mucci

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2001, 05:52:00 AM »
Rich Goodale,

I think your statement, to the effect of,
Don't blame the tradespeople, blame the members, is the one I have trying to get across the entire time.

I also felt that all the facts needed to be in before a judgement was made, and I still feel that more facts need to be gathered before the final word is cast.


T_MacWood

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2001, 06:08:00 AM »
Rich
Wonderful analysis.

I'm not aware of the internal processes at Merion, how did you conclude the Members decided what they wanted to do, and asked Fazio and MacDonald to do it? How did you conclude the Members of Merion are pleased with the work? And should all analysis end even if the Members are happy?

Why should we applaud a long term master plan no matter what -- what if it is poorly reasoned and a mistake?

Couldn't 'work in progress' just easily be understood as 'it might take a little time, but don't worry we'll fix it'?

And I'm confused, is your analysis of the article/restoration based on your own personal view of the article/project or a perception of how the greater GCA should/will feel about it?  In the past you have been opposed to restoring/protecting courses, claiming they naturally evolve and improve over time - Dornoch being your favorite example. Have you ammended your view?

If you're speeking for the entire group, I speek for the entire group in thanking you from the bottom of our hearts.


TEPaul

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2001, 06:23:00 AM »
Rich;

"Overall, I give round one to Merion."

Not sure how important it is how anyone analyzes this on-going issue with Merion, its bunker project and its so-called critics, but it would probably be best, at this point, if the issue is not analogized to a boxing match.


Geoff_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2001, 07:21:00 AM »
Interesting article, though I am surprised a few issues are not addressed:

If the course is going back to 1930, why aren't the 2nd and 14th greens being put back to their 1930 positions along with the things Ron Whitten was quoted as saying needed to be restored to genuinely go back in time? (Shouldn't this also mean the back tees added since 1930 will also be taken out, or does the committee get to pick and choose what they like from 1930?) And of course, it is fascinating how the club is not mentioning William Flynn, as if he never had anything to do with the course. Hugh Wilson had been dead for five years, but this 1930 course was his and the best representation of Merion? The bunkers installed for the 1930 Amateur on #5, and taken out after the amateur, were Hugh Wilsons vision?? If this is about restoring the Hugh Wilson design, they really should go back to the before the extensive mid-1920s work that Flynn carried out, say about 1918.

This confusion brings up the second point, the notion of extensive research talked about by the committee starting in 1995.  The photos, the discussion, hmmm...the committee did that all on their lonesome? Wow, how impressive!    I notice the article avoided mentioning the influence of the Valentines, particularly on Merion and the bunkers, which to most people in the golf world is considered one of the great superintendent/club stories in American golf. And now there seems to be a sudden desire by the committee to erradicate the effects of the Valentines impact on the course, so Hugh Wilson's name is invoked to quiet any dissenters, but then, they really haven't even picked a year when the course was truly Wilson's nor are they really going back to that year now. And the more bizarre question is, will they bring back McDonald's every five years to redo the bunkers to the 1930 photos, or start letting the course evolve again and say, choose the 2003 look after the McDonald's look has lost that pressed and dry cleaned look and is a closer impression of 1930?  Or will 2005 become the new glory year when Buddy Marucci reaches the quarter-finals of the Amateur?  

Geoff


TEPaul

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2001, 07:23:00 AM »
Rich and Pat et al:

At this point maybe it's time to put aside Merion's mission statement and things like that. Maybe it's time, as Mike Cirba says, to just look at the product and give it a good and honest and DETAILED architectural analysis.

I think that anyone who has concerned themselves with this issue, and seriously concerned themselves, should, at this point, recognize that with a project as complex as restoring or redoing Merion's unique evolutionary bunkers (all of them-in both their overall number and all of what any one of them was), that the devil is in the detail!!

You say of Merion; "They also seem to believe that what changes have been made to the bunkers will "blend" into the look of the course over time, which seems logical."

By saying that you seem to be skirting, avoiding or missing the primary issue here with Merion's bunker critics. That is that Merion's evolutionary bunkers had come to be respected world-wide for their "look"--the famous evolutionary "White Faces" of Merion. I don't really recall any critics of that "look". Almost all golfers seemed to notice, respect and admire Merion's bunkers and that's probably part of why they became so famous! If they needed sand work or drainage work from time to time that's not a particularly complicated issue.

Even if, and this is obviously where it gets complicated to understand with Merion and even its critics, the surrounds appeared to be falling apart (I actually don't remember many or even any players saying that), was it necessary to wipe them (the surrounds) away and start all over again? That, in essence, is the crux of this entire issue!

Architectural analyists sometimes use interesting analogies--and so do you. If wiping away the surrounds and replacing them with what they've replaced them with (obviously subjective on the part of any critic) appears to be bunkering that is distinctly modern looking (although very nice modern looking bunkers) how can that be expected to "blend" back in to the golf course, which is supposedly going for a "look" and direction that is anything BUT modern?

Here's the analogy, what do you think of it?
It's the automobile analogy--sort of a variation on the "putting chrome on an antique automobile" analogy. If Merion had famous old bunkers, sort of like an antique Rolls Royce, why did they make their bunkers look like a Lexus? And if they did, why and how do they expect the Lexus to "blend" back into the look of that antique Rolls Royce someday?

The nub of the issue becomes why didn't they just leave that Rolls Royce alone? Or even if it needed fixing, why didn't they just fix it? You know, go find somebody who fixes Rolls Royces (and is that every single mechanic if you tell him to fix it???) and ask that Rolls Royce expert to fix it--even every part of it, if need be!

Why get rid of that Rolls Royce and replace it with a Lexus, hoping that Lexus evolves and "blends" into the "look" of an antique Rolls Royce someday?


ForkaB

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2001, 07:43:00 AM »
Patrick

I very much agree that more information and time is needed before we can say any "final" words, and those words would have to be said by people far more knowledgeable about the situation than I.

Tom MacW

In terms of your first paragraph, I think the words in Logan's article and the quotes from members speak for themselves.  I would suggest that you reread it.

All other things being equal, a course (or any other organization) with a plan is better off than one without it.  That is all I said.

Yes, you could apply your or any one else's interpretation of "work-in-progress."  I was just offerring mine.

Vis a vis my attitudes towards restoration/renovation you are perhaps mistaking rhetoric for conviction.  Dornoch has in fact evolved, been renovated and restored--all in my 23-year association with the club.  Old bunkers have been rebuilt.  New ones have been added and some old ones (and even some new ones!) taken away.  The whinns have been cut back dramatically.  New tees have been laid and old ones made more level (you'll like them, Matt Ward!).  Fairways have been both narrowed and widened to adapt to modern play.  They have a modern irrigation system.  They even have these little plastic colored circles to give you yardages in the fairway.  None of these changes disturbs me to any degree and I can still play the course with shameless pleasure. The one "renovation" during my watch--the entombment of the third tee--was made due to the threat of litigation and was so botched that even a mild-mannered person such as myself would have used the word "vandalism."  It has since been restored to something closer to what it used to be, and while not perfect, and still sufferring from the scars of the renovation, it remains a fine and very playable golf hole.  I do once remember saying that I was glad that nobody at Dornoch has shown any inclination to "restore" the 18th green to the way it looked in the 1920's--surrounded by a necklace of 30-40 shallow bunkers.  I have also said that the dramatically renovated course which we play there today is overwhelmingly better than the version which existed prior to 1946.  If this constitutes some sort of blanket opposition to restoration/preservation--I'm guilty.

You of course know that I speak only for myself, and should not imply otherwise, even in an attempt at humor.

Tom Paul

I apologize for the boxing analogy.  It, too, was a weak attempt at humor.  I very much hope to be able to see these changes on the ground, with people who can talk about them passionately and informedly, sometime soon as we have discussed.


Patrick_Mucci

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #15 on: August 26, 2001, 08:06:00 PM »
Tom MacWood,

My guess is that there was as much internal strife amongst the membership as we see on this site.

Projects are rarely embarked upon with the unanimous consent of the membership.

My read on the statements is that the
"membership" refered to is probably those involved with or supportive of the project.

TEPaul,

I've said all along that the final product must also be measured by its results when compared to its intent.

The second, larger issue that Geoff and Tom MacWood allude to, is the appropriateness or correctness of the intent.

The first is easier to judge than the second.

I still think more facts need to be revealed
on both issues.


ForkaB

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2001, 08:09:00 PM »
Tom P

I'm going to have to learn to type faster to keep up with you!

In terms of how the Merion bunkers look, now and before, I accept what all you who have been there have said.  They were revered.  They are different.  I was just trying to explain what I thought the position of the Merion Committee to be, namely--we wanted them to look like 1930, not 2000, and, so far, we're happy with what we've got.  This implies to me that the Committee has a far less reverential view of the "White Faces of Merion" than do (the royal) we.  I have no opinion, having seen neither version up close and personal.

I, too, am waiting for that detailed architectural analysis.  Look forward to hearing a bit about the function of those "white faces" as well as their form.

I shall not debate automobile analogies with a Fireball Roberts afficionado, but I will thrown in the aprocphyal story where Bill Gates said, to the effect:

"If automobiles had advanced as fast as computers, you could buy a Rools Royce today that would do 500 MPH at 500 MPG and would cost under $500!"

A skeptic replied:

"Yeah, but it would crash every month or so killing all the occupants and hundreds of passers-by!"


RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2001, 08:18:00 PM »
TomEP, congratulations on a very well organized and thought-out response.  I am in particular strong agreement with the points you explained about the "techniques" used by the team of architect/shapers/landscapers/laborers.  And, the question of extent/scope/dimensions of the work that was needed in practicality VS what may have been a natural inclination of Fazio-MacDonell bros., to employ their modern materials, efficient machinery, time-labor efficient approaches that are the evolution of construction techniques.  As Geoff and TomEP allude to, the absense of consideration and research into methods used by the triumvirate of legendary superintendents was a big mistake IMHO.  I still think one of the most intelligent things quoted in the reams of pages of discussion about these matters was Kittleman's advise, "to listen to the old girl - she'll tell you what she needs", as being the most important thing, and may have been missed by Logan and the Merion people in their deliberations.  Who the heck knows and had more invested in that grand old golf course than any of those three men?  

If Kittleman wanted to hire a crew of hand laborers, to gingerly probe and excavate the bunkers to the base, and install new drainage without the big scale construction approach that may be efficient conventional wisdom, perhaps they should have listened to him (if that is what he said).  If the high sides of the evolved lips needed hand trenching and placement of interceptor drainage without grossly disturbing the evolved character of the bunkers dimensions, then they should have listened to him (if that is what he may have been saying).  I don't know for sure if these possible scenarios of what Kittleman recommended are accurate.  All I know is that if you are going to undertake something like this, you need to listen to the people that have hands on care and demonstrated love of the ground and have a tuned in frequency to the voice of "the old girl".

No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2001, 08:24:00 PM »
Regarding the Merion article, I am wondering why we haven't previously heard more about changes to #16?

Has anyone seen this part of the project?  If so, what do you think?

Tim Weiman

T_MacWood

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2001, 08:35:00 PM »
Rich
Thanks for instructing me to re-read the article, I suppose you were referring to "Merion brought in Fazio" and "restoration or renovation, Merion is quite happy with the result." Do you equate the Membership with Merion. I was under the impression the project was the brainchild of a handful of members, which seems to be reflected in the article, but I'm no expert on the interworkings of the club -- am I mistaken?

Do you believe a bad plan is better than no plan at all?

I'm surprised you do not object to Merion's plan. In the past you have objected to those who would return courses to some historical time or state, of course you've also stated that there is no such thing as a bad golf design, a wonderfully positive outlook which allows you to straddle any fense or issue.

I too thought it was odd Flynn and the Valentines were not mentioned. You might get the impression from reading the article that the course had been on a slow down-hill decline since the 1930 Open. And it was interesting the choice of the perfect restoration date seemed to involve important championship events more than architecural considerations.



ForkaB

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2001, 08:50:00 PM »
Tom MacW

Let's get this thread back onto the issue at hand, which is architecture, and not personalities.  If you want me to reply to your latest comments, let me know privately and I'll do so.

Cheers

Rich


T_MacWood

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2001, 09:05:00 AM »
Rich
Since when do you (or anyone for that matter) need to be invited to reply to a question, which are all architecturally related by the way? Privately?

Its your choice if you choose to answer my questions or not -- invitation, no invitation, privately or publicly.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2001, 10:42:00 AM »
Tim Weiman -

In the midst of all the posts re: Merion's bunkers, you must have missed posts by Mike Cirba & several others regarding 16. I don't have the info at hand, but I'm sure it was mentioned & indeed commended.

To everyone else -

I can't say that I agree at all with the manner in which he did it, but I tend to think Tommy N's prognostications regarding the article were largely true. You can twist words around to say or imply just about anything, particularly when you have 2 or 3 individuals speaking for the whole club. After hearing others comments firsthand last Thursday regarding their own direct observations & dealings with the club(I'll leave these individuals nameless, until they choose to post themselves), I'm inclined to believe this was a case of some people making a decision ahead of the research, & then looking for someone to agree with them. They found their man, did the work & now are saying the proper things to support it & sell it to the world at large. And, regardless of what anyone connected with this site believes, it will be sold to the world as a great success.

The one other thing that I did find enlightening from Thursday were the comments of someone who played in the Wilson. He stated that the bunkers did indeed need work, & that they play harder if anything now.

Count me among those who'd like to hear comments regarding how the new bunkers play & their strategic impact. (I know, Rich, bunkers are inanimate objects & it's the players who have to strategize. Please allow me a little leeway in terms of the flexibility of language! )

Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2001, 11:12:00 AM »
I have a couple of observations -

First, I do recall that most contestants in the major tournaments there complained about the bunkers - especiallyt the Scotch Broom, and its possiblity for inflicting more than a "one stroke penalty".  So, acclaim for Merion's bunkers may not have been as universal as we think.

Second, am I reading right from Geoff that there was, for a short time, bunkers guarding the creek on 5? In earlier posts, these were deemed as modern Fazio Additons to keep with his style, not the clubs. If true, it is funny how those bunkers were believed necessary to improve the hole in 1930 (can't blame Fazio for that one, can we?) and again in 2001. Or are these different bunkers at the green?

Geoff, (and others) while certainly debatable, does everyone disagree with the logic of picking 1930? After all, in those days it took a course a decade to mature?  And Wilson admitted that "if we had known what we knew later, we might not have started, etc"(not exact quote, but you get the idea)  So, is there not logic in assuming that he may have made changes from the original design, and that the club took a decade worth of first hand experience to renovate the course for the 1930 Open?

Tom,

You see a "don't worry, we'll fix it attitude" to the article.  Could it be a real committment to doing it right, even if it means doing it over.  Using that Rolls Royce analogy, things can be improved with a second chance.  I like to say todays legal system would have required the Wright Brothers to develop the 747 right away, but it just doesn't work that way.

Jeff

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

ForkaB

Merion Article in Philly Inquirer
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2001, 11:24:00 AM »
George

Count me in too--and I actually agreed with your use of the word "strategic", although I may be wrong