Geoff,
I'll try again, but thought it was two legitimate questions....
I recall a thread on the same subject where you disdained some new fairway bunkers on hole 5 that now guard a creek, and seemingly implied that photos show they were never there. In today's post, you seem to indicate that they were there briefly, installed specifically for the 1930 ameteur, and taken out soon after. Were there ever fairway bunkers on 5 before the Fazio restoration, or are these brand new, first time additions? Or are the bunkers you referred to today in some other location than the new Fazio bunkers? Just curious....and as always, I may have got your post wrong.
And about the 1930 date selected for restoration, is it not a valid question as to what year to restore to, even if you happen to believe in restoring Wilson's original design? I can think of several reasons to agree that 1930 might be the peak of the courses design, not opening day:
1. The course was designed by "amateurs" who may have learned a few things in later years. (Wilson said something to that effect)
2. It is reasonable to assume that they incorporated what they know knew, including several years of actual play experience, in modifying the course for an important national tournament....
3. They may have felt that their course was better maintained in 1930 than at opening.So maybe the old timers who they consulted (if any) just remembered that as the best period, and earlier times as not as good? Maybe they just want to commemorate an important day in the clubs history. After all, without that tournament, Merion wouldn't have the history it does now.
So, with a course with both Merion's history and evolution, is opening day always the only logical day to restore to? Certainly 1930 is also plausible to select as a date, isn't it?. Also plausible to me that new back tees would be left in, as it would be more likely to make the course play as intended in 1930, given increased length, as one of those tough - and not very clear cut -decisions to make balancing the here and now with historical accuracy, and the article acknowledges that. I don't buy your logic about moving greens back to older locations, despite historical accuracy. While I don't know the details, its likely that too many changes have been made to move them back, and, anyway, if they aren't broke, why fix them? It seems I brought up the "if we really want accuracy" logic tree you mentioned after my stint at Remodeling U. and was told to stop insulting everyones intelligence!
Not to cut too close to home, but Rivera didn't restore Thomas' greens to original size or shape, feeling that would make the course too easy for their then current goal of hosting a major tourney. And the members only knew the course as one with smallish greens....What were your feelings as a member about those very difficult choices? Are you dissapointed with Thomas bunker approximations combined with green sizes that are really an effect of evolution themselves, and not as the designer intended?
Tom,
It was typical for courses to mature over many years in those days, without the benefit of irrigation, sod and drainage. No magic number of years , just the fact that it took longer in those days....Also, no penalty stroke rule about the bunkers, but the pros are always worried about a bunker that may take more than one shot to extract, which could very well happen in a bunker with Scotch Broom, et al.
Not like you to pick at the details without adding more of substance here....I usually count on you to be one of Joe's reasonable voices!
To answer your question, I would present the options to the club. Usually in the form of a "Givens and Druthers" type bar scale, to determine what they value more - history, playability, whatever. But, realizing that the club is not a piece of art hung on the wall, and is in use every day, I usually do recommend an all or nothing program, so greens putt the same, bunkers play the same, and more importantly, so the superintendent doesn't have literally hundreds of little different management areas to worry about. Architects probably do recommend reconstruction more often than club members might, both from experience and because we know how it will work. Agronomists recommend agronomy solutions, and USGA green reps usually recommend USGA greens, etc.
I got to thinking about using the original construction techniques to rebuild the bunkers. As Merion 60 noted, taking the course out of play any longer than necessary is always a problem at a busy club. Using horse and scoop to attain a perfect restoration? I trust this group feels there was enough horse manure around the project without them?
What about using bedsheets to line out the bunkers? Does this group favor the traditional white bed sheets, or should Fazio have used a buff color sheet, more in keeping with the native sands around the Philly area?
And more seriously, new bunkers do tend to look rather stark, and of course, members are most aware of the differences. As time goes on, they do soften usually, and members memories also become fuzzier, and they usually do gain acceptance gradually. Key phrase is usually....Some clubs keep on doing work forever, much to the consernation of members for really very little additonal gain.
For the record, talking in general here. have played Merion in 94, and visited last summer to tour w/o playing. Have no idea if I would like the work if I saw it, but am sympathetic to the difficulties faced by all involved. One of the bunkers did look a little unfortunate from the pictures shown here. But, we don't judge from pictures, and especially pictures taken from the roadside, and not from the line of play, or intended viewing line. About all I can type for now on this subject!
Jeff