[Mike_Cirba]

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

Tom,

Do you really think the 3rd at Merion works well as a reverse-redan?   I'm all for the loose constructionist theory on the template holes (as evidenced by my "redan" debate with Patrick recently), but to me having the high-side kicker and the stong left-to-right, front-to-back flow of the green is pretty fundamental.  

The 3rd at Merion exhibits neither characteristic.  I have played any number of redans and reverse redans and I have to be honest;  if I didn't know that some of the early guys called it a redan I would have never thought of it that way in a million years.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Its hard to say. I've not seen any good photos of the hole circa 1914-1916, so its hard for me to judge. In the abscence of good photographic evidence I've got to go with the judgement of Macdonald, Whigham, Findlay, Lesley and others.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

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

Don't leave it at that. What did the article SAY about the REDAN...

Isn't that the point?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
Its hard to say. I've not seen any good photos of the hole circa 1914-1916, so its hard for me to judge. In the abscence of good photographic evidence I've got to go with the judgement of Macdonald, Whigham, Findlay, Lesley and others.

Tom,

The only pic I've seen (which I know you've seen as well) is the old 5th (today's 3rd) from behind the green towards the tee.

I will say that although it isn't a great picture, it truly doesn't look fundamentally different than what's on the ground today.   I'll also say that if in fact the green and it's surrounds haven't fundamentally changed since it was built, then those guys had a much, much looser definition than I ever would have believed.

[BCrosby]

Is it possible the 17th once played as a Redan?

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Do you really think the 3rd at Merion works well as a reverse-redan?   I'm all for the loose constructionist theory on the template holes (as evidenced by my "redan" debate with Patrick recently), but to me having the high-side kicker and the stong left-to-right, front-to-back flow of the green is pretty fundamental.  

The 3rd at Merion exhibits neither characteristic.  I have played any number of redans and reverse redans and I have to be honest;  if I didn't know that some of the early guys called it a redan I would have never thought of it that way in a million years.

I agree that the current version doesnt look much like a redan, at least not like a mirror image of the redan at NGLA.  But the fact that at least some of the contemporary scholars called it a redan is compelling evidence that these "template" concepts were not meant to be taken so literally.  

IMO, anyone who judges the significance (or lack thereof) of MacDonald's influence at a course like Merion based on how closely the supposed "templates" resembled MacDonald's holes is not only missing the purpose and point of the supposed "templates," but also misconstruing most of what was going on in golf design during this period.  

But speaking of the 3rd at Merion . . . I actually hit one of my few good shots of the day there.   By pure dumb luck, a few days earlier I had hit what I thought was a good shot a NGLA's Redan, both with hickories.   At one of the holes my ball actually ran across at least part of the green, while at the other my ball stayed very close to where it first hit.  I'll bet you can figure out which one played at least a little like a redan and which one didnt.
_________________________________

I'm confused TEPaul . . . when you take shots at me in posts to other people does that mean you are ignoring me, or not?  

[T_MacWood]

Yes, the 3rd was originally the 7th. I'm not sure if the green was altered or not, but I do understand the tee was moved.

[JESII]

Tom,

Any idea where the tee was moved from? There really isn't much room to move that tee left or right. At least not enough to change the character of the hole.

[Geoffrey Childs]

The third at Merion has a landform that could in fact serve as an ideal spot for a reverse redan.  It is slightly uphill from the tee to the greensite. There is a natural drop off on the right that could have created a natural fortress bunker that was VERY deep (the current bunker is still very deep).  All the architect needed to do was to manufacture a front left shoulder (kick in) and bench the greensite down from front left to back right and I believe we would have had the world's greatest and natural looking reverse redan.

I know very little of the history of Merion and don't for a second pretend to make this argument from any factual source BUT why does the current hole look and play nothing like a redan when any village idiot could have made it look and play like a world class redan?  I'd have to conclude based on common sense that unless there is real solid evidence that #3 at Merion was drastically altered at the greensite then it was never a redan of any sort.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

You're absolutely right.

There is no kicker on the left side, only a fall off into bunkers.

The green does go left to right, but only towards the back half of the green.  Absolutely converse to a redan, it also tilts back to front quite a bit.

I suspect what happened is that Wilson didn't "force" it to be a redan.   As much as that landform tilts a bit left to right with a steep fall-off right of the green, the land on top slopes mostly back to front.

To achieve a redan, Wilson would have needed to build up the left front slope by moving dirt there, and would have needed to grade the green in the complete opposite way that it was naturally (front to back instead of back to front).  

That he didn't do so leads me to believe that he was more interested in building good and natural (and original) golf holes than following the conventional template model that was being developed by Macdonald.

[JESII]

Mike Cirba,

I thought there was evidence that the third green was built on top of an old farmhouse or some such structure.

I do agree with your, and Dr. Child's position that if they had any interest in using the redan or reverse redan template as a guide they could have done so without blinking. The fact that all evidence points to them not doing so seems to suggest they were "rejecting" that style.

[TEPaul]

Geoffrey and MikeC;

As a natural landform Merion's #3 would have made a great redan but only if the tee was placed somewhere over on the right side of the 6th fairway and golfers came at the lanform from that direction. If you don't understand what I'm saying simply go out and stand on the back right of it, look around at the entire landform and the slope in that entire area and it won't be hard to understand.

A good and legitimate redan hole pretty much needs to filter down and away all the way to the back in either direction and that #3 landform from the direction of its tee just doesn't do that, and it never has.

But that doesn't mean there was never a reason for people back then to call that hole a redan. Obviously by that they simply meant a green propped up to act as something of a fortress effect to an incoming ball.

[T_MacWood]

JES II
I don't recal which direction the tee was moved.

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9900&querytext=merion+and+seventh

This is one of the better photos I've seen of the hole....page 432.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

   I'm confident you are correct that the terms like "redan" were not intended to be precise definitions in those years.

   But, why do I get the feeling that this thread is really about whether MacDonald 's templates were used at Merion or not.

   Did MacDonald use more construction to get the look as close to his template concept as possible?

   Merion does not look like it was constructed to get close to these template ideas.

    So, this would lead me to guess that Wilson was more influenced by the time he spent overseas  than he was by his brief time with MacDonald.


    While you don't have the written evidence, the evidence on the ground seems convincing to me.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
I think it is clear the Merion of 1912-1916 was quite a bit different from the famous Merion we appreciate today....the famous Merion perfected by Wilson, Flynn and Valentine.

My point all along has been that Macdonald & Whigham had more influence on that early version than what has been generally believed or stated. That early course was more of throwback which borrowed features from the famous holes abroad...not unlike what Macdonald and others were doing...it was a fad.

Stage 2: Wilson & Flynn it appears got rid of all of that.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

The third green was built on the remains of the foundation of an old "bank" barn---a type of barn that seems to have been fairly unique to Pennsylvania and very common here in the old days. I have one on my farm.

[mike_malone]

 Tom MacWood,
   

    I realize that your research approach is heavily dependent on photos and writings. These can create some clear directions for further research. Unfortunately, the best stuff for Merion seems not to be available. As a result, you are depending on what seem to be secondary or worse sources.

   My expertise in these matters is not at the level of some , but I when I think of MacDonald I think of more manufacturing to achieve the template goal. If he had a significant impact on Wilson I would expect to see it on the course, even today.

    I usually assume the most obvious answer to be the correct one unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary. Because Wilson went overseas and spent some serious time studying the courses I assume that had a more significant impact on his thinking than the short time he spent with MacDonald.

   A more productive route of research seems to be how  he applied his learning from MacDonald and his travels in such a natural looking way at Merion versus the manufactured look of MacDonald.


   In other words, Merion seems like a departure from NGLA and an attempt to assimilate the British courses to the Philly area.

  If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

They should have been more strict.
How many "Alps" holes existed at the time ?
Very few, and all knew that the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA were the accepted templates in the UK and US.[/color]

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.

I take great exception to that statement.

The two holes, their configuration and especially the drive and approach have NOTHING in common.[/color]

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.  

We may not know exactly what was there, but, we do know what the surrounding terrain was like, and there are no mounds, rises or ridges that naturally occur anywhere flanking the hole.[/color]

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.

Here's where we disagree.
There comes a point where the liberalization of the definition of a hole or feature becomes so far removed from the comparitive model, that the definition becomes erroneous.

You can't take license with the understanding of an "Alps" to the point that the hole doesn't FUNCTION as an "Alps" hole.
Playability, and not just micro resemblances are part of the key to defining the hole.

Being liberal with the definition inherently morphs and invalidates the definition such that almost anything can fit the definition.

Witness SPDB's definition and the holes that would therefore fall into his classification of "Alps" holes.

What perhaps you and other fail to realize is that a hole or feature MUST retain its PEDIGREE if it's to be deemed a purebred.  If you want to bastardize the understanding, qualifications and definitions, then, you'll have mutts as pretenders to the throne.[/color]

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.  

I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee.  In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors[/color]

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.

I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with firm & fast fairways.  I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with moderate fairways, and with the topography of the land falling back toward the tee, surface drainage would seem to favor dryer fairways[/color]

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.  

I don't think there's sufficient evidence to cite a pattern.[/color]

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.

While I generally agree, the critical issue remains the location of the tee and the actual yardage of the hole.  [/color]

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.  

Yes, it would, if they only confined their thinking to the topography within the fairway lines.

However, I think you have to go far beyond the fairway lines to get a sense of the topography of the area, to see what was left, right and behind the hole.  And, if you view the larger area, inclusive of the hole, I think your views would be tempered.[/color]

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.

I think the answer is fairly obvious, from the nearby quarry on the 16th hole. [/color]

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.  

Again, I think the answer is obvious, back to the quarry on the nearby 16th hole.[/color]

[/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.  

I don't know how you could glean that from the highly elevated tee.[/color]

It could very well be that my impression and the USGS application are both really off.

That's a strong possibility.[/color]  

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.  

That's also true.
But, again, critical to the issue is the tee locaton and the true yardage[/color]

[JESII]

JES II
I don't recal which direction the tee was moved.


This is one of the better photos I've seen of the hole....page 432.

My point about the tee being moved was to challenge the assertion I felt you made by saying...

Yes, the 3rd was originally the 7th. I'm not sure if the green was altered or not, but I do understand the tee was moved.

...when in fact there is not room there to move the tee any more than a few yards in either direction. Moving that little would not have a substantial effect on the playing characteristics of the hole.


Re: the photo of #7 / #3 at Merion...any chance you would care to elaborate on just why that is "one of the better photos" you have seen of the hole? Frankly and with all due respect, it doesn't show the hole much at all.

[JESII]

Geoffrey and MikeC;

As a natural landform Merion's #3 would have made a great redan but only if the tee was placed somewhere over on the right side of the 6th fairway and golfers came at the lanform from that direction. If you don't understand what I'm saying simply go out and stand on the back right of it, look around at the entire landform and the slope in that entire area and it won't be hard to understand.

The real definition of the "REVERSE REDAN" finally comes out...or is this a "NADER"? totally bass-freakin-akwards.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,
   

    I realize that your research approach is heavily dependent on photos and writings. These can create some clear directions for further research. Unfortunately, the best stuff for Merion seems not to be available. As a result, you are depending on what seem to be secondary or worse sources.

What do you consider a secondary source? If I'm not mistaken Robert Lesley was a well respected local leader and the chairman of the Merion Green Committee...that a pretty good source IMO and he is not the only one. Every golf magazine at the time reported Macdonald & Whigham advising. As did Wilson himself, from the club history: "Actually Macdonald & HJ Whigham of New York gave advice and assistance so Merion had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill of their own committee. Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."

   My expertise in these matters is not at the level of some , but I when I think of MacDonald I think of more manufacturing to achieve the template goal. If he had a significant impact on Wilson I would expect to see it on the course, even today.

The Alps was defintely manufactered as was the Mid-Surrey mounding at #9. Both features were later removed from the design. The course was altered often over an extended period. Does the bunker at the Redan in 1916 resemble the bunker there today?

I don't think anyone is claiming Macdonald designed and built Merion...he advised the committee. He met with Wilson at NGLA early on, he evidently assisted him on what to see overseas. He was on site prior to consturction commencing, and he was on site at some point during construction. Is it your opinion that Macdonald & Whigham did not inluence that early version of the course?

    I usually assume the most obvious answer to be the correct one unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary. Because Wilson went overseas and spent some serious time studying the courses I assume that had a more significant impact on his thinking than the short time he spent with MacDonald.

   A more productive route of research seems to be how  he applied his learning from MacDonald and his travels in such a natural looking way at Merion versus the manufactured look of MacDonald.


   In other words, Merion seems like a departure from NGLA and an attempt to assimilate the British courses to the Philly area.

  If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.

[T_MacWood]

JES II
I don't recal which direction the tee was moved.


This is one of the better photos I've seen of the hole....page 432.

My point about the tee being moved was to challenge the assertion I felt you made by saying...

Yes, the 3rd was originally the 7th. I'm not sure if the green was altered or not, but I do understand the tee was moved.

...when in fact there is not room there to move the tee any more than a few yards in either direction. Moving that little would not have a substantial effect on the playing characteristics of the hole.


Re: the photo of #7 / #3 at Merion...any chance you would care to elaborate on just why that is "one of the better photos" you have seen of the hole? Frankly and with all due respect, it doesn't show the hole much at all.

The tee was moved to the left. You don't like the photo...I guess its all relative...its really the only photo I've seen taken from that angle. IMO that bunker looks pretty similar to other Redan bunkers...with its steep grassy face and angular lines.

[mike_malone]

 Designs and aerial photos seem primary to me ; articles are secondary.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
I'm not sure there are any good aerials circa 1916...that would be pretty early for that. And to my knowledge there are no original plans that survived...at least they haven't found them yet. So we are forced to rely on written accounts of those involved and those familar with the project. One thing it has going for it over other courses is all the publicity and attention it got...it was a high profile design from its inception and an important championship venue.

[Patrick_Mucci]

 
I realize that your research approach is heavily dependent on photos and writings. These can create some clear directions for further research. Unfortunately, the best stuff for Merion seems not to be available. As a result, you are depending on what seem to be secondary or worse sources.

What do you consider a secondary source? If I'm not mistaken Robert Lesley was a well respected local leader and the chairman of the Merion Green Committee...that a pretty good source IMO and he is not the only one.

Every golf magazine at the time reported Macdonald & Whigham advising.

Exactly what advice did they provide ?
Is there ANY record of ANY specific advise that MacDondal & Whigham provided ?

Or, did those articles take liberties when describing the nature and scope of their involvement ?[/color]

As did Wilson himself, from the club history: "Actually Macdonald & HJ Whigham of New York gave advice and assistance so Merion had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill of their own committee.

Exactly what advice and assistance did they provide.
Absent any specifics the writings could be "fluff"[/color]

Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."

What advice was received from MacDonald and Whigham ?
Surely there has to be some evidence of this advice.
Absent same, noone can conclude that they provided any concrete advice.

You may recall that we had this same discussion with Travis and MacDonald at NGLA.

There isn't one iota of specific detail as to the topic, nature or specifics of any advise.[/color]


I don't think anyone is claiming Macdonald designed and built Merion...he advised the committee.

On what ?
What specific advice did he provide ?
Surely, there has to be some evidence of his consultancy[/color]

He met with Wilson at NGLA early on, he evidently assisted him on what to see overseas.

The word "evidently" would lead one to believe that's your conclusion.  Would you consider a suggestion to see certain courses overseas "advice on Merion" ?[/color]

He was on site prior to consturction commencing, and he was on site at some point during construction. Is it your opinion that Macdonald & Whigham did not inluence that early version of the course? [/b]

Being on site and offering specific advise on the design and construction of the golf course are two different things.

Is there any evidence, anywhere, that specifically identifies the advice M&W are alleged to have given ?[/color]

A more productive route of research seems to be how  he applied his learning from MacDonald and his travels in such a natural looking way at Merion versus the manufactured look of MacDonald.

What did he learn from MacDonald.
Is there any credit given to MacDonald for any design concept or construction methodology ?[/color]

In other words, Merion seems like a departure from NGLA and an attempt to assimilate the British courses to the Philly area.


Whose conclusion is that ?[/color]

If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.

Do we know, in detail, of Wilson's activities overseas ?
His intent ?  His learnings ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()