[DMoriarty]

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.

Mike, From the description I thought this as well, but I was politely informed that the actual 1916 tee was quite a bit further forward.  '30 yards in front of where Jones played from' was the most recent description I think.   I think I recall that Mr. Morrison saying that the back tee wasnt even part of the property in 1916 . . . but that may be hard to verify as his posts are mysteriously vanishing.

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.

 

Whatever the hole actually played, I am pretty certain that it was usually was listed as 385.  At least Tillie, Travis, and the NYTimes all listed it as 385.

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.

I dont have Geoff's aerial here, so I am taking people's word for it with where the tee plays, but take another look at the flynn sketch and you will see that his major angles (fairway in relation to road and dogleg in relation to the road ) are way off.  I am surprised he could be so far off even in a sketch.

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.

Say this at your peril.  Beware of the wrath of Morrison.

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.

I am just not so sure that drives would consistently get to the top.  Surely those bunkers were in play at some point in the hole's existence.  
___________________________

So far, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Jones played from the back tees in 1930s, much less the 1916 golfers.  The shot chart is right at the front of the middle tee.

Perhaps you guys are correct, but as of now the only evidence I have seen is the shot chart.  Is there any basis for dismissing the points on the shot chart?   (We had good reason to throw away the distances, not sure we do for the locations of the shots.)  What about additional evidence?   What year did Merion build the back tee?  What year did they aquire the additional land?   Is the back tee there in the 1924 Aerial?  It sure doesnt look like it is in the 1930 magazine photo.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I agree with you.

I dont think there's enough real estate there to get the hole to play to 365, let alone 385.

And, I have my doubts about the elevation changes from the mid-point between the front of the fairway bunkers the point 30 yards shy of Ardmore Ave.

Perhaps Wayne could shoot the elevations for us at some point.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Seems neither of my turning point approaches is to your satisfaction.  Care to suggest where you think the turning point is?  Is there a rule documented somewhere that you could point me to that defines how you determine the turning point?

In any event from a total yardage perspective, it's pretty much immaterial where the turning point is on this hole, unless you run the drive line out to the right edge of the fairway.  

The two methods I've shown give pretty much the same number.  I tried one with a drive line that bisects the fairway bunkers and turns when that line starts to leave the centreline of the fairway.  The approach shot cuts the corner and skirts the left greeside bunker.  Guess what!  It makes a 2 yard difference in total distance.  So, what is the point?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  

As for the elevation change, Flynn's sketch indicates that the hole leveled about 250 yards from the tee.  Adjusting slightly for their yardage mistakes, this looks to be about the place the hole levels on the elevation profile.  

As for 385 yds or 365 yds I doubt the hole played either.  And I doubt we'll know how they measured to get some of these absurd distances.   But I really dont think either of these things matters much at all.  It seems like the more important questions are:

What was the actual layout of the hole? (length, tee location, green location, bunkers, fairway lines, size and location of breastworks, ramparts, trenches, etc. . . )
. . . and . . .
How did the hole play?
______________________________

Bryan and Mike,  you guys both think the hole played from the current backs in 1930 and in 1916.  I still dont see evidence for either conclusion.

Here is a slightly blown up version of the 1930 shot chart.   I've lightened the approximate spot where the back tee is now located (based on the overlay I did earlier.)  It sure looks like bushes and trees to me.   Bryan you can check the same thing out on your overlay, I would think.



Mr. Morrison said the same thing as you guys regarding the 1930 tee, but also said the 1916 tee was 30 yards in front of that, so why dont one of you ask him why he thinks so?   I would, but I am too much of an idiot for him to answer me.  

[Mike_Cirba]

The tees were between the current forward tee and the middle tee.  The yardages back then are not reliable.  I think the playing distance was very similar to what it is today, about 350 yards using the measuring tool with Google Earth and the 1916 Flynn drawing.  It was a slight dogleg right.

The tee shot was not to a low spot in the valley; the carry and roll to the top of the hill was just over 200 yards.  Once at the top of the valley, there is only a very slight elevation change to Ardmore Avenue.  The elevation on the other side of Ardmore Avenue is the same as that south of Ardmore Ave.

John,

The club did not own the land all the way back to the present back tee.  It owned up to the midpoint between the current forward tee and the middle tee.  It may have gone up into the woods, but not as far as today.  I do not think the actual yardage was 385, more like 350.

I went back through this thread somewhat masochistically.

I believe the heart of the problem is simply this;

The yardage reported for the 10th hole at Merion in 1916 was wrong...by a lot.

I'm not sure how it was measured back then, but we can clearly see today with modern technology that they were wrong.   The hole played no more than 350 yards, at best, and giving the benefit of the doubt in every respect.   And, that was probably to the back of the green.

The approach was likely at least partially blind due to the fronting "ramparts".   Driving to the top of the hill from the tee in question was not difficult for top players of that era.  

I think it goes back very simply to Lesley's description of the front bunker as being an "Alps like feature".   It's very clear the hole had very little else that would have made it look or play anything like the 3rd at NGLA or the 17th at Prestwick.

It's also very clear, using the words of George Bahto, that early golfers in the US used the term Alps very loosely;

"In purest form, a blind approach shot over a high hill.  More moderate versions provide a partial glimpse of the target.  Most common version positions the green over or at a rise in the fairwa with Alps type bunkering, mostly notably the frontal cross bunker."

I have no further questions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

So, would you classify and call the 8th, 16th and 17th holes at NGLA, "Alps" holes ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

So, would you classify and call the 8th, 16th and 17th holes at NGLA, "Alps" holes ?

No, of course not Patrick, although perhaps our Mr. Lesley would have referred to the front crossing bunkers on 8 and 16 as "Alps-like".   Don't you think?

I think George Bahto makes very clear that the original concept was stretched almost beyond recognition.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I understand that by your definition (which I am sure you think is THE definition), the 10th at Merion may not have been an Alps.  

Setting aside your definition for a moment, why do you think an impressive handful of men thought differently?  

Also, what of the breastworks, trenches and ramparts decribed in the NYTimes Article?  
_________________________________

Patrick and Mike C.:

Regarding  how the hole played, I still disagree that decent drives easily made it up to the flat.  I just read the fairly detailed daily coverage of 1916 Am in the NYTimes, and it sure sounds like those bunkers were very much in play.  

There are numerous accounts of drives ending up in both the right and left fairway bunkers on the 10th.  For example young Bobby Jones (who reportedly was driving about equal to Gardner, considered one of the longest drivers in the land) was bunkered off the tenth tee multiple times.  

Gardner himself was in a fairway bunker on the 10th in the semi's.

A quote from the coverage of Chick Evan's semi-match:  

Evans played his first shot on the tenth hole from the tenth tee in the woods, his second from a bunker on the hillside, his third from the fairgreen short of the road, and his fourth from a bunker over the green.

In the final, the momentum of the match was reportedly decided on the 10th, where Gardner reached the green in two but only tied Evans, who:

drove in a bunker played shor of the road on his second, barely staid[sic] on the green on his third, and holed a thirty five foot putt for a par 4.

Note that they refer to the bunker as "on the hillside."  Also note that these hillside bunkers were very much in play.  

If these are the same bunkers and now, you guys are over-estimating how this hole played.  

Also, both you guys both seem to put weight on the use of the word "pitch."    But back then didn't "pitch" refer trajectory rather than length, and wasnt it used when one had to hit the ball over something then stop it?  For example, I have seen reference to a "full mashie pitch over the lake."  Certainly a full mashie pitch isnt a short shot, unless I am hitting it.  

[T_MacWood]

Newsflash:

DE has never read 'Scotland's Gift Golf'.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Then it sounds as though one of two things is possible.

1) Players drove it much shorter in 1916 then we imagine.  I don't have Google Earth on the computer I'm on right now, but have to imagine that if the tee is where we all think, a drive to carry those bunkers would have been about 200 or so?

2) The 10th tee was somewhere else?   If guys were hitting 3 shots to get to this green, then something is amiss.   Were they using featheries?

We do know that if they were using a tee on the same line as the present tee, and that if it was somewhere between the middle and front tees, the total hole yardage was 350 at max.   We also know the Philly paper called it an "easy pitch", which doesn't sound too daunting, but again, we're talking about news accounts and sometimes they must be taken with a grain of salt.

My own feeling is that it probably was a fairly difficult hole.  The pictures of the green seem to indicate that it was severely protected, and very undulating.   Still, I can't say that it resembles anything like the 3rd at NGLA in the most basic form.   I still think Lesley's point was about the front bunker, and I also think that these were guys who were just learning the game and its lexicon.

All it probably took was for one single person to refer to it as "Alps like", and that was repeated by others.  

I also have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Macdonald had anything to do with any hole at Merion, or any communications with Wilson post the 2-day visit.

Until we see something surface to the contrary, I think we're speculating and also over-reaching.   To say that Macdonald would not have bragged about his involvement at Merion because others were doing it for him is completely inconsistent with his personality, it seems.   NGLA was widely lauded by the golf world, yet he wrote about it extensively.   He also wrote extensively about what he did at Piping Rock.  

I also don't know what others wrote about his involvement, besides some very vague term of "advisor".   What did others say his advisory role entailed besides giving Wilson a tour of NGLA, and advising him on what courses to see in GB?

Is there a single word written by anyone, anywhere, that details anything in the least that happened between the two men after that, or even hints at it?   Did Macdonald or Wilson write anything about it?  Whigham?  

No, instead, I think Wilson was perfectly content to have Macdonald and Whigham listed as advisors, simply because;

1) Having the most famous guy in US golf lent credence and cache to the Merion project.

2) I'm sure Wilson was quite sincerely appreciative of the help given to him by Macdonald in preparing for his trip abroad.

Until some other hard evidence of continued communications and "advise" surfaces, then it's pointless speculation, no matter how we try to piece it together.

[TEPaul]

"But back then didn't "pitch" refer trajectory rather than length, and wasnt it used when one had to hit the ball over something then stop it?"

Yes it did. A "ptich" in those days described an aerial shot. We shouldn't confuse that term the way they used it back then as only something like a wedge, as in a pitiching wedge today.

That's also why we shouldn't fixate on what an "alps" hole means to us today. If we are talking about the description of a hole by people back then all we need to concern ourselves with is what they meant by it and how they used it, not by what we mean by it or how we use it.

There were all kinds of terms in both golf and in the culture back then that we don't use anymore and consequently apparently don't understand very well today.

I hope you all are "in the pink" today.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I understand that by your definition (which I am sure you think is THE definition), the 10th at Merion may not have been an Alps.  

Setting aside your definition for a moment, why do you think an impressive handful of men thought differently?

Dave,

I'm not sure that anyone really knows what they thought.
And, I don't know that you can count on the written word as being unerringly accurate.

My thoughts are that one could make the case that the hole had some "Alps" like features or resemblences at the green end.  But, to call the hole an "Alps" hole, is beyond the stretch that Mike Cirba alludes to.[/color]  

Also, what of the breastworks, trenches and ramparts decribed in the NYTimes Article?  

As I said, I think the green end was comprised of some features that one could say RESEMBLED some of the features at the 17th at Prestwick or the 3rd at NGLA.  But, to call the hole an "Alps" hole is to bastardize the concept.

My guess is that the writers of those articles took editorial license in their descriptions of golf features/holes.

Their is nothing remotely "Alps" like about the topography.

If one stands in the middle of the 11th fairway at NGLA, 250 yards from the tee, the green is totally blind due to a rampart between the golfer and the green.  But, that wouldn't cause a prudent person to state that the hole has an "Alps" like flavor to it.

However, if someone had heard of "Alps" holes and been told that the name derives from an intervening landform between the golfer and the green, then I can see the misconception perpetuated through the written word.

And, that's what I think happened at Merion.[/color]
_________________________________

Patrick and Mike C.:

Regarding  how the hole played, I still disagree that decent drives easily made it up to the flat.  I just read the fairly detailed daily coverage of 1916 Am in the NYTimes, and it sure sounds like those bunkers were very much in play.  

Dave,

I think you have to consider a few things.

Ball flight in those days.

Doubt as to the listed yardage.
There's just not enough real estate to get that yardage

No automated irrigation systems.

With low ball flight, from a forward tee, up a hill, I can see how those bunkers could be deemed to be in play.[/color]

There are numerous accounts of drives ending up in both the right and left fairway bunkers on the 10th.  For example young Bobby Jones (who reportedly was driving about equal to Gardner, considered one of the longest drivers in the land) was bunkered off the tenth tee multiple times.  

The article doesn't address the conditions.
Was the wind in their face ?
Was it raining ?
Was it cool ?

Again, ball flight and the topography from the tee to the fairway could have a lot to do with it.[/color]

Gardner himself was in a fairway bunker on the 10th in the semi's.

A quote from the coverage of Chick Evan's semi-match:  

Evans played his first shot on the tenth hole from the tenth tee in the woods, his second from a bunker on the hillside, his third from the fairgreen short of the road, and his fourth from a bunker over the green.

In the final, the momentum of the match was reportedly decided on the 10th, where Gardner reached the green in two but only tied Evans, who:

drove in a bunker played shor of the road on his second, barely staid[sic] on the green on his third, and holed a thirty five foot putt for a par 4.

Note that they refer to the bunker as "on the hillside."  Also note that these hillside bunkers were very much in play.  

If these are the same bunkers and now, you guys are over-estimating how this hole played.  

Also, both you guys both seem to put weight on the use of the word "pitch."    But back then didn't "pitch" refer trajectory rather than length, and wasnt it used when one had to hit the ball over something then stop it?  For example, I have seen reference to a "full mashie pitch over the lake."  Certainly a full mashie pitch isnt a short shot, unless I am hitting it.  

Dave, you can't draw as support for your position, errant shots that find a bunker.

And, you can't ignore the finite yardages.
Work backwards from the green.
Use 100, 120 and 150 yards and see where that puts the golfer, then relate that position to the tee shot.

Based on your theory, the golfer wouldn't even see the ramparts and features fronting the green, or anything beyond the green from the yardage between the two fairway bunkers, the bunkers which you reference above.

You really need to spend some time on site, examining and analyzing the topography, and then see if your theory flies in the face of the physical properties of the land.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I was thinking about your question of "breastworks, ramparts, and trenches" (Oh my!  ), and have to think the answer has been right in front of us the whole time, courtesy of the 2 pictures of the 10th green from Golf Illustrated.

I believe the "trench" was in fact, the road, which in 1916 was likely a pebbly, ditch running throught the property, and VERY MUCH in play on the 10th.   We also know from seeing the steps that the road was below the surface of the golf course, probably on both sides of the road.   You wouldn't want to get stuck down there, especially with then having to pitch over the road edge, and then over the front crossing bunker, and then over the far edge of that hazard (RAMPART), with the fear of skulling that might take your ball into the huge BReASTworks behind the green.  

Pretty simple, really, I think.   Of course, like the term "Alps", the term "Breastwork" has taken on significantly different meaning in our times, as well.  

Now, the question still remains.   Was this an Alps, or meant by Wilson to be an Alps?   Was it something inspired or instructed from ole CB and Whigham?  

I don't know, but I really, really, really doubt it.   There is still not a single shred of evidence that I'm aware of that links Wilson to Macdonald after the 2 day visit.   It would have been completely contrary to Macdonald's boastful nature to not lay claim to the great success that was Merion had he in fact had anything at all specifically to do with the outcome of what was built.  I'm sure with his affinity for the US Amateur that he would have been unable to resist giving himself some credit when that tournament, the most prestigious in the country at the time, came to Merion just 4 years after it was built.

Does anyone out there know differently??  Is there a single document that speaks or even hints at continued conversation between the two men??


Patrick,

Not to prove you wrong again, but;  

From George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf";

"The 16th at the National is a combination of a Punchbowl green nestled snugly beyond the peak of a rising Alps fairway.  Macdonald seamlessly synthesized these two classic elements together to create an original rendition that is testing of skill without being gimmicky."

I would add the the Alps hole at Fishers Island also features a Punchbowl green.

I think my point Patrick is simply that these terms had a lot of variability, even in those days.   That is why a guy like Lesley was comfortable calling a hole like the old 10th at Merion an "Alps", and probably also why those guys called the 3rd hole at Merion a "redan".

The funny thing is that if you built an exact scale replica of the 3rd at Merion today, there is not one person on the planet who would recognize it as a redan, or call it that.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The 5th at St Louis CC has the same dual features.

However, despite Uncle George's comments, when playing
the approach on # 16 at NGLA, in the great majority of cases, only the sky is visible.  The rise with the bunker fronting the green is invisible.  The only golfers who get to see that feature are those lucky few whose drive remains on the spine bisecting the bowls in the middle of the fairway.

[DMoriarty]

Then it sounds as though one of two things is possible.

1) Players drove it much shorter in 1916 then we imagine.  I don't have Google Earth on the computer I'm on right now, but have to imagine that if the tee is where we all think, a drive to carry those bunkers would have been about 200 or so?

 The carry may have been even shorter than 200 yards from the old tee.   But with a substantial elevation increase, something like 20 feet to the bunkers.  

Keep in mind that in Scotland's Gift, the only driving distances that MacDonald seems to trust at all were those in the 1919 experiment where the average driving distance was 228 yards.  Into a slope and up a hill, this would likely be shorter. So I have my doubts about whether many of these guys would have gotten to the crest of the hill, which is one reason why I think there was a good chance that the hole was blind.

My own feeling is that it probably was a fairly difficult hole.  The pictures of the green seem to indicate that it was severely protected, and very undulating.   Still, I can't say that it resembles anything like the 3rd at NGLA in the most basic form.   I still think Lesley's point was about the front bunker, and I also think that these were guys who were just learning the game and its lexicon.

Maybe I am nuts here, but looking at Flynn's sketch and the later aerial photo, sure seems like the green sites are similar to me.  This is not to say that the rest of the hole is similar, but the greensites sure seem similar.  

All it probably took was for one single person to refer to it as "Alps like", and that was repeated by others.  

This would be more more plausible to me if these guys were nobodies as opposed to who they were.  

I also have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Macdonald had anything to do with any hole at Merion, or any communications with Wilson post the 2-day visit.

You keep coming back to this but in my mind this really isnt even at issue.   I dont think MacDonald designed the hole, and I doubt anyone else does.  But this is a far cry from the conclusion that he had no influence.   Even if we assume that all MacDonald did was spend a couple of days teaching about basic concepts of golf design and helping Wilson route his trip, this by itself could have had a tremendous impact on Wilson's approach at Merion.  

But to your question,  I think the Merion history mentions that MacDonald was free with his advice after Wilson got back.  

Until we see something surface to the contrary, I think we're speculating and also over-reaching. To say that Macdonald would not have bragged about his involvement at Merion because others were doing it for him is completely inconsistent with his personality, it seems.   NGLA was widely lauded by the golf world, yet he wrote about it extensively.   He also wrote extensively about what he did at Piping Rock.  

We are only speculating or overreaching if we are claiming that MacDonald actually designed the hole, and, again, I really dont know why you keep saying and implying that this is my position, because it isn't.  

I also don't know what others wrote about his involvement, besides some very vague term of "advisor".   What did others say his advisory role entailed besides giving Wilson a tour of NGLA, and advising him on what courses to see in GB?

Your right, they didnt say much specific about MacDonald's role.  But they did refer to an Alps hole at Merion.  As I have said before, I am not sure why we dont seriously consider the possibility that Wilson took MacDonald's advice, went and looked at the original holes, and then incorporated some of the features from the originals, as opposed to those at NGLA.  

According to MacDonald, the Alps at Prestwick was shorter than NGLA (375 yards or 385 yards), flatter than NGLA (the green is not as much above the fairway,) and a well placed drive at Prestwick (just to the left of the center mound) would leave the golfer with a fairly easy approach.

So maybe the 10 is more of Wilson's version of Prestwick's Alps than NGLA's.  Or maybe it is a hybrid of Prestwick's, NGLA's, and Wilson's own original ideas.

Until some other hard evidence of continued communications and "advise" surfaces, then it's pointless speculation, no matter how we try to piece it together.

We may not be able to speculate on specifics, but it is too much to dismiss the likelyhood (based on contemporary sources) that MacDonald did indeed advise Wilson, and that advice likely influenced Wilson, even if it was only in some broad sense.

I was thinking about your question of "breastworks, ramparts, and trenches" (Oh my!  ), and have to think the answer has been right in front of us the whole time, courtesy of the 2 pictures of the 10th green from Golf Illustrated.

I believe the "trench" was in fact, the road, which in 1916 was likely a pebbly, ditch running throught the property, and VERY MUCH in play on the 10th.  We also know from seeing the steps that the road was below the surface of the golf course, probably on both sides of the road.  You wouldn't want to get stuck down there, especially with then having to pitch over the road edge, and then over the front crossing bunker, and then over the far edge of that hazard (RAMPART), with the fear of skulling that might take your ball into the huge BReASTworks behind the green.

You are forgetting the three mounds placed directly in front of the hole.  These were apparently removed fairly early on, but they are present in the Flynn sketch.  TEPaul and Mr. Morrison dismiss their significance and magnitude, but because of the angle, the one photo I have seen of them is certainly not conclusive as to their size.

Also, IMO, in the photograph the green appears to sit down in a bowl, or at least a bowl on three sides (not necessarily the right.)  Take a look at Flynn's sketch and you will see that he designated the ground sloping down to the green from the left.  

Now, the question still remains.  Was this an Alps, or meant by Wilson to be an Alps?  Was it something inspired or instructed from ole CB and Whigham?

Unlike you, I just dont think there is enough evidence to override the views of the men who thought differently.   After all, they were there and they knew what they were talking about.  

Does anyone out there know differently??  Is there a single document that speaks or even hints at continued conversation between the two men??

 

As I said above, I am not sure why this is a prerequisite for you. That being said, I think there is a least one such document.

Given MacDonald's personality, and his role in teaching wilson and helping him plan his trip, I find it extremely likely that MacDonald would have stuck his nose in and given advice whether Wilson asked for it or not.

[DMoriarty]

I'm not sure that anyone really knows what they thought.
And, I don't know that you can count on the written word as being unerringly accurate.

I agree, but when there are multiple consistent sources, then I dont think they should be dismissed lightly.  

My thoughts are that one could make the case that the hole had some "Alps" like features or resemblences at the green end.  But, to call the hole an "Alps" hole, is beyond the stretch that Mike Cirba alludes to.[/b]

That may be, but I am  not sure that the commentators of the time defined alps holes as strictly as you.  

Their is nothing remotely "Alps" like about the topography.

While I generally agree, I think you may be taking this a little too far.   Accoridng the the USGS application, he overall elevation change is quite similar. Also, we really dont know what was there then.  For example we dont know how big the bunker mounds were or whether they blocked visibility. Nor do we know what other mounds existed on the right, or even how high the backs of the bunkers were built up.  

If one stands in the middle of the 11th fairway at NGLA, 250 yards from the tee, the green is totally blind due to a rampart between the golfer and the green.  But, that wouldn't cause a prudent person to state that the hole has an "Alps" like flavor to it.

I agree that this is the case, but again, I think they may have been more liberal in their understanding of what is an alps.

However, if someone had heard of "Alps" holes and been told that the name derives from an intervening landform between the golfer and the green, then I can see the misconception perpetuated through the written word.

Calling it a misconception accepts your definition, but otherwise, I agree.

With low ball flight, from a forward tee, up a hill, I can see how those bunkers could be deemed to be in play.

 

The article doesn't address the conditions.
Was the wind in their face ?
Was it raining ?
Was it cool ?

The fairways were firm and fast and needed water, the greens were firm but not hard.  

Again, ball flight and the topography from the tee to the fairway could have a lot to do with it.

This has been my point all along.  With the equipment, the tee location, and the uphill slope, I think the hole likely played a lot longer than many have been assuming.   My guess is the hole felt like it played around 385, otherwise I would think they would have fixed the distance mistake.  Same thing for the 1930 "300 yard" Jones drives.  They must have seemed like 300 yard drives compared to how everyone else usually played the hole.

Dave, you can't draw as support for your position, errant shots that find a bunker.

Generally I would agree, but when we are talking bunkers being hit repeatedly by high caliber players, then I think it possible that the bunkers may help identify the landing area, or an area near it.  

And, you can't ignore the finite yardages.
Work backwards from the green.
Use 100, 120 and 150 yards and see where that puts the golfer, then relate that position to the tee shot.

I think it is possible that a 200 yard drive here would have been a very good one, so it wouldn't surpise me if many golfers were hitting around 150 yards or more to the green.  

I could be wrong though.  Maybe a perfect drive got closer and left an easy shot (like MacDonald says about a perfect drive at Prestwick) but even moderate misses would have had a long shot in.

Based on your theory, the golfer wouldn't even see the ramparts and features fronting the green, or anything beyond the green from the yardage between the two fairway bunkers, the bunkers which you reference above.

I agree in part.  I think it may have taken an every good drive to completely see the trouble around the green, much less the green itself.  

You really need to spend some time on site, examining and analyzing the topography, and then see if your theory flies in the face of the physical properties of the land.

Maybe.  But isnt it possible that familiarity with current site and how it plays might be at least partially obscuring people's imagination as to what might have been going on then.  

For example, look at the reaction I received when I suggested that it wasnt anywhere near 300 yards to drive up even with where the green is now (the Jones drives.)  And look at the reaction I first received when I suggested that the hole played uphill.  Yet, even though most familiar with the site vigorously questioned both these premises, both have thus far checked out.  

For another example, so far noone that is familiar with the site has yet explained where the dirt came from to build the green site with the massive (according to TEPaul) berm behind, and with the mounds, etc up front.  Nor have the explained where this dirt went when they changed the hole.   They have simply assumed that because the other side of the road is level now that it was always level.  

[/b]For another example, so far no one familiar with the site has even tried to explain why Flynn designated a downslope from the left down to the green surface.  [/b]  

I think one reason that I am interested in this hole is just how different my impression of this hole was compared to everyone else-- to my mind the hole played significantly uphill.  It could very well be that my impression and the USGS application are both really off.  But it is also possible that one reason my impression was so different is that I played the hole poorly and with hickories, so I might have had a different viewpoint that those who routinely hit to the top of the hill and beyond.  

[Also keep in mind that I did live just down the road from the course.  So while I may not have been welcome on the first tee, I did have more than a few chances to sneak a peak at the sections of the course which border the roads.  So while knowledge of the layout of the land obviously pales in comparison to any local, I am not completely ignorant of portions of it, either.]

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I think at this point we're only differing on most points by degrees and I think we're probably only mostly rehashing previously made points.  

Unless someone comes up with Hugh Wilson's copious notes and other remembrances of his trip overseas, or some construction field notes we'll likely never know whether his intent was to build some very loosely based pseudo-replica holes.

However, I think the more important point, and the more important question to this discussion, is simply this;

Why, after using Macdonald's work at NGLA as inspiration, followed by eight months studying overseas, did Hugh Wilson decide to chuck the "template model" in favor of virtually all very original holes that only borrowed the overall concept of good strategic design that utilized the land that was there?

[DMoriarty]

Why, after using Macdonald's work at NGLA as inspiration, followed by eight months studying overseas, did Hugh Wilson decide to chuck the "template model" in favor of virtually all very original holes that only borrowed the overall concept of good strategic design that utilized the land that was there?

First, I havent seen any proof that Wilson used a "template model."   That is part of the misunderstanding in this conversation:  I am looking for influences, similarities, and borrowed strategies and ideas, while others keep assuming that I am looking for "templates."  A template to me implies more of an exact standard than anything that apparently went on here.  

But why did he discard some of what he may have borrowed from MacDonald and/or from holes from which MacDonald also borrowed?  I dont know, but here are a few things to consider . . .

Keep in mind that while Merion seems to have been well received, all of its holes weren't.  Travis for one was relativley critical of the borrowed (for lack of a better word) holes, compared to the ones which he considered more original.   Maybe Wilson ultimately agreed that the more original the better.

Similarly, maybe the borrowed holes just didnt work.  For example, maybe the 10th was supposed to be an alps hole, but, for all the reasons pointed out here, it just didnt seem enough like one, so he figured he'd rather do something else than have a bad Alps hole.  

Maybe he didnt like MacDonald being credited for what he considered his work.

Maybe the changes were necessitated for merely practical considerations.  

Or maybe he simply exhanged one borrowed hole for another . . . couldnt one consider the new green on 10 sort of a cape green?

[Bob_Huntley]

What is all this stuff about the Big Big Game? What Big Game?

I see Huckaby in sack cloth and ashes over a loss to UCLA. Come on, the really big game was Seaside High versus Pacific Grove for the something or other CCS Championship at Spartan Stadium in San Jose. It got  a ten point headline in the Monterey Herald...now that is big.


Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

What is all this stuff about the Big Big Game? What Big Game?

I see Huckaby in sack cloth and ashes over a loss to UCLA. Come on, the really big game was Seaside High versus Pacific Grove for the something or other CCS Championship at Spartan Stadium in San Jose. It got  a ten point headline in the Monterey Herald...now that is big.


Bob

Bob,

Are you trying to change the subject here?  

[Mike_Cirba]

First, I havent seen any proof that Wilson used a "template model."   That is part of the misunderstanding in this conversation:  I am looking for influences, similarities, and borrowed strategies and ideas, while others keep assuming that I am looking for "templates."  A template to me implies more of an exact standard than anything that apparently went on here.  

I completely agree.   That's why I'm perhaps overly careful about calling any of the original Merion holes an "Alps", or "Redan", etc., when they really are not close approximations.   Instead, I've speculated as to the reasons why some of his contemporaries might have called them by those template names.  

But why did he discard some of what he may have borrowed from MacDonald and/or from holes from which MacDonald also borrowed?  I dont know, but here are a few things to consider . . .

Keep in mind that while Merion seems to have been well received, all of its holes weren't.  Travis for one was relativley critical of the borrowed (for lack of a better word) holes, compared to the ones which he considered more original.   Maybe Wilson ultimately agreed that the more original the better.

I think that seems to be true with some of the more artificial looking earthworks that were built, such as the dolomite looking things off of nine, which all had a short shelf-life.   I'm really not sure that Wilson summarily discarded any other holes that bore template characteristics besides the 10th, and that one went away because....

Similarly, maybe the borrowed holes just didnt work.  For example, maybe the 10th was supposed to be an alps hole, but, for all the reasons pointed out here, it just didnt seem enough like one, so he figured he'd rather do something else than have a bad Alps hole.  

Maybe he didnt like MacDonald being credited for what he considered his work.

Maybe the changes were necessitated for merely practical considerations.  

...Ardmore Avenue, which became much more heavily travelled and which for safety reasons necessitated the purchase of additional property beyond the creek on the south side of the course.   Thus went away the old 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th.   I'm not sure any of them were bad holes and it seems that perhaps 13 was better than its replacement.   However, overall, the move was probably for the better, especially considering the great 11th.

Or maybe he simply exhanged one borrowed hole for another . . . couldnt one consider the new green on 10 sort of a cape green?

The late turning dogleg left with tons of trouble left and short is sort of a Flynn trademark.   I think the best example of that type of hole was Pine Valley's 12th, at least before too many trees took away the option of the left side.  It's virtually the same hole, albeit on flatter ground at Pv.

[DMoriarty]

I think that seems to be true with some of the more artificial looking earthworks that were built, such as the dolomite looking things off of nine, which all had a short shelf-life.   I'm really not sure that Wilson summarily discarded any other holes that bore template characteristics besides the 10th, and that one went away because....

Well, Travis was pretty harsh about 15th green.  But I am not sure what year it was changed or to what degree.

...Ardmore Avenue, which became much more heavily travelled and which for safety reasons necessitated the purchase of additional property beyond the creek on the south side of the course.   Thus went away the old 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th.   I'm not sure any of them were bad holes and it seems that perhaps 13 was better than its replacement.   However, overall, the move was probably for the better, especially considering the great 11th.

But the changes to the 10th were underway before the move to the other side of Ardmore Avenue.  Note that in the aerial posted above the three fronting mounds in the front bunker are already gone, along with some of the other bunkers.  

The late turning dogleg left with tons of trouble left and short is sort of a Flynn trademark.   I think the best example of that type of hole was Pine Valley's 12th, at least before too many trees took away the option of the left side.  It's virtually the same hole, albeit on flatter ground at Pv.

I was not being entirely serious when I said it was now a cape, even though the green could be characterized as such.   But maybe you are onto something, maybe Pine Valley is a template course as well . . . Forget about Colt vs. Crump. . . It was MacDonald all the way.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, Dave...I think we've pretty much exhausted this subject.  

I also think a more relevant subject at this point would be to explore why courses like Merion and Pine Valley largely rejected the template model that Macdonald brought to America with his "ideal course" at the National, and with similar features exhibited at subsequent courses by Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks for the next 20 years.

NGLA was, and is, a stellar effort worthy of study and admiration, as well as inspiration.   Why didn't other early architects attempt to latch on to the style, and build their own ideal "Template hole" courses in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, etc.?

[DMoriarty]

I also think a more relevant subject at this point would be to explore why courses like Merion and Pine Valley largely rejected the template model that Macdonald brought to America with his "ideal course" at the National, and with similar features exhibited at subsequent courses by Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks for the next 20 years.

NGLA was, and is, a stellar effort worthy of study and admiration, as well as inspiration.   Why didn't other early architects attempt to latch on to the style, and build their own ideal "Template hole" courses in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, etc.?

Rejected?  This seems much too strong a word, especially at courses where at least MacDonald thinks that his models (or their inspirations) were being utilized at least in part.  But again, I think you carry the meaning and purpose of this "template" notion too far.  

In his article about NGLA's Redan, MacDonald comments that the Redan "principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course."  And look at just how loosely MacDonald classifies his "template" principles when applied on other courses . . . He notes that Piping Rock, Merion, Sleepy Hollow, and Pine Valley all have versions of a Redan.   Yet posters on this website will argue vehemently that most if not all of these holes were NOT Redans.    

If MacDonald himself was willing to accept modifications and "infinite" original applications of these basic principles, then isn't it a bit too much for us to require exact duplication before we acknowledge any similarity in basic principles between different holes?  

Far from rejecting the "templates" of NGLA, it is far more likely that many green committees (and designers) used NGLA exactly as MacDonald suggests in his article on the Sahara hole (his first in the series;) as "a fund of knowledge from which they may gather much that will be helpful to the improvement and added interest of their courses."

Also, while the "template" approach may have been an invaluable tool for helping Americans fundamentally alter their approach to golf and golf design (rejecting a mathematical and formal measure of abilily in favor of strategic 'sport,') the "templates" were arguably somewhat limited with what else they communicated about the links-style approach to golf design.   For example, they may not have fully captured the importance of a natural aesthetic, or of nature's randomness and whim, or of making full use of what nature gives you.    

Once America designers rejected (yes, rejected) the formal, mathematical Victorian style, they weren't looking to replace it with more formalism.  Rather, they were more interested in reviving and continuing the links tradition, and applying it to their unique situations.

[T_MacWood]

Speaking of the Redan...I just read an article written by Alex Findlay where he referrred to the Redan at Merion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()