Mike,
The old 10th green was in line with the current 11th tee. The mounds behind the tee and trees on the other side prevented me from photographing there. David stood at the closest spot where i had a clear shot to him. Even still, it wasn't open. However, the ground between the original spot and David's location is the same level. I'm sure the green was built up above the natural grade so that the mounding wasn't hiding all that much anyway.
The old 11th tee was to the right of the current 11th tee as you'd expect with the old 10th green location.
In any case, it is clear that there was precious little in common with the old 10th iteration and the Alps at NGLA and far less in common with the original Alps at Prestwick. You are very right in noting that there was a lot of latitude in definitions and poor to mediocre critical analysis.
Wayne,
I think this stuff is fascinating. Thanks for providing all of the supporting documentation that you have. I'm still thinking that the 10th green was probably blind to players on the approach (probably one could only see the top half of the flagstick), and it's also very clear to me (despite Patrick's protestations to the contrary
) as well that what Lesley and others were talking about when they called the hole an "Alps", was simply the broad, crossing, "Sahara" type feature just short of the green; a feature coincidentally shared with both the orginal Alps hole at Prestwick, as well as the 3rd at NGLA.
That's what Lesley was referring to, and it makes perfect sense. A largely blind shot over a large crossing hazard...voila! An Alps hole!!
I think the exact location of the old 10th green, which would have placed it about exactly where the 1st fairway today bends to the right (almost exactly in line with the corner bunker on 1) also makes complete sense of Flynn's drawing, where the hole appears to be a slight dogleg right, instead of a swinging dogleg left as it is today.
What's more, this educational discussion has cinched for me the fact that these holes were not meant to be imitative, as most of the Macdonald/Raynor template holes were, but simply original holes based on inspiration from what Wilson learned overseas.
At Merion, even as early as 1916, you find none of the abrupt geometric features found at NGLA, etc., nor do you find holes where the great "template holes" are meant to be imitated or reproduced in anything but very, very loose conceptual form. I think it makes very clear that this was a home-grown effort, and that Macdonald's influence, important as it may have been, ended largely with those two days Wilson spent at NGLA. I'm thinking that anything beyond that would have involved largely agronomic issues, not architectural ones.
So, I think this thread has been very good for a number of reasons;
1) I think we've all learned more about the architectural evolution of the Merion golf course.
2) I think we've all finally disabused the idea that Macdonald had much if anything to do with the finished product, even if at that early juncture it was still important in American golf to put a name on things, however much of a stretch it might be.
3) Once again, I've proved Patrick wrong on his understanding of template holes and their history.
So, I would also like to thank David Moriarty for starting this thread, and for bringing forward all the historical news accounts of the time. That engendered some very good questions, and I think they've been answered here very well, as well.
All in all, not bad for some GCA dweebs.