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:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #350 on: December 21, 2005, 12:25:20 PM »
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! :)

Rich,

Yes, the HaHa is a sunken feature with the high point being on the approach side of of the road on 10, and the corresponding lowpoint over on the old greenside, unless of course some major construction and raising up of the whole area took place when the "new" 10th & 12th greens and 11th tee was built 80 years ago..  

Without any fancy tools to do this here's what the 10th might have looked like going left to right from tee to green.

-                                               !
   -                                   a  ----!
      -                     b  ----           ! --
         -          ----                      !  
            - -- -                            !
       
with b being probably an avearge drive in 1915, a being a GREAT drive then, and the ! signifying Ardmore Ave.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 12:31:04 PM by Mike Cirba »

ForkaB

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #351 on: December 21, 2005, 12:28:52 PM »
Nothing has been written here to make me doubt that this speculation on my part is innaccurate in the least bit.  


David

Has there been anything written here (other than your own writing) to make you think that this specualtion on your part is accurate in the least bit?  I don't see it, but I really don't have a pony in this race......

Merry Christmas :)

ForkaB

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #352 on: December 21, 2005, 12:32:00 PM »
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! :)

Rich,

Yes, the HaHa is a sunken feature with the high point being on the approach side of of the road on 10, and the corresponding lowpoint over on the old greenside, unless of course.  

Without any fancy tools to do this here's what the 10th might have looked like going left to right from tee to green.

-                                               !
   -                                   a  ----!
      -                     b  ----           ! --
         -          ----                      !  
            - -- -                            !
       
with b being probably an avearge drive in 1915, a being a GREAT drive then, and the ! signifying Ardmore Ave.

Mike

Why the hell couldn't have Wilson tunnelled under Ardmore Avenue, as Mackenzie also ought to have done on the 1st at Cypress Point?  Cost cutting bastards..... >:(

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #353 on: December 21, 2005, 02:12:07 PM »

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.

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


Don't tell me to go back and read the posts. This is the first time this quotation has appeared on this thread.

Quote
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.
[/color]

Are you suggesting that I saddle up on your horse.? I can picture it now, it's a slight deviation on Ichabod Crane. The Mindless Horseman. ;D
(Note: Crane's Horseman is the logo for Sleepy Hollow, another course where CBM featured an Alps hole that fails the proprietary and unassailable Mucci AL Test ("MALT"), thus meaning CBM had no idea what he was doing, or that he set out to design one, but somehow unexplicably failed in doing so)  

Quote
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.

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.
[/color]

This is rich. In the same post, you say that we shouldn't conclude what is clearly is an Alps hole, because it doesn't bear the name "Alps." In the same breath you say that was is named an Alps hole doesn't mean CB Mac intended an Alps hole, speculating that it might have been at the behest of the hotel.

If you ever stopped for a minute to read what you write, you might reflect on how asinine your logic is. That CBM use the name "Alps" for a whole that otherwise isn't at the behest of an owner is one of your more absurd comments (a collection of which is growing exponentially).  

In an previous post, you note that George Bahto refers to the 5th at St. Louis CC as an one of the best examples of AN[/i] Alps hole. I've never disputed this.  What you fail to distinguish is that I never said the 18th was THE[/i] Alps hole, but rather AN Alps hole. Remember, don't forget your advice about nomenclature.

If you're so sure of yourself, I encourage you to ask George Bahto. I am fairly confident he will agree with the Alps qualities of the 18th, the name notwithstanding.

When was the last time you played SLCC?

Quote

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.[/b]


Surely CBM knew what he was doing there?

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

I agree for the most part with that statement, w/a qualifier. CBM knew what he was doing when he designed Alps holes. That they don't always fit into whatever neat little adjectives which you can cull from CBM's writings to fit whatever point you are illogically trying to support is hardly evidence that a hole is not an Alps hole.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 02:19:42 PM by SPDB »

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #354 on: December 21, 2005, 02:46:59 PM »
Hey, guys---I know what. Why don't we just shit-can this endless debate, which is going nowhere on what exactly C.B had to do with the design of the old 10th hole at Merion East and go on over to the 17th hole and argue for the next fifteen pages if C.B. should be given design credit for the "Valley of Sin" concept at the front of the 17th green? ;)

But on the other hand, the history of Merion East's course has been pretty well written as it resides at Merion, and Wayne has done a lot recently to clarify the details of Flynn's part in it all and I really don't think Merion or anyone else on here needs a guy from Ohio and another one from Calif. who've never even laid eyes on the place telling any of us they know better than Merion or some of us who've known the place well.  

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #355 on: December 21, 2005, 03:05:19 PM »
 I just drove by Merion ; #3 definitely looks like a redan.










                                         ;D
AKA Mayday

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #356 on: December 21, 2005, 03:13:16 PM »
Tom Paul - What's the hurt, we're not trying to tell Merion they are wrong. It's just exploration of some relevant information.

Besides, that's the kind of logic that really stymies creative thought and productive discussion. Didn't some club in NJ (and some guys in PA) think that all was known about its designer and founder, until some guy from OH found differently?

 ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #357 on: December 21, 2005, 03:44:47 PM »
Hey, guys---I know what. Why don't we just shit-can this endless debate, which is going nowhere on what exactly C.B had to do with the design of the old 10th hole at Merion East

Hmm...must have been my hi-tech visual aid.

I notice that I don't post in ages, but when I do the thread seems to come to a halt.....even a 15 page one!   :-X

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #358 on: December 21, 2005, 04:12:07 PM »
  A Day At The (Side)track

Welcome ladies and gentleman to Mudville Downs. It's a great day for a race.  All bets placed!  Windows closed.

 Clangalalalangalang !!!

And therrrre off! !

HolyWood Mac jumps into the lead with a display of Crafty and Artfully selected self-generated papparazzi.

Featherie Field cuts him off!

Mucci Gracias, pins him in!

Aberdour Ale's rider is steady and ready with his stinging whip!

It's a jumbled mess with massive lead changes.  Few in the stands can bear to watch.  The mud is flying!

They're coming to the finish! oh! What's this?!  They've taken away the finish line!  They will run till they drop.

Oh! The equinanity!



« Last Edit: December 22, 2005, 03:52:19 AM by Norbert Painter »
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #359 on: December 21, 2005, 05:23:39 PM »
Norbert....I nominate you for early Godhood!...but I'm not sure I have the power...check your heading after your next post just to see ;)
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #360 on: December 21, 2005, 05:44:05 PM »
"Tom Paul;

......Besides, that's the kind of logic that really stymies creative thought and productive discussion. Didn't some club in NJ (and some guys in PA) think that all was known about its designer and founder, until some guy from OH found differently?" :)

Sean:

Believe me, and despite your "smiley", I can pretty much guarantee you that in the last 87 years if PVGC or anyone else around here had really wanted to find out if Crump died of poison to the brain from a tooth abscess or a gunshot, any of them are more than capable of picking up the phone or going to see the appropriate authority and finding out exactly how he died from his DC on record.

If anyone on here actually thinks Tom MacWood from Ohio is the first and only one capable of doing that then all I can say is they are more gullible than the definition of the word.

Whatever the reason Crump's family or those who knew him best decided to quash the fact of his suicide back then there was probably a pretty good reason for it.

As many have said, it may be better to let some things and some people rest in peace. Obviously, that's the way PVGC and most around here who know it and knew of Crump looked at it. As I said many times on this website, the rumor that he may've shot himself has been around from the beginning. I heard about it probably 30 years ago when I first got to know PVGC.

So, do you consider the revelation of his suicide creative thought or productive discussion?? OK, whatever, maybe you do, maybe some on this website do and maybe Tom MacWood who's never even seen PV and doesn't really know anyone from PV thinks so.

All I can tell you knowing that club and about 150 members as well as I have for the last thirty years is not a single one of them was apparently motivated enough for any reason to look into it.

Now that the club and many others are certain how he died that information will obviously be dealt with in whatever way. If anyone down there or around here because of Tom MacWood’s essay really care enough to know maybe now they will begin to discuss and debate not if he killed himself but why he killed himself. Is that a good thing? Well, I guess anyone who even thinks about it will have their own opinions on that.

Again, not only has the rumor of his suicide been around from the beginning but also the rumor that he shot himself in his cabin at PV has been.

A few months ago a member of PVGC handed me a little known golf periodical from 1990 which contains about a five page interview with George Govan who was the son of Jim Govan, Crump's construction foreman, pro, club-maker, greenkeeper.

Jim Govan, his wife and children moved to PV in Mach 1914 into a little house to the right of #2. They were the only people who lived at PVGC then other than Crump who lived alone with his hunting dogs in his little bungalow on the pond below #5 tee. No one else lived there then, just Crump and the Govans about 500 yards apart.

George Govan, who succeeded his father as the pro at PVGC and was there for decades said in this interview in 1990 how tragic and sad it was in 1918 that Mr Crump was found dead in his cabin. In that same year George Govan's sister died of influenza and his brother contracted meningitis. Mrs Govan felt their house to the right of #2 was jinxed and the Govans moved to Haddon Heights.

Crump's death certificate says he died in Merchantville, in the house he had built for he and his wife some years before. I believe Crump's wife died suddenly before they even moved into the house in Merchantville. Apparently, Crump's mother moved into the house in Merchantville when Crump basically moved permanently to PV in the very beginning of 1913 perhaps even before constructing his bungalow below the 5th tee.

I just can't imagine how or why George Govan, a member of the only other family at PVGC in the beginning would've always thought Crump died in his bungalow at PVGC if he hadn't. To my knowledge all these years that fact was never really part of the story of his death by poison from a tooth abscess. I wonder why?

It seems relatively likely because of this kind of information that Crump's body, when found alone in his cabin was moved to Merchantville whereupon the police (according to the DC) pronounced the cause of his death as a gunshot to the head.

If this was how it all happened, and it appears likely it was, then I suppose Crump's family had their reasons for doing what they did and saying what they did about the cause of his death. A well-known newspaper report of the time mentioned that Crump was cordial to passers-by his house in Merchantville the day before he died. Did he go back to PVGC and shoot himself? Did he shoot himself in his house in Merchantville with his mother and brother in it? I guess we'll never really know.

All I do know is these vague stories and rumors were always known by quite a few. And all I know is that in the last 86-87 years literally hundreds of members and others around here who were aware of them never seemed to want to simply pick up the phone or go see the authorities to find out exactly how Crump died or even where. Should they have? I suppose people have different opinions on that.

Clearly Tom MacWood from Ohio who knows nothing first-hand of PVGC or any of its members thought they should. And now they do know how he died. They may never really know where he died. Will they look into that? I seriously doubt they ever will. Will someone like Tom MacWood look into it in the future? That's more likely, I'm sure, because apparently these days there are some who think it produces creative thought and productive discussion.

Tom MacWood's essay on Crump, the man and the legend which was very good, was delivered to PVGC and the president of PVGC actually took it and presented it to the Board. I suppose some on here would love to know what their reaction was, and I'm also sure they never will know.

Personally, I was hoping Tom MacWood would not pursue the cause of Crump's death and write about it but that's my opinion, not his opinion, and it's free country---people do become interested in pursuing these things.

I'm not a religious man but if I were I suppose at this point I would hope that Crump, a man who all said was so lovable, perhaps a bit shy, lacking in any proprietary ego about what he was doing there but remarkably determined who for whatever reason created something so remarkable perhaps without ever even being aware of it---will now have the circumstances of his death and his tortured mind and soul, if they were that, finally rest in peace, and be left alone.

In my own opinion, Crump and the golf club he created deserve that but others may not feel that way. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, it’s a free country and anyone can pursue these things. It’s to be expected, I’m sure, as PVGC is famous, it’s great, it’s revered and it’s generally considered to be the #1 golf course in the world and has been for quite some time, apparently even in that day in Jan. 1918 when George Crump for whatever reasons decided that he didn’t want to see tomorrow.


« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 06:18:43 PM by TEPaul »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #361 on: December 21, 2005, 07:33:11 PM »
Slag

Cheers!  The only proper laugh I've had today.

Still, I'm very dubious of your choice of names.  

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

DMoriarty

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #362 on: December 21, 2005, 07:47:54 PM »
Nothing has been written here to make me doubt that this speculation on my part is innaccurate in the least bit.  


David

Has there been anything written here (other than your own writing) to make you think that this specualtion on your part is accurate in the least bit?  I don't see it, but I really don't have a pony in this race......

Merry Christmas :)

Last I checked I dont have a pony in this race either, or if I do I wouldn't bet on it.  At least noone can accuse me of trying to endear myself to the gca Philadelphia crowd in the pursuit of Almighty Access!

To answer the question, YES there have been facts, opinions, and photographs posted which lend credence to my speculation.  

To review, I speculated that 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.

Some of the facts discussed above which support my speculation:

1. A number of knowledgeable writers and designers apparently thought that the designer(s) of Merion East embraced concepts from the great Links courses and/or from those influenced by the links courses.  Among them, Travis, Lesley, Whigham, CBM, Tillinghast, and Findlay.

2. Together, these same writers and designers identify a number of Links' features (from Links and links off-shoot courses) incorporated into the Merion design.  Among these features:  at least some Alps hole features (No. 10), a reverse Redan (No. 3),  Mid-Surrey hollows, the Eden green (No. 15) and maybe the valley of sin (No. 17.)

3. These writers and others portrayed the state of Philadelphia golf design before Merion as dismal.  

4.  Even Wayne admitted that the Haverford Merion had the characteristics of a Victorian/dark ages course, or at least he would think that I would think so.

5. Wilson was apparently exposed to some great architecture and even had guidance in what to look for from MacDonald and his tour of NGLA.

6.  Lots of cool pictures.  

 
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.

Notice I didnt express an opinion about whether No. 10 was an Alps, or No. 3 was a Redan, or any of that garbage. IT JUST DOESNT MATTER!

What matters is that is how the writers and designers of the time looked at Merion.  Theythought that Merion was heavily influenced by the Links tradition and those influenced by the Links tradition such as MacDonald.   They also thought that Merion represented a significant improvement over what had passed for architecture in Philadelphia before.

Plus, all the really good looking girls would still go out with the guys from Mohawk because they've got all the money!

Merry Christmas to you, as well.   And a Happy Winter Solstice-- a holiday half the world can celebrate together.  

ForkaB

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #363 on: December 21, 2005, 08:01:36 PM »
Merry Christmas to you, as well.   And a Happy Winter Solstice-- a holiday half the world can celebrate together.  

See, Dave, you are wrong again. :'(  90+% of the world's population lives above the equator.....

Happy Solstice, anyway!

DMoriarty

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #364 on: December 21, 2005, 08:22:21 PM »
Merry Christmas to you, as well.   And a Happy Winter Solstice-- a holiday half the world can celebrate together.  

See, Dave, you are wrong again. :'(  90+% of the world's population lives above the equator.....

Happy Solstice, anyway!

I didn't say half the people in the world, I said half the world.  You need more sunlight, Rich.  Don't worry, help is on the way.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #365 on: December 21, 2005, 08:44:27 PM »

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.  

Dave, it's not my definition, it's CBM's definition as quoted by YOU in post 228.  I merely repeated your referencing quote.
And now, you want to deny the very quote you offered as proof.
[/color]

I do know this:

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

Let's cease being vague, Specifically, what writers ?
[/color]

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


Who are these writers and designers, and how did they manifest their considerations ?

To say that # 10 at Merion was modeled after # 17 at Prestwick is even more of a stretch.
[/color]

-- 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.

Oh, so now your back on the CBM bandwagon, how convenient.

There were a number of greens at Merion with rear banks and fronting hazards, so what ?  What does that prove.
You could say that about a zillion green complexes.

Why don't you look at the old 10th green in comparison to the 4th and 9th greens ?  Do you see a similarity ?
[/color]

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

How many times must I remind you, it's not my definition, it's CBM's definition.  Don't you remember, you quoted it in post # 228.
[/color]

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 . . .

What writers, you've not identified any of them or the circumstances surrounding their alleged perspective.
You haven't produced a thread of evidence, while I've produced overwhelming evidence in the form of the land and CBM's own words, which you referenced and quoted.
[/color]

Quote
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.

Why don't you read the passage more carefully.
I said, "perhaps".  I didn't present it as a maxim as you have on your unsupported theories.
[/color]

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.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your contention.  You haven't identified the writers, nor have you detailed the circumstances related to their alleged commentary.

Yet, you deny the landform and photos of the landform.
And remember, you've told us that you're skilled at interpreting photos.  Show me the HILL that CBM designated as the defining feature for an Alps ?  You can't, because it doesn't exist, and your theory has no merit.
[/color]

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.  


I could have sworn that you insisted that the old 10th was an Alps hole, based primarily on the similarities in the green complex at NGLA and # 10 at Merion thatyou gleened from the photo and from the writings of CBM that you quoted.
[/color]

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

First it was proven to you that the intervening Saddle Back Hill that CBM called the Alps was the key feature to an Alps and not the green site as you insisted.

For you, or anyone to claim the old 10th is/was an Alps hole shows either a stubborness that transcends reason, the prudent analysis of the photo and relevant topography and/or a failure to understand the architectural components and features that comprise an Alps, according to CBM's own words, which you quoted.
[/color]

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #366 on: December 21, 2005, 09:07:30 PM »

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.

Not according to topos.
[/color]

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.

You premise in # 1 is incorrect, hence your conclusions in # 2 are incorrect.

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.

There is no Ha-Ha feature on the old # 10
Ardmore Avenue is cut six inches below the surrounding terrain, of course it might be invisible from a distance.

The topo elevations don't support your hypothesis.


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.
Are you certain that the "present" 10th tee was the location of the old 10th tee ?

If it isn't, doesn't your argument fail ?

But, for the fun of the exercise, let's say that you're correct.
What do you suppose the differential in elevation is between the green and the DZ ?

If the green was at 312 FASL and the DZ was at 302 FASL that would create a 10 foot differential.  But, if we assume that the golfer's eyes are at 5 feet the effective differential in elevations is only 5 feet.  165 yards, the distance you chose as the remaining distance to the green ( I think it's a lot shorter) equates to 495 feet.  Let's round it to 500 feet.

That means that the pitch is almost imperceptable at 1 %.

Now are you telling me that a 1 % pitch or slope in the fairway qualifies a hole to be deemed an Alps hole ?

If so, I guess there are zillions of them.

Mike, I can understand Moriarty and MacWood, who have very limited first hand experience at Merion, making this wild claim that # 10 was an Alps, but YOU ?  You should, and do know better.
[/color]

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.

Then you need to get back out there and take a topo with you  ;D
[/color]
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 09:08:07 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #367 on: December 21, 2005, 09:19:59 PM »
Pat
I'm tiring of your conjecture....that appears to be all you have.

We are discussing a hole that disappeared eightly years ago. If you can, would you please add some historical information to augment your arguement. Your arguement, as usual, is a little light on facts and historical perspective. That might be good enough for Rich Goodale, but if you are going to re-write history you need give us something of substance.

Why would Tillinghast, Macdonald and Lesely not know what was an Alps or Redan? How was the hole described by Wilson? How did the hole play in the 1916 US Am?  Was the hole elimated because it crossed the road or another reason?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 09:22:57 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #368 on: December 21, 2005, 10:04:19 PM »

This is rich. In the same post, you say that we shouldn't conclude what is clearly is an Alps hole, because it doesn't bear the name "Alps."

You and Tom MacWood postured that the greens at the 7th at Camargo and the 18th at St Louis had the same features as the 3rd at NGLA, and I refuted your statements, there are no HIGH banks behind either green, and the greens are more of a punchbowl configuration then that of a green with a straight or semi-circular fortified earthenworks behind them.

It's a distortion of the truth to say that I stated that a hole can't be an Alps if it doesn't bear the name "Alps"
[/color]

In the same breath you say that was is named an Alps hole doesn't mean CB Mac intended an Alps hole, speculating that it might have been at the behest of the hotel.

That's correct.  Just because a hole bears the name "Alps" doesn't mean it fits the architectural requirements as detailed by CBM himself, as provide by Moriarty's quote in post 228.

The proof is in the dirt, not on the scorecards or in the minds of phantom writers that Moriarty references, or deranged revisionists who blatantly disregard CBM's own words with respect to the components necessary to form an Alps hole.
[/color]

If you ever stopped for a minute to read what you write, you might reflect on how asinine your logic is. That CBM use the name "Alps" for a whole that otherwise isn't at the behest of an owner is one of your more absurd comments (a collection of which is growing exponentially).

Then again, perhaps you're too wet behind the ears to know what goes on in the real world.  It wouldn't be the first time that the driving force behind a golf course influenced the designer, and naming holes was often left to the club, not the architect.
[/color]  

In an previous post, you note that George Bahto refers to the 5th at St. Louis CC as an one of the best examples of AN[/i] Alps hole. I've never disputed this.  What you fail to distinguish is that I never said the 18th was THE[/i] Alps hole, but rather AN Alps hole. Remember, don't forget your advice about nomenclature.

Your memory is failing, and nice try, but, You did refute it.
Go back and reread your post # 267.
Read the bold print that you highlighted in red where you declare that # 5 is the punchbowl hole and # 18 is the Alps hole.

Yet, George Bahto declares that the 5th at St Louis is one of the best examples of an Alps hole, not # 18.
[/color]

If you're so sure of yourself, I encourage you to ask George Bahto. I am fairly confident he will agree with the Alps qualities of the 18th, the name notwithstanding.
Alps "qualities" ?
You declared it THE Alps hole, relagating # 5 to punchbowl status.
[/color]

When was the last time you played SLCC?

I never stated that I played St Louis, but, I did visit when the Mid Am was at Bellerive.  How about you, when was the last time you played it ?
[/color]

Quote

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.[/b]


Surely CBM knew what he was doing there?

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

I agree for the most part with that statement, w/a qualifier. CBM knew what he was doing when he designed Alps holes.


If you agree with that statement then you can't maintain that # 10 at Merion was an "Alps" hole.

As to CBM knowing what he was doing, here's where you fail again.

How do you know what he was doing, what he intended and what he was designing ?   You admitted above, that naming a hole an "Alps" doesn't make it an Alps, so how do you know what CBM intended ?  By the scorecard ?  by phantom writers ?   by ESP ?

The truth is you don't know, so don't pretend that you do.
[/color]

That they don't always fit into whatever neat little adjectives which you can cull from CBM's writings to fit whatever point you are illogically trying to support is hardly evidence that a hole is not an Alps hole.

That's the most absurd reasoning I've heard yet.

Let's see if I can paraphrase your remarks.
Quoting CBM's written words (evidence) illogically supports what CBM described as the qualifying features of his "Alps" hole (more evidence), which is manifested at NGLA (even more evidence) and other golf courses..

Or, to simplify it, the facts as evidenced in the land, combined with CBM's written words don't support what CBM stated he required in the design and construction of his Alps holes.

You're a joke, architecturally speaking that is.

And what's amazing about your position is that you're trying to convince us that the 10th at Merion was/is an "Alps" hole.

That's the mark of a confused and desperate man ...... and comical.
[/color]


TEPaul

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #369 on: December 21, 2005, 10:08:11 PM »
The Ardmore Ave crossing of #10, 11, 12 was eliminated beginning in 1922 with the purchace of 7+ acres south of Cobbs Creek where the new 11th green and new 12th tee were built.

If a number of you guys are as interested in the details of Merion East's architecture as you seem to be rather than speculating endlessly on here you should probably just get the Merion history book and read it.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #370 on: December 21, 2005, 10:24:26 PM »
Pat
I'm tiring of your conjecture....that appears to be all you have.

We are discussing a hole that disappeared eightly years ago. If you can, would you please add some historical information to augment your arguement. Your arguement, as usual, is a little light on facts and historical perspective. That might be good enough for Rich Goodale, but if you are going to re-write history you need give us something of substance.

The substance is in the land form and not your imagination.

I would have thought that you would have learned something from your Seminole=FLAT fiasco, but, evidently not.

You were the one insisting that the old 10th at Merion was an Alps hole.  Yet you haven't offered one iota of facts to support another one of your wild theories.

You're as unfamiliar with the land at MERION as you were with the land at SEMINOLE.

And, you didn't even know that CBM designed many of his "Alps" holes with alternate or escape routes.

CBM cites the key features necessary for an Alps to exist, and, they DON'T exist at Merion.
[/color]

Why would Tillinghast, Macdonald and Lesely not know what was an Alps or Redan?

Probably for the same reasons you claim Donald Ross didn't know anything about elevation changes amd topography
[/color]

How was the hole described by Wilson?

Probably the same way you claim Ross described Seminole.
[/color]

How did the hole play in the 1916 US Am?

Probably like some holes at Seminole, uphill.
[/color]

Was the hole elimated because it crossed the road or another reason?

For another reason, the members, guests and competitors all claimed that they suffered from a terrible case of acrophobia shortly after playing the 10th hole.

Time and time again, you take general third party hearsay and alleged commments, which could be innocent references taken out of context, and/or unsubstantiated remarks and weave them into these wild theories totally unsupported by the facts and/or the landforms.

And, you offer as your "proof" the alleged quote, the authenticity of which is questionable at best.

Seminole was a perfect example.

As is the 10th hole at Merion.

Have you ever played the 10th hole at Merion ?
[/color]
 
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 10:26:58 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #371 on: December 21, 2005, 10:31:52 PM »
Pat
The old 10th at Merion disapeared eighty years ago....do you have anything to add...any historical information at all?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2005, 10:33:15 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #372 on: December 21, 2005, 10:45:21 PM »
Pat
The old 10th at Merion disapeared eighty years ago....do you have anything to add...any historical information at all?


YES.

Look at the photo taken 81 years ago.

Tell me if you can spot that "Saddle Back Hill" CBM described when he defined what constitutes an Alps hole.

I can't see one.  Do you know why ?  Because it doesn't exist.
That qualifies as historical information despite the fact that you don't want to accept it, since it's not in harmony with your revisionist theories and mentality.

When one, such as yourself, labors under false impressions, photos such as the one of the 10th circa 1924 can act as a smelling salt for the mind.

Do you have any physical proof that would lead a prudent person to believe that the 10th hole was an Alps hole, in the context of CBM's definition as provided in DMoriarty's post # 228 ?

If not, then you've offered nothing of historical value over these last 400 posts.

P.S.   Were you aware that Hyman Roth, Donald Roth's older brother, called Merion FLAT ?
[/color]


T_MacWood

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #373 on: December 21, 2005, 10:53:04 PM »
Pat
We're looking for something of historical substance about Merion...not your opinion based on your experience today...eighty years after the hole disappeared. I'll take your incoherent disconnected jiberish as a no.

DMoriarty

Re:Arts & Crafts sidetrack
« Reply #374 on: December 22, 2005, 12:08:39 AM »
Patrick,  

That you have to keep manipulating and misrepresenting my argument is a good sign that yours isnt worth much.  

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.  


Dave, it's not my definition, it's CBM's definition as quoted by YOU in post 228.  I merely repeated your referencing quote.
And now, you want to deny the very quote you offered as proof.
[/color]

Actually it is from his description of the holes.  The same description where he describes the strategy of the berm and front bunker, and the difficulty of the two shot hole.  He never calls it a definition, but if you are going to treat it as one, you ought to accept the whole thing.

That being said, it still is not my definition. I've no need to define it.

Quote
Quote
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.


Who are these writers and designers, and how did they manifest their considerations ?

To say that # 10 at Merion was modeled after # 17 at Prestwick is even more of a stretch.
[/color]

Do we really have to go through this again?  You shouldnt hold me responsible for your lazy reading habits.  Oh well.  Off the top of my head . . .

Lesley compared it to Prestwick and described precisely what aspects of it followed Prestwick-- the bank in back for balls hit two long, the deep bunkers in front for balls hit too short, the fact that one had to hit two very solid shots to hold the green in two.  Presumably he also was also thinking of the uphill nature of the hole but I dont remember if he says this.  

Tillinghast (Hazard)  says Merion was designed after careful review of the great courses in GB and America, and that No. 10 it shares characteristics of the famous Alps at Prestwick.

Findlay.  Sean reports that Findlay said that the approach on No. 10 was identical to the approach at Prestwick.  Wayne Morrison confirms that Findlay did indeed make this comparison and even sites the article.  -- 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.

Travis said some of the holes were modeled after holes overseas but he didnt say which ones.
Quote
There were a number of greens at Merion with rear banks and fronting hazards, so what ?  What does that prove.
You could say that about a zillion green complexes.

Did other contemporaries compare these other greens to the Alps?  I wasnt aware of that if they did.  

Quote
Why don't you look at the old 10th green in comparison to the 4th and 9th greens ?  Do you see a similarity ?

The 4th had a creek in front didnt it?   And isnt it a par 5?   The 9th is a par 3, isnt it?   And dont both have bunkers in back?   In the article you are using as "the definition of the alps" MacDonald writes about the hole demanding two well struck shots.  Lesley echos this in his description of No. 10 as Alps-like, in principle.  

Quote
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 . . .

What writers, you've not identified any of them or the circumstances surrounding their alleged perspective.
You haven't produced a thread of evidence, while I've produced overwhelming evidence in the form of the land and CBM's own words, which you referenced and quoted.
[/color]

See above for the writers, and in my other recent thread.   Evidence of what?  As I said, I dont care about this defnitional debate about whether or not it is an Alps Hole.  Read my last post.  

And what evidence have you produced?  I listed my evidence, twice now.  You list yours.  But first, please, tell me what you are trying to prove, because I have no idea.  
Quote
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.
Why don't you read the passage more carefully.
I said, "perhaps".  I didn't present it as a maxim as you have on your unsupported theories.
[/color]
It is revisionist because instead of taking what they say at face value, you dismiss what they say without sufficient support for so doing, even going so far as to suggest your own unsupported alternate meaning.

And I have not presented anything as  a "maxim."  It is absolulely clear that you have no idea what my theories are.  
Quote
Quote
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.


You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support your contention.  You haven't identified the writers, nor have you detailed the circumstances related to their alleged commentary.

Yet, you deny the landform and photos of the landform.
And remember, you've told us that you're skilled at interpreting photos.  Show me the HILL that CBM designated as the defining feature for an Alps ?  You can't, because it doesn't exist, and your theory has no merit.
[/color]
Quit misrepresenting what I said.  I did not "deny the landform and photos of the landform."  I cannot tell from the picture whether there is a hill or not.   You cant either.  

And I NEVER said there was hill to carry.  In fact, I originally said that both sides might be correct:  there might not have been hill in the fairway, but the other characteristics of the Alps hole were there.   Lesley never mentions a hill in the fairway.  

See Patrick, it is not my contention, it is Lesley's, Tillinghast's, etc.

Quote
Quote
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.  


I could have sworn that you insisted that the old 10th was an Alps hole, based primarily on the similarities in the green complex at NGLA and # 10 at Merion thatyou gleened from the photo and from the writings of CBM that you quoted.
[/color]

Well you are wrong.  What I said REPEATEDLY is that the hole looks like it shared similarities with the Alps holes, and I described what those similarities were.  Repeatedly.  You are fighting ghosts here Patrick.  You've misread me from my first post on the topic,  but you are too stubborn to back down.

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

First it was proven to you that the intervening Saddle Back Hill that CBM called the Alps was the key feature to an Alps and not the green site as you insisted.
You've set up a false dichotomy.  I never said it was one over the other.  Only that the greensite features were in fact features of the Alps Hole.  And they were, despite your denials.  The proof is in the photos and descriptions of other of CBM's Alp's holes.  

What your missing is that the Greensite features are features of MacDonald's "Alps hole" regardless ofwhether or not the hill is the "key" feature.

Quote
For you, or anyone to claim the old 10th is/was an Alps hole shows either a stubborness that transcends reason, the prudent analysis of the photo and relevant topography and/or a failure to understand the architectural components and features that comprise an Alps, according to CBM's own words, which you quoted.[/b]
Here is where you again demonstrate that you dont know or apparently care what I am saying.    I never said that it was an "Alps Hole."  

What I said was that it shared a number of important and prominent features with MacDonald's description of the Alps hole, namely the bank in back, the deep fronting bunker, and the demanding nature of the two shot hole.   These features are discussed in the quote, as well as the intervening hill.  I also said that a number of writers and designers compared it to Alps Holes.  

I also said that I thought it was possibly these other features to which Lesley was referring.

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said these things could be more productive.   You are so anxious to try to win this argument that you have spent all this time arguing against positions that I have never put forth.