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

[TEPaul]

Here is another interesting tidbit that shows what some of the thinking was at the time.

Chairman Piper was obviously looking for content for the USGA's Bulletin that began in 1921, and so he came up with the idea that the USGA Green Section should write a book on architecture and that Hugh Wilson should write it. He asked Alan Wilson's opinion on this and at first Alan thought it a bad idea and asked him not to ask Hugh since he was far too busy with other things.

Alan Wilson actually stated that it was probably a bad idea to write a book on architecture because there was so much rotten architecture in America and America didn't have any architects with enough credibility anyway. Alan said if America had someone like Colt maybe it might be different.  

Then Alan told Piper that if the USGA Green Section wrote a book like that it might encourage a whole bunch of novices to try to build golf courses which would be a huge mistake.

Apparently Piper went to see Macdonald about the idea of soliciting the opinions of all American architects on the principles of golf architecture to put in the USGA's Bulletin and that's when Piper said Macdonald told him that all of them could go to hell as far as he was concerned.    

[JESII]

Tom,

I am going to assume you are serious with that post about Piper, Alan Wilson and CBM because there were only two "winky, winky" faces. When you are being sarcastic they come about every sentence...


Based on that assumption, what do you think that means about CBM's feeling towards therest of the GCA's in the USA at that time? Why would he feel that way in your opinion?

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I'm being completely serious in what I said above. I'd be glad to post some of those agronomy letters that evidence that---I just don't know how to get them on here and I can't type them on here.

I've said numerous times that I think a real analysis needs to be done on here not just about Macdonald the golf architect but Macdonald the man and the Macdonald that had so much to do with other aspects of early American golf.

This man is just totally fascinating to me and not because he was someone who should be glorified in everything he did and said but probably for precisely the reasons that he shouldn't be.

But one thing is completely undeniable to me about Charles Blair Macdonald and that is that he cast a much greater shadow over not just American golf architecture but over early American golf than most even remotely realize.

In a phrase, he could've had it all but he didn't. Some of it was not by his choice but some of it was and the reasons why are totally fascinating to me.

[JESII]

Tommy,

If there is an answer in there somewhere I just can't quite find it. If it's in there just go mark it with one of those "winky, winky" faces...if it's not in there, why do you think CBM held such contempt for the rest of the American GCA's around at the time?  

[TEPaul]

"...if it's not in there, why do you think CBM held such contempt for the rest of the American GCA's around at the time?  

Sully:

Some things just don't have easy answers and this is definitely one of them. That's why I think a great book could be written on this and him.

But if you want me to speculate on what I think some of it was, I'd say this----Macdonald was a remarkably strong willed man as I think most of us know and he was just incredibly well placed in all aspects of American golf. One might even say he was in the right place at the right time in about five different areas of golf in America including architecture.

So what happened? Well, to really understand that I think one needs to take a very careful look at both what Macdonald really did believe in regarding various areas of golf and then also one needs to look very carefully at who all he was up against in those various areas through the years who may not have shared his beliefs for various reasons and why.

I believe that Macdonald felt he almost alone was bringing something over here from Scotland that was incredibly special to him and that others recognized that in the beginning but for various reasons he was not able to control it or control it for as long as he would've liked to and eventually that really took its toll on him.

I think he was the type of man who needed to dominate, he probably almost felt it was his calling. Only problem was he was up against too many people of the type that were just not dominateable (if that's even a word ).

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Don't get fooled by the mowing patterns.

The hole was narrowed for USGA events.

Look at the hole in terms of its boundary features

It's a straight hole, with an offset green.
It's not a dogleg, elbow or cape.

[JESII]

Pat,

wouldn't you just love to see these courses that have hosted majors for so long return their fairway widths to whatever they may have been initially? Howabout that hole in particular? Widening the fairway on the left way down to a line running through the middle of those left bunkers would be sensational...I have no idea where it originally went I must add, but ot would be cool to go that wide.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

One of the reasons that I don't think that CBM had anything to do with the reconfiguration of # 10 has to do with the Pine Valley connection.

An inordinate number of members at Merion belonged to Pine Valley.

The likelihood is, when the hole had to be brought to the tee side of Ardmore Ave, that the dual members, and many members of Merion who had been guests at Pine Valley, said:

Let's replicate # 12 at Pine Valley, it's a PERFECT fit.

I think Pine Valley more than CBM, NGLA or Wilson was the overriding influence with respect to the creation of the new 10th  hole.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Approaching off a tight lie from the left might be more difficult than approaching from a fluffy lie in the left rough.

Merion, Shinnecock, ANGC and others would serve their memberships well by returning their widths to the outer boundaries of the original design.

[JESII]

My memory of Merion's rough is not rosy enough to use the word "fluffy" when thinking about the lie I might have over there short left of #10.

Regardless, difficulty was not part of my thought's when I said I would love to see these long-time major championship courses play with really wide fairways along the lines of what they may once have been.

I'll be the first to defend the narrowing of fairways for major championship venues, but like you, I think the best presentation for a membership is as wide as can be imagined...and with gently rolling land such as at Merion it can have incredibly interesting effects on the play of the holes for good players and also increase interest and enjoyment for the majority of a clubs members and guests.



As to the subject, the similarities are indeed there to #12 at PV from an overhead view, but the green configurations are substantially different, don't you think? For starters, at Pine Valley it is virtually always beneficial to play your approach from green high while at Merion there is a location in the back right that greatly favors a shorter tee shot than the one that would reach green high. There is also the run-away nature of the 12th at PV that plays a critical role in shot selection...Merion's hole does not have the same feature.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

With respect to # 12 at PV and # 10 at Merion, while the internal contouring of the greens is different, the holes are remarkably similar in look and play.

Light years closer to one another than # 14 at NGLA and # 10 at Merion.

Years ago, I mentioned to TEPaul, the concept of horizontal elasticity, the narrowing of the fairways for a particular event, and the restoration of the fairway widths once the event was completed.

While the narrowing process is fairly simple, the restoration to the widest margins is a little more involved.

However, it's a concept with merit.

Wide playing corridors make playing the game more enjoyable for the membership as a whole.

One of the obstacles to restoring width is the "head set"  that golfers have, in that, they want to play the golf course that the "PROS" play.

They think it's macho, I think it's foolish.

But, golfers as a whole believe that they are better than they really are.  That they can execute shots beyond their ability, and, that I believe is what holds the lure and the key to the desire to retain narrow fairways.

The inherent lure of the game is the challenge and there are those out there that want to face the same challenge that the best players in the world face.   They want the same challenge that they saw on TV last week or last month, and as such, there's an insidious internal pressure to retain the golf course in its most challenging form, rather than in it's most enjoyable and thought provoking form.

I view it as a cultural change brought about by TV.

Dictating play makes the game easier in one aspect and harder in others.

I like to observe golfers on the tee, facing an expansive fairway, declaring how easy a driving hole they're playing,
with a puzzled look on their face as they view their uncomfortable approach shot from less than an ideal spot in the fairway.

It dawns on some that the fairway plays narrower than its perceived width, others never get it, which probably accounts for a higher handicap.

My concern is the competition in budgets caused by flower beds and nonsensical beautification programs versus the maintainance of wide fairways.

End of rant.

[JESII]

From your experience with these type of clubs, would there ever be a chance of selling the green committee on a slightly less[/i] pristine fairway surface than is currently presented? It obviously will come down to dollars and cents at the vast majority of clubs (maybe not PV, Merion, ANGC etc...), so I wonder if 30% more fairway acreage could be maintained for the same cost if the specifications were lessened a bit.

Could this be sold in the run of the mill country club setting?

[JESII]

Oh, and on topic...again...I haven't played NGLA, but do agree that PV 12 and MGC 10 are extremely similar.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

My gut feeling is that sacrificing fairway quality for additional width would be a hard sell almost anywhere. I hate to say it but I'm afraid it's true. I'm afraid with some clubs even if there was no additonal expense they'd fight additonal fairway width. The question or debate would just revolve around the easier vs harder issue. I've seen that one enough to know.

[JESII]

I am sure you are right tom, but it's no less a shame.

Just take that one hole we have on here...#10 at Merion...widening that fairway back out to what Wayne told me was 50 yards in 1930 would be something else. For frame of referrence, I think he also said it's 28 yards now...imagine twice the fairway width on that hole...it would almost completely have to come on the left side there and you and I both know it wouls be no bargain pitching onto that green from down in the left side there, and that's exactly where the ball would filter to if it landed right at the edge of the current fairway line.

I think about HVCC with that type of extreme width and just love the thought of it. Considering the land slopes of the fairways, they wouldn't play all that wide, but you could feasibly get them to 55 or 60 yards in many places without disrupting much at all.

Back to the topic, and the slight diversion Patrick brought up...do you know the timing of the final iteration of #12 at PV (what is on the ground today) as compared to the current version of #10 at Merion? I assume the PV hole predates Merions by a couple years, but it seems pretty close.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I think that fairway line on the left on Merion's #10 hasn't been inside the left greenside bunker for many many years if ever. It's kind of hard to tell on a 1924 aerial but on a 1930 photo it's pretty clear it didn't. I know what you mean though but I guess I'm about as ambivalent about that on that hole as I am on the 11th.

Frankly, either way is fine by me.

[JESII]

Then I'll take your vote, combine it with mine and together we can split a cup of coffee with it...small!

Think about #'s 6 and 7 at HVCC and imagine the fairway widened all the way over to the hazard on each hole...a few trees might need to be sacrificed, but the upside would be tremendous if you ask me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I agree, taking a step backwards in the condition of the fairway is NOT a viable option.

The members have been indoctrinated to today's playing surfaces for some time, therefore, I doubt that any club would take a step backwards.

JES II,

I don't see the how you come up with the 30 % figure.
I think that's high.

Perhaps not at clubs that originallly had very wide fairways and narrowed them to tournament widths, but, at most clubs, that seems excessive.

With the advent of forward, Senior, Junior and sets of Ladies tees, perhaps the fairway/rough lines nearest the tees could be extended toward the green, offsetting the net change in fairway acreage under maintainance.

[JESII]

It was very scientific Pat, I reached around back here where I'm sitting and pulled it out of my arse...