[T_MacWood]

Chipoat
These images were in an old magazine--THE NATIONAL GREENKEEPER (11/1930).

Perhaps they could build a small lake or pond in front of the 4th green. Fazio is quite good with water hazards.

[mike_malone]

 Merion's look sure does stir emotions on this site. I agree that the "upholstered" construction is less than ideal .We had the same contractor at Rolling Green and the visual intimidation of sand faces is missing here as well,so i know what that is like.It took Wayne a while to educate me about this important Flynn concept.But, it does seem that the evolution of the "look" is progressing along intelligent lines.The surrounds have a different intimidating look now.It is distinctive in our area--when you drive by you say"that is Merion".

     It seems clear that moving fairway grass up to bunkers is being done as well.Somehow the message has been received at Merion.I would love to see #5 bunker by the green have fairway like that sketch---more fairway to the right and beyond the bunker--but i laud the progress rather than criticize .

    It is good to present on this site well thought out ideas about these classic courses but important to stay current with what is happening on the ground.

[SPDB]

Tommy - You're truly unbelievable. I think if you peruse both of our postings on this thread, you will find that it is you that is making the personal attacks, not me. Remember, just because your venom is directed at somebody outside this site, doesn't make it any less of a personal attack.

How does the language you quote make me the "aggressor," particularly in light of similar, even stronger, language from Tom Paul just a few posts before the one you quoted?

Your paragraph where you wax on romantically about your love of the nuances of Merion is great, but personal opinions about the course do not substitute for real architectural analysis.

I don't dispute that everyone is entitled to their opinion about the Merion project (even you!), but please don't characterize mine as "piss poor" or totally lacking in substance.

My posts, I believe, merely illustrate that there is a fundamental bias that exists w/r/t  people's opinions about the work done at merion.

So far on this thread, I have noticed some real errors that have led to more bloodlust:

1. The fairways are narrow. They aren't, they are wider.
2. The bunkers on 4 and 5 are created by Fazio. They aren't, as Wayne has so dispassionately indicated on his post.
3. Everything Fazio did he screwed up, only to be acknowledged as such by the club and rectified by a crack team of in-house workers under the auspices of Shaffer. Again, this is wrong. I don't dispute that there was real maintenance problems that were occasioned by some over the top work on the banks. Those problems were fixed over time by fazio, the super, and mother nature. But to characterize the recovery or modifications of the bunker surrounds as a repudiation of Fazio's work is disingenuous.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

I never said the bunkers on 4 & 5 were created by Fazio.

They were recreated by Fazio at the club's insistence.

Evidently, they had about 15 minutes of life (probably before it was realized they were a bad idea in the first place) in the 30s, and probably were deleted by Flynn himself.  

These guys did tinker, you know....trial and error, that kind of thing.  

That's why blind insistence on some sort of restoration to a particular year without any type of additional judgement or rational analysis is usually not a good idea.

[SPDB]

Evidently, they had about 15 minutes of life (probably before it was realized they were a bad idea in the first place) in the 30s, and probably were deleted by Flynn himself.  

I don't know how you can say that. Do tell.

These guys did tinker, you know....trial and error, that kind of thing.  

Yes, I totally understand. Sort of like building a bunker wall that you think will grow grass, only to realize later that it doesn't. Trial and error, that sort of thing.  

Mike - I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you. I'm just pleading with people to look at the whole scope of the project, including:
1. The condition of the bunkers before the project.
2. The instructions from the club (including Marucci's).
3. What was accomplished (including fairway recapture, tree clearing, etc.)

Rather than taking a look at Carlyle's pictures and jumping to conclusions about the failures (and successes?) of the totality of the project.

Also, I will fully admit to having no first hand experience on how to direct a restoration project, so I cannot speak to the wisdom or danger of targeting a specific year as restorative model. Nevertheless, the club seemed to pick it, so who are we to argue with it?

Tommy - Can you post the 1931 pic that Wayne evidently sent you?

[mike_malone]

 I certainly agree with Mike Cirba that Flynn made changes--sorry Mike can't admit he made mistakes --.What is intriguing about that sketch is that the small bunker drawn in just over the creek seems to be in front of the right side of the green.In the photos of 1981 the bunker seems to be off to the right.Do the older photos show the bunkers in front?
    Flynn probably saw Merion as his "Pinehurst",the course where he tinkered near his home.Does that make sense Wayne? I'm just speculating.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

In 1924, there was a bunker at the 4 o'clock position (you can see the mound that replaced it in the drawing that Tom MacWood posted) with a grass island in the middle.  Between 1924 and prior to 1930 the hole was as shown in the drawing posted.  For the 1930 Amateur, as Chip noted, Flynn added the two front bunkers and put a low flashed up bunker in the mound on the right.  This can be seen today and on the 1981 photograph that Tommy N posted for me while we also note that the front bunkers were removed.  I like that they were restored to the 1930 look.  They clearly hinder topped approach shots from skipping over the creek and onto the green.

I wouldn't exactly say that Flynn saw Merion as his Pinehurst.  Merion, like Pinehurst, was tinkered with over many years with better and better results.  Donald Ross was the sole creative force at Pinehurst while there was more of a collaborative effort at Merion.  Granted, Hugh Wilson and Flynn seem to be much of the same mind when it came to golf design and were close friends as well.  Wilson and Flynn made substantive yet positive changes over the years including routing, routing progression, and hole design changes over the years.  When Merion first opened, it was a major improvement on golf in Philadelphia, but it reached much higher levels of design sophistication over the years.  Merion is one of the great designs in the world and benefitted from the collaborative efforts of skilled men over a long period of time.  It does share some commonality with Pinehurst.

I agree with Mike Cirba that it is an easier political dynamic to say to a membership that we are returning to a particular look from a specific year--especially one as significant as Merion in 1930, but it is often not the best method of attempting a restoration.  Each hole in its ideal design should be retained if the entire routing flows well with those iterations.  In the case of Merion specifically, some changes made after 1930 merit retention.  Certainly the changes to 14 green were maintained.  The second greenside bunker on the left of 7 was not.  Currently the footprint of this bunker remains fill was not added to return the hillside to its 1930 form.  I would have either retained the bunker (1st choice) or secondly filled in the footprint and returned the topography to its 1930 form.

[mike_malone]

thanks Wayne

[ChipOat]

Wayne:

When there is a committee of hard-working, well-intended, generally successful people involved in such a major project, just WHO do you suggest should be the ultimate arbiteur of which post-1930 changes are retained and which are restored?

Club President?; majority of entire board?; majority of entire membership?; consensus of 3 most "important" participants?; Tom Fazio?; David Fay?

Absent a benevolent dictator, the approach taken was not only politically expedient - it was essential.  How else do you believe consensus could have been achieved?

I was hoping all the decisions would be left up to me but I'm not surprised that some other process prevailed.

[wsmorrison]

Chip,

I hear you and agree completely.  It would be impossible for a committee of well-intentioned and informed members to decide what post-1930 changes should have been considered keeping and what the final process should entail.  There was no method of achieving a consensus and pinpointing an historical high-water mark was, as you say, an essential step to take.  I think the results are fine.  I was more or less speaking in ideal though impractical terms.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mayday;

One only has to play the 9th at Philmont North to realize that William Flynn, despite his amazingly consistent architectural elegance, was ultimately human and screwed up once in a while.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

In honor of Patrick Mucci who I hope is having a great summer vacation, I'll answer this wretched post in the same manner.

My posts, I believe, merely illustrate that there is a fundamental bias that exists w/r/t  people's opinions about the work done at merion.

Since when were you assigned to by this erudite group to be the Bias Police?

Please show me one time where you have done some detailed intimate research on any subject regarding any course and shared it with us in the form of photos, articles and other historical information?

Further, you act like your the only one with intimate knowledge of club business in regards to this work being done. What makes you think some of us haven't talked to certain people with-in the club that have acknowledged the mistakes that were made and then acted properly in correcting them as well as informing of us of things they found during reconstruction and how we may have been wrong?

So far on this thread, I have noticed some real errors that have led to more bloodlust:

Just you being more critical and then turning to words like bloodlust to make it sound like we are being cruel and unjust when they are merely observations.

1. The fairways are narrow. They aren't, they are wider.

Quite obviously you haven't researched any photos from any of the books to see that the fairways aren't nearly as wide as they were in 1930, when the architecture (italicized since you never ever really give us insight to the subject) was as Flynn concocted it in his remodel of the course. Where is the bloodthirst in this observation?

2. The bunkers on 4 and 5 are created by Fazio. They aren't, as Wayne has so dispassionately indicated on his post.

Everyone particpating was interested in when these bunkers were implemented. What's wrong with that? (Still no bloodthirst, not at least on my palate.)

3. Everything Fazio did he screwed up, only to be acknowledged as such by the club and rectified by a crack team of in-house workers under the auspices of Shaffer.

How could Fazio screw-up when he wasn't really ever there?

I don't dispute that there was real maintenance problems that were occasioned by some over the top work on the banks. Those problems were fixed over time by fazio, the super, and mother nature. But to characterize the recovery or modifications of the bunker surrounds as a repudiation of Fazio's work is disingenuous.

Sean, You finally admit it here that there were problems!  Wasn't this part of the original complaint of Fazio and Company to begin with?  That they didn't have the knowledge as RESTORATION EXPERTS and had a previous HORRIBLE RECORD of RESTORING OTHER CLASSIC COURSES? ? ? ? ?

If you would be not so quick to shoot off of the handle and read the posts, and see the acknowledgement was given to all at Merion for the outstanding work they have done in both the tree removal and correct the areas that had not gone according to plan. But this is the problem with you Sean, you can not ascertain what is criticism and observaton in an analytical sense.  You disguise it and try to call it bias

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Now back to some architectural discussion.

How many here feel that these fronting bunkers help protect the green from Old Man Eagle? (Since that's what it has become nowadays)

Do you think the front pin would be a dangerous one for eagle because of it, or do you think that the great player could resign himself to play for the 2nd half of the green and put his faith in a long putt coming back? But then again, the way some of these guys hit fairway woods nowadays........

[SPDB]

Tommy - I'm trying hard to not bring my posts down to the acrimonious level on which you appear to be operating, but, please, try and restrain yourself.

The original point (that, I guess, spurred on this volley of posts) I was making was that when the bunkers were finished everybody had a problem with the finished product. Now that the finished product is, at least, agreeable to that same group, the problem has become mid-construction problems. Since you are not footing the bill, I'm not certain why it should make a bit of difference to you. You're confusing the original complaint. People had problems with the look and depth of the bunkers, not the construction expertise.

This little exchange

ME:  So far on this thread, I have noticed some real errors that have led to more bloodlust:
 

YOU:  Just you being more critical and then turning to words like bloodlust to make it sound like we are being cruel and unjust when they are merely observations.

It's difficult being painted the bad guy lobbing personal attacks here in light of the following quotes (culled from your previous posts on this thread):

• "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."
• "Mike,

Pay no attention to Sean and his piss-poor, "I have been aggrivated & assaulted attitude." I would warrant his opinion, if he ever had one. Instead he would rather attack what is seen in the pictures and as far as I know, pictures ARE in fact admissable evidence aren't they?"

• "Merion to me will forever always be a golf course worthy of study from the natural rolls of the fairways to the magnificent and quirky routing and the mastefully contoured putting surfaces. The quirks of the course itself are what makes the course the GREAT, and that it is, the rough at the edges appeal that makes it almost seemingly like jumping into a time warp to 1922; the ruins of an old stone quarry to the unique use of Cobbs Creek. Its strategic golf architectrure at its finest and the balance of holes as well as the challenge they present from the tee to the green is almost unmatched in terms of its place in Golf History.......

"Now in that short paragraph Sean, I have said more about the course architecturally then you have in your entire years on Golf Club Atlas, and I didn't even mention the bunkers."
[/list]

That short little paragraph actually says very little about architecture, and a lot of about what appeals to you about Merion.

Also, point me to the post where I denied that there were problems during construction.

Lastly, when I say that the fairways are wider, I am responding to the posts on this site that seem to indicate that the fairways are narrowing under Fazio's guidance. I'm not comparing it to 1930.

Back on Page 1, you responded in the affirmative to a comment by Mike Sweeney that the fairway's were narrowing. This is without basis, as the fairways have been widened (relative to when the project started, not to 1930). Your observation that the fairways have narrowed is figmentary, and a function of your predisposition. Moreover, you term the bunkers in front of 4 as "mystery bunkers," despite the fact that Wayne has illustrated that these were part of the 1931 design.

Please don't criticize my writing style or word choice, I don't do the same to you, despite how it easy it would be.

If doing detailed, intimate research on a course is a prerequisite to either 1) post on this thread, 2) familiarity with a course or 3) disagree with you, then I stand corrected. Fortunately that is not the case.

How many times have you been to Merion?

[Brian Phillips]

Tommy,

I do think the bunkers were put in to protect the score (ie old-man-eagle) and cannot think of any other reason.  I wouldn't mind them being there if the rest of the course was easy but it is isn't!!

The other thing is that they don't really look as if they belong..they look manufactured.

I played Sand Hills, Pine Valley, Aronimink and Merion all within 6 days of each other and Merion was by far the hardest for this crappy golfer...so no, I don't like the bunkers and I didn't like the way the fairways were being cut in that year either.

I felt that the fairways should be cut all the way up to the bunkers (perhaps not as far as you have done it) so as to create strategy off the tee again.

When I played the fifth I sliced it way right (not past the fairway bunker) and lost my ball in the rough BEFORE the bunker.  That to me defeated the design of the hole as it is designed so that if you go right you then have to come over the green bunker as well as think about the stream on the left.  If you hug the left hand side of the fairway you are in prime position.  With the rough being as it was that day you had left, middle or dead....

I still LOVE the course and luckily, have been invited back so I can't be too much of a moan!!  Willie is a star!!

Brian

[George Pazin]

I played Sand Hills, Pine Valley, Aronimink and Merion all within 6 days of each other and Merion was by far the hardest for this crappy golfer...so no, I don't like the bunkers and I didn't like the way the fairways were being cut in that year either.

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?

As an aside, if you return to play Merion, Brian, I will be highly offended if you don't let me know. I'd drive the 5 hours to Philly just to share a cheesesteak and beer with you.

[Paul_Turner]

I remember seeing a photo of the 4th some time ago and immediately thinking those fronting bunkers cluttered the hole and looked unecessary with the creek.  I'm with Brian and Mike: take 'em out!

[Brian_Gracely]

Tommy,

I've never played the course, but I'd think that the fronting bunkers on #4 would discourage some of the risk/reward a player might face to a front pin.  With the creek being close to the front, a player might try and challenge an exact distance to a front pin vs. going in the creek.  But having creek &/or bunker as the risk, players will more than likely play long and take their chances with a downhill putt.  

Sure some people might say that the bunkers would force an even more exacting approach, but I'd like the possibilities of (a) bouncing one over the creek, (b) hitting a very low shot, (c) playing a precise iron that flirts with the creek and a front pin.  

[TEPaul]

As for the Flynn drawings posted on here of Merion's holes #4 and #5, first of all, William Flynn did a lot of hole drawing iterations on numerous courses he was involved in---and he did a good number of iterations on various holes of Merion. Some things got built and done and some didn't. Merion East was a course that architecturally took about 22 years to finally complete (Bill Kittleman's estimation).

The bunkers today, after the Merion bunker project, look a lot better than they did in the first year or two after their completion. The reason is the grassings has really grown in and the edges and surrounds have matured a lot in the last two years. Because of the construction method used in that bunker project the surrounds (where the grass starts to meet and overlap with the sand) is a lot heavier looking than Merion's bunkers have ever had in their history, except for a few that evolved with massive sand-kick build-up (#8, #13).

The evolution of Merion's bunkers over the course's history basically started as just generic forms that had very little interest where the grass met the sand for perhaps the first ten years. From that point the bunkers evolved to a "surround" look of exceptionally lacy and frilly grass edges.

That look lasted from the 1920s perhaps to the late 1960s, and could probably be considered most of the tenure of Joe Valentine. Then beginning in the 1970s the bunkers began to evolve again closer to the original generic look and the edges started to lose that lacy, edgy look. Why? Primarily just maintenance methods and practices. The old days of the scythe went out and the edger, trimmer or weedeater came in. That photo of hole #4 shows the look of Merion's bunker edges and how they'd evolved before the recent bunker project. Ironically, the look of Merion's bunkers had evolved to something quite similar to that old generic look in the first ten years! (this from conversations with Joe Valentine's son, Richie who was Merion's super from the 1960s until about 1990). Today that edgy, sort of jaggedy grass-edge look is back again---the only difference is that far heavier look of how the surrounds sort of roll down to the sand now.

As far as what Chip Oat said about the "playability" of the bunkers today compared to the "playability" back in the 1930 due to far less sophisticated SWs, I think most all of you completely misunderstood his point.

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!

[T_MacWood]

"Ironically, the look of Merion's bunkers had evolved to something quite similar to that old generic look in the first ten years! (this from conversations with Joe Valentine's son, Richie who was Merion's super from the 1960s until about 1990). Today that edgy, sort of jaggedy grass-edge look is back again---the only difference is that far heavier look of how the surrounds sort of roll down to the sand now."

Do the current bunkers look anything like what Merion has had at any point in their history? What do you prefer--the current MacDonald & Co constructed edgy jaggedy heavy grass liped bunkers or the famous white faces attended by Valentine & Co for four score (give or take a score)?

The increase width and the removal of trees is a positive development--an example of good management & maintenance. The bunker program is an example of the possible negative ramifications of restoration/reconstruction.

"It is better to preserve than to repair, better to repair than to restore, better to restore than to reconstruct."

Is the recent bunker work at Merion a case of restoration or reconstruction?
 
Here is an interesting aerial.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom M,

Nice aerial, thanks for putting something up so I can stop skimming by the Presidential Debates above.

Hmmmm....something's missing in that aerial.  Oh, yes.  Trees.  A few in a couple of spots, but not many.

I assume the tee shot across Ardmore Ave was in place then?

[TEPaul]

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

Tom MacWood:

If you want my opinion on the distinctions involved in that question you should read my previous post again! Don't forget, I live here and I've seen those bunkers for the last thirty years.

"What do you prefer--the current MacDonald & Co constructed edgy jaggedy heavy grass liped bunkers or the famous white faces attended by Valentine & Co for four score (give or take a score)?"

What I personally prefer is this:

1. I liked best that lacy, edgy look of Merion's bunkers from the late 1920s to perhaps the early 1970s.

2. Second best, I like the edgy, rugged look of the bunker surrounds today, despite the fact they are far heavier looking than they ever have been.

3. Third best, I liked the look of the way they were before the recent bunker project, although, as I've said on here numerous times before, they looked very similar to numerous other courses around here whose bunkers have been neglected for decades. When I say this many of you may have no idea at all what I mean---probably because you don't want to!

4. The look I liked the least is the bunkers of Merion in the first ten years of the course's existence---they were increidibly bland looking in every way!

You may feel very different about all this Tom, but the fact is you've never even seen Merion East, never played the course, and no amount of old magazine articles or old aerials from 2,000ft is going to make up for that.

Some of you who hardly know Merion are acting on here like you can and should tell some of these people who've belonged to the place for years and played the course hundreds upon hundreds of times everything they should know about Merion East!

In that particular way, some of these Merion threads go past the point of being ridiculous!

[T_MacWood]

"You may feel very different about all this Tom, but the fact is you've never even seen Merion East, never played the course, and no amount of old magazine articles or old aerials from 2,000ft is going to make up for that."

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.

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?

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

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. 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?

[T_MacWood]

My nomination:

"The Swollen Lips of Merion"

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Although I may have missed your point, it would seem that you posted the September 1930 magazine picture to demonstrate that the front bunkers are not evident in the photo.  This is a case where a single photo is misleading.  

This photo in one of the golf publications of the day was taken by Dallin in one of his aerial surveys.  The entire collection exists today and is, as I know you know, housed at the Hagley Museum and Library near Wilmington, DE.  I have some photos dated September, 9, 1930 from the collection taken from a slightly different angle than the one you posted  that clearly shows the front bunkers, although they are placed just a bit differently than they are today.  I also have others dated September 27th, 1930 including one that looks nearly identical to the photo you posted except that it shows more of the course (though in the same scale--the one in the magazine seems cropped since in the one I have all the holes opposite the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave are visible).  These show the front bunkers quite clearly.

Tom Paul is right about all the iterations Flynn drew and we have to be careful to figure out if the drawings we're looking at are the final versions.  Sometimes the final versions (usually made as presentation copies in india ink on linen) are not exactly as built due to small changes in the field.  In any case, I'm not so sure the drawings published in the journal that Tom MacWood cites represent the final designs that existed for the 1930 Amateur.  As I said in a previous post, the 1930 linens were misfiled for a time and I haven't seen them in quite a while.  I hope to do so as soon as the new archive room is complete.  

The Merion Golf Club knows very well the value of their extensive archival materials and memorabilia.  They have gone to great expense and effort to house them properly.  I think the board and club historian, John Capers, should be congratulated for their fine efforts.  As a result of Merion's efforts, Tom Paul helped Pine Valley get their papers in order by suggesting they use the same expert that Merion used, Andy Mutch who used to be at the USGA.  The Quaker spirit of cooperation continues in Philadelphia.

As I study the 1924, 1930, and 1934 drawings, it seems that between 1924 and sometime before 1930, the entire front of the green was very close to the creek, perhaps 8-10 feet.  The file of drawings I have apparently made for the 1930 Amateur contain two iterations of 4.  One shows a mound at 3 O'Clock and a discreet bunker at 4 O'Clock.  A second in this file shows that same drawing with pencil marks showing a revised fairway contour proposal and the revised bunker and green scheme as appears in the Dallin photographs which is closely modeled on today--one of the front bunkers is flashed into the mound on the right.  When the front bunkers were added for the 1930 Open, the right front of the green was drawn back and the bunkers were placed where the green space was.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()