Arts & Crafts sidetrack

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I think you are confused. No one is claiming that George said it was an Alps (I did, based on the fact that Tillinghast and others said it was an Alps) and no one is claiming George said it was not an Alps as you have.

I'm aware that YOU made the claim, not George.

And, I'm also aware of what CBM described as necessary for an Alps hole to exist, complete with an abrupt intervening hill which is absent at Merion.

The problem with your position is that you rely on alleged quotes, in a selective fashion, as if they were the gospel, like Ross's alleged quote that Seminole is flat.  
If nothing else it should remind you that can't rely on alleged quotes, that these fellows contradicted themselves, may have been talking in very vague general terms, might have had their comments taken out of context, or may never have uttered the words attributed to them.

If the proof is in the dirt, it doesn't exist at Merion, no matter what CBM is alleged to have said.  By his own words he excludes the categorization of the old 10th at Merion from being an Alps.

Have you ever seen Merion and the land in question, in person ?

It's difficult to envision a substantive, abrupt hill intervening between the DZ and the green, which is what CBM says must exist for the hole to be an Alps.   The configuration in and around the green have NO bearing on determining if the hole is an Alps hole, it's strictly in the area between the DZ and the green.[/color]

When you have a dispute you bring in an independent arbiter, an expert who can settle the dispute. George had seen more Alps than you and I combined, he could settle the question.

I don't need George, or anyone else to tell me what doesn't exist in the land, exists.  

The landform required for an Alps is absent at the old 10th at Merion.[/color]

I'm not sure why you object to asking him what he thinks.
I can ask him what he thinks by picking up the phone and calling him.  I don't need George to describe land that I've seen a good number of times.

Since you postured the theory, I"m more interested in your supporting your claim that the old 10th was an Alps hole.

Or, is this another, wild, "Seminole is FLAT' type of theory, unsupported by the facts and the landform ?
[/color]

Did the Alps at Lido have an escape route? Sleepy Hollow?

YES,

Lido's Alps had an escape route.

I'm shocked that you're unaware of this feature.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

A photo enlargement showing the new 10th green (middle left) and the original green (top left) and new 12th green (top right) in 1924:

Tom MacWood,

Would you point out the substantive and abrupt intervening hill in this photo of the old 10th green and fairway ?

I believe that the elevation changes between the bottom of the photo and the old 10th green are minimal, probably less then 10 feet, and the bottom of the photo would be well below the DZ.[/color]

[T_MacWood]

Pat
I suggest you look at the photo before it was enlarged in the Golden Age.  It is clear the bunker is backed by an elevated berm. An even better photo of the hole (before it was deactivated) can be found within the club history.

[SPDB]

Patrick -
Where does CB MacDonald explicitly say that there MUST be an ABRUPT INTERVENING HILL for a hole to be an Alps? I recall seeing something about a saddle. Remember what you said about following these guys too closely by their words (or the ones you put in their mouths).

Why did a lack of an ABRUPT INTERVENING HILL (created or found) not prevent CBMac from designing and building an Alps hole at the Greenbrier? Surely CBM knew what he was doing there?

[DMoriarty]

As TEPaul stated, it's revisionist history.

Around the time Merion East was created, a number of prominent writers and designers commented that McDonald advised on the design, and that No. 10 was created as an Alps hole.  

So with regard to "revionist history" I think you ought to take a closer look at just who is doing the revising.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
I suggest you look at the photo before it was enlarged in the Golden Age.  It is clear the bunker is backed by an elevated berm. An even better photo of the hole (before it was deactivated) can be found within the club history.
Tom MacWood,

I've seen the photo on page 68 in "The Golden Age of Golf Design".  That's a road fronting the bunker in front of the green, not a hill.  If I remember correctly, that road, Ardmore Avenue is flat, as is the land immediately below it.

CBM's Alps configuration calls for an intervening hill with a bunker between it and the green.  Not a bunker with a berm between it and the green.

It is the intervening HILL, called the Alps that is the determining factor, not some minor rise into which a bunker is cut.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

As TEPaul stated, it's revisionist history.

Around the time Merion East was created, a number of prominent writers and designers commented that McDonald advised on the design, and that No. 10 was created as an Alps hole.  

So with regard to "revionist history" I think you ought to take a closer look at just who is doing the revising.  

Dave,

The proof is in the pudding, where's the intervening HILL ?

Show me the hill, the hill that CBM himself stated was the essence of the Alps.

Because it's alleged that some writers said # 10 was created as an Alps hole, doesn't make it so.   Look at the photo.
Do you see an Alps hill ?
Look closer, remember, you told me your not quite an expert, but you're very proficient at analyzing photos.
Do you see the HILL ?  The Alps Hill CBM said was necessary ?

# 10 lacks the critical feature of an Alps, and as such, no prudent person would declare the 10th hole to be an Alps hole.

Perhaps, due to his reputation, and the clamoring for good golf courses in the Philadelphia area, the writers were trying to tie the design of Merion to CBM's coat tails in order to give it more appeal.

Have you played Merion ?

It's okay to admit you're wrong on this and that you unduely weighted your opinion on the green and its surrounding properties instead of the feature CBM deemed critical to the designating of a hole as an "ALPS"  hole.  [/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

When you have a dispute you bring in an independent arbiter, an expert who can settle the dispute.

George had seen more Alps than you and I combined, he could settle the question.

George Bahto unequivically stated that the 5th at St. Louis is one of the best examples of an Alps hole.

Yet, SPDB declares that the Alps hole at St Louis is the 18th hole.

Who's the expert, George or SPDB.

You said that "George has seen more Alps than you and I combined, he could settle the question."

George has stated the the 5th, not the 18th at St Louis is one of the best examples of an Alps.

Are we to accept his written word on this and dismiss SPDB's opinion ?  Or are we to accept SPDB's opinion and dismiss George's expert opinion ?[/color]

I'm not sure why you object to asking him what he thinks.

I know what he thinks regarding the best examples of Alps holes and the 5th, not the 18th at St Louis is one of them.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where does CB MacDonald explicitly say that there MUST be an ABRUPT INTERVENING HILL for a hole to be an Alps?

I recall seeing something about a saddle.

I'm not going to do your homework for you if you're not going to bother to read these posts and do your due diligence, but I will point you in the right direction.

Try piecing these words together.

Summit   (top, apex, peak, highest point)
Saddle Back HILL  (called the "Alps")
Hollow   (a depressed or low part, a small valley or basin)

"The second shot is then extremely difficult, for the ball must be raised ABRUPTLY yet still have a long flight."

Does that help you ?[/color]

Remember what you said about following these guys too closely by their words (or the ones you put in their mouths).

You picked the wrong horse to ride.

Now YOU"RE stating that we should discount what CBM wrote.

The problem is that you want to selectively discount what he said in support of YOUR position.  A position absent the topographical facts and configuration of the features on # 10.

The determining factor, the guiding light, the evidence is clearly the terrain and configuration of the topography at # 10 at Merion, which don't support your position, hence you want to selectively dismiss what CBM said regarding what constitutes an Alps hole.   That's certainly convenient.[/color]

Why did a lack of an ABRUPT INTERVENING HILL (created or found) not prevent CBMac from designing and building an Alps hole at the Greenbrier?

If he didn't build, what was by his own definition, an Alps hole, naming it an Alps doesn't make it one and naming it as such might have been at the behest of the hotel.

And, since I haven't seen the hole in its original form, I can't tell you if there was or wasn't a hill, and if there was I can't tell if the hill was modified to better suit hotel guests, or if an Alps never existed there in the first place, irrespective of it's name.

You do recall that the 18th at St Louis is named "Oasis" not Alps, and that the 12th at Piping Rock is named "Apple Tree" not Alps.

It's not the name of the hole that determines its architectural categorization, but rather, the configuration of the land form and the features of the hole.[/color]

Surely CBM knew what he was doing there?

As I said above, design, not nomenclature determines the architectural features of a hole.[/color]

[ForkaB]

OK Gentlemen

I check in on this thread from time to time to see if anybody is saying anything new or interesting.  My conclusion is:

YOU ARE NOT!

At the very least could one of the 4-5 people in this circle jerk (pardon the French) tell me (and others):

Why on earth should we care whether or not the old 10th at Merion "was" an Alps or the 3rd "is" a Redan?  Does it really make any difference to the aims and interests of this discussion group if the "answer" falls on either side of this debate, other than the self-esteem of individuals participating in the debate?  Does the "answer" tell us anything remotely relevant to what Merion is today?  Does the "answer" have any relevance to what GCA is today and might be into the future?

I think not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I believe it does.

I don't think it would be intellectually honest to sit back and allow unsupported revisionism to go unchallenged.

I'm not one of those who believes that repeating a lie makes it a truth.

Nor do I believe that the site should promote false or tenuous theories as acceptable simply because they went unchallenged.

In the grand scheme of things all of what's on this site is insignificant, but, in the realm of golf course architecture, what gets said and/or accepted should be grounded in the facts, not unsupported theories or statements.

If the statement that "Seminole is Flat" was allowed to go unchallenged, the participants on this site would have been guilty of allowing false information to be desiminated, thus undermining the credibiity of this site.

In addition to our financial support, I believe we owe Ran intellectual honesty for his efforts in creating and maintaining this site.  

And, therefore, the answer does have relevance with respect to where the site will be in the future.

But, that's just my opinion, and TEPaul is still wrong.

[ForkaB]

Pat

Agree with all your principles re: truth, justice and the American way.  However......

When you have three irresistable forces (You, TEP and Wayne) vs. two immovable objects (Tom MacW and Dave M) all that is ever going to happen is stalemate.

To the extent we care, I think that most of the 1495 others here on GCA have made up our mind as to which of the two camps is "right,"  but IN A GCA SENSE how many of us really care who is right, and why should we?

Specious positions and arguments will always be found out, but we are not talking about Weapons of Mass Destruction here, only golf holes....

Have a nice Christmas.

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Just remember your words and demeanor the next time someone offers a radical theory on Dornoch.  

Have the Merriest of Christmas.  And, a happy and HEALTHY New Year for you and your family.

[ForkaB]

Pat

If you have followed any of the posts on Dornoch over the past 5 years, you will know that I have ALWAYS responded constructively and with an open mind to any radical theories or criticisms.  In fact, most of "radical theories" re: Dornoch which have been posted on this site (e.g. changing 7-8 into a stupendous par 6, making 16 into a par 5, etc. ) have been my work.

It was also me who enlightened Tom MacWood as to the fact that Dornoch had been significantly remodeled in 1946, and enlightened other "gods" on this and other sites that the 6th green was a modern construction, and not some sort of naturalist nirvana.

They are lonely furrows that I hoe in the gardens of truth, but they are burdens which I am happy to bear.

Happy Hogmanay!

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Since SPDB referred to two holes at St. Louis as Alps (half joking if I remember) and you now conclude George Bahto is not a qualified expert on the Alps? First you dis Ross, now Bahto. They're implementing steriod testing at all events in NJ...you ought to keep your twisted imagination away.  

Rich
You've been a great addition to this site...your shtick is always hilareous, but your memory is shot. If you search back in the archives you'll find I was well aware of the work at Dornoch in '46, in fact I was the first to detail which holes were additions (including the 6th). Shortly after that you became a Dornoch expert, and were singing the praises of George Duncan...at which point I corrected you again. I hope you acknoweldged me in your Dornoch book.

[ForkaB]

Dream on, Tom....

[TEPaul]

"But, that's just my opinion, and TEPaul is still wrong."

Patrick:

That's ironic because I happen to completely agree with everything you said in reply #336.

Reply #336??

Jeeesus Christ, any edification on this subject is no farther along than it was on Reply #136!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Since SPDB referred to two holes at St. Louis as Alps (half joking if I remember) and you now conclude George Bahto is not a qualified expert on the Alps?

Would you point out and cite where I concluded that ?[/color]

First you dis Ross,

No, I merely called into question an alleged statement attributed to him which I know to be false.[/color]

now Bahto.

Could you point out and cite where I dissed George ?[/color]

They're implementing steriod testing at all events in NJ...you ought to keep your twisted imagination away.  

I've already flunked those tests twice, why would I want to take them again ?[/color]

[RJ_Daley]

Sorry, I haven't followed this for 13 pages, I am just skimming PAGE 14!!!!!  .... in order to see what colors you guys are posting in.  I think you all need just a bit more red to be suitable for the festive holiday spirit.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Before leaping into this maelstrom (I looked both ways twice before attempting to cross Ardmore Ave.  ), I'd ask my Philly friends to consider a few things;

I'm guessing this could have been considered an "Alps" hole because;

1) The clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave is slightly lower than the side where you'd be approaching the old 10th hole from, probably in the neighborhood of five feet in that specific area.

2) Even today I believe it might be difficult to actually see the area (which is now rough and fairway on #1) from where an approach shot is struck on #10.  It's difficult to fully ascertain because of trees that have grown on both sides, but I'm uncertain that you could see it unless you reached the very top of the fairly steep hill with your drive.

3) From the 10th fairway, Ardmore Avenue would almost be protected from sight by sort of a "ha ha", a rise on the foreshortened side that might have blocked any clear view of the 10th green on the other side.

4) In 1913 - 20, from the present 10th tee, it's unlikely that many folks drove the ball far enough to reach the top of the hill, likely leaving about a 160 yard approach on the 385 yard hole which would have been, I believe, effectively blind.

The last thing I would try to do is take sides here or fuel this fire, but without going out there and having another look, this is my impression of how it would have played.

[ForkaB]

Mike

Nice try on being conciliatory, but you must know, as I'm sure I pointed out to you at Applebrook, that a "haha" is a SUNKEN feature.  Hardly the sort of thing one would associate with an "Alps"...................

I can just hear Julie Andrews singing:

"The ditches are alive, with the sound of music....."

Merry Christmas!

[Tom Huckaby]

Does anyone else find it odd/incredible/funny/insert and adjective here that this "sidetrack" has now reached page 14?

Jeez I fear what's gonna happen when they get to the main issue....

 

[DMoriarty]

Patrick.   I dont know that there was a hill.  Dont really care. Nor do I care if this was really Alps Hole, under your definition.   I do know this:

-- A number of prominent writers and designers credit CBM with advising on the design of the course.

-- A number of prominent writers and designers considered this hole an "Alps" hole, modeled after No. 17 at Prestwick.  

-- The green complex is very similar in some key respects (the semi-circular bank and the fronting bunker) to those designed by CBM around the same time, and to the way CBM described the Alps green complex in his article which was intended to be a model for Alps' holes for other architects.

Beyond that, I dont care if it really was an Alps hole under your definition.  

On the other side, we have you and others speculating as to why these writers may have been wrong, or trying to mislead their readers . . .

Perhaps, due to his reputation, and the clamoring for good golf courses in the Philadelphia area, the writers were trying to tie the design of Merion to CBM's coat tails in order to give it more appeal.

 So you are telling us writers motives from 90 years ago, and telling us they really didnt mean what they all wrote?  Now this is an example of revisionist history.

In my book, we ought to give the presumption to those who were there and who wrote about it at the time, and give their descriptions weight until they they are proven wrong.  You havent come close to proving them wrong.

I have played Merion East, but later than 1914.  

But really, I dont care.  

My involvement in all this was to suggest that perhaps Merion East was a substantial departure than the Haverford Merion, and that Merion east embraced concepts from the Links courses and also from those influenced by the Links courses.  

Nothing has been written here to make me doubt that this speculation on my part is innaccurate in the least bit.  

[ForkaB]

Does anyone else find it odd/incredible/funny/insert and adjective here that this "sidetrack" has now reached page 14?

Jeez I fear what's gonna happen when they get to the main issue....

 

The sidetrack has already been sidetracked to "haha"s--can "audible yucks" be far behind?

[Tom Huckaby]

That did it for me, Rich.

OK, stepping back over to the kids' table now....