[JESII]

But why wouldn't the green run away from the tee? Especially when the terrain would lend itself to that without too much trouble?

[Mike_Cirba]

If Macdonald called the 3rd at Merion a "redan", he was simply wrong, even by his own definition.   Either that, or he was pushing his own "template hole" agenda, which isn't so far fetched from a guy who had a huge ego and probably thought he conceived of every single good golf idea to come to America at that point.  

From the George Bahto interview on this site;

What more accurate way to describe a 'Redan' than Macdonald's own words? 'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.' Bear in mind when Macdonald says 'tilt,' he means it. At National, hole #4 falls over five feet from front to rear.

I find it ironically humorous that just a few weeks back I was debating with Patrick about allowing some latitude in the definitions these guys had for template holes, where a redan could theoretically be downhill, uphill, flat, etc., but never once did the fundamental strategic nature of the hole change.  

The fundamental strategic role of the hole at Merion is very different than any redan I'm familiar with.  Superb players like Jamie and Jim Sullivan are trying to say the exact same thing, and so are architects like Tom Doak.  

It seems utterly ridiculous to me that a guy like Macdonald, who so fastidously worked to capture the true strategic essence of holes like the redan and alps when he built his course at NGLA then coming over and looking at the present 3rd at Merion, or the old 10th, and calling them the same name.   He would have had to know inherently that neither of those holes presented the same options, strategic challenges, psychological aesthetic, or looks and feel of either the originals in GB or his copies at NGLA.

[DMoriarty]

But why wouldn't the green run away from the tee? Especially when the terrain would lend itself to that without too much trouble?

Geoffrey and Mike may also be able to attest to how difficult it is to hold a draw into a real redan which slopes significantly away from the line of play.   This would only be moreso for with the old equipment.  

In other words, true mirror image redan holes would not work very well at all for right-handed golfers.  High fades would not likely run, and low draws would likely run too much.  

While I love the supposed reverse redan at LACC (by Thomas, who was also likely very familiar with the concept from his days on the East Coast and in Philly) I also thought that it didnt slope to the back away nearly enough for my tastes.  But maybe this was intentional so that a right-hander could still hold the green with a drawing shot.    

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Are you certain the hole didn't run away in 1916?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
Are you certain the hole didn't run away in 1916?

Tom,

No more certain that what I can determine visually in the 1916 picture from the back of the green, which I'd estimate at about 85% accuracy.   I also understand that there is no formal record of that hole changing.

[JESII]

But why wouldn't the green run away from the tee? Especially when the terrain would lend itself to that without too much trouble?

Geoffrey and Mike may also be able to attest to how difficult it is to hold a draw into a real redan which slopes significantly away from the line of play.   This would only be moreso for with the old equipment.  
How do you factor in the old agronomy?

In other words, true mirror image redan holes would not work very well at all for right-handed golfers.  High fades would not likely run, and low draws would likely run too much.  
It could be a different form (an early form?) of this shot testing notion that seemed to evolve sometime in this era.

While I love the supposed reverse redan at LACC (by Thomas, who was also likely very familiar with the concept from his days on the East Coast and in Philly) I also thought that it didnt slope to the back away nearly enough for my tastes.[/color]  But maybe this was intentional so that a right-hander could still hold the green with a drawing shot.    

That bold blue was my doing. Your use of the phrase "didn't slope to the back enough" implies that it slopes to the back at least a little whereas Merion #3 slopes back to front significantly. So you are right, it would be easier for me to hold a draw into that green than a typical redan.


Tom MacWood,
Do you have evidence that it did?

[DMoriarty]

If Macdonald called the 3rd at Merion a "redan", he was simply wrong, even by his own definition.   Either that, or he was pushing his own "template hole" agenda, which isn't so far fetched from a guy who had a huge ego and probably thought he conceived of every single good golf idea to come to America at that point.  

From the George Bahto interview on this site;

What more accurate way to describe a 'Redan' than Macdonald's own words? 'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.' Bear in mind when Macdonald says 'tilt,' he means it. At National, hole #4 falls over five feet from front to rear.

Mike, note that this quote doesn't say a thing about the hole sloping from front to back.

I find it ironically humorous that just a few weeks back I was debating with Patrick about allowing some latitude . . . but never once did the fundamental strategic nature of the hole change.  

And what is the fundamental strategic nature of a reverse redan?   Surely not the same a as a redan, was it?  You dont think that Wilson was really into catering to leftys, do you?   If so, then he was much more a genius than anyone has thus far suggested!

It seems utterly ridiculous to me that a guy like Macdonald, who so fastidously worked to capture the true strategic essence of holes like the redan and alps when he built his course at NGLA then coming over and looking at the present 3rd at Merion, or the old 10th, and calling them the same name.   He would have had to know inherently that neither of those holes presented the same options, strategic challenges, psychological aesthetic, or looks and feel of either the originals in GB or his copies at NGLA.

From the concluding paragraph of MacDonald's very detailed article on the Redan (my bold):

There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any
course.

On this I agree with you:  When trying to understand the redan concept, what better source than MacDonald himself?

So while MacDonald thought that his Redan was the best, he certainly is not nearly as dogmatic as you guys and your understanding and usage of the term 'redan."  

[T_MacWood]

I have no idea if it was or wasn't changed. Based on the numberous changes to the course over the years...including rebuilding the old 8th green because it ran away....it would not surprise me.

[JESII]

I have no idea if it was or wasn't changed. Based on the numberous changes to the course over the years...including rebuilding the old 8th green because it ran away....it would not surprise me.

Now that's the kind of indisputable evidence we like here.

It wouldn't surprise me either, we might as well assume it happened.

[DMoriarty]

JES,  I dont think the old Agronomy would have made that much difference, at least regarding the bounce of the ball.  In my experience, bounce is determined more by shot shape,  spin, ground slope, and ground firmness than by grass height.  Also, while the grass may have been longer then, I dont expect the grass was as thick then as it is now.  

I am not sure what you mean by an early notion of shot testing?  Could what be an early notion of shot testing?   A true reverse redan could be, but I am not sure whether there were any true reverse redans built.  Does anyone have any examples of a true mirror image reverse redan?

Regarding LACC's reverse redan, My recollection from limited experience was that the hole doesnt really run away (if it does, it is not by much.) But I think I have been informed by those that know better that it either does slope away, or it used to slope away, and I was somewhat deferring to them.

Either way, my point is the same.   I dont think that a true  mirror-image-redan would jibe with the strategic principles important to MacDonald, at least for the vast majority of golfers.  

As I said above, in my very limited experience, Merion's "non-redan" played more like a redan for me than NGLA's real redan, because I am left-handed.   I cant imagine even trying to hold a redan on NGLA's green with old equipment.  

I am sure you are infinitely better than me, so what do you think?   Could you hold a draw into a true mirror image NGLA redan?  How about with 1916 equipment?  

[JESII]

Dave Moriarty,

Bear with this train of thought for a minute. I think it might help...

Taken from Mike Cirba's post quoting MacDonalds definition.

'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.'

To my knowledge, noone argues this basic tenet.

Taken from your post quoting MacDonalds "very detailed article on the redan.

...a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland)

This very strongly implies that a "standard redan" would be approached from the right hand end of the tableland.

Now, please pick up a piece of paper, a book or something that can represent a "tableland" and hold it flat and square to you. Tilt it a bit left with the right side high and the left side low per CBM's instructions. Now turn it 1/8 of a turn clockwise so the front right corner is facing you and tell me whether or not the green slopes away from you.

[DMoriarty]

JES,  It all depends on whether I tilt the book before I turn it.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...so what have we learned here after three zillion pages?  

We know that Wilson visited Macdonald prior to visiting GB (already known)

We know that Wilson was very grateful for Macdonald's tutelage and counsel, as well as telling him what courses he should see during his eight month trip  (already known)

We know that Wilson did in fact go to spend a full EIGHT MONTHS visiting GB and according to accounts, sketched all sort of features of great holes and holes he admired, which sadly have never been found (already known)

We know that CB stopped by the Merion property.  (already known)

We know that despite scores of articles written about the original Merion courses, and how well received they were by their contemporaries, there is not a single sentence anywhere that even implies Macdonald had a hand in designing any hole there (already known)

We know that two of the holes on the east course, of 36 holes built during a two year stretch by Wilson, were named by some important golf folks of the time, including Macdonald, as famed template holes.   We also have determined that it unlikely either was anything near to the type of near replicas Macdonald built at NGLA for those two hole concepts.  In addition, it appears a single green (the 15th) may have been modeled after the "Eden", but even that seems a stretch because it's not a par three hole, the approach shot is significantly uphill, and the bunkering in front is hardly a "pot" type bunker.  

We also know that two greens have "valley of sin" features which exist today.   Interestingly, there are no Macdonald "valley of sin" features anywhere that I'm aware of.

Finally, there was a principals' nose bunker feature on what is the 4th hole today.   There were also some dolomite type things off to the side of the 9th, and some other unnatural landscape features mentioned that seemed to be quickly removed in the early years.  

There are 36 holes at Merion.  

Does anyone really see some type of linkage between Merion and copying great holes from overseas, except in some very scant instances?

Or, more importantly, did what Wilson learn in GB is that every course and piece of land is unique, and instead of copying "features", it was more important to apply broad strategic concepts while building unique holes on each unique property?

Personally, I think that was a HUGE architectural leap in understanding for US architecture.   It wasn't really feasible to just "copy" great holes that occurred overseas (mostly on linksland) ad nauseam, on each course, but instead get to the fundamental understanding of what made those holes work in terms of strategic interest and concepts, and then apply them in a wholly individual fashion on these shores.

That's what makes Merion so special, and so distinctive, and so historically important.

[JESII]

Dave,

Re: my agronomy assertion. I was referring to green speed because the best redan I have played (#7 at Shinnecock) typically repels my shots because of the speed of the greens. Most of my shots (my good shots) filter off the left or back left of the green. The speed in those days would have limited this. True, todays trajectories are much higher so that might account for balls bouncing over easier then.

[CHrisB]

...a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland)

Could it be that MacDonald's idea of a "reverse redan" is not the modern idea of a "reverse redan"?

The modern idea is that the "reverse redan" is a mirror image of the redan, with the playing angle the same but the green configuration reversed.

Could it be that in MacDonald's definition of a reverse redan, it is not the green configuration that is reversed but instead the playing angle (i.e., like playing the hole in reverse)?

Could it be that when MacDonald uses the word "reverse" he really means "backwards", like playing the "Reverse" Old Course at St. Andrews has always meant playing the holes "backwards"?

If that is true, then the "left hand end of the tableland" can be considered in today's terms the "back left" of the standard redan green (just like the "right hand start of the tableland" would be the "front right"), and so in MacDonald's assessment, the 3rd at Merion was a redan green that was approached from a "reversed" or "back left" angle.

That's the only way I can think that the 3rd at Merion could have been called a "reverse redan" (in which case, I'm inclined to agree, because if you approached the green from a different angle--say from the rough between #6 and #7--the green would start to look like a standard redan).

[Mike_Cirba]

Chris,

That might make sense except that Macdonald also called the redan at Sleepy Hollow a "reverse", which tilts significantly front to back and is a simple mirror image of the traditional redan.

[JESII]

JES,  It all depends on whether I tilt the book before I turn it.  

David,

With all due respect, that's the type of response that makes one think you've got an agenda as opposed to an open mind in this conversation. The instructions (from CBM, not me) are to tilt the land and then approach it from the angle. Regardless, it never tilts towards the tee as #3 at Merion does. At best it slopes straight right to left.

[JESII]

Chris Brauner,

Anything's possible of course, but that seems like a stretch to me just considering the playability differences.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Excellent summation post that #474.

Can you believe I actually said post #474??  

I wish it was post #47 and then we wouldn't have had another twelve pages on this thread.

Seems to me Merion East is significant in the type and style of architecture it had INLAND in that early time for sophisticated architecture in America, and particularly after the course got rid of some of that rudimentary copy stuff like the Mid-Surrey mounds on #9 and the unnatural looking 10th green. We should probably add to that the apparently fluky green on #8.

But Ron Prichard may be right. The thing that may really put Merion East's architecture on the map was the unique style of those bunkers in that early time---sort of multi-form sand dishes really with the evolving grass surrounds. Ron thinks that the Merion bunker style may be the prototype for so much of the bunkering in American architecture to follow. That Merion and Wilson may've created a generic "American" bunker style with Merion East, in fact.

So the real question is where did he get that idea and that bunker style (and playablility) from? Did he get it in the Heathlands or some of that and some of just thinking it up himself?

That may be the most interesting aspect of all with Merion East in the context of its importance in the evolution of American architecture. The "sand flashed" style American bunker that seems to have come out of the Philadelphia School of Architecture of which Merion East may've been almost the first enrollee.

I say "almost the first" advisedly. What about those few inland courses around here that preceded Merion East that may've been the very first example of a new type and style of a more natural looking golf architecture on inland sites?

Maybe we should try to take a very close look at the architecture and the architectural features of at least two that preceded it---eg Tillinghast's Shawnee (1908) and George Thomas's Mt Airy (Whitemarsh Valley) (1908).

What did their architecture and architectural features such as bunkering look like a full 3-4 years before Merion East?

Isn't it interesting to note that George Thomas (Whitemarsh Valley) called Hugh Wilson one of our best architects, professional or amateur, and mentioned how much Wilson taught him with Merion and Philadelphia Municipal and that he remained his helpful advisor when Thomas removed to California in 1919.

Wilson had a lot of help from Macdonald in the beginning before sailing to GB for his six months of study and Wilson was the first to say so about that two days in Southampton. But for whatever reason it didn't seem to take Wilson, Flynn et al at Merion East and West long at all to grow completely out of any connection to the style of C.B. Macdonald in what they were doing.

Is this why Wilson didn't have much to say about Macdonald in the years following his return?

And also, it's probably true to say that back then one probably shouldn't have tried to compete with Macdonald by using the unique architectural type and style he developed over here (template holes from GB).

Why would that be? Because as George Bahto has said a number of times the last thing Macdonald wanted to see is for anyone to try to top his NGLA---ironically including Raynor or even himself.  

[David Stamm]

"   Nothing new is being presented and the guys in OH and CA should continue believing what they want.  

Hey now, don't lump ALL us Cal. guys together, Wayne!

[wsmorrison]

No worries there, David.  I should have said the guy in OH and the guy in CA  

[JSlonis]

Chris B brings up a good point about the "reverse redan".  The only way the current 3rd green would be considered any type of a Redan is if the hole was played from the fairway of the 6th hole back toward #3.

The only problem with Chris' point is that if that was Macdonald's loose description, there are countless other greens on courses all over the country that you could loosely call a Redan, a reverse Redan,  an upside down Redan, a sideways Redan or any other goofy connotation you choose depending on the angle you think it should be played from.  The fact is, the hole is approached in the direction that it is and that is not going to change...so the 3rd can be called whatever you wish, just not any type of "Redan"!

[Mike_Cirba]

Also boys and girls, as far as all those on here who claim that all those people back then should've listened to Macdonald's description and definition of what a redan was and should be, do any of you know when it was that Macdonald first weighed in with that definition of his of what a redan hole was, should be or how it should be defined?

I know his definition of a redan is in his book but he didn't write that book until around 1926-27.  

What if he never offered a definition of what a redan was before that?

Timelines, my children! Everything must be applied to a timeline.  

Tom,

I thought you said this thread is way too long??  

You're really enjoying yourself here, aren't you??  

[JESII]

There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any
course.

Tom P,

Any idea when this article quote by MacDonald is from?

Dave M,

Obviously, this question can be directed to you because I believe I pulled this from your post up above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I said their definitions were not as strict as yours.  Your response?

They should have been more strict.

Sigh . . . this is why I try to avoid purely definitional arguments.  Take it up with MacDonald if you dont like the way he applied his concepts.

Dave, you can't dismiss and/or dilute definitions either.
You can't have them bent beyond the scope of their meaning.
You can't have people taking great license and liberties with defining terms.[/color]
 

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

I agree, which is why I have been trying to figure these things out.  Apparently, we who think accurate measures actually matter are in the minority in this conversation.

Then A critical issue, if not THE critical issue is:
Where was the tee ?[/color]

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.

Which views of mine would be tempered if I was more familiar with the site?

The "alpine" nature of the terrain you allude to.
The topography of the fairway as it relates to the topography of the surrounding land, especially in the DZ.[/color]  

You think the dirt obviously came from (and was returned to) the quarry on 16?  Is this so "obvious" that ]  

Let me guess . . . this is so obvious that will treat it as true even absent any evidence?  It isn't obvious to me without some evidence.  

You asked where the dirt came from, and where it went.
With a quarry a few hundred yards removed from the site,
I don't think it's imprudent to believe that the quarry was the supply source and the ultimate resting place for the dirt.

When one considers how frugal these designers and contractors were, finding FREE dirt, indigenous dirt, having minimum hauling expenses and efforts makes the quarry a strong default option.  Do you have any information to refute my position ?  Likewise, when removing the dirt, the process works perfectly in reverse.  What better place to return the dirt to, than it's source ?[/color]
______________

Despite the elevation of the tee, the second shot played uphill for me.  If you dont believe me drop a ball in the left fairway bunker and hit the shot.

Where did you tee off from ?[/color]
___________

Do you have any factual basis for doubting the accuracy of the elevations from the USGS application ?

Yes, standing and walking in the fairway to the green and Ardmore Ave more than a dozen times.

I believe a refreshment stand used to occupy land immediately adjacent to Ardmore Ave.[/color]
______________
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()