Interesting that Professor Moriarty and Tom MacWood would not comment on the 1916 photo of the current 3rd green . . .
I didn't know you posted the photo for my comment . . . I thought you weren't communicating with me ever again. Again.
Thanks for the photo. Here are my comments . . . As far as I can tell, it looks alot like the current green as I recall it. There appears to be a left to right slope, and according to Tom MacWood's photo there was a big deep bunker right.
But I dont understand your point, if you have one. By modern understangs of the term, you dont think this is a Redan, but you acknowledge that commentators at the relevant time viewed this hole as a Redan. So when you are trying to figure out where this hole fits in the evolution of golf course design, which context do you think is more relevant? Theirs or yours? Don't you think you ought to try to understand this hole how they understood it?
I think you are right that the mound and bunker complex is behind the 10th green and is easily seen from such a distance.
I am not sure that Bryan said that the bunker complex was behind the 10th green, nor did he say that it was easily seen from the 1916 tee. In fact he said he didn't know where the 1916 tee was.
To me, it looks like that bunker is in well in front of the mound behind, but I guess it is possible that the large bunker is the one in the backing berm (the one you think is there only to protect the 1st hole) But it sure doesnt look that way to me. And a second bunker is partly visible as well. Do you think this one is also behind the green. By the way, if these bunkers are behind the green, then why cant we see the green?
The 1916 tee, to the right in the photo you posted, would have been higher than the location the photograph was taken. I maintain that a portion of the green, and possibly a majority of it, would have been visible from typical landing areas by accomplished players.
On what basis to you set the height of this tee as higher than from where the photo was taken?? It sure doesnt seem like it would be to me. This photo is from substantially above the 9th green and the 9th green is obviously above the level of the creek. So I dont think your assumption is supportable, or at least has not been supported.
_______________________
TEPaul said:
The thing I can't understand is why these people contributing on here haven't all realized about 10 pages ago that people back then obviously used names of holes and such for different reasons and with different definitions than we do today.
If you are trying to say that the likes of MacDonald, Leslie, and Tillinghast had a much different understanding and usage of these terms, then I couldn't agree more. And this cuts to the main misunderstanding in this tread:
The likes of Morrison, Mucci, Cirba, Childs, and Paul claim to be trying to understand the evolution of golf design at the time and, more specifically, MacDonald's influence on Wilson regarding Merion. Yet they insist on ignoring the contemporary understanding of the words used to describe and define golf design, and instead substitute in their own modern definitions and usage.Here is an example. Above, partially in jest, I stated that the new Merion 10 was a reverse cape hole. If we apply the modern understanding and usage of the term "cape" as it is used in golf design today, then my statement was absolutely absurd. But if we look at the old understanding of the term cape, then conceptually, my statement makes more sense.
If we are truly trying to understand their motivations, influences, and understandings, we cant just substitute our understanding and usage for theirs!