Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne Morrisson,

With respect to the 3rd hole at Merion being categorized as a Redan, I think that's nothing more than a generalization.
A categorization of convenience.

Whom, in early American golf had a thorough grasp of architecture ?
Certainly not the general public.
But, catchwords, especially if they used of the names of template holes, brought with them instant recognition in terms of general golfing concepts

The 3rd at Merion doesn't FUNCTION like a Redan.
It has few of the playing characteristics or interrelated qualities of a redan.

As an old teacher said, "all collies are dogs, but all dogs aren't collies", and the tendency on the part of some is to see a hole that remotely resembles one of the famous template holes and immediately annoint it as being one and the same, despite the fact that it lacks critical features or the playing function assoaciated with that "true" template hole.

We had SPDB declaring that any hole with "SOME" blindness and a crossing bunker qualifies as an "Alps" hole.

Yet, the 16th, 17th and 8th holes at NGLA all have those features, but, MacDonald designed and named them and we know them as the Punchbowl, Peconic (Leven) and The Bottle hole.  None of them have ever been called or categorized as "Alps" holes.  But, had SPDB written an article for a golf publication in 1916, 1924 or 1930, and used HIS definition, wouldn't the reader, the non-knowlegeable general public been misinformed and misled ?  

And, wouldn't Tom MacWood, Dave Moriarty or any of us be incorrect if we cited that article as proof positive of the existance of an "Alps" hole ?  

Instead of discussing # 10 at Merion, if we were discussing either # 16 or # 17 at NGLA couldn't one cite SPDB's article as proof positive that those holes were "Alps" holes ?

So, again, I think you have to discount the written word in the face of the physical evidence.  And, you have to remind yourselves that the American public knew very little about golf and that it was easier to lump a hole into a catchall, recognizable phrase than it was to explain it's complicated architectural configuration and playability in detail.

If one wanted to say that a hole had some features or looks that resembled those found on a template hole, I don't think that anyone could fault them for making that inference.
But, to absolutely declare and categorize holes whose design is clearly removed from the originals or benchmarks, as "true" templates is beyond stretching the understanding and definition of the template holes.

In many of the early writings, It would seem that the categorization was more a matter of convenience in communication, since the mention of the template hole would draw "name" recognition and a basic understanding of what the general look and play of the hole was like.

To rely on some of the earlier pronouncements rather than the actual detailed configuration of the holes is an error.
The physical properties should outweigh the rhetoric.

I don't mean to employ overkill, but, when Ross is quoted as stating that Seminole was flat, anyone who's ever been to Seminole knows that that description is grossly inaccurate, that the configuration of the land is quite the opposite.

I suspect that Ross's alleged quote was taken out of context by the writer/editor.  If Ross made this statement, I'll guarantee you that he was talking about the centercut of the property, starting at the left side of the 12th fairway and heading directly south until he reached the right side of the 9th fairway, along with the waterway that winds its way through that midsection, effectively providing a drainage channel that empties the golf course and itself on the southern border.

First and foremost, one must personally observe and analyze the land in question, and that physical analysis must take precendence over the written word of yesteryear.

Healthy debate usually produces enlightenment, and that's a good thing.

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul, you said, "Compare and contrast the early days of American Golfer and Playboy magazine. I'd say both pioneered getting down, getting naked and getting natural, wouldn't you?"

Unfortunately the only leg garters and stockings to be found in the early issues of the American Golfer and Golf Illustrated were those for and modeled by men!  

[Bryan Izatt]

Amongst all the mud-slinging I'm still perplexed about the real story on the length of #10 and Bobby Jones' 300 yard drives.  So, herewith a dispassionate, neutral look at the various information provided in one sub-thread of this debate.  It's based on the assumption that Google accurately measures distances (at least within a yard or two).

Wayne Morrison said: "Today the hole is measured as 310 yards".  In the following picture I have used Google to measure it as it stands.  From the front of the back tee I get it as 315 yards on the line shown.  I don't know where the 310 yard tee block is, but it appears to be reasonably close to reality.



Wayne Morrison also said: "If you could think clearly, I said that from the 1916 tee it was 291 yards to the road.  The measurement you see in the 1930 Jones photograph was from a different tee, approximately 30 yards behind the 1916 tee."

On the following picture I have superimposed the 1930 Jones aerial on the current layout.  The Golf Illustrated graphic seems to indicate that Jones drove from the middle of what appear to be three current tee blocks.



Wayne indicates that it should be 321 yards (291+30) to the road from where Jones drove the ball.  I have superimposed a blue line of 321 yards from the road down the line of the fairway to the tee.  It requires going back to the back of the back tee to get 321 yards out of it.  Wayne, is that where you measured it from?  The Golf Illustrated graphic you posted seems to suggest Jones drove from the middle tee, not the back one.

Assuming that Golf Illustrated accurately located the teeing area, I have used the middle teeing ground to measure 200 and 300 yards from that (red) point.  I've marked the 200 and 300 yard points with white blobs.  The Golf Illustrated 200 and 300 yard notations are a good 20 to 30 yards too short.  Perhaps the graphic artist took a little too much artistic freedom in placing them on the picture.

I've used the Google ruler to measure from the presumed teeing ground to a (red) point near the shorter of the two Jones' drives.  It measures to 254 yards or so.

So, what are the conclusions?  

a)  The GI artist placed the 200 and 300 yard text too close to the tee?

b)  The GI artist placed the teeing ground erroneously on the middle teeing ground and it should really have been on the back tee?

c)  There was another tee 25 yards further back than the current back tee?

In either case a) or b) the drives were not 300 yards.  If the middle teeing ground is correct, then the drives were 250 -260.  If Jones really used the current back tee, then the drives were 265 to 275.

Given these measurements, it's hard to fathom the hole playing at 385 or even 350 in 1916.  Given the green's juxtapostion to the road and the tee apparently being 291 yards to the road (according to Wayne) it's hard to see the hole at anything more than 320 to 330 yards to the middle of the green (unless the green was super deep.

As a further check that Google ruler doesn't distort Philadelphia area distances, I measured the foul lines at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia.  It's symetrical at 327 feet down each each foul line.  Any ball fans out there who can confirm that?

[Paul_Turner]

"Tom
Please read the thread in the link above (all of it).
(Tom's instincts were correct)"

Paul:

I did read it---all of it, and carefully.

Thanks a lot for finding that thread. I know I couldn't.

I don't think you quite understand a few things about that thread back then. You should read it again carefully.

Tom MacWood may've been the first to mention Tillinghast's articles on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on that thread but if you will notice that very long thread of mine before Tom MacWood ever arrived on that thread I explained what I knew before that of how the design of the course and various holes began to come into being. There is no concievable way that anyone could know that without being totally familiar with all Tillinghast's articles and by that I mean John Arthur Brown, Warren Shelley, Jim Finegan and me.

I may not have mentioned Tillinghast's articles on that thread but I was completely familiar with all of them way before that thread or there is no way at all I could have said what I did. Many references to those articles of Tillinghast's were in Shelley's and Finegan's books anyway which I had and had read quite some time before that thread. And I recall getting all those articles from the Tillinghast Society and its guys.

So be careful who you assign credit too for various things, particularly about Pine Valley.

If you will notice Tom MacWood didn't know much about Pine Valley at that time and you can tell from his posts he didn't have any of that material I eventually gave you and you gave him.

Again, thanks for finding that thread. It was over five years ago---amazing, time flies. It was pretty good, don't you think? We sure were more civil then. I'm impressed with the info and the chronicle of events on that thread. It should be cut and pasted somewhere. Those may have been our finest hours on here.

But I will tell you something else. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about Pine Valley that I've ever learned from Tom MacWood but I did learn a thing or so about the creation of it from you after I gave you that material.That overlay you once did of the two topo routings did show how the 17th hole got interestingly shifted slightly to the right.

Good show Paul, and good night.

Tom

You're right the tone was much better.   An you can see that we were debating this before you took a closer look ar the topo map and the blue/red lines.  

None of the Pine Valley history books were analysing the early Tillie reports correctly i.e. fitting them in with what Colt did.  Tom Macwood was the first to start analysing them correctly because his instincts were correct that Finegan's analysis didn't fit with Tillie's report.  

Which is why I thought you were being unfair to Tom in the comments above

[Patrick_Mucci]

DESchmidt,

That's been my contention for some time.

You cannot acccept, as infallible, quotes from publications, without confirming them through multiple sources.

Even when architects are quoted, the authenticity and/or accuracy of their alleged statements have to be questioned and reconfirmed.

Exhibit "A" in my position is the alleged quote by Ross that Seminole is flat.  The FACTS contradict and prove that the alleged quote is false,  totally fictitious, or more likely, incomplete and taken out of context at best.

100 years from now, when golfers read that the Trump courses were the best courses in Florida and New York, should they accept those pronouncements as The Gospel.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

Hole measurements are done from the tee, down the centerline of the fairway, to a pivot point, and from that pivot point to the middle of the putting surface, and not outside of the fairway lines to an arbitrary turning point within the fairway.

If you measure the hole that way, you'll come into conformance with the score card measurements

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan Izatt,

Thanks for sharing your research.

I've looked at Google Earth and I've looked at the Merion yardage book.

From the middle tees, I'm seeing 253 yards to the middle of the last bunker on the right (which was recently removed but still visible on Google earth as dark shading).   From the center of the fairway there, it is 55 yards to the center of the green, or roughly the 310 yards the hole is measured at.  The back tee, which goes all the way back to the fence and property line, adds 19 yards according to the book, making it 272 to the center of the last abandoned bunker, and making the hole play about 330 at max.

From the middle tee, it appears to be about 300 to the road, on a straight line to where the old 10th green would be, which would make the measurement of the old 10th about 330, not 385 (I'm not sure where this yardage came from during this discussion?), if the middle tee was used.   If the back tee was used, it would be around 350, but to Patrick's point, if the hole was a slight dogleg right, it would probably add 10 or so yards.

The Philadelphia Ledger in 1916 called it 365, which if one accounts for the slight dogleg right is probably within reason if the present back tee was used.  

What's more interesting to me is their description, however. My online copy is blurry, so I may not get every word right, but this is what it looks like to me;

Hole 10 - 365 yards - Drive and pitch.  The tee is up in the woods and is elevated.  A long straight drive will give the player an easy pitch over Ardmore Ave. to the green.

This hardly sounds like a daunting Alps hole as has been described.   I'm sure a poor drive would have left the player with a blind shot, and probably the high front edge of the fronting bunker made the shot at least partially blind from the top of the hill, but I think the term "easy pitch" is very different than what I think of when I think of the approach to the Alps hole at NGLA.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

Hole measurements are done from the tee, down the centerline of the fairway, to a pivot point, and from that pivot point to the middle of the putting surface, and not outside of the fairway lines to an arbitrary turning point within the fairway.

If you measure the hole that way, you'll come into conformance with the score card measurements

Patrick,

I understand that's the way you're supposed to do it.  For holes that swing like Merion #10 though, there are multiple turning points if you follow the centreline of the fairway.  Are you suggesting that yardages are measured on #10 as below or as in the previous aerial I posted?  Since I've not had the pleasure of playing Merion, could you clarify for me where the 310 yard monument is located?



And, do you know who did the scorecard measurements for Merion?  Were they done by the architect?  The greens committee?  The super?  The local golf association?  How did they measure them?  

My experience at many courses is that distances on scorecards are inflated, based on using the back edge of tee blocks and using roundabout routings to turning points that nobody ever plays.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan,

Please see my post above.  I think it's consistent and clears up some questions about the hole both today and in 1916.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan Izatt,

Thanks for sharing your research.

I've looked at Google Earth and I've looked at the Merion yardage book.

From the middle tees, I'm seeing 253 yards to the middle of the last bunker on the right (which was recently removed but still visible on Google earth as dark shading).   Looks like that to me from the front of the middle tee.  From the center of the fairway there, it is 55 yards to the center of the green, or roughly the 310 yards the hole is measured at.  It would be maybe 5 yards less than that to the middle of the fairway, rather than the middle of the bunker, but that's probably immaterial.  Depends on where the actual 310 yard monument is on the tee too.    The back tee, which goes all the way back to the fence and property line, adds 19 yards according to the book, making it 272 to the center of the last abandoned bunker, and making the hole play about 330 at max  Looks reasonable based on the Google measurements .

From the middle tee, it appears to be about 300 (Yes, on a line from the middle of the middle tee bisecting the two fairway bunkers) to the road, on a straight line to where the old 10th green would be, which would make the measurement of the old 10th about 330, not 385 (I'm not sure where this yardage came from during this discussion?), if the middle tee was used.   If the back tee was used, it would be around 350, but to Patrick's point, if the hole was a slight dogleg right, it would probably add 10 or so yards. The road is maybe 10 yards wide.  From the initial photos (and the reference to a 40 foot putt) I would guesstimate the green to be 30 yards deep (so add 15 yards to the hole length to the middle of the green).  Also from the photos (although the perspective is difficult to guage) I'd guess that it's maybe 30 yards (equal to the depth of the green) from the edge of the road to the edge of the green.  I doubt that a slight dogleg would add 10 yards.  Trig would suggest maybe less than 5 yards for a slight dogleg.  Add it all up (300 + 10 + 30 + 15 +5) and it looks like 360 +/-.  IIRC, many pages ago in the thread, was there not a comment that the 1916 tee was between the current front and middle tees?  If so you'd have to deduct some yardage for that.

The Philadelphia Ledger in 1916 called it 365, (360?  365??  Pretty darn close.)  which if one accounts for the slight dogleg right is probably within reason if the present back tee was used.  

What's more interesting to me is their description, however. My online copy is blurry, so I may not get every word right, but this is what it looks like to me;

Hole 10 - 365 yards - Drive and pitch.  The tee is up in the woods and is elevated.  A long straight drive will give the player an easy pitch over Ardmore Ave. to the green.

This hardly sounds like a daunting Alps hole as has been described.   I'm sure a poor drive would have left the player with a blind shot, and probably the high front edge of the fronting bunker made the shot at least partially blind from the top of the hill, but I think the term "easy pitch" is very different than what I think of when I think of the approach to the Alps hole at NGLA.

Without opening the can of worms on average driving distance  vs Bobby Jones 300 yard bombs, if the average drive was 250 then it would be an "easy" 100 yard pitch with not much blindness evident.  Doesn't sound too daunting.  I'm not familiar with NGLA's Alps hole.  Is it longer, creating something more than  an "easy pitch"?  Or is the rise and rampart significantly higher?  In any event, I'm not sure for the pros of that day, or certainly currently, that such a shot would be very daunting.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Thanks for the leg work.  

Your measurements exactly correspond to mine, so thanks as well for the confirmation.

Mike Cirba,

If we are to trust the shot marks on the 1930 Jones shot chart, then the tee used in the 1930 Open was the current middle tee.  See Bryan's overlay above or my overlay a few pages back.  

I've said this a number of times, and given that I have not been called a liar, an idiot, or a twit for specifically saying so, I trust that Msrs. Morrison or Paul do not disagree with this.  From the middle of the middle tee it is about 286 yards to the road in a straight-line directly over the middle of the green.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I hate to get in the middle of this dispute

but

Distance measurements are dependent on the methods used.  Google Earth and a standard laser rangefinder will measure distance as the crow flies from point to point without regard to terrain.

Am I correct in assuming that prior to the advent of these wonderful technologies many measurements were made using a wheel of a known diameter and a counter that measured the number of revolutions from point to point?  

The tee on #10 at Merion is high above the fairway and then the fairway rises up again to the level of the left fairway bunker.  That to my mind would add a reasonable amount of distance to the hole should it have been originally measured with a wheel type device.

Just a thought.

[Bryan Izatt]

Geoff,

Good question as to how they used to measure it.  I'd have assumed using surveying equipment during the construction phase.  I can't imagine using a wheel.  Where are the historians?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

You're welcome.

In deference to Messrs Paul and Morrison, I don't think they were talking about measuring on a straight line from middle tee over the centre of the green.  The fairway is to the right and the original green was to the right of that.  Along that line their numbers are right.

Given the erroneous positioning of the 200 and 300 markers in the GI graphic, I'd also be prepared to accept that they got the teeing location wrong too.  If Jones used the back tee, then his drives are in the 280 range.  Not quite 300, but outstanding for the times.

For whatever it's worth, the GI chart for the 8th hole showing two drives greater than 300 yards appears to be pretty accurate.

[DMoriarty]

Without opening the can of worms on average driving distance  vs Bobby Jones 300 yard bombs, if the average drive was 250 then it would be an "easy" 100 yard pitch with not much blindness evident.  Doesn't sound too daunting.  I'm not familiar with NGLA's Alps hole.  Is it longer, creating something more than  an "easy pitch"?  Or is the rise and rampart significantly higher?  In any event, I'm not sure for the pros of that day, or certainly currently, that such a shot would be very daunting.

Bryan, keep in mind that the Jones drives were in 1930, not 1916, and that the Jones drives were the stuff of legends, and so were probably quite aways past everyone else, even though they were only around 255-260 yards.   I think it way too much to assume a 250 yard average for drives for the old hole, many years earlier.  (I dont know what Jones was playing, but weren't steel shafts legal and being used commonly before 1930?)

In MacDonald's book, he describes a 1919 test done by a handful of top players on a couple plays of 5 different holes featuring a variety of slopes and wind conditions, and the average drive for the group was 228 yards.  Given that Merion 10 played significantly uphill from where the 1916 tee has been described, the drives may have even been shorter.  

In fact if I recall my reading correctly, in the 1916 championship match at least one of the two finalists ended up in the right fairway bunker, and had to lay up short of the road on his second.  If the second right fairway bunker was there then (I have no idea) this drive traveled no more than 200 yards.  If he was in the current first fairway bunker, then the drive was no more than 170 yards.   These both sound like short drives even for hickories, but with hickories, golfers generally relied upon more roll, and roll would be more difficult hitting into an uphill slope.  

_________________________
Geoffrey,  they were educated men, so it seems odd to me that they wouldn't be able to figure this out.  My guess is that for whatever reason, the hole distance was overestimated before the tournament, then the magazine people just worked backwards from the center of the green.  The hype around Jones' ability probably didnt increase their objectivity much.

Whatever they did, they were way off.  

[Geoffrey Childs]

David

Who were educated men?

The distances measured depend on the methods used.  Does anyone know exactly how distances were determined on a golf course in 1916 or 1930?  The elevation changes could account for the discrepancies.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

The 10th at Merion doesn't really play significantly uphill due to the elevated tee.   I think you mentioned the green being 15 feet higher than the tee, which isn't very much, and that feels about right.

The newspaper accounts from 1916 called it an easy pitch after a long, straight drive.   My sense is that most of the competitors had no more than about 120 yards tops for the second shot.

Bryan,

The Alps hole at NGLA is 430 yards, with a second shot seemingly crossing a mountain to a completely blind green in the distance.   When I played there last I hit a very good drive, and a 4-iron second shot, which I pulled a bit and ended up hole high.

I can't even imagine reaching it in two with hickories, although it likely played a bit shorter back then, as well.  

In any case, I can't imagine anyone ever calling that second shot an "easy pitch".  

[TEPaul]

I've said this a number of times, and given that I have not been called a liar, an idiot, or a twit for specifically saying so, I trust that Msrs. Morrison or Paul do not disagree with this.  From the middle of the middle tee it is about 286 yards to the road in a straight-line directly over the middle of the green."

David Moriarty:

You trust that Msrs Morrison and Paul do not disagree with what?

Are you still talking about how long Jones's drive was in 1930 and if so why are you still talking about that?

That entire issue is about the most trivially boring issue imaginable and so I ask again, why are you still wasting so much time on that?

Are you still trying to prove Wayne Morrison and me wrong about something or that we may disagree on something? If it's never occured to you Wayne Morrison and I certainly don't agree on everythng. What would give you that odd notion?

Or maybe you're still trying to figure out the 10th hole at Merion, either old or new. If so, knock yourself out, maybe you'll figure it out someday and maybe you won't. As for Wayne and I we've been familiar with that hole, old and new for years.

By the way, about 4-5 pages ago I reminded you that today all holes are measured down the center line of the fairway and if they bend then obviously flying the ball directly at the hole is not as long as the hole may indicate. Now, whether they did it that way in 1930, I can't really say, but it sure wouldn't surprise me.

But again, if you want to know the exact distance from any tee on that hole to any point it's no problem at all to figure that out. All we need to do is what everyone does today---eg just take out a laser rangefinder and shoot it.

But why should a simple solution like that stop you from arguing for about ten pages over a trivial point such as how far various points on that hole are or how far Jones's drive was in 1930?  

Originally you mentioned that this excercise was so you could understand this hole better. I suggest you just come here and look at it, as we have for years, and you'd probably understand everything about it just fine.

[DMoriarty]

In deference to Messrs Paul and Morrison, I don't think they were talking about measuring on a straight line from middle tee over the centre of the green.  The fairway is to the right and the original green was to the right of that.  Along that line their numbers are right.

Here is what Mr. Morrison said on the issue:

[From the 1916 tee to the road I get a straight line measurement of 291 yards.  From the current back tee (where Jones played in 1930) the distance is 300 yards to the spot marked on the Golf Illustrated photos.  It is clear to me that under dry and fast conditions, prevalent throughout the year, that the best players of the 1916 era would have been able to come pretty close to the road.]

He had previously said the 1916 tee was between the front and middle tees, which I assumed was about where the path came up, a spot closer than 291 yards to the road.  So, in deference, I assumed that he must have meant 291 yards from the middle tee (the only place his claimed measure makes sense.)  His response?  

[Professor Moriarty,
You are an idiot.  . . . If you could think clearly, I said that from the 1916 tee it was 291 yards to the road.  The measurement you see in the 1930 Jones photograph was from a different tee, approximately 30 yards behind the 1916 tee.  This may give you some idea why your are so infuriating.  You are dense, poor in analytical skills, full of yourself yet with a sense of being a victim, emotional to the point of losing objectivity and your are boring.  Those are bad traits to have individually.  Combined, they make me want to ignore you completely.  I shall.

Yardage BS aside, let us not lose sight of your other failings.  Your hypothesis is a rehash of well established knowledge.  Your original findings are full of contradictions.] (my bolds added.)

So, cutting through the vitriol, Mr. Morrison claims he measured 291 yards from the 1916 tee to the road, and that the Jones measures are correct at 300 yards.  Go figure.

Curiously, some of Mr. Morrison's past posts seem to be missing.  

I am not sure we have any reason to doubt the actual shot markings on the 1930 shot chart.  That would be a relatively simple matter.  It is the measures of those markings that are extremely off, at least on the 10th hole.  

______________________

Mike:  From the place Mr. Morrison has identified as the 1916 tee, there is closer to 25 or 30 foot elevation change (according to the USGS application).  Surely 25 or 35 feet elevation change is significant, especially with low flying hickories.  

The NYTimes describes the shot as a long, high pitch and makes it sound none too easy.   It also lists the hole at 385 yards, a distance which is consistent with at least two other sources I have read online (one by Tillie, I think.)  Is it possible that the blurriness of your article is making the '8' a '6?'
____________________

Geoffrey.  You could be right, but not sure if this accounts for a 40+ yard mistake.   I think it just as likely that they measured back from the green, discounting the dogleg.  (This happens all the time on tv today.)  Or they mis-measured some other way.  

That being said, I am not sure it matters why they were off, they were certainly very off.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  

Here is the elevation profile superimposed over the google aerial, Note that the 1916 would have been quite a bit lower elevation, so that the drives would have looked much more like one was hitting into the side of the hill.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm at work and the browser doesn't let me see certain images, so unfortunately I can't see what you're talking about at present.

From the sounds of the 1916 description, which talks about the elevated tee on 10, I'm guessing it was pretty close to either the middle or back tee today.    

As far as the yardage, the blurriness may be an 8 instead of a 6, but I don't think so.   I can't imagine anyone calling a 385 yard hole a drive and pitch in 1916 unless it went significantly downhill.   Even at 365 that's a stretch, so I'm more inclined to believe the hole was actually around 350.

If the hole was in fact 385 yards, then there is no way that the current tee was being used.   It is simply not possible to go back further along the same line of play, and the tee would have had to be lower and to the right.  

However, looking at the not particularly detailed map I have of the 1916 course, it looks to be about where it is right now, at least on that line in relation to the 9th green, etc.

So, my best guess for 1916 is an elevated tee probably just short of today's back tee, and a hole that curved slightly right.  Good drives would get to the top of the hill and have about 90-120 yards in, and others would have a bit more of a challenge.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Thanks for the description of the NGLA Alps hole.  No, it doesn't sound like an easy pitch (except maybe for today's tour pros).  On the other hand a 100 to 125 yard shot to 1916 version of Merion's 10th sounds like it may well have been an easy pitch.

[Bryan Izatt]

For my own edification, is this what the 1916 version of the 10th would have looked like?  Or would the faiway and bunkers have been slightly more to the left, and the tee to the right, to create a slightly more left to right movement in the hole, as per the schematic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

From the middle tees, I'm seeing 253 yards to the middle of the last bunker on the right (which was recently removed but still visible on Google earth as dark shading).   From the center of the fairway there, it is 55 yards to the center of the green, or roughly the 310 yards the hole is measured at.  The back tee, which goes all the way back to the fence and property line, adds 19 yards according to the book, making it 272 to the center of the last abandoned bunker, and making the hole play about 330 at max.

From the middle tee, it appears to be about 300 to the road, on a straight line to where the old 10th green would be, which would make the measurement of the old 10th about 330, not 385 (I'm not sure where this yardage came from during this discussion?), if the middle tee was used.   If the back tee was used, it would be around 350, but to Patrick's point, if the hole was a slight dogleg right, it would probably add 10 or so yards.

The Philadelphia Ledger in 1916 called it 365, which if one accounts for the slight dogleg right is probably within reason if the present back tee was used.  

What's more interesting to me is their description, however. My online copy is blurry, so I may not get every word right, but this is what it looks like to me;

Hole 10 - 365 yards - Drive and pitch.  The tee is up in the woods and is elevated.  A long straight drive will give the player an easy pitch over Ardmore Ave. to the green.

This hardly sounds like a daunting Alps hole as has been described.   I'm sure a poor drive would have left the player with a blind shot, and probably the high front edge of the fronting bunker made the shot at least partially blind from the top of the hill, but I think the term "easy pitch" is very different than what I think of when I think of the approach to the Alps hole at NGLA.

Mike Cirba,

I"m glad that you're finally coming around to my way of thinking.

What took you so long ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I understand that's the way you're supposed to do it.  

For holes that swing like Merion #10 though, there are multiple turning points if you follow the centreline of the fairway.  

No, there aren't.
That's just your interpretation on this hole[/color]

Are you suggesting that yardages are measured on #10 as below or as in the previous aerial I posted?  

Neither[/color]

Since I've not had the pleasure of playing Merion, could you clarify for me where the 310 yard monument is located?

I'd have to go on site to get it's exact location.[/color]



And, do you know who did the scorecard measurements for Merion?  Were they done by the architect?  The greens committee?  The super?  The local golf association?  How did they measure them?  

It's my understanding that they're lasered.

And, it's the club, not the associations that do the measuring.[/color]

My experience at many courses is that distances on scorecards are inflated, based on using the back edge of tee blocks and using roundabout routings to turning points that nobody ever plays.

That's an entirely different issue..

Holes, especially doglegs are not measured by the straightest distance between two points as you allude to.

Have you ever seen a measurement of the 18th at Pebble Beach were the distance is from tee to green and based on the golfers ability to obtain scuba gear ? [/color]