Merion 10 Again? The Devolution of the Cape Concept. . .

[TEPaul]

"Why do you suppose Tillinghast used the term "cape" to describe such a green concept?  Did Tillinghast build any greens which were actually capes in the true definiton of the word?  In other words, did he build any greens which jutted out into water?"

The only hole of Tillinghast's that sort of juts into water a bit is the 12th at Somerset Hills but it's a par 3.

I don't know why Tillinghast used the word "cape", I only know he defined the type of hole somewhat differently than Macdonald did. For starters Macdonald talked about a green surrouned by water on three sides and Tillinghast mentioned an encroachment by a hillside or sandy waste. Tillinghast may've been the first proponent of architecturally created sand waste areas.

[JESII]

Can you explain to me the difference between Macdonald's original concept of a cape green, and Tillinghast's?    


Macdonald's cape green concept had nothing to do with a diagonal.   It had to do with the green jutting out into water, a hazard, or some other trouble.  

David,

Are you seriously trying to claim on here that CBM was the first to ever build a green with trouble on three of four sides? I asked you this very early in this thread and yuou said no, but have repeatedly contradicted that...is it your contention that CBM was the first person to build a green surrounded on three sides by "water, a hazard, or some other trouble"[/i]?

[TEPaul]

"Yes.  I never said that Merion 10 or Pine Valley 12 should be attributed to Macdonald.  I have seen nothing that would suggest this."

If you do not believe Merion's 10th and PV's 12th should be attributed to Macdonald you seem to think they should be attributed to Macdonald's cape hole concept.

I have quite a bit on the architectural thinking from Crump and his friends about PV's 12th hole and at no time do any of them mention a thing about a cape hole or cape hole concept or Macdonald.

But they do mention some of the influence for PV's #12. And they way they explained the rest it apparently just had to do with a few things unique to the routing of PV.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I certainly wouldn't classify the 12th at SHCC as a "Cape"

I doesn't "jut" out into the water.  It follows the land form along the bank of the pond.  The water then comes in front of the green necessitating a carry from a head on approach from the tee.  I'd be curious to know what was excavated and what was natural at the front of that green.

There are no angles to contend with on the approach.

There is a danger in trying to expand the definition or concept of THE template hole to suit one's own definition.  These loose, erroneous interpretations mutate and distort the reality of what is and what isn't a template hole.

It started with claiming that the original 10th and 3rd at Merion were an "Alps" and a "Redan" and now, that the current 10th is a "Cape"

If David said that these holes have some of the characteristics of those template holes, I"d agree with him, but, to declare them bona fide templates is inaccurate.

And, the 12th at SHCC is NOT a "Cape" by ANY stretch of the imagination.

However, the 2nd is a Redan.

The next thing you know, David will claim that the 8th and 18th green at NGLA are "Cape" greens, and really get me going.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I believe that George Bahto states that CBM was the first to create this type of hole, and states so on page 121 of "The Evangelist of Golf"

[JESII]

I guess the real simple question(s) David is (are)...In your opinion, is a CAPE HOLE defined exclusively by the green complex? In your opinion, how would CBM answer that same question?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I certainly wouldn't classify the 12th at SHCC as a "Cape""

Patrick:

Either would I. I only mentioned it because the green does sort of jut into the water on the left. I think this entire subject of what is and isn't a cape hole and what actually defines or constitutes a cape hole has gotten far too carried away. If not for David Moriarty I doubt the subject and the discussion would have lasted long.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I believe that George Bahto states that CBM was the first to create this type of hole, and states so on page 121 of "The Evangelist of Golf""

Patrick:

The reality of the increasing interest in the history of golf course architecture is that George's statments and opinions about what Macdonald said or meant about anything is going to be put through increasing exegises.

That's probably as it should be because at this point I doubt George has anything available to him that Macdonald wrote that we don't. So eventually any of this stuff will simply become a matter of interpretation, not new discoveries of Macdonald's opinions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I think the answer lies in the definition of "Cape" as found in the dictionary.

However, CBM combined that dedinition/concept with angles of approach, risk/reward, undulating uneven fairways, deep bunkering and water where he could find it.

I do think that the protective features employed at the green, in combination with the ORIENTATION of the green to the fairway, combined with angular risk/reward off the tee, conspire to creat the BEST "Cape" holes.

I find those elements embodied in the 14th at NGLA.

While I feel that the GREEN END is the focal point or defining feature of a Cape hole, one can't ignore the spacial relationships and angles of attack on the approach, and off the tee, and how they interrelate and relate when one is playing the hole.

TEPaul,

I think it's an interesting topic for debate, heated up exponentially by David's insertion of the 10th at Merion.

If playing golf is about angles, risk/reward, strategy and options, the "Cape" especially the 14th at NGLA is a great study, as are "Variations of the theme"

David's attempt to irrefutably categorize # 10 as a "true" Cape has been an interesting exercise and informative.

I like his challenging of accepted beliefs and can't wait until he promotes the Seminole is FLAT theory.

Creating stimulating and thougt provoking threads is great for this site.  And, if you look at the hits, the responses and the number of pages on this thread and others, I think you can conclude that this is what GCA.com is all about, passionate discussion and debate about golf course architecture.

I would like to see Tom MacWood return because he too creates interesting topics for discussion and debate.
And, "Being wrong should never be grounds for dismissal"  
(paraphrase from "I'm all right Jack")

[Mark_Fine]

Isn't all of this "a matter of intrepretation"?  The problem seems to be on this thread and many of the others, that some people only think that "their intrepretation" is the correct one    

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

As usual, I disagree with you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't all of this "a matter of intrepretation"?  The problem seems to be on this thread and many of the others, that some people only think that "their intrepretation" is the correct one    

Not according to Merriam Webster !

As interpreted by CBM, SR and CB, of course

TEPaul,

Ahhh, the 2 % factor  

[Patrick_Mucci]

This hole was not about cutting the corner to gain an advantage, it was about correct position to gain an advantage.

It's the same thing, up to a critical point where carry was no longer possible.

Don't forget, with the land sloping significantly toward the water, carry is just about reaching the margin of the water, it's about reaching a point in the fairway where your ball, when bouncing and following the terrain wouldn't go back into the water.[/color]

So then the golfer had to favor the left a bit, which fits with my point.  There was no necessary advantage of cutting the diagonal even at the 150 mark.  

Yes, there is.
Just look at the drawing on page 123.
In addition, if you'd play the 14th at NGLA 100 times, you'd come to understand the difference and the advantage[/color]

The golfer had to play for position to the green, and that may have meant cutting the diagonal to the left of the 150 carry, even if the golfer was quite capable of making the 150 carry.   In other words, the risk/reward component which we usually associate with a diagonal carry (cut the corner for an advantage) was not really at play.  

It is, but not to the extent that it's a do or die shot.
There's an incremental advantage to cutting off more of the diagonal.  It allows the golfer to get closer to the green which is a huge advantage, it allows them to have a better angle into the green, and it avoids them having to hit a long approach at a bad angle to a green surrounded by hazards, espeicially trying under windy conditions.[/color]

The golfer had to take an angle which best left him for the next shot, and as long has he could carry it 150 or 160, then the diagonal nature of the carry did not really come into play.

That's not true.
You're totally disregarding the hazards the golfer would encounter to the left.  Deep bunkers and swales that would leave the golfer blind to the green.

You keep viewing the hole in the SOLE context of the fronting waterline, totally disregarding the hazards and difficulties encountered if a ball should go THROUGH the fairway.[/color]  
 

I disagree with the classification of # 10 as a true cape green.

Merion's 10th lacks THE differential in elevation associated with CBM's, SR's or CB's "Cape" greens.  It's virtually flush with the fairway and surrounding terrain.

I believe that Bahto indicated, based on the writings of Banks, that "Cape" holes/greens that don't jut into the water have dramatically built-up escarpments.   Yet, those features are absent at the 10th at Merion.  Bahto further indicates that when water was lacking, CBM and SR built their "Cape" greens as a TERRACE, seemingly jutting out into mid-air.

I think Bahto says that some are dramatically built up escarpments and seem to hang in mid-air, while others are surrounded by bunkers.
No such configuration exists at Merion's 10th.

While one could say that the 10th green at Merion is almost entirely surrounded by bunkering and that it's offset from the fairway, I don't believe that the offset is of the true nature of a "Cape" green as conceived and designed by CBM and his followers.

The reason I say that is because approaches from the middle of the fairway at # 10 at Merion, from 50, 90 and 170 yards must be mostly, if not entirely aerial, and that was NOT a feature of the "Cape" green

In order to have an unencombered approach at # 10 at Merion, the golfer has to drive the ball "green high", and that's not the case with any of CBM's, SR's or CB's "Cape" holes.[/b]

I don't know Patrick.  Some of Macdonald's holes required an aerial approach . . . didn't Mid Ocean's?

No, it didn't.
One could play to the front right of the green, unencombered.[/color]

Plus, take a look at the drawing above.  They angle of the fairway seems to have sharpened since then, probably as drives have lenghened.

Here is a picture of the green and approach from the same article as above.  Looking where the road line (telephone poles) is, and the houses are, this is well short of green high, yet it looks pretty suitable for the ground game to me.  



David, that's from green high or SLIGHTLY short of green high.

It's not from 50, 90 or 170 yards short of the green and it's from the far right of the fairway, probably the rough.[/color]

The cape green was the original concept that Macdonald came up with, and it was the cape green concept that Wilson, Flynn, and Tillinghast, and probably others adopted into their designs.

Rather than make a general pronouncement, could you cite specific holes where you think this is the case.[/color]

I did not make a general pronouncement with no basis.  I had cited Macdonald's and Flynn's description of a cape above, and Phillip and/or TEPaul provided Tillinghast's definition.

David, we know that CBM contradicted himself with respect to descriptions, so rather than argue vague points, let's go to where the rubber meets the road, the specific holes.  You stated that HIW, WF and AWT probably adopted CBM's Cape Concept into their designs, so, tell me which holes fit your description as they relate to "Cape" holes.[/color]  

If you wanted to say that the 10th at Merion is a pseudo cape or has some of the characteristics of a cape, I think that would be an accurate statement.

But, calling it a true "Cape" is inaccurate IMO.

If you are more comfortable with describing the hole as one with a green based on the original cape concept, I am comfortable with that. If you look at the title of my thread, you will see it is about the "cape concept."  

And I didn't come up with the term "cape" for Merion 10, the Green Section Bulletin not only called it a cape (based on the angle of the green) but held it out as an instructive example of the use of the cape principle.  

That's not credible support.
Since when is a Green Section Bulletin the final arbitor about architecture ?
That's just one authors opinion, and a flawed one at that.
[/color]

I've asked you before, but you must have inadvertantly missed my question:

What do you make of the article I posted above?


Which one ?[/color]
____________________________

[Patrick_Mucci]

This hole was not about cutting the corner to gain an advantage, it was about correct position to gain an advantage.

It's the same thing, up to a critical point where carry was no longer possible.

Don't forget, with the land sloping significantly toward the water, carry is just about reaching the margin of the water, it's about reaching a point in the fairway where your ball, when bouncing and following the terrain wouldn't go back into the water.[/color]

So then the golfer had to favor the left a bit, which fits with my point.  There was no necessary advantage of cutting the diagonal even at the 150 mark.  

Yes, there is.
Just look at the drawing on page 123.
In addition, if you'd play the 14th at NGLA 100 times, you'd come to understand the difference and the advantage[/color]

The golfer had to play for position to the green, and that may have meant cutting the diagonal to the left of the 150 carry, even if the golfer was quite capable of making the 150 carry.   In other words, the risk/reward component which we usually associate with a diagonal carry (cut the corner for an advantage) was not really at play.  

It is, but not to the extent that it's a do or die shot.
There's an incremental advantage to cutting off more of the diagonal.  It allows the golfer to get closer to the green which is a huge advantage, it allows them to have a better angle into the green, and it avoids them having to hit a long approach at a bad angle to a green surrounded by hazards, espeicially trying under windy conditions.[/color]

The golfer had to take an angle which best left him for the next shot, and as long has he could carry it 150 or 160, then the diagonal nature of the carry did not really come into play.

That's not true.
You're totally disregarding the hazards the golfer would encounter to the left.  Deep bunkers and swales that would leave the golfer blind to the green.

You keep viewing the hole in the SOLE context of the fronting waterline, totally disregarding the hazards and difficulties encountered if a ball should go THROUGH the fairway.[/color]  
 

I disagree with the classification of # 10 as a true cape green.

Merion's 10th lacks THE differential in elevation associated with CBM's, SR's or CB's "Cape" greens.  It's virtually flush with the fairway and surrounding terrain.

I believe that Bahto indicated, based on the writings of Banks, that "Cape" holes/greens that don't jut into the water have dramatically built-up escarpments.   Yet, those features are absent at the 10th at Merion.  Bahto further indicates that when water was lacking, CBM and SR built their "Cape" greens as a TERRACE, seemingly jutting out into mid-air.

I think Bahto says that some are dramatically built up escarpments and seem to hang in mid-air, while others are surrounded by bunkers.
No such configuration exists at Merion's 10th.

While one could say that the 10th green at Merion is almost entirely surrounded by bunkering and that it's offset from the fairway, I don't believe that the offset is of the true nature of a "Cape" green as conceived and designed by CBM and his followers.

The reason I say that is because approaches from the middle of the fairway at # 10 at Merion, from 50, 90 and 170 yards must be mostly, if not entirely aerial, and that was NOT a feature of the "Cape" green

In order to have an unencombered approach at # 10 at Merion, the golfer has to drive the ball "green high", and that's not the case with any of CBM's, SR's or CB's "Cape" holes.

I don't know Patrick.  Some of Macdonald's holes required an aerial approach . . . didn't Mid Ocean's?

No, it didn't.
One could play to the front and right side of the green, unencombered.[/color]

Plus, take a look at the drawing above.  They angle of the fairway seems to have sharpened since then, probably as drives have lenghened.

Here is a picture of the green and approach from the same article as above.  Looking where the road line (telephone poles) is, and the houses are, this is well short of green high, yet it looks pretty suitable for the ground game to me.  



David, that's from green high or SLIGHTLY short of green high.

It's not from 50, 90 or 170 yards short of the green and it's from the far right of the fairway, probably the rough.[/color]

The cape green was the original concept that Macdonald came up with, and it was the cape green concept that Wilson, Flynn, and Tillinghast, and probably others adopted into their designs.

Rather than make a general pronouncement, could you cite specific holes where you think this is the case.[/color]

I did not make a general pronouncement with no basis.  I had cited Macdonald's and Flynn's description of a cape above, and Phillip and/or TEPaul provided Tillinghast's definition.

David, we know that CBM contradicted himself with respect to descriptions, so rather than argue vague points, let's go to where the rubber meets the road, the specific holes.  You stated that HIW, WF and AWT probably adopted CBM's Cape Concept into their designs, so, tell me which holes fit your description as they relate to "Cape" holes.[/color]  

If you wanted to say that the 10th at Merion is a pseudo cape or has some of the characteristics of a cape, I think that would be an accurate statement.

But, calling it a true "Cape" is inaccurate IMO.

If you are more comfortable with describing the hole as one with a green based on the original cape concept, I am comfortable with that. If you look at the title of my thread, you will see it is about the "cape concept."  

And I didn't come up with the term "cape" for Merion 10, the Green Section Bulletin not only called it a cape (based on the angle of the green) but held it out as an instructive example of the use of the cape principle.  

That's not credible support.
Since when is a Green Section Bulletin the final arbitor about architecture ?
That's just one authors opinion, and a flawed one at that.
[/color]

I've asked you before, but you must have inadvertantly missed my question:

What do you make of the article I posted above?


Which one ?[/color]
____________________________

[JESII]

David,

I look forward to hearing your response...another question if I could, although not limited to you alone...if the definition of a cape green is something like...jutting out into water (or sand or some other trouble) with that hazard surrounding the green on three sides, can the green run straight away from the play direction of the hole with the peripherial hazard beginning at about the front edge of the green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,  

What you don't understand about the Flynn article quoted in the Oct 1927 Green Section Bulletin is the context of the article.

You're reading it with a biased mindset that Flynn's "cape" hole concept had something to do with the green.  
It did not.  

It had to do solely with the tee shot.
It was NOT associated with a green jutting into a body of water nor was it associated with the green surrounded on 3 sides by topographical features or hazards.  

When you wrote in your initial post,

"The "cape-type" hole was one of the fundamental holes he thought should generally exist on an 18 hole golf course."

You're misinterpreting his concept and understanding of HIS "Cape" hole.  

Flynn talked about various types of holes that should make up the average good golf course.  Nowhere does he write that a cape hole should generally exist on an 18-hole golf course, that's speculation.  

Nowhere in the Cape Hole quote does Flynn mention the green.  
He talks about the tee shot when he says,

"When a test of length off the tee is presented the best type is the cape or elbow where it takes a really big tee shot past a corner to permit reaching the green in par."

Flynn's concept of a cape hole is where the hole turns in an gradual elbow or sharper.  Nowhere in the entire article does he discuss a "cape" green.  

You are NOT accurately reflecting Flynn's definition.
You're inserting your interpretation to support your flawed premise.   The old square peg in the round hole strategy.

The 10th at Merion, as EVERYBODY understands it, does NOT test the tee shot in the definition Flynn uses, nor is it at all similar to the 14th at NGLA.  

The inspiration for, or the concept attribution given to CBM by you is not based on reality, it's wishful thinking.

If you view the current 10th, play the current 10th repetitively, the prefered method of play is away from the green, away from the diagonals, toward the right side of the fairway.

Only recently, due to hi-tech advances, has carrying the green on a fly or carrying it into the fronting bunker been a  potential option.

That's one of the reasons that CBM lengthened the 14th at NGLA, he feared that advancements in equipment and/or the golfer's skills would bring the green within range of the long hitters, destroying the strategy, and he wanted to preserve the angles of attack and the approach distances to the green such that they continued to provide the challenge he originally conceived, designed and cosntructed.

# 10 at Merion calls for a relatively straight drive, while # 14 at NGLA calls for a diagonal drive, relative to the line between  the tee and green.

Was the 11th at Merion a CBM inspired cape as well ?

The 15th ?  

[D_Malley]

"Only recently, due to hi-tech advances, has carrying the green on a fly or carrying it into the fronting bunker been a  potential option"

not true, i have witnessed the 10th green at merion being hit on the fly as early as 1981.  

i think the fact that it is driveable makes this type of hole all the more interesting.   This type of hole is one of my favorites, no matter what you call it, but it must be in the 260 - 300 yard range to tempt a player and give options.  i remember seeing players in the hugh wilson inv.  playing the hole for three straight days and still not knowing what stratgey to use.

[TEPaul]

Racetrack George:

You're right, in my opinion, the various options (strategies) of Merion's #10 are fairly balanced (in equilibrium) and the longer golfers get the more balanced the options will be. Maybe they should start thinking about toughening up that front (left) bunker some.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Racetrack George,

How many times have you seen it carried on a fly since 1981 ?

What were the conditions and who executed that shot, that's more than impressive in 1981 from the back tee ?

Would you say that it was common place or very rare that anyone carried that shot before hi-tech reared it's head in the last 10-15 years ?

I don't believe the green was designed to be carried when the hole had the green shifted to the near side of the road.

[D_Malley]

i would say around that time it was very rare to see someone fly it onto that green, (i witnessed DL3 fly it into the back bunker) and it would of been someone who had tour length at the time.  but it was not as rare to see a drive bounce onto the front right section of the green and this was achievable by a small % of members at the time.  and that option was very tempting to alot of people who did not even have much of a chance of getting there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RacetrackGeorge,

Was that the day that he played with Gui Cosden, Chet Walsh and Peter Person ?

Would you say that DLIII was a typical golfer in 1981.

I know 382,463 people who say they witnessed that shot when DLIII was on his way to shooting 64.

I heard he hit a 1-iron off the tee and then took a mulligan and drove it into the back bunker

[D_Malley]

i do not remember who he was playing with that day.  but i do remember he was extremely long at that time.   i think he actually toned down his length shortly after that, and became a much better player.  in fact i think he was green high with the 1 iron on #10. the fact remains that the green on #10 was in reach with persimon heads and balata balls, but only for players who had tour length at that time.

[TEPaul]

Racetrack George;

Davis Love has only played Merion once, back in the 1980s. He shot a 64 (the card is in the clubhouse). Did you see him play that round?

[Patrick_Mucci]

 
Flynn does not directly define cape hole in the article, and does not define elbow hole either, but instead references the hole as if these were a commonly understood terms.   So if I referred to a Flynn definition that was a mistake.

You're reading it with a biased mindset that Flynn's "cape" hole concept had something to do with the green.  
It did not.  

I disagree.   The first reference to the cape hole is as requiring a “drive and run-up” which definitely has something to do with the green . . . it has to be open and front and conducive to running the ball up, provided the drive is a good one.

It has NOTHING to do with the green.
It has to do with the positioning of the bunkers.
And, had there been a fronting bunker, you would have claimed that the hole was an "Alps" [/color]

A later paragraph explained the concept further.  

“By arranging the green bunkers in such a way as to invite play in from one side or the other he can also put a premium on placing the tee shot on the proper side of the fairway.

There's nothing new about that, nor is it unique to a "Cape" hole.[/color]

When a test of length off the tee is presented the best type is the cape or elbow where it takes a really big tee shot past a corner to permit reaching the green in par.”

Read ..... DIAGONAL[/color]

So arrangement of the bunkers around the green dictates the premium line of play, and the golfer has to get past the elbow or the corner of the cape in order to play into the hole at the premium angle.  

Only when he wanted to test length off the tee.
And then, he combined length with angles, where angles equate to DIAGONALS off the tee[/color]

My point is that Flynn was not only familiar with the concept but thought it was the best way to test length off the tee.  And having seen Wayne’s drawings, it looks as if Flynn used cape and elbow holes quite a bit.

In the context of the DRIVE, the diagonal, and not in the context of the GREEN, which is the focal point for CBM's SR's and CB's Cape holes.[/color]

Nowhere in the Cape Hole quote does Flynn mention the green.  
He talks about the tee shot when he says,

"When a test of length off the tee is presented the best type is the cape or elbow where it takes a really big tee shot past a corner to permit reaching the green in par."

Flynn's concept of a cape hole is where the hole turns in an gradual elbow or sharper.  Nowhere in the entire article does he discuss a "cape" green.  

Again, this is not so.  He mentions it in the context of a drive and run-up hole, and in the context of the bunkers around the green dictating the best line of play.

A  run-up has NOTHING to do with the green.
It has to do with the approach and the bunkering scheme.

WF does NOT mention green configuration, elevation, contour or slope.  Greens are absent from his discriptions, whereas, with CBM, SR and CB it was primarily about the green.[/color]  

The 10th at Merion, as EVERYBODY understands it, does NOT test the tee shot in the definition Flynn uses, nor is it at all similar to the 14th at NGLA.  

Well then, as usual, I am not concerned with what everybody thinks now, but am rather more interested in what they thought then.   At the time the hole was created, it would have definitely tested the tee shot in the precise way Flynn describes it.

Absolutely not.
# 10 at Merion is essentiall a straight hole with NO dogleg in the fairway.  That a prefered DZ for the approach exists, doesn't make it any different than a zillion other holes.[/color]

A good drive to the outside of the dogleg would leave the golfer with the a slightly better angle in.  

There is NO dogleg, elbow or cape[/color]

A great drive would leave the golfer with an open or at least partially approach to the green.

That's also not true.
A great drive in 1922 would leave the golfer with a difficult, impeded approach.[/color]

The inspiration for, or the concept attribution given to CBM by you is not based on reality, it's wishful thinking.

Take a look at pictures and Bahto’s diagram of the n.l.e. Ocean Links Cape Hole.   There is no diagonal carry, and the green is a cape green.  

What pictures ?
Are you certain that the tee locations in George's diagram are accurate ?

There's no diagonal carry at # 2 at Yale, but, the GREEN is a cape like green.

Could it be that the green at Ocean Links had the traditional features CBM, SR and CB associated with a cape green ?[/color]

The distance was 315, and the shape is about like Merion’s 10 in mirror.  

That's WILDLY inaccurate.  The 5th at OL is NOTHING like the 10th at Merion in mirror image.[/color]

I agree that it seems as if Merion’s 10th was not supposed to be reachable.  But neither were the shorter cape holes which CBM designed.  It also seems as if the ideal angle on CBM’s short cape holes was from the far side of the fairway.

Not so fast my friend.
I already explained to you the dangers associated with the far side of the fairway on CBM's 14th at NGLA.
There, it's critical that the longer diagonals be taken advantage of, off the tee, so that the risk associated with a longer carry on the prefered line, produces the least challenge on the far side and the prefered angle into the green.[/color]

_________________

As for Merion 11, it would seem to fit more with an elbow hole concept than a cape hole concept, but I dont know the course well enough to say one way or another.

It fits NEITHER.
It's a straight hole with and OFFSET green.
The fairway does not bend as a dogleg, elbow or cape as understood by Flynn.[/color]

Remember, it is the Green Bulletin which characterized Merion 10 as a cape type hole.  I didnt just make it up.

Yes,  and it's written that Whigham stated that CBM designed Merion.  Don't believe everything you read.[/color]

___________________

I do not think we should dismiss the Green Section Bulletin out of hand.   Keep in mind who was running this magazine and who contributed.    I find it impossible to believe that the Green Section Bulletin would post photographs and a sketch and a description of Merion 10 without the involvement, approval, or at least review of someone at the club.  

I would disagree with the above statement.
Since when are clubs given editorial license ?[/color]

This was the Green Section, after all, and isn't Hugh Wilson largely credited as one of the three who got it started and pretty much ran it?   Alan Wilson was on the Committee, and before his death Hugh Wilson was an advisor to the Committee.  William Flynn had been a contributor.  
SO ?
Since when does that confer infalibility ?[/color]

In fact, I am left wondering if Hugh Wilson himself may have had something to do with the series.   At the time of Hugh Wilson's death they had thus far only featured one-shot holes.  There were only a few more holes featured after Wilson's death, with Merion 10 the first par 4 but the last hole featured.  I suspect they were planning on covering par 3s, then par 4s starting with short ones, then par 5s.  

More speculation ?[/color]
_________________________

Does anyone know who may have written these Instructive Golf Hole articles?

[TEPaul]

"Does anyone know who may have written these Instructive Golf Hole articles?"

David:

I'm relatively sure those instructive Golf Hole Articles were written by Charles Piper (Chairman of the USGA Green Section and Bulletin), at least in the first few years. He may've solicited input from members of the committee but I think he wrote them. I think he even did the drawings, at least in the first few years.

By the way, the articles on golf architecture from various architects in the Bulletin are a result of the USGA Bulletin's inclination to write a book on golf course architecture. Piper's candidate to write the book was Hugh Wilson but he just didn't have the time to do it. That resulted in Piper putting an editorial in the USGA Bulletin and then sending a letter to all American golf architects asking them to contribute their thoughts on golf architecture to the USGA Bulletin. I believe this is where a number of Max Behr's articles on golf architecture emanated from.