Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[DMoriarty]

The other night I was trying to get caught up on a big stack of NY Times issues and came across a US Am preview, dated August 27, 1916, which contained an interesting description of the Merion East's 10th hole.  Forgive me if others have already seen this article or brought it this site's attention, but I do not remember having seen it . . .



While I am fuzzy on the details, I do recall a discussion about the characteristics and origins of this hole, and thought this article might supply a bit more information from a contemporary source.  For example, the unattributed article describes the green as follows:

The green is . . . completely surrounded by by breastwords and trenches, so that the result of the shot is always in doubt until the golfer scales the last rampart and glares or smiles at what his hands have done.

I found this particularly interesting for at least two reasons . . . first, the unattributed author seems to be of the opinion that the approach shot was blind.   Second, his description (result in doubt . . . scaling the rampart) reminds me of MacDonald's description(s) of the virtues of the approach on an Alps hole.  

This article certainly isn't dispositive, but it is another piece in the puzzle . . .

[BCrosby]

What's the puzzle?

[Mike_Cirba]

Dave,

I'm pretty convinced (as I wrote back then when it was debated) that the original 10th at Merion featured a blind second shot across the road.   This article seems to confirm that as fact, although it does nothing to substantiate any notions that it was an "Alps", or that Raynor or Macdonald had any involvement in the early course.

p.s.  How far behind are you in your reading??  

[Phil_the_Author]

Unfortunately I am still unable to figure out how to post photos &/or copies of them , but if someone might like to spend a few moments doing so, if you access the USGA digital archives, in the September 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated, at the top of p.20 & the bottom of p.21 are two photographs of the 10th green & the surrounds during the playing of the Amateur.

I think they will answer your questions.

[mike_malone]

 I bet it was a more interesting hole than the current #10.

[JESII]

Mayday,

Do you also think the old 11th was more interesting? Do you think the cummulative "interest" was higher then than it is now?

[mike_malone]

 I'm not exactly familiar with the old #11, but that article speaks of a " run up between bunkers". So, I would imagine it was  less interesting than the present great #11 ( if they could widen that fairway to the left a little so you could aim at the pin and end up in the fairway---I want #7 to be the same way!)

[DMoriarty]

B Crosby asked:
What is the puzzle?

Well it probably depends upon who you ask.   My puzzle was whether Merion (not the Haverford Merion) can be viewed as a rejection of what had been going on in Philadelphia, and a turn back to links inspired and heathland inspired courses.  

Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project.  

Another puzzle is whether the 10th could properly be called an Alps hole.  

Another puzzle was whether the green complex was modeled after that of Alps Holes.  


Another puzzle was

Dave,

I'm pretty convinced (as I wrote back then when it was debated) that the original 10th at Merion featured a blind second shot across the road.   This article seems to confirm that as fact, although it does nothing to substantiate any notions that it was an "Alps", or that Raynor or Macdonald had any involvement in the early course.

p.s.  How far behind are you in your reading??  

[mike_malone]

 Dave,

   I have played Yale and NGLA and felt much similarity between the two. Merion doesn't have any feeling of similarity in look or playability for me to either of these courses.

[john_stiles]

The  Golf Illustrated,  July 1914,  has an article by Lesley and describes the tenth.   " The second must carry Ardmore Avenue and a number of deep bunkers. If the ball overruns the green it finds lodgment up on the slope of the mountain which is at the rear. "

The article describes both courses, including the 'new or west'.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Unfortunately I am still unable to figure out how to post photos &/or copies of them , but if someone might like to spend a few moments doing so, if you access the USGA digital archives, in the September 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated, at the top of p.20 & the bottom of p.21 are two photographs of the 10th green & the surrounds during the playing of the Amateur.

I think they will answer your questions.

[Jason Topp]

I think I figured out how to do this!  From the 1916 Digital Archives of the USGA

[DMoriarty]

p.s.  How far behind are you in your reading??  

Would you believe I started with the current paper and am working my way backwards?      I didnt think so.  

mayday_malone said:

Dave,

  I have played Yale and NGLA and felt much similarity between the two. Merion doesn't have any feeling of similarity in look or playability for me to either of these courses.

I've not played Yale, but I agree with you regarding the lack of a similar feel between NGLA and Merion.  That being said, I dont know that anyone has suggested that Merion was a MacDonald course with all the usual bits and pieces.  

If you had played the original 10th as pictured and described above,  (with the blind approach requiring a high shot, the bunkering in front, the berm in back, and "ramparts" and "breastworks" short) don't you think it may have reminded you a bit of the Alps green at NGLA?  

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
   
   Do you think there used to be more fairway to the left?

   Because the shot is blind and there is a chance of getting caught on the side of the hill on the left , I think there should be more fairway over there IF that is how it used to be.

[mike_malone]

 I think they were just using the available land to it's best effect for the old #10. Part of my problem with the new #10 is that it feels jammed into the space before the road.

   I can imagine that an Alps type hole seemed appropriate in that spot and I would see it as similar to NGLA. But it would be the only place on the course where I felt that way.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

Is Mayday talking about the 10th or 11th?

I think he's suggesting that all the area up to the green along the left on 10 should be fairway, not the 11th.  If that's the case, I can't agree, and don't understand why he would feel that way?  

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

1. I dont think anyone suggested that MacDonald designed the 10th hole at Merion East.  I know I didn't.

2. Your word "evolution" implies that Merion East's roots were in the local golf landscape, but this doesnt seem to be the case at all.

3.  There were plenty of golf courses in Philadelphia in 1910, and Wilson could have easily built a longer version in their style at the new Merion site.  And you say yourself that Crump went to Europe to study because the local courses "weren't any good."   What could be more of a rejection than these two prominent golf figures ignoring what was in their own back yard and instead traveling across an ocean to find something better?  

3.  You can call it  "discovery" if you want to, but they would have had no need to go discovering if they were at all satisfied with the status quo.  Based on what I have seen so far, Merion represented a significant departure from what had been going on in Philadelphia (and most of America) for over a decade.  

[DMoriarty]

For those of you that conclude the 10th was an Alps hole, how many know where the original tees were, how far it was to the road and the elevation changes involved?  So what if some writers, even a Whigham, referred to the hole as an Alps.  That doesn't mean that it was nor does it mean that it was intended to be conceptually based on the hole despite NGLA's powerful impact on American golf at the time.

I dont claim that the 10th was an Alps hole.  I merely thought that this blurb was worth posting, and that the description of the 10th green is consistent with the theory that Wilson might have designed the 10th green with the Alps hole (or at least the green of an Alps hole) in mind.  

As for your questions, I have tried to figure out some of it, but havent done so conclusively.  

Was the old road in the same place as the new?   Where were the tees  in relation to the present location?   The hole used to play at 385, and there are descriptions of walking back into the woods and up the hill to the tees, and I have tried to figure it out and it seems like either the road moved or the tees had to be back somewhere in the range of where they currently are.   Can you clear this up?  Thanks?  

As for the elevation changes, I have tried to figure them out (assuming the tees in approximately the same place and a green across the road)  but don't feel confident that I have yet done so.  So far, based on very preliminary observation, I am very surprised at how close the approximate elevation changes (tee to low spot in valley to green) seem to be to-- you guessed it-- NGLA No. 6.  But like I said, I havent found a source I absolutely trust yet.  

Do you have the elevation changes and tee and green locations?  Did the hole dogleg much (so as to shorten the quoted 385 yards?)  

I think Wilson, later Wilson and Flynn and finally Flynn were not following convention but moving in an entirely different direction.  It can be seen in shot testing underpinnings and also ground and aerial option holes and aerial requirement holes.  Merion and Pine Valley are examples of an American style of golf architecture that had connections to courses in the UK but also an original direction as well.

This sounds good to me, especially if you consider the convention of their immediate environment.   But this is also entirely consistent with the notion that Wilson had the Alps hole (or green) in mind when he designed the 10th at Merion East.  

[DMoriarty]

How does the word evolution imply that? Merion's roots would've been in the local golf landscape only if the likes of Hugh Wilson and Merion were aware of nothing other than Philadelphia architecture.

My point exactly.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I think it was probably blind.   The "high" side of the road is on the tee side, as you know, and I'm thinking that horizon beyond today's 10th green and fairway hid the view of the green down at the level of today's first fairway, especially with fronting "ramparts" and such.  

Also, given the yardage of 385 is about 75 yards longer than the yardage today, I'm thinking that the tees would be pretty close to where they are today, especially given the descriptions of the walk up through the woods.  

Even if you consider the greater run on the ball with firm fairways, they were still playing the tee shot up that hill, which would have negated roll quite a bit.   Given 1916 equipment, it would have taken a tremendous poke to carry up to the top of the hill.

I'm not sure that would make it an "Alps", but the author does seem to strongly imply that you wouldn't get to see where you second shot ended up until you crossed the road.

[DMoriarty]

By the way, the berm (I think it was about 10 feet hight) was in back of the green, protecting golfers on the 1st fairway as that hole was a dogleg left (and remained that way until the 1930 Amateur).  I doubt very much the green was blind from the fairway landing areas, especially given the firm conditions and the tees, which were much shorter than the present ones.  

I assumed that the tees would be much shorter than the present ones, but the article says that the green was 385 yards from the tee.  It doesnt seem like the tees could have been too much shorter unless: 1) the hole was measured at a significant dogleg, 2) the green was much further across the road than it looks to be in the photos, 3)  The road was in a different location all together, or 4) the 385 figure is just wrong.  

Plus, the article describes the stroll "up through the woods" and hitting the drive across "a valley," implying that the tee was somewhere at least partially up the hill.

The low 5-step ladder from the road to the level of the sand and the green is not much of an elevation change.  Ardmore Ave was cut into the terrain.  There is an equal rise from the road to the fairway on the south side of the road.

Are you sure that the ladder is up from the road and not some sort of bunker or embankment?  I couldnt tell.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Are those people?  Now there's an idea of how to rough up those bunker faces!  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Isn't the 6th at NGLA the Short?  

[DMoriarty]

David,

A little information can be misleading.  The golf boom really hit Philadelphia and the members at Merion Cricket Club needed more room to accomodate more golfers.  Within 10 years of the start of golf at Merion, the Haskell ball obsoleted a lot of early courses.  Merion's course in Haverford was short for its time.  Within 15 years of the start of golf at Merion there was a need for a second course with membership continuing to climb to over 1000 members.  A third course was being planned.

Wayne, no doubt Merion had very real and practical considerations which prompted the move and the new courses.  Nonetheless, these considerations do not explain why Merion departed so drastically from the local style and approach (if they did), or even why Wilson went to GB to study their courses.  

What you don't understand is the course you think of today was not the course opened in 1912, nor was it the course modified for the 1916 Amateur, greatly modified for the 1924 Amateur, more for the 1930 Amateur and the last significant change for the 1934 Open.  The original East Course was not nearly as radical a departure as you credit it.  It was a great improvement but not finished for another 25 years.  It wasn't until Wilson and Flynn began collaborating that it began to resemble what you think of today.  It took about 10 years after it opened that it began to take familiar form.

While I dont at all know the specifics, think I do understand that the course has evolved significantly over the years. Nonetheless, I am not convinced that the original Ardmore Ave. Merion shared much in common with the previous courses in the area.   Maybe it did, but I havent seen or read convincing evidence that this was the case.  

I look forward to seeing such evidence, if it ever comes to light.  Until then, what I keep going back to in my mind is just how different these older courses were, not just in the shape or look of the hazard, green, or tee, but in their entire approach to golf and golf architecture.  Because these courses were wiped off the map, I think it is easy for us to overlook just how much golf design changed during this time period.

Frankly, too many people seem to be taking a lot of stabs in the dark.  It will be beneficial to all when the full facts are disseminated.

Sorry you feel this way.  I posted the excerpt not as a "stab in the dark" but as another step in the direction of the "full facts."   If you feel differently, feel free to disregard it.  

TEPaul said:

When it came to good inland golf architecture it had to start somewhere.

Yep.  And in America it appears to have started with a rejection of about 15 years of professional architecture, and a return to the links and to the heathland courses inspired by the links.  

[DMoriarty]

Wayne, who in the holy hell are these people who say stuff like this? If they aren't willing to trust the word of the people who've been on that course for years why don't they just come here and walk out on the 10th fairway and look across Ardmore Ave for themselves? This stuff is not exactly rocket science.

Who should I trust, Tom?  You,who says that the hole was obviously blind from the landing area?  Or Wayne, who says it was not?

Mike Cirba said:

Isn't the 6th at NGLA the Short?

It may be called the Short now, but originally it was called the Tall, which is just a euphamism for Alps.