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.


Carlyle Rood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion (photos)
« on: August 08, 2004, 05:27:30 PM »
I'm working on an index for these photos.  (I'm updating my site to make it easier to navigate.)  In the interim, I thought you might enjoy a few photos from my recent trip to Merion Golf Club.



Hole 4




Hole 10




Hole 11




Hole 13




Hole 16




Hole 18

Jfaspen

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2004, 06:05:07 PM »
Thanks :)  Good pictures!


DPL11

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2004, 06:49:53 PM »
Great pictures from a great course!

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #3 on: August 08, 2004, 07:51:10 PM »
When I last played there 2 years ago, there was no visible dune grass in the 13 or 18 bunkers right after the work was done. The members said it would be back in time for The Amateur in 2005, and it appears they were right. Looks great @ 7000 yards too.  :)

TEPaul

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #4 on: August 08, 2004, 07:56:56 PM »
Carlyle Rood:

Thanks for those photos. They might finally settle the score of the years long contretemps on here over the Merion East bunker project. They've now matured some, they've grassed up and they look really good now! You see those bunkers on the right of the quarry photo? Those ones were done in-house and they're awesome natural looking bunkers in every way!

Are those who blasted the brains out of Merion a couple of years ago ready to prostrate themselves, say they're sorry and beg for forgiveness yet or are they gonna just continue to be stubborn?   ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2004, 12:20:32 AM »
Thanks for posting, Carlyle.  

Tom...honestly, they look pretty good to me.  I'm not sure if I'll beg forgiveness, but I will say that the Super looks to be doing a fabulous job.  I didn't believe that it was possible given the thick grass faces, but it's starting to look like the old Merion again.

That's great to see.  

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2004, 01:45:50 AM »
Mike,
The apologies should be coming from both sides. They didn't start to look this way until they finally saw what a mistake they had made originally.

Also, I don't remember the bunkers being that deep in 1931.

I still love Merion, but its like trying to love Maria Conchita Alzono before and after plastic surgery. If any of you had ever seen her in that little skin tight number she wore in Running Man with Arnold Sharznegger, you'll know what I mean.

(Insert Bob Hope Chettah Sound Here)




Alex_Wyatt

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2004, 12:12:36 PM »
Tommy, do you have any pictures that precede these by a year or two?

Brian_Gracely

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2004, 12:18:47 PM »
Here's some pictures of Merion from fall of 2003 (not mine),
http://www.doublegolf.com/merion

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2004, 12:37:15 PM »
How have they got the yardage up to 7,000?  Could you give the new yardages of each hole, please?  

Jimmy Muratt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2004, 02:43:09 PM »
Carlyle,

Great photos, thanks for posting them.  Please post anymore that you have!  The course looks fantastic.  

I didn't know that they had gotten the course up to 7000 yards, that's quite a jump.  It will be very interesting to see how it plays next year in the US Amateur.  What a terrific course and closing stretch of holes for match play.  

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2004, 03:01:44 PM »
Ahhh...sweet validation. Apart from that comment.  I will :-X

Tommy - You probably don't recall the depth of the bunkers in 1931 because you were not alive.   ;D


Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2004, 03:16:36 PM »
Sean,
You actually think these bunkers look anything like they did in 1931? (From the photos)

Your also failing to acknowkedge how the work changed midstream when it wasn't working out when the faces all of a sudden started to collapse again--the same inherant problem that plagued them and required all of this change to begin with. (This feature is what also made them unique in their look because they weren't the jaccuzzi pits lined in bluegrass that you see here. That I can more then assure you isn't what was there in 1931.

You validation of them is quite hilarious--after all of the trouble they have had with them, when they finally have them going in a "better" direction, its was only after they had seen the mistakes they made and what they had to recreate.  Also I'll have you know that when they were having the trouble with them, many of us remained silent and didn't say anything. In fact, I actually had a picture or two sent to me with faces collapsed, so don't act like it was planned this way all along.  They still have a long way to go.

The superintendent here is the one that needs to be credited.

(This entire post is about the bunkers themselves, not the tree removal which is outstanding)


Brian_Gracely

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2004, 03:32:58 PM »
Merion is one of the few courses I've seen (at least in pictures) where several of the greens appear to be islands within large areas of rough; specifically 9,11, 13...although 8 appears this way too in some pictures I've seen.  I can see than 9 & 11 have the creek coming close to the green, but is there other reasons there holes have no run-up areas of fairways when all the other holes do?  And are there examples of this much rough surrounding greens at other courses?  I have to say that I like the variety, especially if the other holes could also accept a running approach.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2004, 03:33:49 PM by Brian_Gracely »

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #14 on: August 09, 2004, 06:32:53 PM »
Brian,

Also add 16 and 3 at Merion.

7, 10 and now the "remodeled or restored..." 12th @ Yale, see Ran's pictures on his review.

Bethpage Black 5 & 15

« Last Edit: August 09, 2004, 07:14:36 PM by Mike Sweeney »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #15 on: August 09, 2004, 11:12:52 PM »
Tommy:

The bunkers weren't that deep in 1931 but they PLAYED that deep before the Sand Wedge was invented.

IMO, the key to the deeper bunkers is the restoration of the SHOT VALUES that Hugh Wilson (et al) originally intended.

Besides, I've never really accepted the notion that the former "White Faces of Merion" appearance needs to be such a sacred cow in the first place.  The West Course still has the old look and, for my money, I don't see that the difference in appearance between the bunkers on the 2 courses is all that important to the experience.

I'm not saying that the "look" of the bunkers on a golf course doesn't matter and I concede that I put a lower priority on that aspect of golf architecture than many on this DG -especially your extremely deluxe bunker-expert self.

But in comparing the look of the (old) West with the (new/evolving) East, was/is the difference really worth elevating to "scandal" proportions?  Even in the world of GCA?

To me, a much more serious problem is the current 10+ "Stimp" speeds on 25%-50% of the Golden Age greens that were never designed to be that fast.

That gripe is abouut PLAYABILITY - not looks.

That's just my opinion, though.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2004, 11:17:16 PM by chipoat »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #16 on: August 09, 2004, 11:25:37 PM »
Tommy -
I didn't expect you to give any proper credit. As you recall there were those on this website that advocated giving the bunkers time to settle before jumping to conclusions. All of this talk about the collapsing of walls is interesting, but very much besides the point. Construction values are one thing aesthetics and playability are another. All along you have said that the latter was the problem, never mentioning anything about construction.  But as you sound a retreat from your prior criticisms, you start throwing red herrrings about the construction problems. Honestly, what difference does it make if they learned from their mistakes? You make it sound as if that is bad thing.   ??? There are plenty of people on this website that could learn a thing or 10 from their mistakes (myself included).

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2004, 11:29:36 PM »
Brian,

Also add 16 and 3 at Merion.

7, 10 and now the "remodeled or restored..." 12th @ Yale, see Ran's pictures on his review.

Bethpage Black 5 & 15



Mike-

Excepting the par 3's, you must play an aerial approach on 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 18 at The Black.  Par 3's, you must play an aerial approach to all (8,14,17) but might be able to bounce the ball up onto 3 if the conditions are firm.  I think there's a tongue of fairway in front of 3 green at BB.  But from the angle of most players' approaches, 16 is an aerial shot over a bunker, unless you can drive the ball 450 yards.

Treehouse--

I have a question about Merion's teeboxes: are they all circular in shape, or are they a mix of square/rectangular and circular?  

Just wondering.  
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2004, 11:41:52 PM »
Doug -

Rectangular, save for 2. The formerly way back tee on 18, and the putting green (which will be used as a tee for 14 in tournament play).

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2004, 02:35:55 AM »
Sean,
Since your so in the know, but aren't letting everyone else actually know what mistakes there were at Merion, why don't you share with everyone.  That was the point from the very beginning before your friend destroyed the wonderfully evolved originals thinking he was going to make them better. They weren't, and if you of all people can't admit that then your not being honest with everyone.

It took the club and the superintendent a lot of hard work to get them back to this point, and truthfully, I still think they look less then the perfect examples they once had.

You remind of the guy that took a bowl of ugly-looking dog poop and said, "look it going to take a bit of aging, but it'll taste great soon. I tried it myself, just give it some time." But you still don't get it Sean, I ain't biting into it!  ;D
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 02:37:59 AM by Tommy_Naccarato »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2004, 03:38:56 AM »




This project was supposedly in the most able hands of Chip MacDonald and Son--one of the more popular golf course construction contractors in the United States.  Are you telling us Sean that they made mistakes when you so stringently defended them many moons ago? If so, then tell us what mistakes they made and give us some detail. instead of trying to beat me in a battle of words. (which you as a lawyer should have little problem taking me, an electrician on)

Looking at Brian Gracely's photos, that bunker is ready to cave-in--two years later you can still see the new grass from where it finally did, or was eventually repaired. Speaking of which, what kind of grass is that they are using there? --That couldn't be rye grass could it? (The most current image)

Chip,
I understand about many of the member's need for a return of shot value that Hugh Wilson had never planned for with the advent of the sand wedge. Still, how many members besides yourself complain about getting in and out of these? Or do they count?

The point being is that if the Chrysler Building would have looked better, more ominous in terra cotta, should the people that own the Chrysler building cover it in terra cotta today?

This isn't just about the look. Its about what was right and what was wrong. I can even admit the bunkers needed work.  Bill Kittleman and Richie Valentine weren't there everyday making sure they were in the best shape possible, and if they were there everday, most probably would have had the Upper Merion Police Department hot on their trail to have them removed from the premises anyway. But thats a whole other story.

I'm sorry, but I look at these bunkers and think of what could have been and I get sick to my stomach. I love Merion and more then likely will never get to play or see her again just because I'm speaking my mind on this--I have nothing to gain--so why would I feel so bad about the old bunkers compared to the new ones? What would be the best possible reason? Is it because I hate ugly looking deep bunkers?  I don't think so since I have spent a majority of my life wanting to hit out of them. Is it because I hate Fazio that much? Why, he wasn't even really even there during this "project." What is the reason why? Somebody please give me a reason why I would feel so passionate about the work they have done here!






Mike_Sweeney

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2004, 06:15:28 AM »
Tommy,

Getting away from the bunkers for a second, I am surprised that you/nobody else mentioned the mowing patterns on 10 and 18. It appears that they are preparing for a USGA visit with narrower fairways and more/wider rough between the fairway bunkers and the fairway. I will just never get the philsophy of stopping bouncing balls from going into bunkers.

wsmorrison

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2004, 07:21:56 AM »
While Sarazen invented the sand wedge in 1931 and debuted it at the 1932 Open at Prince's Golf Course where he shot a then record 283, the sand wedge was around for nearly 70 years prior to the recent bunker reworking at Merion.  Chip, are you saying that the shot values that Wilson intended were compromised all those years before the bunkers were made steep and deep?  

Hugh Wilson died in Jan 1925.  He and Flynn redesigned and added many of the bunkers between 1912 and 1925, prior to the invention of the sand wedge.  Flynn continued to rework the bunkering, routing, and greens over the years until his death in 1945 along with the construction help of Joe Valentine.  Much of this time was during the era of the sand wedge.  Bobby Jone's score of 73 on the East in qualifying for the 1930 US Amateur (prior to the advent of the sand wedge) was comparable to the scoring of the leading contenders in the 1934 US Open.  It seems to me that the playability of the bunkers was not an issue for the top players or the field in general despite the widespread use of the sand wedge in comparing the scoring in the 1930 Amateur and the 1934 Open.  

In some cases, a shallow bunker especially at the rear of the green where the green slopes away back to front (as they used to be on 1 and 5 on the East and 7 on the West for some examples) is a far more difficult shot than out of a deep bunker, at least with the ball on the base of the bunker or on an upslope.  A downslope at the rear of such a steep and deep bunker is much harder and often unplayable towards the pin.

Chip writes, "The bunkers weren't that deep in 1931 but they PLAYED that deep before the Sand Wedge was invented.

I do not believe that this is correct and Hugh Wilson's writings indicate this.

"IMO, the key to the deeper bunkers is the restoration of the SHOT VALUES that Hugh Wilson (et al) originally intended."

I disagree that Hugh Wilson intended bunkers to be so deep that they would be penal to all players.  Here is what Hugh Wilson wrote about his philosophy on bunkers in 1916, before the invention of the sand wedge.

"The question of bunkers is a big one and we believe the very best school for study is along the seacoast among the dunes.  Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers.  We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape.  The criticism has been made that they are too easy [even prior to the invention of the sand wedge], that is the banks are too sloping and that a man may at times play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker, where he should be forced to use a niblick.  This opens a pretty big subject and we appreciate that the tendency is to make bunkers more and more difficult.  In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy; the only exception being, where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or some similar substance to keep the same from blowing.  This has made a perfectly straight wall but it is not done with the intention of making it more difficult to get out, but merely to retain the bunker as it exists.  If we made the banks of every bunker so steep that the very best player is forced to always use a niblick and the only hope he has is to be able to get his ball back on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule, as we have at present with water hazards, where a man may, if he so desires, drop back with the loss of one stroke.  I thorouhgly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out but that the best and the worst must use a niblick."

I don't see how scoring differentials at Merion before and after the development of the sand wedge indicate that playability was dramatically compromised as evidenced by significantly lower scoring which might have necessitated a change in bunker depth and steepness so many years later.  Nor would it appear from the writings of Hugh Wilson that he would have made the bunkers deeper and steeper in order to retain shot values prior to the sand wedge.  I think the shot values out of the bunkers at Merion prior to the recent reworking of the bunkers were not so penal as they are today and they certainly were easier to get in and out of.

Although I think the bunker work should not be explained away as something that Wilson would neccesarily approve of nor as a return to shot values, I really do like the look of the bunkers today and accept the challenges of the steep and deep bunkering much more so than I ever imagined I would upon completion the work.  The effective leadership of green chairman Wilson Greenwood working along with the highly respected superintendent, Matt Shaffer, and his talented crew are working in conjunction with Tosh Belsinger for the continued betterment of the bunkers and fairway lines.  Let's not forget that they hit a home run with the fairway line phase of the work especially on 5, 6, and 14.  Are the bunkers perfect as is?  No, but what is?  What is encouraging is that they are definitely on the right track and the course is looking great and the play is definitely a challenge to the best golfers of today as it was in the past--there is continuity in this regard.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2004, 07:29:42 AM by Wayne Morrison »

T_MacWood

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2004, 07:40:39 AM »
I agree with Wayne, rationalizing the increased depth based upon the invention of the sand wedge seventy-three years ago seems rediculous. Especially considering the history of Merion as a championship test over that same period. Using that logic we should alter the bunkers of every great course designed prior to 1931.

Wayne
I look at that first picture (#4) with its jagged outline and I must say William Flynn (or Wilson & Flynn) is not what comes to mind. Is that a good representation of his style? Perhaps that wasn't what they were going for...are these bunkers consistant with the evolved look of Merion...the famous White Faces?

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Merion (photos)
« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2004, 07:47:18 AM »
Well said Wayne.

I will concur that they look a million times better then they did. A million times or more. But when we are talking a learning curve like Sean is, you have the biggest name in golf architecture and his firm over-looking the work as well as one of the bigger construction firms in golf doing it--it proves the original point of the complaint from day one.

Maybe "WE" were right back then! And maybe Merion finally saw that and has gotten their act into gear, but Sean has INCORRECTLY identified it as a validation, which is totally propostrious.

Mike, I too noticed the fairway lines. I noticed a lot of other little items also, but I will leave them alone for the time being, unless Sean wants to take this further.  Hopefully these things will change over time, but I doubt it.