David
The real crux of the issue is the determination of the major principles of a Redan. As the Redan has historically been described as a hole which can be played by flighting a shot to bounce into the green, I consider this to be a major design principle. I would like to see you bounce one into Merion's 3rd. This may have been a principle which CB Mac didn't think important. I strongly disagree and it has nothing to do with arrogance as you charitably suggest. Other principle design elements would include:
-Front to back sloping green which also slopes from one side or the other - both concepts to encourage use of the slopes for the bounce in
- Danger left and right, there needn't be danger immediately short of the green because the shape of the green is protection enough from this line of play
-Slightly uphill - the combination of this with the green and its surrounds somewhat conceals the line of play for a bounce in shot
I understand that some may disagree with my interpretation of a Redan. However, if one is going to call a hole a Redan I would have thought it reasonable that main principles of the design were included. There are plenty of ways to describe a hole. If a namesake is going to be used, imo, for clarity and ease of understanding, it is best that the hole in question actually display the principles of the namesake.
Ciao
Sean, with all due respect, I do not think that "real crux of the issue is the determination of the major principles of a Redan." For me, the real cruces of the issue are understanding how these guys understood the concept, why they designed and built the these holes the way they did, and how and why they used the term "redan" as a reference to certain holes.
To me, your point seems largely semantic and purely definitional. You define a "Redan" a certain way and want to use it only a certain way. Fair enough. It is even reasonable for you to advocate your definition and usage on an ongoing basis. But realize yours is still just a definition and a label. It seems pointless for you to foist your definition and understanding onto a time period that clearly looked at the term differently, especially in the context of a conversation aimed at trying to understand the historical origins of a golf hole that is almost 100 years old. Your definition is largely irrelevant when it comes to understanding whether or not Wilson, Leslie, CBM, Whigham, Findlay, etc. meant Merion third to be a Redan and/or thought Merion's 3rd was a Redan. Also, if I may be so bold, you might find out that even you could learn a few things about what is really at the core of the greatness of the Redan by trying to better understand just why and how these guys understood the Redan concept(s.)
All that being said, I generally agree with your determination of the major principles of a
pure redan. But I also agree with CBM that the major concept(s) of the Redan can and should be applied in numerous circumstances, depending on the natural characteristics of the land in question.
Keep in mind that when CBM was active, the American landscape was not yet littered with imitation Redans. In fact, the landscape was nearly barren when it came to quality golf holes which seamlessly incorporated sophisticated strategic elements. CBM was trying to teach America the most fundamental concepts of quality golf design, and the Redan was one of his
poster children. But he was not necessarily trying to teach exact adherence or copying of the Redan, but rather the incorporation of the underlying concepts. So in this context, he used the underlying concepts less stringently in his designs, and he and others used the references to the Redan rather generously. To do otherwise would have stifled not only the conversation, it would have stifled golf the development of golf architecture in America.
Back to
your understanding of the underlying fundamental principles of a Redan.
1. Conceptually, what difference does it make whether or not the ball starts running short of the green or whether it starts running actually on the green,
so long as the golfer is afforded the opportunity to access the area behind the bunker without actually carrying the bunker? For comparison: On a CBM inspired Biarritz, the concept is for the ball to hit short of the swale and run through the swale and onto the back portion of the green. Sometimes the swale and the front portion were/are maintained as part of the green, and sometimes they are not. Conceptually, couldn't this also be the case with a Redan?
2. Functionally, I do not understand the importance of an extended run-up area on a
reverse Redan, at least for the vast majority of golfers. I am left handed. Without one heck of a right-to-left and helping wind and one heck of a golf shot, I do not believe it is possible for a left-handed golfer to land a ball short of 'real' redan (assuming NGLA's is real) and run a ball to the back of the green. I've tried, as have others, and I just do not think that fades have the trajectory or overspin to get the process started, even with a kicker. I believe even Mike Cirba agrees with me on this one. So functionally, for left-handed golfers the landing area short is rather irrelevant, isn't it.
And wouldn't the opposite be true for right-handed golfers? Surely you don't think that right-handed golfers should intentionally try to land high fades well short of the putting surface on reverse redans, do you? For what purpose? If they do, I think they would usually be very disappointed with the results, even if they thought they executed perfectly.
[For these reasons, I think that a Redan purist or traditionalist such as yourself should argue that the concept of a "reverse redan" is fundamentally flawed. For almost all golfers (the right-handed ones) the supposed reverse-Redan is just not functionally viable as a Redan.]
3. What if a side-to-side slope allowed the golfer to accomplish the same thing as the golfer could on a the front-to-back and side-to-side green on a pure Redan? What if the golfer could still run the ball around the bunker to the guarded portion of the green? You would not consider this a redan, I guess. But is there a functional reason for the distinction, or is it merely a definitional formality?
With a pure Redan, I can see that doing away with the front-to-back slope might make it too easy on a golfer who wants to simply hit a high fade or straight ball over the bunker to the middle of the green. But wouldn't a green without the front to back slope make more sense for a reverse redan, where--
if the green sloped away-- a right-handed draw over the bunker to the middle of the green would almost inevitably bound over the green into oblivion?
4. I would slightly re-characterize your definition to emphasize that, on a Redan, while the large flanking bunker fronts most of the green, there is an opening at the front corner of the diagonal green, and those portions of the green behind the bunker are made accessible through a combination of the groundslope and a perfect shot with both the right spin and trajectory.
5. I would add a distance element to any definition of a pure redan, because it seems like it would work best and present the most interesting challenge for a shot with a longer iron. I would also note that a Pure redan ought to be situated on a natural ridge or plateau, and that the green ought to be set diagonally to the tee.
Lastly, I am still curious about a few things:
-- Do you consider NGLA's Redan a real Redan?
-- Do you consider any supposed reverse Redan a real Redan?
-- What are the supposed Redans that qualify as real Redans under your understanding?
____________________________________________
David -
Yes, it's just lil' 'ole Sean, Jim and Bob wondering what is Redanish about the 3rd. Just three bozos and the only thing they have on their side is what they see.
Tell us what you see. Don't make your argument from authority. Tell us what you see.
If I might be so bold, sometimes the authorities are wrong.
That is what your Merion essay is about, no?
Bob
No. My essay accepts the opinions and descriptions of the Authorities who actually knew first-hand what was going on when Merion was built. The Authorities with such knowledge Hugh Wilson, Tillinghast, Lesley, Findlay, even Alan Wilson (who apparently got his information second hand) are all backing me up.
As for what I see, it really doesn't matter. I wasn't even addressing "what you see" but rather how you label and define what you see. In other words, I was addressing the meaning you attach to what you see and and how you choose to apply your contemporary understanding to a circumstance which existed almost 100 years ago.
While it makes no difference, I
see why the third at Merion was considered a Redan. But then I am left-handed, so I am naturally dyslexic when it comes to reading golf architecture.
Look, I don't have the experience at either the National or Merion to make draw any sort of final conclusions about the playing characteristics of either hole, but I will tell you that in my limited experience Merion's 3rd works much better as a Redan for a left-hander than does the National's. I try to avoid talking about my game because it is boring for others and a rather sad topic for me, and I try not to base my opinion about architecture on my game. But because my perception keeps coming up . . . Miracle of miracles, I have been lucky enough to hit the shots I was envisioning in my couple of plays at NGLA and in my one play at Merion:
-- At NGLA I hit a slightly fading six iron that I thought was perfect and it sat short of the green without running more than a few feet. Another time with old hickory shafted clubs I hit a fading mid-iron that was exactly as I envisioned, and the result was exactly the same; ball just short of the green near where it landed. In one of these plays (if I recall correctly) another left-hander carried further onto the green but still did not get the run he was looking for. All the shots had the wrong trajectory and spin for the terrain so they did not run. As it should be.
-- At Merion, the 3rd visually sets up perfectly for a left-handed golfer who imagines hitting the ball through the gap on the front left and running the ball to the right or back right. While I did not try to land my shot short, in what was one of only a few good shots that day I hit a hickory shafted mid-iron (erroneously and humorously stamped with an "8") shot with a slight draw onto the front left portion of the green and the ball released and rolled to the right portion of the green, toward the back. Pretty much as I would expect on a reverse Redan.
____________________
Interestingly, a quote underneath the picture from Horace Hutchinson states, “The Redan is a deep, steep-faced bunker 
close to the green, but it is of no great length or breadth. The driven ball may go nicely to the right of it and curl round so as to lie on the green without crossing the great escarpment of the fortification at all. But it has an aspect of no little terror as one faces it from the tee.” (pg. 77) (emphasis added).
Chris, I think this is a terrific description in that it hits on at least part of the brilliant functionality of the hole. With the proper shot, the golfer can outflank the bunker to get behind it.
I will humbly suggest that the fundamental principle of a redan is the angle to the line of play and the inside/fronting hazard that protects the direct line to the flag. I think all of us, armchair architects and professionals, probably “doodled” this hole thousands of times instinctively without having a clue as to the deeper meaning or principles behind the strategy of the hole—it is just a “natural” instinct among many I think to draw a hole that ends up like a “redan”.
While this may be true now, I don't think that this was the case in America at the time Merion was designed then built. CBM was introducing these concepts to a large segment of golf in America. That today we all naturally doodle this type of hole might be considered indication that CBM was on to something.
_________________________________
Pat
Youa re right. The terms you mention are concepts and as such the concepts of the terms should be included if we are going to use them as descriptors. I have a 3 year old next door neighbour who often confuses the concept of a car with a motorcycle. Sure, they both have engines, steering mechanisms and wheels, that doesn't make them the same thing. The hope here is that the 3 year old will eventually discern the difference.
Ciao
Interesting analogy, but it misses something. Let me give it a try . . .
When my daughter was about three, I took her to an automotive museum and she would not believe that a Model A Ford was a car. She thought it was a Santa sleigh with bike wheels. From her perspective, I can see why she thought it was not an automobile. If you think about it, it really has very little in common with the cars with which she was familiar. But her perspective fails to consider the long evolution of the automobile and ignores the context in which the Model A was designed and built.
________________________
Kirk Gill, that quote just goes to show you that there may be hope for the website after all. When confronted with compelling evidence, even Patrick Mucci is capable of reconsidering his beliefs.