[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Paul,

If I'm building Garden City west, in New Jersey, I don't care who the architect is, and who the contractor is, those bunkers are going to look exactly like GARDEN CITY'S.

It's that simple !

We're not building a space ship to Pluto.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think we've hit the heart of the disagreement.  

Could Tom Fazio have duplicated Merion's bunkering (if that was his "marching orders")?  If he had a true interest in preserving their classic characteristics, and a free rein in choosing who did the ground work, my guess is he could probably come pretty darn close.

Eliminate the two qualifiers and certainly the answer is NO.

Could virtually any professional architect have duplicated Merion's bunkering given the two qualifiers?  Not based on what I'm seeing in the field.  Not without a massive amount of time and effort, assiduous planning and detailed specifications, and then...HANDWORK...lots of it.

Could any reputable contractor or shaper have done the work in a way that was true to the bunkers?  NO way, in my opinion.  From what little I know of the construction methods of bunkering, there is a lot of art mixed into the science.  That is why fellows like Jeff Bradley are leaders in their field and so highly respected.

No matter who was chosen as architect and contractor, there is no way that anyone but God could have "recreated" those bunkers adequately in less than a year.  

It may not be a rocket ship to Pluto, but it ain't slapping together the latest, greatest CCFAD either.  Merion's bunkering was so loved and respected simply because it was so complex and unique.  Just looking at them in detail prior to the work, one knew intuitively that this would require a MAJOR, major effort to get right.  That is why there was so much initial concern expressed here before the work even started.  

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way, I base my opinions on a very simple observation.

There are some architects who shall remain nameless that do "restoration" work at classic courses.  Despite original architect, despite substantive original differences in bunkering, somehow, the finished, "restored" product always looks virtually the same from course to course.

I experienced that again last week at a course I won't identify, but it was obvious on a few holes that bunkers had been "restored".  Without knowing anything about the nature of the restoration work, I was able to ask someone in the know and confirm that YES, the architect I guessed had done the restoration work.  

If a bunker is restored and can be identified as looking more like the work of the restoration architect than anything by the original architect, then one of two things is happening;

1) The restoring architect is purposefully putting their stamp on the course.

or

2) There are significant professional and artistic talents required that differentiate the ability of various architects to get the work done in a way that makes their stamp invisible...a true restoration, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If you're out to recreate or copy the bunkering of GCGC in NJ you very well may be right that any architect and contractor could do it with your supervision and direction. I only saw GCGC's bunkering that one time with you. It is a far different style and look than Merion's were and it could very well be much easier to recreate.

But if you are using the analogy of recreating GCGC's bunkers to make a valid argument that any architect/contractor can recreate Merion's bunkers with even the best of supervision and direction then you are very definitely wrong about that. There is a whole laundry list of technical reasons for that and they can be fairly easily explained.

But who knows if you even would notice a distinction between what Merion's bunkers were and what they are now--certainly plenty of people don't appear to--or don't really appear to care. But that definitely doesn't mean there isn't a distinction.

I don't even know when you last saw Merion, but I would be willing to bet when you did you weren't looking at it with this in mind. If you don't get down here real soon you will never know anyway!

Although, technically that isn't true. I suppose you could look at the new bunkering and then sort of do a comparative study by viewing some of the similar style bunkering to Merion's old bunkering that these architects that we talk about and praise do.  

And if you don't see any distinctions then, I suppose you and I and you and some of the others on here are just going to have to agree to disagree--because we never are going to be on the same page.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I would agree that haste makes waste, and that it would appear that a proper/thorough/complete/true restoration would take more time, which equates to money as well.

But, if MERION'S marching orders were to do the project in a year, it is neither the architects nor the contractors fault.

TEPaul,

If the distinction can't be noticed by a discerning eye, then perhaps, the bunker project was successful.

A friend of mine, who has a good eye and feel for architecture, who is a great fan of Merion and Merion's bunkers told me he didn't like what he saw last month when he was there, and I respect his opinion.

But, I keep asking the same question that no one has answered.  What was the Club's mission statement ?  What specific directions were given to Fazio and the contractor.

Until you have the answer to those questions you can't point any fingers in anyone's direction.  Let's try to get some answers, you must know some members in authority, try to find out what they say, if you can.

On one hand posters state that only mother nature could have duplicated Merion's bunkers, yet another poster thinks that C&C could have done it.  The point is, no one knows what Merion wanted to accomplish in the rebuilding of the bunkers, so we have to wait to find out, then make judgements.

Kenny Tanikawa, are you listening ?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba, Tom Paul,

On the four hundred (400) or so courses that Donald Ross designed, did he use the same contractor on every job, or were there dozens of contractors from all over the country that he employed to complete his work, including his bunkers ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

During the height of his very productive career Donald Ross had up to 3,000 people working for HIM--his organization! And he also had some really good foremen (like McGovern and Hatch) who knew what he wanted and how to read his instructions really  well. He also frequently strongly suggested to a club going into the contract and construction that they hire his handpicks to be initial supers (probably a forerunner to the "grow-in" super). That shows up clearly and in detail in some of the original minutes of Gulph Mills. I hope you appreciate exactly what that kind of organization means.

As for Merion and their project mission statement or whatever you want to call it, I know what that is an so do some others on here but they haven't wanted to air it per se on the Internet and I for one respect that and won't either.

But believe me there is all you would ever need to know on here already. As for what you call a "discerning eye" regarding bunkering and such, would you care to start a new topic trying to define what that might mean?

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I'll answer you about ND. It was a very poor site, a combination of mostly flat featureless land, a few interesting spots that are barely so and the entire site that is heavy and wet. The result is barely good. I'm not sure what the subject of C&C and ND have to do with Merion, other than a little misdirection.

You seem to ignore the first question, was Merion in need of a restoration? If the course was not in need of a 'restoration' would we be debating about the qulifications of the architect and contractor? You seem to concede this, your view and THE CLUBS view is in direct conflict with the opinion of Ben Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, Tom Paul, Geoff Shackelford and many others respected individuals.

This is perfect example of what can happen when the collective will of THE CLUB is flawed. There are many examples of the collective will of THE CLUB being wrong -  the 12th at GCGC, Scioto and Bel-Air to name a few.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick;

I'm not sure the answer to your question of Donald Ross's use of multiple contractors (although I think Tom answered the question pretty well), but I'd say this;

In the case of a wonderful historic course like Merion, where the bunkers were extremely well-respected and demandingly complex, every effort should have been made to find contractors with a proven ability to handle work on similarly-styled bunkers.  Wouldn't that just seem to be common sense?

I also don't understand your comment about the changes not being detectable to the "discerning eye".  In my time, I've probably seen more bunkers, in more styles, on more courses than a sane man should ever claim, and I might be more of a "bunker fan" than your average golfer, certainly.  In the past, I've offered my unadulterated view on the new Merion bunkers, and politeness prevents me from repeating that rant.

However, because I recognize the fact that I am perhaps a bit TOO discerning, too passionate, and too critical.  That is why I asked the question that I did above.  At the risk of being redundant, I'll ask it again.

Is there anyone out there who has seen the bunkers at Merion before and after the work who are willing to tell us why they are an improvement to the golf course?  

The bottom line in all of this is the work, not the people or personalities.  Surely this work was done in an effort to make Merion a better golf course.  So, could someone please tell us why the work done under the name of the world's most popular and prolific architect has improved a golf course that has consistently rated one of the very best in the world?  

[TEPaul]

Sure, I don't think it's any particular mystery why the bunkers were redone at Merion and there has been plenty of "feedback" so far from members and such about the work that has been done to date. I'm quite sure too that the Merion Green Committee and many members at Merion wonder why this continuous harping on Golfclubatlas will not die down.

Merion's bunkers were likely slated for "restoring" or "redoing" a while ago because they really were in need of some work. Drainage had become a problem and consequently other problems to do with that like wash-outs, sand significantly bleeding out of the lowpoints creating real lack of bunker definition and other constant maintenance fixes were getting to be a real nuisance with the club. The sand levels may have raised significantly (as is common with bunkering that hasn't undergone real capital maintenance in many years) and consistency concerns with playability were probably becoming an issue. Probably none of this would have raised an eyebrow on this particular website but in the process of this needed "overhaul" Merion decided that the surrounds too needed to be redone.

That is probably where the shit hit the fan on this site with some of its contributors because that is where the extremely long-term "evolutionary and rugged" look of the bunkers came into jeopardy, in their opinion. Why did they go from drainage and sanding to the surrounds themselves? Pretty simple really, they felt that the surrounds, their supporting structures etc, were just "falling apart" after many decades of no real overhaul and just interim fixing!

This is actually quite an understandable conclusion for a club to make. Ultimately you and I may not agree with that  conclusion, but nevertheless it is an understandable one to make for a whole variety of reasons. Also, one should understand that things change, members  change, superintendents change, maintenance practices change, costs of maintenance change.

Merion had for many years had a unique  contingent of people working on the golf course, most particularly the father and son team of the Valentines for many, many decades, later with the help of the golf professional Bill Kittleman who apparently fell in love with Merion's "white faced" bunkers and cared for them in his spare time! This is unusual but not really all that unusual for golf courses of Merion's region, culture and vintage in those days. If something specifically needed fixing they would just go fix that thing specifically as need be and so it went day after day, year after year, decade after decade---no major overhauls.

Then there came a time of some general "spiffing up" to the golf coures's conditioning when Dick Bator came to town and put Pine Valley and then Merion in much better general condition than they had ever been in before. But the bunkers just kept on evolving.

Richie Valentine retired, and later Bill Kittleman, Bator came in then left, followed by Latshaw and then Armstrong. So eventually it was decided that the bunkering really did need a   major "overhaul", "restoration", "redesign", whatever term anyone wanted to use.

So Merion brought in Hanse and Bill Kittleman who had gone into partnership with Hanse after retiring from Merion. That seemed to be the natural and sensible thing to do given Kittleman's unusual familiarity with Merion's bunkering.

And so Hanse/Kittleman started "restoring" Merion's bunkering (and other work) at Merion slowly. At some point (but this is conjecture on my part) it may have been decided to speed things up a bit with work  on the course, particularly the bunker restoration since Merion was now slated to hold the 2005 U.S. Amateur.

Got to go to the airport but will finish this chronology later with no editorial comment on my part but will include  various "feedback" I've heard from the general membership which is pretty darn interesting. If I'm wrong about something, i apologize and I'm sure I'll be corrected.

When I'm done I hope that MikeC's question has been finally answered, I hope Pat's concerns about leadership and mission statements and things will have been satisfied too and I really hope maybe this subject can start to be put to sleep because as far as I'm concerned it has just about been EXHAUSTED!

But if anyone wants to go back to slamming Merion or even me, heh, that's OK too. It's hard to do much in golf architecture without Golfclubatlas noticing! And in a way that's not a bad thing either!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

It was others who brought C & C into the discussion, alleging that they would have done the restoration properly.

I think the bunkers probably needed to be fixed.

Gil Hanse and Tom Paul don't disagree with me regarding the fixing of the bunkers, Gil Hanse was the one working on that very project,

The "will of the membership" doesn't mean a project is "correct" or "flawed" it only indicates what will be done.  Sort of like, "the people have spoken", or "the jury has decided".

Tom Paul indicates that there was almost universal agreement that the bunkers needed fixing.  Gil Hanse and Kittleman must have agreed with that since they opted to do the job.

Tom Paul indicates that it's not the bunker construction, but the surrounds that are the problem.

My question is, what did Merion want to do, and did they succeed in that mission ?
Or, was there a deviation from that mission ?
If so, what was it ? and who was responsible for the deviation, the club, contractor, architect, or a combination of the above ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood, Tom Paul, Mike Cirba, et. al.,

This brings me back to my original point.

If the club had begun to fix/restore their bunkers, and there was substantive change, wouldn't it have been more helpful if two (2) consulting architects had been retained to review any departures ?

[kilfara]

Great thread, albeit one for which the faint-hearted (read: "I") may have trouble summoning up the courage to read all the way through.

The most apt, and at the same time cynical, commentaries herein to me are the ones who never underestimate the power of ego in decisions like these. How many courses have been ruined (or at least made worse) by greens committee chairmen and/or ego-driven redesigning architects who wish to "put their stamp" on a course for posterity?

But here's the thing...eventually, all of these greens committee chairmen and architects are going to lose their power over the course that has been screwed up. Either they'll lose their position, their power, or (at the end of the proverbial day) their lives. Everyone dies - you will, I will, even the great Tom Fazio will.

Once the benevolent despot departs, you have to be very lucky to find another benevolent despot in his place. The transition from Crump to post-Crump eras at Pine Valley seems to have worked remarkably well, but there's no guarantee that Pine Valley will forever remain in the hands of the enlightened. Of course, the flip side of this is also true: if you're in the camp who feels that Merion's leadership has led the course astray, it's entirely possible that a more enlightened leadership may eventually come into power...and the good/bad news is that this subsequent leadership will be able to "restore" or "improve" the course as it sees fit.

Merion, according to most of this site's participants who have seen it and played it, is nothing less than a national treasure. I won't attempt to dispute that assertion, easy though it would be to do so. (How many people, even among those on this list, will have played the "old" Merion and the "new" Merion before they die, and thereby will be able to properly lament the passing of the "old"?) But it's important to note the difference between preserving a golf course and preserving a historic building: in the latter case, once the building is demolished or even remodelled, the chances of restoring it to the "old" are virtually nil. With a golf course, the land will always be there; overhead and on-the-ground photos of a course like Merion c. 1981 or 2001 will certainly be more prevalent than those of the same course c. 1930; and so on.

The fact of life is that ego will always win in the end when it comes to privately-owned property like a golf club. The job of this website (if it has a job at all) is to coach such egos into putting the right kind of "stamp" onto their courses. If Patrick's central premise is right, it's not our job so much to educate the architects, but rather to educate the people hiring the architects. (The latter sounds like a far harder proposition to me, for what it's worth...)

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

Darren,

If a club decides to "modernize" it's classic golf course, and feelers go out to various architects, and one will be WILLINGLY selected to plan, design and build what the membership wants.

Once all this time and money are spent, and the membership inconvenienced, while the land may be there forever, it is very difficult to undo the damage.

The best case scenarios are when a few individual holes are initially altered.  
I think in that compartmentalized situation a club can better accept and finance a restoration.

The key is to hopefully prevent clubs from making the mistake in the first place, and that is no easy task.

Sometimes the resistance to change is great, and if we had some additional safeguards, failsafe devices or processes in place to further slow down or prevent the desire to change a hole/holes, in the form of consulting opinions from experts, it just might save the day, and something we treasure.

I think it would be a worthwhile endeavor, just like it's proven to be in medicine.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Should the will of the people have any effect on your evaluation the artistic success of Merion's 'restoration'? Will history care about the will of the membership if the result is poor or the project was ill advised in the first place? Isn't the debate, not neccesarily who should do the work, but is a complete resoration/reconstruction necessary?

Are fixing, rebuilding and restoring the same? Fixing in my mind is repairing but not fundamentally altering and does not normally require a contractor. I'm not sure you acurately portrayed Tom Paul's view of the bunkers - he spoke of more than the surrounds being a problem, he also mentioned the loss of the 3-D quality.

How can you determine if the mission is a failure or success, if you don't know what the mission is? And once you do know the mission, shouldn't you first determine if that initial decision was a faiure or success? If the stated mission is flawed in the first place, who cares if it was successfully attained. Do you advocate the restoration to 1930?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

No, and Yes.

The evaluation will be twofold on my part.

The first part is determining if will of the people, evidenced by the marching orders or mission statement, was completed within the scope of that dictate.

The second part is my evaluation of the dictate, and I think that is really the critical issue at Merion.

The problem raised by your second paragraph is, we don't know what the dictate was.
Was it to repair, or restore, or both, and..
until we find that out, we cannot make a complete evaluation.

Your third paragraph is what I've been saying all along, we have to find out, in detail, and confirmed at the highest level, what the mission statement or mandate to the architect and contractor was.

I have no problem with Merion making a decision to restore their course to 1930, allowing for some elasticity with tee length.
If mother nature is a constant, the course will re-evolve as it has in the past, except perhaps that man made errors along the way may be avoided.

[D Moriarty]

This post started out with an analogy between a medical doctor and a golf course architect and asked whether committees should seek second opinions before restoring or fixing a sick course.  Certainly committees should seek multiple experts' opinions before operating on their precious courses, but not necessarily to determine what should be done, but to determine whether anything invasive should be done at all.

Restorations, like medical operations, have risks and complications.  So it is very important to first determine what is wrong, IF ANYTHING, before operating.  This is even more true with an old (or 'classic') patient such as Merion, because the stakes are much higher, and the risks of complications greater.  An older patient may not fully recover from even the simplest operation.  We all know elderly who have just never been the same after even the simplest of medical procedures.  

But unfortunately, some committees and members are hypochondriacs.  Finding flaws where none exist and seeking treatments where none are needed.  Or worse, they are like aging proud women who see the newer, younger competition getting all  the attention, and think they must do something . . . anything . . . to stay current, to keep the eyes on themselves.   Some men (the US Open) are no longer interested in them.  Even their devoted men are sneaking a peak at the magazines and eying the younger competition.  They are envious of the attention given to the latest young supermodel (Shadow Creek), and wish tp be young an beautiful again ("Oh, to look like I did in 1930, when I was 18.")  And they seek a touching up, whether or not it is medically necessary.

So they turn to the Doctor. But restoration architects aren't ailing the sick. They are not treating cancer or rebuilding broken limbs.  They are COSMETIC SURGEONS whose livelihood depends on the vanity of their patients, and finding flaws in even the most beautiful.  We have all seen it.  A beautiful young woman with breasts bigger than her head, so buoyant that they threaten to float her away like a child's balloon.  Sure, some of you may love it, but you must admit it looks a little out of place.  . . .

OK, you don't have to admit any such thing.  But take an older, mature woman, with character and grace.  And give her breasts that defy gravity and logic, and pull her cheeks back behind her ears until her mouth doesn't even close.   While she may think she looks better, and her husband may think she looks better, we all know she looks woefully out of place.  Worse yet, redo one breast, large and perky, but leave the other alone.  Or let one plastic surgeon (Hanse) fix one breast, and have a different Surgeon (Fazio) do the other.  They may not only clash with the rest of her, they might not even match each other.

Of course, sometimes plastic surgery is justified and even medically necessary.  But why risk it if it doesn't need to be done?  

I guess my point (if I have one) is this:  Don't fix her if she ain't broke.  And (as may be the case with Merion) if she is broke, fix her in a way that keeps her consistent with who she is.  If the bunkers need structural work, fix them or even redo them.  But don't leave a scar, and don't make them into something they are not.  Otherwise, whatever the talent of the architect or the quality of the individual features, she just won't seem like herself anymore.  And that would be a shame.

By the way, I have never had the privilege of playing the Merion East, but used to live in the area when I was new to the game.  I would drive well out of my way to pass by her (Ardmore Rd and side streets) and would even walk the surrounding neighborhood, trying to glimpse her.   When I would catch a glimpse I was in awe, mostly at her rugged, imposing bunkers and their striking juxtaposition to the otherwise velvet setting.  I had never seen such beautiful features on golf course.  As a hack golfer, I didn't even understand what I was looking at, but like a child mesmorized by a beautiful woman, I knew I was looking at something very special. Even now, when my mind's eye conjures a great golf setting, I see Merion East.  

No disrespect to Fazio or the membership, but it saddens me that they are doing anything that could change the appearance or character of the course, because I have more fond "golf" memories of glimpsing Merion, than of playing 99% of the courses I have played.  

Cheers.

[T_MacWood]

Your last sentence is a perfect illustration of our different views. My appreciation for the artistry that existed at Merion is similar to the way I look upon the artistry that existed at Hollywood, ANGC and Bel-Air, examples of past disagreements. Where you look at the changes at those clubs in a matter of fact, pragmatic manner, I view the changes as a terrible loss that will not possibly be duplicated. Perhaps you do not view them as a loss because you do not view them as special, they can easily be duplicated or even replaced by better more appropriate versions. Bunkers do not evolve by accident into what Merion (or Hollywood, ANGC or Bel-Air for that matter) had, there have been very few men as talented as Wilson, Flynn and Valentine -- otherwise we have had many Merions over the years.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood;

You make an interesting and very valid point.  If mother nature being a constant is the only factor driving the way a bunker evolves, then Philadelphia and New York (and many other places) should be just chock-full of Merion-type bunkers, given the number of courses in the area that were built in the early part of the last century.  

So, let me understand.  If I build a clean edged, fussy cape & bayed, 2-dimensional bunker today with clean edging, wall to wall bunker woll, and bluegrass sod surroundings, and then let the requisite 3-5 golfers per day enter and play from inside it, perform regular standard maintenance, and then I wait about 80 years and...chango, presto, I have Merion bunkers!?  

Why do I feel as if I'm baking a cake and forgot the eggs?  Something fundamental is missing from this picture.  Can anyone tell me what it might be?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I think we can divide this issue into two categories.

# 1 Restoration of courses that have
   undergone substantive changes

# 2 Changes to courses with few prior
   alterations.

I will exclude lengthening through the extending of tees, including some repositioning.

Since we have yet to determine the dictate or mission statement of the club/committee,
I think Merion may fall into category # 2.

I am told that the Hollywood changes took place over a number of years, that a few bunkers were filled in one year, some more the next and so on.  

That is why I personally am very conservative when it comes to change.  Once the first domino falls, the course becomes open and fair game to every suggestion to change it.

I am strongly opposed to a proposal to create a new, seperate/ detached 8th tee at
GCGC not just because I oppose the location of the new tee and that the creation of a new tee may spell the demise of fixing and lengthening the existing 6th tee,
but because it is a departure from the one hole, one tee concept at GCGC, and because it may send a signal to some to make other changes inconsistent with the design priciples of Emmett and Travis.

This is why I favor selecting the year 1936 as the design standard for the golf course.
Could you pick other suitable years, probably, but the year 1936 seems to have an abundance of photographic and documented evidence, which far outstrips any other years, hence, the evidence is stronger with respect to deciphering the design principles.

I don't know if the consulting architect, Tom Doak, and other members of the committee and the club agree with me, but it seemed a logical proposition, supported by a wealth of documentation.

Only time will tell if the course begins to deviate from, or gravitate to the design principles of Emmett and Travis.

[TEPaul]

Pat & Tom MacW:

I was within a whisker of finishing the second half of the chronology when I got bumped off line and lost the whole blessed thing. It might have been my longest post of all time so I don't have it in me to do it again now--maybe in a few days.

Pat:

I definitely did not indicate that there was universal agreement that the Merion bunkers needed to be fixed. I tried to say that there was probably universal agreement that their drainage needed fixing and some sand work done. But I did not say there was universal agreement that the bunker construction and the surrounds needed to be fixed (belay that and make it totally overhauled). If there was universal agreement about that I can't imagine why this Merion discussion on here has been going on for the last two years.

The surrounds themselves (edges, grasses, rugged evolutionary profiles, the basic "look" of the bunkers etc, etc) are the meat of the entire issue, my man!!!!!

What I did say is it was my understanding that the Merion Green Committee felt that the bunkering (all of it) was falling apart and needed to be overhauled.

Some like C&C recommended (maybe indirectly) that they just leave the surrounds alone and work on them like they always have. Do the drainage and sand work but leave the rest alone! That kind of look is very clearly so important to C&C to preserve that they apparently would recommend that the club simply spend the maintenance time and the money (if that was necessary) to preserve those bunkers and that look!

So obviously one option for Merion was to do the drainage and sand work and stop there. But Merion chose the option in their bunker project to overhaul everything and restore them back to what they were.

Now that's a worthy and valiant mission but how exactly are you going to do that, who are you going to get to do that, how long do you have to do that, how much money and stuff?

It very well may be that Merion did not really realize all the ramifications in this process and it very well may be that they did realize it and it didn't make that much difference to them EXACTLY how the look of the bunkers turned out. It very well may be that they didn't really appreciate the look of the way Merion's bunkers were before or maybe they don't even recognize any difference between then and now. I don't know the answers to any of that--not yet anyway.

I certainly have talked to the Chairman and the committee and many members and the chairman has been extremely hospitable to me and some others I've been with in explaining what they were trying to accomplish but I haven't asked them any of those questions. We haven't exactly gone into a room with a projector and done a before and after study and analysis of the bunkering.

So other than the recent feedback from members and committee which is quite positve from a majority but by no means all, they seem satisfied with what they've done.

But the take from other people and critics and many on this site is different and here's why: Because they do see a difference between the way the bunkers "looked" then and the way they do now--and most of those people loved that old look--they were the famous "White Faces" of Merion!!

Frankly, to me, the famous "White Faces" of Merion was a large part of the character of the golf course, but, to me anyway, those bunkers really weren't all that totally unique in look!! I have seen bunkers that look remarkably similar on other old courses through my travels. But the "White Faces" of Merion were Merion's bunkers and they had taken many decades to come to look that way. And that is the point of this.

Now here's the most important point from the perspective of some of these people on here. If they didn't want to choose the first option to just do the drainage and the sand and leave the rest alone and they did want to overhaul everything, then how are they going to put them back with their look just the way they were??

That's where your theory and your argument that you just hire any architect and any contractor and with all the proper supervision, direction and mission statements and all, you get exactly what you want, just entirely falls apart, in my opinion.

Many of the people on here think that's nearly impossible to do if you hire the wrong architect and contractor. That's because they don't all work the same way, they use far different techniques, different equipment, different amounts of time and all that. And some of these architects and the people who work for them have far different skills then other architects and their prople and contractors and their people. Put very simply, most architects and contractors use mostly machinery to do this kind of bunker work--they get well into the construction with machinery and then nearer the end just lay the sod back on. The other architects we've talked about don't do it that way. They may use some machinery in the very initial stages of construction but then the rest is handwork and creativity.

And they aren't just shoveling dirt around with no purpose--these are the people who have the ability to make a bunker (and it's grassed surrounds) look in a relatively short amount of time like nature took 100 years to get it that way.

MacDonald & Co. are well known bunker makers and they are very much in favor these days but as far as any of us know they have never done anything like what Merion's bunkers used to be--they either don't know how to do it or just don't do that look, at least not the same way as a few others do. I don't believe they even hire anyone to do that kind of handwork and who has that kind of nature mimicing creativity. Why would they? They've never done that kind of look and they probably don't plan on doing it either. What they probably have are very good equipment operators who basically do almost all the work with one kind of machine or another and then nearer the end they just lay the sod back on the smoother, less random and less detailed lines they've created, tuck it under, staple it and watch it grow!

What Merion has now most clubs would probably kill for, but Merion isn't most clubs. The new bunkers are very good bunkers-for basically modern bunkers that are good imitations of some of the really good old evolutionary bunkers still around--like Merion's used to be.

So who knows, maybe it's what they wanted and maybe it isn't. I guess time will tell. But there is a difference and it does prove that you can't just go hire any architect or contractor if you really are intent on exactly recreating something like the "White Faces" of Merion.

To go back to the topic of this thread--yours, I believe. "Is the Doctor always right? Second Opinion."

You can see that Merion tried hard to do it right and maybe they got what they wanted--they did speak with at least three different architects in the course of their bunker project; Hanse/Kittleman, C&C and Fazio. I truly hope they feel they picked the right opinion but it seems clear that there are those, and plenty on here apparently, who believe they picked the wrong opinion.

Forget about what I said above about the post I lost being one of my longest of all time--this might be it.

That's it for me! I'm never again going to talk about the Merion bunker project on the Internet and I bet that will make plenty of people happy.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You mentioned that you knew and have spoken to the chairman and other committee members, yet you indicate you haven't asked some of the questions posted here.

The critical questions that haven't been answered are:  

1  What was the mission statement regarding
  the work on Merions bunkers ?
2  What were the directives given to the
  architect and contractor ?
3  What was the time frame ?
4  What were the budget constrictions ?

You and I have different opinions on construction.  I don't think there is but one specialist who could have done this work, I think there are many qualified golf course contractors who are capable of duplicating or recreating any bunker.
And, I feel there are an abundance of architects capable of same.  Doak, Forse, Pritchard, Hanse, and yes, Rees could all duplicate any bunker if their marching orders were specific to that task.

Since you are close to the people from Merion, it would be great if you could ask them the questions I listed above.

Or, if you prefer invite them to Innescrone as I would love to have the opportunity to have a polite, non-confrontational, exploratory discussion with them.  I can guarantee you, from my end, that they will enjoy their time with me.

[T_MacWood]

Will someone please put this thread out of its misery?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()