[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

Unfortunately, I haven't played Piping Rock either.  a sad plight I'm hoping to rectify some day.

However, I did read Ran's writeup of the hole;

3rd hole 185 yards; The Redan hole for many. Who can argue? The front left bunker is a full twelve feet deep, making it the most intimidating of Macdonald/Raynor’s Redan front bunkers. Still, the bunker should be avoided as the green has great sweep from front right to back left. The proper aim can be as much as twenty yards right of certain hole locations, and seeing the ball take the slope just perfectly is the favorite shot for many on this course.

Hmm...sure doesn't sound like it plays like the 3rd at Merion! 

Of course it does.

The only disparity is the cant of the green.

I deny that I'm in denial. 

I knew that before I typed MY words.

[John Kirk]

Thanks very much for the detailed follow-up discussion.

I really like the 3rd at Merion.  I think it is a top notch par 3.

[Mike_Cirba]

Me too, John.   

In that regard, I think a picture is in order. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Were the greens really as big as they appear to be in the photos? I know it has been said that the course has remained almost unchanged but have Merion really managed to retain the green size and shape since the early 19thC?

[PCCraig]

Go Chick!

[TEPaul]

"TE,
"There seems to be a defensive posture, confined solely to Merion, that holds forth that if # 3 doesn't have every characteristic or the precise configuration found at the holes at North Berwick and/or NGLA, then it can't possibly be a Redan.
This, despite the fact that an enormously broad spectrum of sources/references, over a very lengthy time period, clearly refer to # 3 at Merion as a Redan.
It almost seems as if there's a subtle or not so subtle attempt to deny a legacy."


Pat:

There's absolutely no defensiveness on my part about anyone calling Merion East's #3 a redan. And I don't think you'll find any post from me anywhere on this website about whether it should or shouldn't be called a redan. All I've ever done on the subject of Merion's #3 is answer questions about the way that green actually is and seemingly always has been.

Personally, I've always thought the years of argument on this website about Merion's #3 being a redan or not is a waste of time.

I'm most certainly aware it was called that and early on by a whole lot of people and certainly plenty who knew what was going on back then in golf and architecture. I'm also aware that Merion East's original 10th was called an "Alps" and the 15th was called an "Eden."

If Merion East's #3 was considered to be a redan or a form of redan by Hugh Wilson and his committee and by the club I can see a good reason for it----eg their connection to Macdonald and NGLA early on and the green at least is set on top of a natural ridgeline which is one of the general proscriptions for a redan green.

If they did consider it a redan back in that day which they seemed to it probably was the second one done in this country (right after NGLA's) and for that reason there wasn't anything to compare it to other than NGLA or NB.

As time went on many other redans were done by Macdonald/Whigam and even Tillinghast and others and the fact is most every other one I've ever heard of that was considered to be a redan or was called that basically sloped down and away somehow on a basic diagonal or in some form of hook or L shaped green as Somerset Hills' #2.

The fact is Merion's doesn't do that at all (the green slopes basically from front to back with quite a left to right tilt) even though it is set on a slight diagonal orientation to the tee shot.

But I don't really care what anyone wants to call it and I'm certainly not going to get into that debate and I never have. I l think it's a waste of time---the hole just is what it is and we know what it is and always has been.

[TEPaul]

"There appears to be a group of individuals who feel that CBM's involvement at Merion or any replications of CBM's design principles at Merion somehow diminishes Merion's pedigree or the quality of the golf course.  As a result, a culture of denial has arisen, such that anything that's attributed to CBM, either directly or remotely is automatically rejected as heresy."


Pat:

You can believe that if you want to but I've lived here for over thirty five years and I probably know a couple of hundred people from Merion over the years and I can guarantee you I have never heard a single one of them say or imply that an involvement by CBM with that course would diminish Merion's pedigree. Matter of fact, in expectation of that essay on here a pretty impressive group of them (including those who run that club) were actually excited about the expectation that there was some new and theretofore unknown information that CBM may've had more to do with it than was ever told before.

The only problem is those people do know the club's history and they certainly weren't impressed by the tortured logic of people and events in that essay.

The only people I'm aware of who said anything about Merion or some of us here being defensive about this were two guys who don't really know a thing about the club itself and its members. One may've been here once and the other one has never even been to Merion. He's probably never even been to Philadelphia even though he thinks he knows everything about it and its golf and architecture history as well as what the people here thought and think!   

You can take his word for it and the word of the other fellow who seemed to team up with him on this if you want to Pat, but a more intelligent approach might be to take the word of someone who's been here for thirty five years and has been pretty intimately involved with Merion golf course and club and particularly most of its members during that time. 

Someone can even revisit a few particulars (facts) such as that 1912 trip of Wilson's abroad (perhaps the only one) but it really doesn't matter now as the fact is after that fact was thoroughly and logically analyzed (through additional material) it just didn't make a damn bit of difference to the fact that Wilson and his commitee designed Merion East with some advice and suggestions from Macdonald and Whigam which has always been part of Merion's history right from the beginning.

The H.H. Barker information is a complete non-issue in the design of Merion East and it always was and the club's administrative records prove that.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You can also claim that the 3rd at Piping Rock plays pretty similar to Merion's 3rd but I sure wouldn't say something like that. And don't forget, I grew up at Piping Rock and have probably played that course a couple of hundreds times at least just as with Merion East.

I certainly haven't seen all the redans in America but of the ones I have I've always felt the classic "redan shot" into Piping's Redan is the best I've ever seen and played with the possible exception of NGLA's. When the ground and greens on those courses is firm and fast those two holes play as good as any redan I've ever seen.

And for a really great playing "Reverse Redan" I have never seen another one play as good as the old Links Club's (NLE).

[Sean_A]

Tom P is correct that it doesn't matter what you call Merion's 3rd, but if the original is being used as the model, it is quite clear this hole isn't a Redan or even a reverse Redan if such a thing can exist.  One of the main principles of a Redan is being able to bounce a ball up and take advantage of the contours.  I would like to see that shot pulled off on this hole.


Could it not be the case that these ODGs were honouring the namesakes and therefore the original architects/beginnings of golf by merely using these templates as inspiration - quite literally in the case of CBM?  Because a hole is labeled as Redan or whatever, doesn't make it one - no matter who is doing the labeling. 

Ciao

[Jim Nugent]

[Actually, the photos go a lot further than that.  Look at the 2nd to the last photo in Mike Cirba's post #6.  The caption not only identifies #7 as a Redan.  Also says it was modeled after the famous Redans at  N. Berwick and NGLA.   CBM influence?   

Maybe an illusion, but in that picture it looks like the green slopes front to back.  Is that so?  Did Merion change this green somewhere along the way, to remove that feature?   

Jim,

Truly, I think that's an illusion.   If you go back to my first post and look at the 3rd green during the 1916 US Amateur, I think you'll see pretty clearly that the orientation of the green is back to front.

There is no question that the hole was inspired by the redan concept, whether from North Berwick or from Macdonald's National Golf Links, and as you'll see on my next thread, these guys go way, way back.

However, "inspired" does not a template hole make, and it really doesn't meet most of the major playability criteria of what we think of when we consider the shot values and options of a typical redan hole.

Mike, putting aside which way the green sloped, does the green in that picture look like today's green?  I mean in where its boundaries are, its orientation from the tee, green space, etc. 

[TEPaul]

JimN:

The 3rd green is no different today than it was in that second to last photo in Mike Cirba's post #6, particularly after the rear of it was restored and expanded back to it's original dimensions fairly recently. I guarantee you that green slopes back to front (and right to left coming from the back) pretty dramatically. A putt from back there to a frontish pin position would be some pretty tricky business due to speed and break. I've tried it many times over the years.

[TEPaul]

"Could it not be the case that these ODGs were honouring the namesakes and therefore the original architects/beginnings of golf by merely using these templates as inspiration - quite literally in the case of CBM?  Because a hole is labeled as Redan or whatever, doesn't make it one - no matter who is doing the labeling."


Sean Arble:


I don't know that it would be historically accurate to say Merion was honoring Macdonald or holes from the other side (or their architects most of whom were probably unknown anyway) by doing a hole like #3 or calling it a redan. Again, we need to appreciate that Merion's redan when it was done in 1911 was probably only the second one done in America (right behind NGLA's) and the second hole to be a basic copy of NB's #15 at that time.

I think Merion and the Wilson Committee were more into following Macdonald's new model of creating architectural excellence by following the architectural principles of old and highly respected holes from the other side. But, again, don't forget, when Merion East was done that idea (of Macdonald's) was a new idea as even NGLA had not yet formally opened.   

I believe that MCC (Merion) was probably the very first club that asked Macdonald to do something in architecture for them. I also think the basic reason they asked for his advice was because they felt they wanted to go about creating a design and course the same way he had with NGLA---eg by "amateur/sportsmen" via a committee doing the job. Don't forget that Macdonald himself proposed that NGLA would be done by a three man committee----eg himself, Whigam and Travis with a professional engineer on board.

[John Gosselin]

Does anyone know exactly where the original tee location was? The reason I ask is that I was told that the original tee was behind the second green or back left of the second green. Would this give the tee shot a right to left kick once it hit the green? Where were the original bunkers in 1911?

[Kyle Harris]

Does anyone know exactly where the original tee location was? The reason I ask is that I was told that the original tee was behind the second green or back left of the second green. Would this give the tee shot a right to left kick once it hit the green? Where were the original bunkers in 1911?

John,

Could this simply coincide with the fact that the 6th hole was the original 3rd?

[Jim Nugent]

JimN:

The 3rd green is no different today than it was in that second to last photo in Mike Cirba's post #6, particularly after the rear of it was restored and expanded back to it's original dimensions fairly recently.

If someone took a picture today, from the same place, the green would look almost exactly the same then? 

[TEPaul]

Kyle and JohnG:

That's true----eg there was a tee to the left of the second green but it was for what is now #6 which played as #3 in the 1916 US Amateur. I will check with Wayne about it but the original 2nd green was somewhat short of where today's 2nd green is. I can't recall at the moment if the 2nd green had been moved to its present position by and for the 1916 US Amateur.

The tee for #3 has always been right where it is now (not including the new US Open back tee considerably farther back).

I'll tell you something pretty interesting about that 3rd green and the endless argument about it being a real redan----that is if it could be played to from the direction of a spot about 150-175 yards from the 6th green (probaby up in the rough) it really would be a classic diagonally oriented redan with a green that naturally fell away from right to left and down. From that direction it would also have very much of a fairway kicker (like a traditional redan) and that massive bunker on the side would be perfectly placed as a traditional massive and extremely deep redan bunker.

But alas, anyone who knows a whit about routing could tell quite easily a hole like that from that direction could not fit well into a good routing on that long and narrow L shaped property.  

[Sean_A]

"Could it not be the case that these ODGs were honouring the namesakes and therefore the original architects/beginnings of golf by merely using these templates as inspiration - quite literally in the case of CBM?  Because a hole is labeled as Redan or whatever, doesn't make it one - no matter who is doing the labeling."


Sean Arble:


I don't know that it would be historically accurate to say Merion was honoring Macdonald or holes from the other side (or their architects most of whom were probably unknown anyway) by doing a hole like #3 or calling it a redan. Again, we need to appreciate that Merion's redan when it was done in 1911 was probably only the second one done in America (right behind NGLA's) and the second hole to be a basic copy of NB's #15 at that time.

I think Merion and the Wilson Committee were more into following Macdonald's new model of creating architectural excellence by following the architectural principles of old and highly respected holes from the other side. But, again, don't forget, when Merion East was done that idea (of Macdonald's) was a new idea as even NGLA had not yet formally opened.   

I believe that MCC (Merion) was probably the very first club that asked Macdonald to do something in architecture for them. I also think the basic reason they asked for his advice was because they felt they wanted to go about creating a design and course the same way he had with NGLA---eg by "amateur/sportsmen" via a committee doing the job. Don't forget that Macdonald himself proposed that NGLA would be done by a three man committee----eg himself, Whigam and Travis with a professional engineer on board.

I spose the problem I have with this sort of thing is how could the ODGs get it so wrong unless getting it right was never the intention - which is what I think was the case.  The roughly general architectural idea that the land would fairly easily permit is all that was sought and the namesake must have been more or less an honorary deal for lack of a better thing to call the hole.  These guys would have known perfectly well that theirs weren't Redans and they would have known why.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

This debate about what is and what isn't a redan or one of those so-called prototype holes and what all has to be included to even be called that has been going on endlessly on this website despite how many times people like George Bahto, me and others have said (even using Macdonald's own statements) that these holes were all about BASIC PRINCIPLES, and probably PRINCIPLES very much used in alternate fashions and not about EXACT COPIES!

God only knows why so many on here just refuse to listen year after year and continue to fight it.

Furthermore some of the best analysts on architecture such as Herbert Warren Wind stated that Hugh Wilson used those basic architectural principles (from abroad or even from Macdonald?) with probably a great deal more latitude of interpretation than Macdonald/Raynor apparently did.

Some on here have even accused H.W. Wind himself of denigrating Macdonald and unjustly glorifying Wilson for saying that.

My God! Of course they didn't really care if they weren't exactly copying these things with what they did even though they used those hole names. I'll tell you if Wilson had to deal with as many architectural blockheads and such mindbending intransigence in this particular way back then as are around today it is no wonder the poor man died so young!!  

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble:

This debate about what is and what isn't a redan or one of those so-called prototype holes and what all has to be included to even be called that has been going on endlessly on this website despite how many times people like George Bahto, me and others have said (even using Macdonald's own statements) that these holes were all about BASIC PRINCIPLES, and probably PRINCIPLES very much used in alternate fashions and not about EXACT COPIES!

God only knows why so many on here just refuse to listen year after year and continue to fight it.

Furthermore some of the best analysts on architecture such as Herbert Warren Wind stated that Hugh Wilson used those basic architectural principles (from abroad or even from Macdonald?) with probably a great deal more latitude of interpretation than Macdonald/Raynor apparently did.

Some on here have even accused H.W. Wind himself of denigrating Macdonald and unjustly glorifying Wilson for saying that.

My God! Of course they didn't really care if they weren't exactly copying these things with what they did even though they used those hole names. I'll tell you if Wilson had to deal with as many architectural blockheads and such mindbending intransigence in this particular way back then as are around today it is no wonder the poor man died so young!! 

Tom

I know where you are coming from, but remember, the template names are descriptive and it doesn't do much good to mis-label them because it can confuse all but the most intimately involved with the hole.  Its sort of like your hangup with the use of "hazard" in a non-rule way!

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"If someone took a picture today, from the same place, the green would look almost exactly the same then?"

JimN:

Yes, I would say that's true. I don't believe anything has been done to that green architecturally other than what happens with the usual time and tide of close to a century.   

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I know where you are coming from, but remember, the template names are descriptive and it doesn't do much good to mis-label them because it can confuse all but the most intimately involved with the hole."

Sean:

In that case if someone feels they are becoming confused for some reason, my suggestion to them would be to simply not call that particular hole a redan.

Frankly, Merion calls it their 3rd hole and has for many, many decades. I'm really not sure where in the hell all this endless debate about it (and the original 10th hole as a real "Alps" or not) came from on this website but I suspect it was those couple of guys who were just trying to promote, at all costs, a greater Macdonald/Whigam influence on this golf course by screaming at the top of their lungs that they could produce proof that various people back then referred to some of these Merion holes by their template names, and so somehow that must have meant that Macdonald/Whigam logically routed and designed the course. 

I don't think Merion really cared or cares one way or the other who called them what. I know I sure don't. So if it bothers you Sean, my suggestion is just don't refer to Merion's 3rd as a redan. I don't. And don't forget it probably was the second one ever built as a supposed copy of NB's so what they were supposed to be and look like probably wasn't so ingrained in those people back then from Merion.

In my opinion, frankly the original REDAN at NB doesn't look much like any other redan I've ever seen and so what?   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()