Why Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

Then why build an "alps" hole that was totally out of context with the land ?

Why HEAVILY construct a hole that breaks the continuity of the other, more natural holes ?

Why would someone do that ?

Unless of course, CBM had designed and supported its construction, subsequently approved by Wilson ?  ?  ?

[Mike_Cirba]

MPC,

Then why build an "alps" hole that was totally out of context with the land ?

Why HEAVILY construct a hole that breaks the continuity of the other, more natural holes ?

Why would someone do that ?

Unless of course, CBM had designed and supported its construction, subsequently approved by Wilson ?  ?  ?

Patrick,

Sheesh...finally, at least you're giving credit to Wilson for some control, which if you read Max Behr, was almost total and dictatorial.   You would have loved him.

In answer to your question, he was just learning.   So was the committee.  Some of the biggest names in the game were stating publicly that one had to build copies of famous holes to create a great course.   I'm sure that those pressures created some tacit acceptance of the practice within the Merion committee, although their attempts were woeful, as evidenced by what we see and what others like Far and Sure reported.

It seems the first iteration of the course was "good".   It took a couple of iterations for it to become "great", and Wilson was the one constant thread through that process.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

We agree, from 1912 on, it was Wilson's baby.

But, I'm more interested in the period prior to 1912.

Why would a club create an "alps" hole where the land really didn't scream, "ALPS HOLE" ?

Why engage in heavy earth moving ?

Why build a Redan ?

Why build an Eden ?

I'm seeing a common thread here, a connection to ......

[Mike_Cirba]

MPC,

We agree, from 1912 on, it was Wilson's baby.

But, I'm more interested in the period prior to 1912.

Why would a club create an "alps" hole where the land really didn't scream, "ALPS HOLE" ?

Why engage in heavy earth moving ?

Why build a Redan ?

Why build an Eden ?

I'm seeing a common thread here, a connection to ......

a connection to.....

a methodology that was somewhat rote and tied much too closely to being "layed out" on land that was sand-based and wind-driven, which the good students of Merion very, very quickly learned. 

What Merion learned, IMO, is that the further inland one turned, one almost had to hyper-accentuate the unnatural features to compensate for the lack of firm and fast condtions and wind.   This is eventually what first Raynor, and then Charles Banks had to do, with his 20 feet deep bunkers, and increasingly contoured and hyper-extensive green contours, nearly vertical bunker walls, and prominent surrounding mounds. 

Merion quickly took a major detour from this very prescriptive approach, likely as early as late 1910/early 1911.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What Merion learned, IMO, is that the further inland one turned, one almost had to hyper-accentuate the unnatural features to compensate for the lack of firm and fast condtions and wind.   

This is eventually what first Raynor, and then Charles Banks had to do, with his 20 feet deep bunkers, and increasingly contoured and hyper-extensive green contours, nearly vertical bunker walls, and prominent surrounding mounds. 

That's an interesting, if not unique theory.

According to your theory, the more you moved inland, the more dramatic the features had to be, and the closer you were to the water, the more muted the features would be.

How then do you explain the pronounced features at Fisher's Island, Monterey Penisula, CC of Fairfield, Everglades, Mid Ocean, The Creek, Gibson Island and Lido ?  All hard by the water.

I would have listed Southampton, but, that's not right on the water.

I'd abandon your career as a theorist on the relationship between pronounced features, inland and on the water

Merion quickly took a major detour from this very prescriptive approach, likely as early as late 1910/early 1911.

I thought Garden City Golf Club did that over a decade earlier

Stick to your day job, you have no future in becoming an architectural theorist.

[wsmorrison]

Regarding the original 10th at Merion East,  If I recall correctly, the fronting bunkers added blindness to the approach

You do not recall correctly. 



By the way, what do you think was the purpose of building the green so high with the massive 15' berm? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regarding the original 10th at Merion East,  If I recall correctly, the fronting bunkers added blindness to the approach

You do not recall correctly. 

This picture is taken from the side, not from the approach as the golfer would see it.
[/color]



By the way, what do you think was the purpose of building the green so high with the massive 15' berm?

"THE" purpose ?  Or, ONE of the purposes ?

One of the purposes was to protect golfers on the 10th green from shots on the first hole.

Gee Wayne, do I get a novice badge for answering the question correctly ? 

Can someone post a legitimate picture showing the green and approach as the golfer saw it ?[/color

[wsmorrison]

You are now entitled to a Novice Badge Third Class 

If you cannot tell from the photo that the fronting bunker did nothing to obscure the view of the green, I must insist you give back the badge and are demoted to the Mike Malone Badge First Class.  Surely you know the relationship between the landing area, the road, the bunker and the green.  It is not a difficult process to construct.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne,  I wasn't there, so I cant say for sure how the hole played, but I seem to recall reports that the approach was blind.   

And the photo is far from dispositive.  Notice the people watching from front of the green, they appear to be leaning on and peering over a mound.   Also notice that the same mound continues to the left of the spectators, and  partially blocks visibility of the bunker on the right.  Also notice how much lower the golfers are that the spectators, one can only see the top of the tent behind them on the right.  To me the green appears to have been at least somewhat of a punchbowl shape, which would increase the blind nature of the hole. 

Also, as you are aware, the Flynn sketch of the hole shows three mounds in the front bunker.   Also notice that the staircase up from the road.  It looks like about a 6 ft. incline doesn't it?   
Was there an offsetting decline on the other side of the road?   I don't know. 

Also, if I recollect correctly, at least one of the early accounts described the land sloping down substantially into the green.

But like I said, I wasn't there.  So all I can go on are the various accounts of the hole. 

Findlay, Lesley, et al thought it was an Alps.  And who am I to disagree?

But I am getting ahead of myself . . .

[wsmorrison]

Those objects Flynn drew in the bunkers have, in the past, proved to be high undulating mounds, low mounds or at times just islands of turf in sand. 

The staircase leading from the road to the greenside area is less than six feet.  It doesn't really matter because the fairway was on the same level on the opposite side.  There was a slight drop onto the road from the tee side of that hole that would have matched what you are looking at.  In other words, the road was slightly sunken.

The accounts I've seen mentioned the green as 8' above the surrounding grade sloped towards the tee shot landing area.

Now let me go to the other thread and put all of this to rest....

[TEPaul]

All:

Go over to the thread "David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO" and take a look at post #564.

Maybe, David Moriarty's piece is excellent if the small matter of its conclusion being wrong is not a big  issue with too many people!

[Patrick_Mucci]

You are now entitled to a Novice Badge Third Class 

If you cannot tell from the photo that the fronting bunker did nothing to obscure the view of the green, I must insist you give back the badge and are demoted to the Mike Malone Badge First Class. 

I consider that the lowest possible demotion and the ultimate insult to a golf course architecture buff.

However, I don't recall where, but, I've seen a picture of the old 10th and I believe it either had a mini-berm close to the road and/or fronting bunkers.

If anyone has a photo of the approach from the tee side of the road, I'd appreciate them posting it.[/color]

Surely you know the relationship between the landing area, the road, the bunker and the green.  It is not a difficult process to construct.

You're viewing the hole in its current context, its current configuration.

An old photo from the tee side of the road would clarify what was and what wasn't
there.

It's quite possible that the Mike Malone Badge First Class might be bestowed upon you. [/color]

[DMoriarty]

Those objects Flynn drew in the bunkers have, in the past, proved to be high undulating mounds, low mounds or at times just islands of turf in sand. 

The staircase leading from the road to the greenside area is less than six feet.  It doesn't really matter because the fairway was on the same level on the opposite side.  There was a slight drop onto the road from the tee side of that hole that would have matched what you are looking at.  In other words, the road was slightly sunken.

The accounts I've seen mentioned the green as 8' above the surrounding grade sloped towards the tee shot landing area.

Now let me go to the other thread and put all of this to rest....

Green was 8' foot above the surrounding grade?   I think we read the same article.  That is not what it says.   Look at the photo you posted.  Does it look like the green was 8 feet above the grade?