[mike_malone]

Mike Cirba
    I wish I had some early photos of #9  Philmont.I would bet there was more to the left on that hole;it reminds some of #18 at Rolling Green--we planted trees on the left which makes the right seem silly.

[wsmorrison]

I hope that I did not do so, but if I implied that Tom MacWood was intimating that the drawings he posted represented the final plans for the 1930 Amateur, I did not intend to nor do I think he made such a statement.

[wsmorrison]

Mike Cirba,

I know you are mostly kidding about Flynn's efforts at Philmont North.  Of course, Flynn was sort of stuck in a weird shaped box when he added the 18 holes.  The South Course already existed and the clubhouse was in place so Flynn had to rout a course that came back to the clubhouse twice--not at all easy to do under the given circumstances.  Flynn was forced to fit in an 18-hole course on pretty good land but in a difficult space.  

I haven't carefully analyzed this, but it seems to me that the 9th hole today probably plays better today than it did when constructed.  With today's equipment and stronger players, there is a far greater chance to hit it far enough off the tee to have a decent opening and shot at hitting a second a long way towards the green.  From the white tees at 565 I came pretty close.

I forgive Flynn this hole given the constraints he dealt with.  If this was on an original location, then he could be more severely faulted.  One Flynn routing issue on an original site that has always given me some irritation is at Philadelphia Country Club.  There are a number of straight holes in a row on what is now the front side.  When Flynn routed PCC, the current 13th was 9, current 4-9 was 10-15.  These were 7 straight holes in a row even though the orientation to the wind varied.  Why didn't he take the excess land he had on the current 8th and made it a dogleg left?  It would have been a nice change with different wind direction on the tee shot versus the approach.

See, Mike C., I can find flaws in Flynn's work although not many    Look forward to seeing you soon.  I'll call you later today.

[Mike_Cirba]

The smallish bunkers just over the creek on #4 and against the creek on #5 were installed probably in 1930 and didn't last very long. The creek along #5 and perhaps even fronting #4 green was actually very much enhanced by Joe Valentine. Before that it was more of an occasional dry/wash creek.

To say those smallish bunkers on #4 and #5 are some of the world's worst bunkers is probably one of the silliest things I've ever read on here---but opinions due tend to get overblown on these Merion threads far more than most any thread. Probably the worst thing one could say about those bunkers is in an architectural sense they're just a bit redundant as an architectural feature being so closely juxtaposed to a prefectly good creek!

Hi Tom;

Good to be back!  

My contention that the bunkers in front of 4 green are the second dumbest bunkers in golf and the fairway pot bunkers on #5 are the dumbest is based on the following analogy.

Merion is a great course, by any standard...world class.  The 5th is one of the world's most famous holes and the 4th is pretty renowned, as well.

So, by way of comparison, picture if you will the 18th hole at Pebble Beach.  About 290 yards down the left side, just along the sea wall, the club decides it needs to dig two pot bunkers, which effectively prevent balls from reaching the primary hazard, the Pacific Ocean!  The word redundant doesn't come to mind, ridiculous does!

How about we move forward to the 13th at Augusta National.  Just beyond Rae's Creek, at greenside, two little nubbish bunkers are built into the hillside, to prevent balls that might be coming in low and hot from bouncing over the creek.  Good move??

It seems to me that our predecessors, and probably Bill Flynn as well, might have agreed with my assessment of their silliness.  After all, didn't you say that they "didn't last long"?    

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Malone;

The trees on both side of that hole seem pretty mature, but it would be interesting to see what the hole originally looked like.  As it stands right now, it's like one of those bad dreams where every angle you attempt is blocked by trees and C-shaped, curving, side-sloped shenanigans.  It's one of the few holes my left-handed duck hook plays well to.  

Wayne;

I agree that the constraints of the property at Philmont North led to the weakness of the opening and closing stretches on each nine.  That's a shame because there are some fabulous holes in the middle.  

Didn't I mention that to you in a prior conversation?  

I'll look forward to hearing from you, mi amigo.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'm glad you posted that and it is a good opportunity to answer some honest questions.

You said:

"Too often this is the response whenever difficult questions are asked or honest criticisms are leveled. I prefer to ask questions, but maybe I should refrain from those questions if I haven't played the golf course....even when the historic golf course is blessed with loads of photographic documentation. Thankfully all the parties involved in the restoration had played the course in 1930."

I don't use that response very often but in this case it surely seems necessary to me!  I think you should refrain from some of your specific criticisms of Merion and it's bunkers until you become more familiar with the course.

"Have you ever commented upon or asked questions regarding historic courses you have not played...I thought I saw a post or two by you on the Ohio State thread?"

I've asked question about courses, and made general comments about restoration processes but I never made the kind of specific comments about Ohio State's golf course like you are about the bunkers of Merion. The primary reason is I've never seen Ohio State's course, and said so in the first post I made on the subject. I just don't know anything about it to comment or criticize any of the architectural features of Ohio State's course.

"Do the current bunkers look anything like what Merion has had at any point in their history? If so when?"

That's a good question and if you're interested in specific answers you should simply check the archives for the numerous threads on Merion back then. My personal opinion on that is the bunkers of Merion today look a lot like the bunkers of Merion in the 1930s but only if viewed from about 2,000 ft!!

Why is that? Perhaps because the club, architect and contractor relied primarily on aerial photos when they attempted to match today's bunkers to 1930. Obviously doing it that way you can match length and width and even a random jaggedy edged look from above but you can't pick up much in the way of vertical dimension! If they did that, and they might have, that to me would be a fundamental mistake, and I said that's what I thought may have happened numerous times on here a few years ago in those threads.

"The one thing the bunkers of the late 20's and early 70's and 30's and 50's, 80's and 90's had was a relationship to one another, they may have evolved or had slightly different aesthetic, but they never lost their basic historic bones."

That's very likely true since Merion East's bunkers had never before undergone a comprehensive bunker project as they did two years ago. For the first 88 years of Merion the bunkers simply continued to evolve in look in all kinds of differing ways as a comparison of the different eras can show anyone. Also talking to someone like Richie Valentine can confirm that.


 "Are the current bunkers related to the past bunkers that evolved over the decades or are they an absolutely new construction that begins a new process of evolution without relationship to the beloved White Faces of Merion? If that is true, shouldn't we once and for all put that nickname to rest and give these bunkers a new name? Any nominations?"

I'd say today's bunkers have no real connection to the past simply because the recent project pretty much took the surrounds apart, threw away the grassing on them and recreated from square one, but in the same places. You'll see in those old threads my feeling has always been the club and architect should have only comprehensively redone the sanding and the bunker drainage but left the bunker surrounds alone and at best comprehensively repaired them instead of taking them apart and recreating them. As I said to TommyN last night it's sort of like a manequin's head---they should have left it alone or perhaps given it some new hair (tupee, whatever you want to call it) or perhaps worked with the cranium a little where it had problems. In Merion's case they replaced the whole manequin----and the construction and look of it's bald pate started out very different from what it once was!! That made it virtually impossible to catch that look on the ground the way it once was in various evolved looks. It's just sort of a much heavier look as opposed to a more low profile or more delicate look in the old days.

As far a your naming the look "swollen lips" it's already had a name for the last few years---the puffy and upholstered look. The maturing of the grasses and the length of them now has covered up a lot of that but the heavier look will probably always remain now as it just started that way with the underlying construction.

But the thing I find so amusing here is I really do think most of the bitter criticizers of Merion's bunkers if shown the present photos and told Gil Hanse did them would say they look nice--but the fact that Fazio and Macdonald did them those same people continue to criticize them. At this point that's the way I'm beginning to view some of the critics on here.

And as far as those critics getting in a tither over those smallish bunkers on #4 and #5, basically I think that's one of the biggest tempests in a teapot I've ever seen!

[T_MacWood]

TE
What specific comment did I make on this thread (or that I have ever made) that requires a play at Merion?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mine is, "The Puffy Rye Faces of Merion."

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

For a guy who really get into the details and fine points of architecture, I'm surprised to hear that you think that the addition of the bunkers on 4 & 5 are such an off-handed afterthought as to be meaningless and any criticism is somehow overblown.

What if Pebble Beach and ANGC did exactly what I described above?  

Would any criticism of that be similarly frivolous?  

As far as whether we are being disiingenuous in our criticisms and we'd give Gil Hanse a pass, did you see where I said at the beginning of this thread;

"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."  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Actually I probably shouldn't say you should be required to at least see Merion East to make specific critical remarks about it's architecture on here. It's certainly a free country, the Internet is free and anyone can say whatever they want to from any vantage point.

But ask yourself this---if a club was interested in consulting or discussing the particulars of it's course and its architecture with an architect or anyone else whose opinion they should take seriously would it be prudent for them to discuss it with someone who looks at photographs of the course and reads old magazine and newspaper arcticles about it from another state but who's never even been there or should they discuss it with someone who actually comes to the course and looks at it to understand it better?

[T_MacWood]

"But ask yourself this---if a club was interested in consulting or discussing the particulars of it's course and its architecture with an architect or anyone else whose opinion they should take seriously would it be prudent for them to discuss it with someone who looks at photographs of the course and reads old magazine and newspaper arcticles about it from another state but who's never even been there or should they discuss it with someone who actually comes to the course and looks at it to understand it better?"

I don't know...maybe you should ask Gil Hanse or Tom Doak their thoughts on that subject.

And I'm not sure what that has to do with any comment I have made on this thread. What did I say on this thread which requires a play at Merion before being considered prudent by a member of Merion or any other friend of Merion?

[wsmorrison]

You bet I am a homer, Bill, but not totally devoid of objectivity I hope.  As for Flynn, I forgive him his Boston upbringing, like that of Bill Dow, and welcome them both as adopted sons of Philadelphia.  

Although I have travelled extensively around the country and much of the globe, I have never moved from Philadelphia and am proud of these deep roots.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul;
For a guy who really get into the details and fine points of architecture, I'm surprised to hear that you think that the addition of the bunkers on 4 & 5 are such an off-handed afterthought as to be meaningless and any criticism is somehow overblown."

Mike:

A couple of things about those bunkers on #4 and #5. In an architectural conceptual sense I think those bunkers in the position they're in are sort of architecturally redundant, and I've said that a number of times. However, if one is interested in the evolution of a famous golf course at least we know they did exist where they now are. That to me is interesting in an historical sense. And certainly it's not as if the club or the architect just came up with the idea of them two years ago. The fact is they were there once, and it's very likely Flynn had to do with them! That makes them interesting to me.

The thing I find sort of funny on here is some of these critics of Merion act as if the historic purity or the historic evolution of a golf course like Merion is something that shouldn't really be questioned---that it should only be protected and preserved. But then they start picking and choosing what should and shouldn't be anyway!

So what is this---Merion East according to Mike Cirba or Tom MacWood? When someone like Bill Vostinak starts to question what Flynn's ideas were on trees, for instance, I start to wonder. Maybe Bill Vostinak doesn't like the way Flynn occassionally used trees for strategic reasons on certain courses, but I'd prefer those courses consider what Flynn was trying to do architecturally and not what Bill Vostinak thinks Flynn should have done. The same can probably be said for Merion East and those bunkers.

At the very least, Mike, I surely don't view them as you seem to, as some of the worst bunkers in the world. All they really are or ever were is sort of architecturally redundant in a conceptual sort of way!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

As far as those bunkers, I see what you're trying to say, but I have to ask you;

WWFD?  (What would Flynn do?)

I think we have a pretty good sense given their historic 15 minutes of fame.  Thank god they didn't take an aerial on the day that Flynn had intestinal cramps out near the 17th green or they'd have probably restored that pile, as well.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

At least I'm glad to see you using some humor on this subject! That's a lot more realistic and appropriate regarding those bunkers than the life and death manner some of these other "purists" seem to treat a situation like this. Should I try to look at it the way Flynn might? Yeah, probably so! I have very little doubt if Flynn could read some of the seriousness of some of this commentary on here he'd probably roar with laughter!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

Where's Huge "Puffy" Wilson when we need him?

I'm sure he's not pleased with the current maintenance methods.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm always curious how these architects would have looked upon these subjects. As someone who is great admirer of Flynn, and someone looks upon (I assume) himself as an important advocate for Flynn and his work (and God knows many of these dead architects need living advocates), IYO how would have Flynn looked upon the recent Merion bunker project? Would he've approved of the current product?

Which brings up a larger question: should we consider a dead architect's (or artist's) attitudes when deciding if their best work should be preserved and protected? For example Frank Lloyd Wright was constantly redesigning/remodeling his home in Wisconsin--Taliesin. Likewise Ross and Macdonald often tinkered with Pinehurst #2 and the NGLA. Based upon these architect's habits, is it a mistake to preserve these landmark designs with as little reconstruction/redesign/destruction as possible?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
Huge "Puffy" Wilson decided that one of those grassy lobes in the bunker on #13 looked pretty comfortable and decided to kick back and take a nap on this thread.

Nothing better then taking a nap on tuck and roll!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tommy;

And the fact that you can't even see "His Hugeness" in Carlyle's picture of the 13th indicates just how thick and puffy those bunker faces really are!  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Those are all excellent questions and ones we on here sort of discuss and think about in a general sense all the time in the area of restoration.

Obviously, if one is to be completely realistic about those questions and their answers we should certainly realize and understand that many of those questions just aren't knowable or are only knowable to some degree,

"TE
I'm always curious how these architects would have looked upon these subjects. As someone who is great admirer of Flynn, and someone looks upon I assume himself as an important advocate of Flynn and his work (and God knows many of these dead architects need living advocates), IYO how would have Flynn looked upon the recent Merion bunker project? Would he've approved of the current product?"

Of course I'm very curious about what they would've thought too. That's one of the reasons I believe in stripping away as much as possible of all that we know that came after them that they never could've known and then analyzing closely how they dealt with various situations and issues and the way they looked at things. We can't understand them very well unless we first try everything possible to view their world and era the way it really was in all kinds of little ways! A huge difference in perspective is created, in my opinion, if we view their world and era by looking back at it through the prism of the things we know they never could have known!!

You asked:

"Which brings up a larger question: should we consider a dead architect's (or artist's) attitudes when deciding if their best work should be preserved and protected? For example Frank Lloyd Wright was constantly redesigning/remodeling his home in Wisconsin--Taliesin. Likewise Ross and Macdonald often tinkered with Pinehurst #2 and the NGLA. Based upon these architect's habits, is it a mistake to preserve these landmark designs with as little reconstruction/redesign/destruction as possible?"

Tom, this is probably where you and I might differ on some of these issues. I believe, if you truly come as close to understanding how they thought and worked why you'd want to do something different than they did or the way they thought? Clearly this begins to get into your philosophy that one should preserve some of this architecture simply because you feel its reached such a point of respect!

I, on the other hand, think that point of respect is determined in another way. I call it reaching that point where architecture passes the important "test of time" where basically no one wants to alter it in any way! I believe to reach that point research into that architecture is very important but I also believe the proper way to communicate that to the memberships of clubs (the only ones who have to do with maintaining or altering it) is just as important. If you don't accomplish the latter all the work done with the former will be for naught anyway.

That's probably why I insist so much on how to approach and deal with memberships which you've never seemed to care much about.

What you need to do is what I and in many cases Wayne too have done so much of in the last year or so---getting out there and showing clubs and those that run them what the research process is all about and also how to educate and interest memberships to build up respect for their architecture and their architects.

You seem to think restoration projects are inherently dangerous. Some may be but in my opinion the interest in doing them and also the correct process in doing them right is catching on fast---it's almost reached a critical mass, in my opinion. You should have seen the dinner I had with Fox Chapel last Monday---it was really impressive the track they're now on that they weren't on just a year and more ago. Its all got to do with good research and creating a good process with the memberships of clubs.

This kind of thing should not be discouraged in any way, in my opinion, by throwing up some kind of fear of restoration. If a course has been so well preserved its in no need of restoration then perhaps that's the time for preservation alone but frankly, I've never seen a golf course that's perfectly preserved from the beginning to today!

Restore it well and then work to preserve what you've done, is my philosophy and that's what most of these master plans today are---they're restorative, and when that's done their preservative! This type of thing never existed before about 10-15 years ago when the era golf architecture was in was almost always on of redesign!

That's changed now and if you don't think so you need to get out there and see for yourself!

[A_Clay_Man]

Since noone is interested what someone who's never been within 300 miles of Philadelphia thinks, I won't tell you that those architecturally redundant bunkers on (what I assume is a par 5) what is it ? the 4th hole, looks like the way Tillie protected his 5's.

Are they out of place(character) with all the other holes, too? or do they fit in? Does the creek run today?

[TEPaul]

Adam:

Those smallish bunkers on #4 and #5 are definitely not "out of character" at Merion. All they really are is sort of architecturally redundant. If you have a great natural feature like a creek (yes there is some running water in it) the smartest thing to do with it is use it in the strategic concept of the hole and as a good natural feature one should probably assume if its used well and it doesn't need some other architectural feature, such as a bunker, to make it better. Using a bunker juxtaposed to an otherwise good natural feature is simply considered architecturally REDUNDANT! Some might even call it a double hazard and rightly so! Some might even say bunkers in that juxtaposition detract from the effectiveness of a creek and rightly so. But this is basically architectural redundancy and by no means makes those smallish bunkers some of the worst in the world as they've been characterized on this thread!

[JSlonis]

George Pazin
This is an interesting point. I wonder if the average golfer finds narrow fairways and heavy rough more difficult than anything else. I find everything difficult, so I'm not much of a judge.

How different is the rough from the fairway (I'm agronimically challenged)? How practical would it be to maintain much wider fairways for everyday play and then narrow it up for the bigger events (I'm against this practice personally, but it seems universally accepted)? How much tougher (or easier?) would Merion play with wider fairways?

George,

To answer your question:  From an agronomic and playablity standpoint, it is not very practical to maintain wider fairways and then narrow them up for competition.  At Merion as well as most other courses in this area, the fairways are bent grass and the roughs are usually some type of bluegrass/fescue.  To maintain a wide fairway and then narrow it by just maintaining very high bent grass rough does not work very well.  The Bent Grass strain used in fairways and on greens is not very playable when kept at a higher rough height.

[TEPaul]

Where is Huge "Puffy" Wilson, Mike?

Last time I heard about him he was in some crack house in North Philadelphia chasing some rapper around the house with a .45!

[A_Clay_Man]

Thanx for that, Tom.

George, As Js points-out it has alot to do with the grass type. Also the growing season for that grass. With these big time events the slightest inconsistency and they rant like an underpaid whores. At a course like Pebble it's more doable since the rough and fairways are the same grass. (i think?) After all they are famous for saying "give them two weeks notice and they could hold any major." Not a bad back-up contingency.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()