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.


Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2005, 01:34:47 PM »
Yes, Wayne...the one constant through the inception years of Merion until the course was completed as we knew it for 70 some years was William Flynn.

That's why this strict adherence to the 1930 timeframe makes little sense.  Flynn was still involved making changes to the course post that date, and removing those post-1930 changes doesn't seem to make any strategic sense that I can gather, but quite the contrary.

Now, if they were talking about restoring fairway widths to 1930 or so, that's a different thing.  If they were talking about creating bunkers and surrounds that looked like 1930, that might also be a different thing, but the present bunkers, despite their shaggy look, most assuredly do not look like they did in 1930.  

Overall, it seems to be a selective restoration done somewhat capriciously.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 01:37:34 PM by Mike_Cirba »

SPDB

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2005, 01:40:41 PM »
Mike - BTW, we've been neglecting the most plausible explanation for the disappearance of those bunkers. Tillinghast, possibly on furlough from his whirlwind "Duffer's Headache" tour, probably stopped into the visit his old boyhood home. While there he probably took in an afternoon at Merion.

Arriving at the clubhouse, he was likely surprised to find it empty, with only a bare bones operation. Nevertheless, he ventured forth onto the great old course. He was zipping around nicely, when a duffed approach to the 4th skipped along, hopping over the creek and coming to rest in the left bunker fronting the green. His blood beginning to boil, he nevertheless managed to get up and down for par.

On to the 5th, still hot under the collar from his approach to the 4th, he snaphooked his drive. He couldn't bear to watch. As he walked after it, he realized that the ball hadn't run into the creek, but, rather, was sitting in one of the bunkers abutting the hazard. This was too much for Tillie too bear, after all his nom de plume was Hazard, not Double Hazard.

Retreating in a full sprint toward the maintenance building, Tillie arrived there to find that it, too, was devoid of human life. Moving quickly, relying on instincts acquired from his cross-country expedition, he managed to find a shovel and a wheelbarrow. He sped the wheel barrow back out across Ardmore Ave, cruising right past the bunkers on 4 and 5, until he arrived at the sandy waste in front of the 4th tee. Like a man possessed, he hastily filled the wheel barrow full of sand. Once full he retraced his steps to the two noxious bunkers found along the bank of the creek on #5 and quickly filled them up with sand.

But his work was not yet complete. Now a bit tired, but still determined,  he pushed the cart back toward the sand source on 4. Again, he left the sandy area with his cart full anew. This time he proceeded directly up the hill on 4, and descended down the fairway toward the green. The steep hill, and Tillie's exhaustion got the better of him, and he lost control of the wheelbarrow. Released from his control, it began hurdling down the hill, toward the creek in front of 4 green. All Tillie could do was sit and watch. The wheelbarrow nosedived into the creek, sending its load airborne. The sandy load flew across the creek returning to earth in the left bunker in front of 4.

Utterly spent, but nonetheless satisfied with his accomplishments, Tillie collected the wheelbarrow and returned it to the maintenance shed (where no one was waiting for it). He managed to clean himself off, and repaired to the bar in the rambling old clubhouse (untended of course, cost cutting). He sated himself with a number of whiskeys until well after dark. Completely soused, he eventually stumbled out of the clubhouse returning home whereupon he passed out on the frontporch of a neighboring home.

Three weeks later, a letter arrived at 450 Ardmore Avenue. It was short and to the point.

"Consulting Fee.......50
Labor................... 25

Credit (whiskey).......5"

Please remit to Albert Warren Tillinghast"


Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2005, 01:41:17 PM »
I'd also add that the club didn't try to go back to 1930 yardage, but quite the contrary, have now squeezed enough acreage out of the property with brand new tees to extend the course almost 500 yards.

I believe that most all of the changes were to curry USGA favor for another US Open.  The original bunkers and their surrounds were simply too unpredictable in terms of lies for the "tough but fair" USGA mentality.  I love the tree work that was done, but it also seems to me that the whole 1930 restoration idea came after the fact, simply as a way to explain away the obvious loss of decades of evolutionary character.

Sean,

Great story!  ;D
« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 01:52:24 PM by Mike_Cirba »

wsmorrison

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2005, 02:08:21 PM »
"I'd also add that the club didn't try to go back to 1930 yardage, but quite the contrary, have now squeezed enough acreage out of the property with brand new tees to extend the course almost 500 yards."

Come on Mike, it is a waste of time to even bring up that they didn't go back to 1930 yardage.  That, as you well know, would have been ludicrous.  What's wrong with adding length to the golf course.  It is not a museum and you don't have to play from those tees.  Indian Creek has a nice idea.  They have markers where the original Flynn tees are and that is enough to retain historical integrity in my book.  

The original bunkers had definite drainage problems.  They were entirely too inconsistant.  Maybe the remediations could have been done while leaving the surrounds intact, maybe not.  I don't know and wouldn't want to point fingers when I am not an expert and clearly don't know for certain.  I suspect given the work at Philadelphia Country Club that there was a strong possibility that they could have left them as they were for the most part...there would be some exceptions I'm sure.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2005, 02:12:12 PM »
Wayne,

That's entirely my point.  

Some things about the course in 1930 don't make sense, some do.  To put back features that had all of 15 minutes of fame before someone came to their senses is capricious and only makes sense if the club was intent on restoring the course exactly as it had been, as a museum piece.

As far as the bunker surrounds, was there anything wrong with the job that had already been underway?  Those bunkers both looked and played sensationally!

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2005, 04:34:31 PM »
Mike Cirba,

With respect to capriciousness, would the same architect analzying the golf course in 1912, 1918, 1926 and 1930 view it in an identical context, or, would their perspective vary ?

I don't know that architects, no matter who they are, remain static in their belief and/or design concepts.

I think it's possible that what an architect might favor one year, might fall out of favor with him six, twelve or eighteen years later.  And, I don't think it's necessarily and automatically a function of capriciousness.

If the architect, the designer of a golf course can alter his thinking on a feature, a hole or an entire golf course over time, I don't think it's unreasonable for others to adopt an evolving philosophy regarding that golf course as long as the original design integrity is preserved.

I know you're looking for absolutes, as does Tom MacWood, and myself to a degree, but, it's rare that you'll find them.

Crump, CBM, Ross and others tinkered with their masterpieces for years, but that didn't undermine the genius of their designs or cause them to be viewed as capricious.

Some holes are better in their original form, others worse, no matter who the architect.

wsmorrison

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2005, 06:25:07 PM »
Well said, Pat.  The pursuit of the best golf course the site could offer was the root of the architectural changes at Merion.  This was a process that started right away.  The opening 18-hole golf course was quite a bit different than the 1916 version (it is all detailed in our book) and the 1924 version was quite different when the club purchased additional acreage in 1922 to make necessary changes, taking Ardmore Avenue out of play on three holes.  Continuous improvements and experiments carried through till the 1934 Open when all the substanitive changes were completed.  That's a more than 22 year period of tinkering.  

Flynn's method of operation, if available to him, was to do a routing with a fairly simple bunker scheme and make alterations after seeing the course in play for a time.  Merion was the ideal place to practice this.  Other examples of this can be seen best at Lancaster, Cascades and Philadelphia Country.  Certainly the many courses within 50 miles of his home were going to benefit from his proximity.  But the Cascades was difficult to get to, he would often take his family there and make changes while on vacation.  The one place where he seemed to get it exactly right is Shinnecock Hills.  He worked on the course for about 2 years start to finish as at least part of the course remained in play throughout the complete renovation (which  includes all 18 greens BillV and Tom MacW).
« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 07:30:34 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #57 on: May 09, 2005, 12:04:39 AM »
Mike Cirba,

With respect to capriciousness, would the same architect analzying the golf course in 1912, 1918, 1926 and 1930 view it in an identical context, or, would their perspective vary ?

I don't know that architects, no matter who they are, remain static in their belief and/or design concepts.

I think it's possible that what an architect might favor one year, might fall out of favor with him six, twelve or eighteen years later.  And, I don't think it's necessarily and automatically a function of capriciousness.

If the architect, the designer of a golf course can alter his thinking on a feature, a hole or an entire golf course over time, I don't think it's unreasonable for others to adopt an evolving philosophy regarding that golf course as long as the original design integrity is preserved.

I know you're looking for absolutes, as does Tom MacWood, and myself to a degree, but, it's rare that you'll find them.

Crump, CBM, Ross and others tinkered with their masterpieces for years, but that didn't undermine the genius of their designs or cause them to be viewed as capricious.

Some holes are better in their original form, others worse, no matter who the architect.


Patrick;

I completely agree with you.

But, you misunderstand me.  I'm not questioning the capriciousness of William Flynn (or Hugh Wilson) in making changes to the golf course over its first 20 or so years.  Like Ross at Pinehurst, these were fellows who spent enormous time trying to fully maximize the property for golf and they created a masterpiece.

I love the Merion course.  I have nothing against the club or anyone associated with it.  When all is said and done, it might be my favorite golf course in the world, and truly I can say that no place holds more sentimental value to me.

But when I use the term "capricious", or "abitrary", I'm simply saying that the recent decision to restore the course to a certain year, irregardless of the wisdom or value of certain features that may have existed for a brief moment in time, is neither wise nor true restoration.  

I believe the club caught themselves in a trap of using "absolutes", and by doing so in a few cases withheld their own intelligent judgements of which features actually were of value, and in the process, also lost a great deal of evolutionary progress and original historical integrity.  That's the paradoxical and incongruous bottom line, despite some very positive steps taken overall.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #58 on: May 09, 2005, 12:10:13 AM »
Mike Cirba,

You might be surprised to find that I agree with you regarding which came first, the cart or the horse.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #59 on: May 09, 2005, 12:18:45 AM »
Mike Cirba,

You might be surprised to find that I agree with you regarding which came first, the cart or the horse.

Patrick,

I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

I know you are discerning enough to know the true story, and although the Superintendent has done a wonderful job in maximizing the positives while minimizing the negatives, it's still a cautionary tale, regardless.

SPDB

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #60 on: May 09, 2005, 12:30:24 AM »
Mike - You ignore the fact that the club might not share the same values as you w/r/t certain features. Moreover, you assume they didn't weigh the wisdom of certain features before deciding to restore them. As you illustrated earlier in the thread when you mentioned constructing back tees as contrary to a true restoration, you'll always be able to find something that keeps it from being a true restoration. But I wouldn't assume that simply because you disagree with certain features, that others don't feel otherwise.

I think you're mistaken on who's caught in the "absolute" trap. Look to your left, do you see someone with a Merion hat?

Wayne - I just looked back at the first page, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, I was responding to Cirbs.

But as for 14, I agree with Tom Paul. I think the absence of bunkers on the left side will make it appear as a benign place to miss, which it is not. I also think it creates short game interest, different in character from the right side. With the increased length of the hole, the mound creates some interesting options for strategery in back left/middle pin positions.

I'd just like to know what was there in 1930, and it doesn't sound like you know what was there either.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #61 on: May 09, 2005, 12:38:29 AM »
Sean,

Do you really believe that the club decided to use some type of value judgement on which 1930 features to restore, or just looked that the 1930 aerial and restored what they saw carte blanche?

Once again, I ask you...could you please describe for me the strategic (or penal, or heroic) value of the bunkers guarding the creek on #5, or the bunkers fronting the 4th green, just over the creek?

I've heard your explanation on #14, but anyone thinking that the left side is "safe", with OB looming a few yards left of that green is either blind or delusional.

SPDB

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #62 on: May 09, 2005, 01:09:37 AM »
Mike - If Wayne is right, doesn't the current mound to the left of 14 green and not rough contradict your claim that they followed 1930 to a tee, come what may?

Which is it?

I'm inclined to think that they did engage in a value judgment of some sort, what evidence do I have to the contrary?  I don't if they took an inventory of strategic value of each hazard, but if they did, there would be a lot that's changed.  

Why keep the top shot bunker in front of 4 tee? Why not excise the little bunker in between 10 & 11? What strategic purposes do those features serve? Following your line, if they weren't strategic in 1930, surely they aren't any more so today. Out they go!

You have to understand that despite the temptation in your logic, it can't be confined. At bottom, its just your view of the hazard vs. theirs, and their the custodian of the course and its HISTORY.

I do think those bunkers properly positioned will swallow balls that otherwise would have otherwise gotten hung up in the rough and not reached the creek. Given the flatness of that area relative to the rest of the fairway, it wasn't a bad place to be even if it was rough. I've been there a lot.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2005, 01:13:36 AM by SPDB »

TEPaul

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #63 on: May 09, 2005, 03:08:17 AM »
Sean:

Reading that last post of yours just reminds me of why so many people (from clubs and clubs like Merion) who sometimes read these threads and posts just shake their heads over this website and about people like you (and probably me). It's just hllarious how serious you seem to be about your opinions over things that really aren't that potentially earth-shattering. The way you present your opinions and defend them and question the opinions of others seems like someone is on trial for their life.

Probably the best way to respond to a guy like you on here with this ultra important issue about what was, is or was ever planned to be at greenside left on #14 Merion East is to relate to you that remark by perhaps the greatest expert and guru on the Rules of Golf today about what is right and wrong within the rules of golf;

He said;

"In the joint R&A/USGA semi-annual Rules Committee meetings (that decide the Rules of Golf) it's not a matter of whether you are right or wrong in your opinion, it's only a matter of whether you get outvoted or not."

wsmorrison

Re:Merion's maintenance meld.....
« Reply #64 on: May 09, 2005, 07:03:00 AM »
"But as for 14, I agree with Tom Paul. I think the absence of bunkers on the left side will make it appear as a benign place to miss, which it is not. I also think it creates short game interest, different in character from the right side. With the increased length of the hole, the mound creates some interesting options for strategery in back left/middle pin positions.

I'd just like to know what was there in 1930, and it doesn't sound like you know what was there either."

Sean,

I am pretty certain I know what was there in 1930 although the level of proof you require is a bit much.  Why can't you look at the Flynn drawing, everything he drew had a specific meaning and accurate scale.  That combined with aerial photographs clearly indicate there were no topographical features, certainly not a swale and clearly not in scale with what is there now.

"Mike - If Wayne is right, doesn't the current mound to the left of 14 green and not rough contradict your claim that they followed 1930 to a tee, come what may?"

I don't think Mike Cirba ever suggested that the restoration followed any target date to a tee.  Knowing what he knows, he is well aware that they did not.  I don't think the club was ever positioning themselves as doing a complete restoration back to 1930.  The information they had at the time was not as comprehensive as it is now nor was the 1930 date a contract with the golfing public to do an exact restoration.  It was something they tried to do with latitude and more than anything was probably a means of presenting the concept to the membership.  It is a bit perplexing why you analyze everything in terms of absolute proofs.  I agree with Tom, if any Merion members read this, and I'm sure they do, they are probably scratching their heads at some of your posts--hey, maybe mine too for that matter.

Regarding the 14th, I think the closely mown swale reduces the impact of the very interesting bunkers on the right side of 14 green.  Average golfers would rather err on the left than the right even though it isn't very benign, especially with a hole position on the left side of the green.  In fact from the other side of the mound, it is downright difficult to get anywhere near the hole.  It does add variety and an added shot value but it was more aesthetically pleasing in my mind with the Flynn mounds and bunker that really made a precise long approach necessary and brought the right hazard complex more into the equation.  It is what it is and it is not a very significant issue with me.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2005, 07:07:42 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Tags: