Merion's flow is brilliant, is it unique?

[HUGE_Puffy_Wilson]

My oh my...

It sure be good to see that those bunkers lookin' as fine as ever and wearin' their Sunday best.    

Someone told me that those nice phat, puffy faces would be wearin' away with time, but from the looks of things, not a chance of that!  

Bet they couldn't get them that puffy back in 1930.  No sir!  

That Mr. Fazio sure knows how to bring back dem good ole days!

[Michael Dugger]

Let me see if I have this straight.

The first time I play a course I cannot know of the concept of flow because I am a "participant".  AFTER I am finished playing 18 holes I am no longer a participant but rather a spectator.  

So, as Pat put it, "flow may be more of a spectator's observation rather than a  participant's observation, due to the retro-active and projective nature of the evaluative process and the ultimate determination."    

WHO FREAKING CARES about this distinction?!?!?!?

What about the 2nd time you play the same 18 holes?  Am I then still not privy to the notion of flow because I am, once again, a participant and not a spectator?
  
Six, or half a dozen the other?  Why bother splitting hairs here, Pat Mucci?  I really wonder?  Why is this distinction even remotely important??

[ReesJ]

MacWood

Good- I'll assume from your answer that you have sent a check for $1000 to Ran and Mucci can do the same.  You have been too cheap to contribute in the past.

[HUGE_Puffy_Wilson]

Hey Rees...I hear you man!

While you're at it, perhaps you can get that Mucci guy to contribute too!  I don't see his name on no list!

[ian]

My apologies to "most architects", generalizations like that are crap and I should know better. Your point is taken Pat.

Rich, thanks for the examples. That's actually what I wanted to know. Does the flow of those courses make them better or have no influence.

Is Merion a better course for the three act play, or has that no difference?

I think its better because there is a psycological impact of tough, short and brutal, that enters a players mind from the outset. I think Tom Paul pointed that out when addressing how much he liked Pat's grammer

[Michael Dugger]

Ian,

I so hear you, if you are advocating that flow is important.  I think it is tremendously important.  Incredibly important.  It does make these courses better.  Golf is such a unique game in that the playing field is never the same aside from 18 tees, 18 holes and about 5500-7700 yards of distance between the two.  

If you can't get a little romantic about the  notion of flow (and I'm not talking about you directly, Ian) I hesitate to say  whether or not golf course architecture is your cup of tea.  We name our cars girls names, we name our putters (billy beru) and we name our bunkers.  There is personality in a golf hole.  Some we find to fit our game like an old glove, whilst our playing companions constantly struggle on a hole that we find simple.  Some holes simply always befuddle us, and we therefore come to hate them.  Add up the personalities of these bunkers and 18 holes and hopefully we generate a good solid 'feel' for a place.  Oakland Hills is a damn monster.  Some courses are sporty.  Merion plays like three seperate acts.  

I remember Jeff Brauer uttering once, when explaining a bunker complex, "sex appeal".  We want drama, we want excitement.  Ebb and flow, the push and the pull.  

I think Ian's notion is top-notch.  Short holes followed by a long uphill slog.  Drivable par 4 followed by a 250+ par three.  Drive and pitch par 4 followed by a 600+ yard par five.  maybe a couple of good hard holes back to back.  I think paying attention to this sort of thing embodies the genius of Alistair Mackenzie to some degree.  In the Confidential Guide Doak wrote that he never understood how Mackenzie's Pasatiempo played so long while only measuring 6400+ yards.  While I think Doak actually does know the answer to the question, I suspect it has to do with shot values, and I think shot-values contributes to a VERY LARGE degree the FLOW of a course.

IMHO, of course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MDugger,

The significance of the distinction should be self evident.

ReesJ,

I'm more than willing to bet, I've also offered very good odds.
I like your suggestion of the loser contributiing to GCA.

Hugh_Puffy_Wilson,

I've contributed, but, have you ?

Ian Andrew,

Flow is most likely the result of random circumstances,
the luck of the land, or routing, if you will.

Merion is not the first course to be deemed to have a number of personalities.  I've also heard the same thing with respect to The Golf Club.  But, I've never heard anyone mention the concept with respect to PV, GCGC, WFW, NGLA, Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes, Pacific Dunes and many others, and I don't think that the absence of distinct sectors has any unusual bearing upon the quality of the architecture.

[HamiltonBHearst]

Pat- if you contributed wouldn't your name be listed between David Moriarty and Larry Munger?  Are you trying to decieve us?

[Patrick_Mucci]

HBH,

Just because my name's not listed doesn't mean that I haven't contributed to GCA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Pat/LIRR/Hamilton
What does Darwin playing (or not playing) at Merion have to do with his observations of the Old Course?

As far as shear number of rounds - you obviously are ignorant of Darwin. He began playing the game in the 1880’s; he died in 1961. I’d estimate he played the game for seventy years – year round no less. Perhaps you are older than I thought.

Although it is imeterial to Darwin’s thoughts on TOC and its flow, I’m pretty sure Darwin did play Merion.

To respond to your post:

This thread is about Merion, not TOC.

You stated that Darwin played more rounds than you and I combined.
How many rounds did Darwin play ?
How many rounds have I played ?
If you don't know the answer to either question, perhaps you may want to retract your statement which could lead readers to believe that you knew the answers, when you really didn't.

Are you positive that you know for a fact that Darwin began playing golf at four (4) or five (5) years old ?
He was born in 1876 wasn't he ?

Did or didn't Darwin play Merion ?
Your answer, that you're pretty sure he did is pure speculation on your part.
Either he did or he didn't.  Do you know for a fact which it was ?
If you don't know, that's okay, just say so.
But, don't posture or present your personal conclusions as factual, if you really don't know the facts.

It's not a big deal, but we should try to be accurate with respect to what we post.

P.S.  The betting window remains ........... open.  

[T_MacWood]

This is an example of how a perfectly good thread gets thrown off course for no good reason:

This thread is about Merion, not TOC.
The author of the thread chose to begin this thread regarding the flow of a golf course (and specifically Merion) by quoting my memory of Darwin's view on how one golf hole at St. Andrews enhanced the flow of that golf course.

You stated that Darwin played more rounds than you and I combined.
How many rounds did Darwin play ? I don't know exactly - a lot.
many rounds have I played I don't know exactly - a good number for someone living in NJ and traveling south occasionly for winter golf. Not nearly as many as Darwin.

If you don't know the answer to either question, perhaps you may want to retract your statement which could lead readers to believe that you knew the answers, when you really didn't. Please don't sue me.

Are you positive that you know for a fact that Darwin began playing golf at four (4) or five (5) years old ?
He was born in 1876 wasn't he ?[i/] Excellent research - yes I believe you correct, he was born 1876. Didn't I write that he began playing golf in the 1880's? When I wrote that I didn't know exactly when he took up the game, only that it was as a boy. No I'm not positive he began at four or five.

Did or didn't Darwin play Merion ? I'm not certain, but I don't think it matters based on the context of his thoughts on St.Andrews...did you read Ian's original post?

Your answer, that you're pretty sure he did is pure speculation on your part. At this point - yes you are correct - speculation.

Either he did or he didn't.  Do you know for a fact which it was ? Sorry, no facts.

If you don't know, that's okay, just say so. Thank you - I don't know.

But, don't posture or present your personal conclusions as factual, if you really don't know the facts. I don't believe I presented my speculation that Darwin likely played Merion as fact - did I?

It's not a big deal, but we should try to be accurate with respect to what we post. I agree completely. And we should probably read the posts before we make idiotic posts responding to them.

P.S.  The betting window remains ........... open. Thanks for reminding me Pat/LIRR/Hamilton/Funny Cide  

[HamiltonBHearst]

Sorry Mr. Mucci. i hope you are not parsing words by saying "have contributed".  The listing is for this year.
Would you accept this excuse from Mr. Macwood or Mdugger?

[Patrick_Mucci]

HBH,

I've never seen the list, so I wouldn't know its defining perameters.  If you say it's for the year, then I can say that I haven't contributed this year.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

To answer your question about expanded fairway width at Merion it's my understanding that they're thinking about doing that in spots. Last spring at a restoration forum the green chairman of Merion mentioned that the restoration of the course has been going on for over a decade and will continue and that the fairway widths basically were never recaptured after the Opens in the 1970s and 1980s. I think holes such as #5, #6, #14 are likely candidates to have their fairways expanded--perhaps #6 already has been.

As for whether Merion was actually designed with it's "three act" routing on purpose the answer is probably something of a middle ground. First of all the routing progression was different in the very beginning and it was changed in the teens and 1920s to what it is today. Second the way the 15th and 16th holes came to be as they are is an interesting story. Originally the club didn't own the land where #15 green and 16 tee are today. They owned the land across the street which is now residences. A man by the name of Francis who was part of the construction committee with Wilson got the bright idea one night to trade the land across the street for the land that's now #15 green and the beginning of #16--and with that the 15th hole and the famous quarry hole fell into place in the routing.

And also originally the club did not own the 7+ acres that is now the famous 11th green surrounded by the creek (the hole on which Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam) and the beginning of #12.

[ian]

mdugger & pat

I found it facinating how both of you pointed out great  evidence of courses with distict flow and courses where it do has less of a roll.

I have only played Pine Valley, Pacific dunes and pebble Beach on your list. I would argue that Pebble starts out very mild till 7, is very difficult through 12, becomes more benign for 13 through 16 and finishes on a dramatic pair of ocean holes. That to me is the same example as Merion.

Pacific Dunes is a wonderfully mixed set of settings and challenges. Pine Valley to me is simply a continuous test of shotmaking with no real changes in pace. The intensity is high and occasionally higher.

The fun part to this Pat, is that your point is made, that flow looks not to be a key ingredient. My suggestion is that it can be a technique that has a huge impact on the over-all result. Is it happenchance, probably for the most part, but Merion to me suggests that it is intended; and thats why I think Merion is so very special in this regard.

mdugger, really enjoyed your post, the naming of cars made me laugh because I have always insisted or company name its golf holes (more fun that way). The notion of naming bunkers and holes shows how much emotional attachment there is to golf. I'm still trying to figure out whether flow also produces an emotional response in a player, or whether it just simply just exists and actually has little to no impact on the player as Pat seems to feel.

Mike, 11 and 12 were still short par 4's, which they remained after the changes. Was not the change on 15 and 16 brought about due to some disatisfaction from Wilson with his own routing?

[Forrest Richardson]

I have asked experts and consulted "Montel's Book of Confusing Sentax" — Here is the translation for "Flow may be more of a spectator's observation rather than a  participant's observation, due to the retro-active and projective nature of the evaluative process and the ultimate determination."

"As Jim walked to the store he pondered the flow at which traffic on adjoining St. Jones Avenue was moving, so he began counting [trying to count] cars, but not trucks or cars towing trailers, and also trains until he was determined to stop."

[Forrest Richardson]

Re: Merion —

The course gets a majority of its flow from the great use of the constrained site and the aftermath of the previous use of the property — Like any great layout is draws from its natural (or unnatural) features, the way things have to be — as opposed to the way they "should" be. "Have to" can be fun and interesting — "Should be" layouts can be foruma-based and boring.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Forrest Richardson,

The difference is that Jim can observe the traffic on the adjoining street, but neither Jim, Ian or anyone else can observe and evaluate the 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th or 18th holes from the the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th holes at Merion.

One has to complete the round and then reflect upon the flow of the course, despite crossing the road twice and having three crossovers from green to tee.

TEPaul,

When you and I played/toured the course with the two Mikes, I believe much of our discussion centered on the improvement that would be brought to the course by returning the fairways to their prior width.

The amazing thing about undertaking that project is the simplicity in accomplishing the goal, the minimal expense on the part of the club, and the benefit the membership would derive, yet, it remains undone.

It's difficult to understand why it hasn't been done as of this date ?

It would also be interesting to find out if anyone is objecting and/or resisting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The fairway width project is incredibly easy to accomplish IF the club really wants to do it.

Perhaps you're correct, and the 2005 US AM is the impediment.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

What I like about Merion-East's "Flow" is that the course seems to fit flawlessly into the landscape, and not remembering if someone said it in one of their posts, (I was busy scolling past all of the usual Bull to really get into it.) it all fits together just like the best jigsaw puzzle.

The East Course hugs the sides of the hills perfectly, and utilizes the naturally obvious places for tees and greens. It is a lesson in Routing 101, brought to you by Professors Wilson & Flynn. when I say this, I think of #2 tee, #3 green, #4 tee, #4 green #5 tee, and one of the greatest lessons in how to place a green on the side of a hill and make it work, #5 green. I could go on further about the rest of the course, but it would bore some of you and Pat would undoubtedly disagree!:)

Look at holes #10,11,& 12. Do those holes not perfectly fit the landscape of the site? And while #10 is one of the big focal points in question regarding the ridiculous length issue, that hole is perfectly placed in the round. Imagine losing the front nine in a Nassau Match, and quickly getting the jump out of the gate by winning #10! Because honestly, it is a perfect hole for Rabbit to get back at a Tiger.

You have the 11th to keep you going, and then, the challeging back up the hill of the 12th. Walk across Ardmore and you have this wonderful little 100 yarder that will rip the legs off of both of you and your opponent, and judging by the looks of the depth of the current bunker, which I have to say is not paticulary right in terms of the hole, (Man-made gobbldeegook)

Redanman nailed it when he said to me once that final five holes might be one of the toughest stretches in Classic American Golf. They're tough demanding holes that build the character of champions, but they also teach the weaker player that intracacies of playing the hole to your strengths, and this is where I think one's biggest victories can come from. There are so many ways to play those final five holes, and because they are sort of the only stand alone holes on the course, (meaning that they don't come in close in proximity to the others, in comparison to the first 12, It proves that this piece of land may be the best type of topography for which to build a golf course on--at least in terms of getting everyone to agree on the same page.)

That knowledge didn't come from moving tons of earth either, it ame from recognizing features that provide the challenge needed.

Go ahead and attack this one Pat.

With that standing, I have to ask, and this is an honest question, I'm not trying to be disingenious....."What kind of golf course would any of the big name designers build on the same plot of land on which Merion East resides?"

What are your thoughts?

[TEPaul]

The thing to understand about Merion is it came to be the way it is over a very long time--about two decades actually. And that evolution was purposeful on the part of those that created the golf course. We have a couple of letters between Hugh Wilson and Piper and Oakley (US Dept of Agriculture) discussing the MERITS of being able to really take one's time on the ultimate construction and finalization of a golf course.

The evolution of Merion East could even be considered very much the prototype in many ways in golf architecture. Those men, Hugh and Alan Wilson, Piper, Oakley, Toomey and Flynn, Joe Valentine and a number of others floating around the evolutionary creation of Merion East were into creating all kinds of "models" for the future of golf course architecture, golf course agronomy and how best to do it all.

The thing that's so interesting to understand today is back then in 1911 and through the teens they really didn't have anyone to turn to for exact and specific advice--they had to just try one thing or another on their own and figure it out for themselves. There was no real architectural model with the notable exception of NGLA and MacDonald and they (Merion) very much tapped into that as a process for the architectural creation of a golf course--and that's why Wilson traveled to Europe for seven months!

Agronomically Merion and those responsible were on their own and they actually got so good at what they were doing and did over about 15 years that they created the National Green Section when there had been nothing like that previous to them. The Wilsons, Toomey and Flynn were considered the last word on golf agronomy in that early era--and they were truly into recording all they knew and disseminating it throughout the world of golf architecture and agronomy! This Merion effort (and their National Green Section reports) actually created the USGA Green Section. And those around Merion were dedicated to creating a bent grass that could work so much better for golf architecture than anything that preceded it.

We even have a letter from Harry Colt who hadn't been in this country for ten years asking to tap into this research! These men even tried to create "models" for how much single holes would cost to create and whole courses both architecturally and agronomically--and they broke those two out.

These people were true innovators in all kinds of ways and they did all this as a ton of members played the course. The original routing progression of Merion was different too until they perfected it and added a few greens and altered the routing. #10, 11, 12, 13 were different holes than they are today and the original front nine holes were played in this routing progression--#1, 2, 6, 7, 4, 5, 3, 8, 9! That routing progression involved two serious crossovers across the valley so they altered it to go with two shorter ones--2 to 3 and 5 to 6. And then in the 1920s with the purchase of 7 1/2 acres #11 green and #12 tee were done and the need to play three times across Ardmore Ave was abandoned as well as the little par 3 #13 behind the clubhouse by the creek.

About 20 years to complete the golf course and that was even considered by them to be a good thing. How times have changed!

[Mike_Sweeney]

With that standing, I have to ask, and this is an honest question, I'm not trying to be disingenious....."What kind of golf course would any of the big name designers build on the same plot of land on which Merion East resides?"

What are your thoughts?

Tommy,

Having a very very small understanding of the regulatory issues in the area, I do not believe that Merion Cricket Club could build 18 holes on that property today because of Cobbs Creek and wetlands issues. The quarry would probably be a problem too because of liability issues. We have a much smaller quarry on our property, and Kelly Moran is trying to figure out how best to bring it into play without bringing it into "dangerous play" i.e. someone falling in.

Tom Paul,

Are any of The Valentines still at Merion? I grew up in the next town from some of the kids, but I never hear their names when I have been down there?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Are you talking about the new, current 13th hole, or the original old one that was a distance from the current hole ?

Which is/was the better hole, the current one, or the previous one ?

In principle, why is it okay for Merion to have altered their golf course, eradicating an old hole and creating a new one, but, other clubs are criticized for doing the same thing ?

Or, is the principle.... flexible, based on the result ?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
I'm talking of the depth of the front bunker on the 13th hole. I don't know the original 13th other then seeing it in the aerial photo. I do know that it existed where Brian Schneider's practice green is, and you can partially see in Ian's picture. The one with Andy Williams standing with the rake in the bunker:)

Mike, Hypothetically then, remove all of the liability that might influence the question. Lets leave the lawyers out of it!:)

This is the same thing that comes up when the question is asked why people don't design courses nowadays like the Old Course. Most architects will accurately suggest that they would be lynched, only afte being tarred & feathered and rode to the lynching stand on a rail. That these courses are actually dangerous. If I decide to base jump off of the Golden Gate Bridge and kill myself, should the state of California be responsible  because they made a bridge that is dangerous to jump-off of?

I for one accept the responsibility of when I step out on to a golf course, it is the same as choosing to walk down a dark alley in Watts, (or in my case, if you have seen the movie "Training Day") the chance I take even driving on the freeway that takes me to LAX that passes right alongside Imperial Gardens. You look down knowing what goes on in neighborhoods like that, yet, you still travel through there because you know its the quickest and most easy way to the airport.

It's should be the same for Golf, and in the case of routing courses like the East Course at Merion, wise that all architects be inspired by its creativity in routing and......FLOW!

I like the idea that architects be allowed to freely design without fear of liability, just as long as it is done sensibly. I know of a course that was designed in 1998 where the cart paths were routed in-line of the upcoming tee shot, and to me that isn't sensible. But, if an abandon quarry that is can be utilized for its natural feature for golf is deemed a feature that can't be used, then there is a problem with the ruling. It is what has been the common claim of the death of common sense. I think there should be a time and place architects should fight for this right because, lets face it, they have given way to way too many ridiculous rules that have been done under the political guise of ecology or liability.

Claims like the Dos Pueblos project in Santa Barbara where an oil refinery tank farm was razed to make way for beautiful green-grassed fairways, and because of one good rain storm, the tire tracks of equimpment used to remove those tanks created compacted grooves tha retained the water for an insignifcant period of time. Suddenly they became wetlands areas, and it selaed the death of what would have been a GREAT and ecologically sound golf course situated on the beautiful California coast.

As my good friend Forrest said in his excellent book on course routing, "it's about the journey," but unfortunately in this case it leads through forest of politcal red tape.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

Like you, I'm a big fan of Merion.

I just view the recent changes from a different perspective.

If you like Merion, you would love Preakness Hills, it has that same natural feel, where green sites flow seemlessly from the fairways, in wonderful locations.  And, I'm sure that you'd be critical of the changes to the course over the years.

But, by studying the history of the changes, you'll learn that it is no one architect, nor one contractor, rather the idiocy/will of the powerbase/membership that has effected dozens upon dozens of changes over the last 50 years, that are out of context with the original design integrity of the golf course.

It's also interesting to note the number of changes that have taken place on golf courses between 1900 and 1960, and the substantial number of changes that have taken place subsequent to 1960.

Could money be the root of all architectural evil ?