[Carl Rogers]

Would it be sacreligious or blasphemous to suggest cutting the rough around the green so that shots that miss the green roll into the water?

I am wondering how any of you would speculate about the US Open set up on Merion 9 or 11??

[Mike_Cirba]

Bradley,

This article by William Evans, a long-time golfwriter in Philadelphia who himself was a prominent member of GAP and Lansdowne CC talks about the changes to the 9th green (and others) made for the 1916 US Amateur.

I've also highlighted one paragraph that may have some interest to some of us here who are interested in attribution issues.     Please notice also the plaudits for the amazing skills of one William Flynn.

The article was unearthed by Joe Bausch a few months back...

[Mike_Cirba]

This 1912 picture has always fascinated me.   It was almost certainly taken by A.W. Tillinghast and included Hugh Willoughby and Howard Perrin in the shot.

Besides the obvious differences in the 9th green and surrounds, I've always been intrigued by the rectangular shaped object on the 10th fairway, which looks possibly to be a bunker with a steep side wall.. 

It doesn't appear in the 1916 shots I posted earlier that look up the 10th hole, but even in those, it is still apparent that something had been there prior.

[Mike_Cirba]

On the same day that Tillinghast took the above photo for his American Golfer review of Merion under his "Far and Sure" byline, he also took this cover photo of the original 10th hole at Merion for an article in American Cricketer which appeared in the same month (Jan 1913) under his actual name.

The white rectangular object can be seen behind trees in the left of the photo.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mike,

Do you think maybe that white area could be a borrow pit? It appears to be too far off of any line of play to be anything else. The white color of it could be lime.

The article indicates that a mound was built on the back left of the green. The term "mound" is really not the right word for the feature because it became part of the putting sward. The 1924 USGA article indicates that it was placed there so that the high mid-iron shot coming in to the green would be "well backed up" and so that the green would be "readily held".

I am still wondering however if that mound was ever lowered. Or if the left and right sides of the green were ever raised. If the answer to both of those questions is no, then what we have discovered between these old photos and the modern photos is something very amazing.

Would anyone like to guess what that amazing discovery is?

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

In that day and age if they needed some serious fill somewhere they generally weren't going far to get it. That huge bunker on #10 probably provided most of the material for the most significant man-made architectural feature on that golf course at that time----eg the enormous berm in the back of the 10th green. We have an old photo taken from the old first hole where one can see the back of it. It was huge---maybe 12-15 feet high in the rear and all the way across the back of the old 10th green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bradley,

While I'm not sure what you're driving at, this is a pic taken of the 9th about circa 1999.

I have some more at home from this time period and I'll try to add a better one that should show good detail tonight.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bradley,

For comparison purposes, here are the two pictures accompanying the MSU Turf article you linked to in your initial post on this thread.

[archie_struthers]

 


Merion's ninth hole never struck me as particularly hard.  It's a fabulous hole , as are almost all 18 at Merion , but aren't there a lot more demanding shots on the golf course than this??

[Bradley Anderson]

Sorry to Archie and Tom for not making my point more clear. 

What was my point?

First just to show that this was a very difficult shot when this hole was first built. Yes there are other very demanding shots at Merion both today, and back in the day. This shot in particular was one of the more difficult shots in golf.

Second, the photos that we have of this hole are a graphic illustration of what is happening to our older golf course greens. Particularly greens that have very tight green-side bunkers that see a lot of action. After years and years of sand blasting up on to greens, they become raised as much as two feet. Originally the ball could roll off of the green on number nine into the bunkers. And if the pin was tucked behind the left side bunker, you could have very easily ended up in that bunker if you went for the pin placement. However today you could play right of the pin and get a kick from the contours on the right side of the green that are built up from sand. These sand accumulations happen so slowly that we don't even realize how much they change the way greens play.

Nothing too enlightening I guess, but very fascinating to me.

[JESII]

Bradley,

I would think that same effect creates much more difficult greenside shots that deal with the raised edges...whether in the bunker or pitching across or along it...

I also wonder about the net impact you seem concerned about. If the greens putted at 5 or 6 feet it would need a pretty steep slope to pull a ball back off the green and into a bunker, no?

Also, this hole is so far downhill that I cannot see loft/trajectory being a primary concern with holding/hitting the green...the inaccuracy inherent in hickories would have made the narrow front portion of the green tough to hit, but so would the side of a bark with a hickory shafted 4 iron if you ask me...

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

I know just what you mean about the effects of so-called "sand splash" and how over time it can alter the tops of bunkers as well as the contours of green surfaces just over those bunker tops.

We've been acutely aware of this on certain courses and greens over time, particularly including some holes at Merion East and Pine Valley.

Logically, however, the degree of that kind of thing (the increased height or altered green surface contours of those bunker tops) can be pretty well tracked and documented over long periods of time by really understanding which of the bunkers and which types of bunkers get the most use from golfers.

Ironically, the 9th green from even as far back as around 1916 when the present green was apparently built (redone) does not look much different that way than it does today or through the years. We can somewhat confirm this too, at least to some extent, by comparing what we see on the ground at any point in time to some of Flynn's early drawings which have some detail in them such as ridges and hollows and arrows for "flow lines" (direction of slope and sheet drainage).

But a green that without question changed dramatically this way with constant golfer "sand splash" was Merion's #13 and that would make perfect sense because that enormous fronting bunker across the entire front of that green probably got 10-15 TIMES more play (and sand splash) than most all the rest of the bunkers that were not green fronting bunkers.

This issue is one that is also very prevalent and extremely identifiable on PV's #17 green fronting bunker. Anyone can tell that front bunker face, and the green surface immediately over it has grown in height by perhaps 3-4 feet over the years, as did Merion's green fronting bunker on #13; actually the latter one grew in height even more over the years and created a distinct turbo boost on the green surface immediately over it where originally that green surface over that bunker was flat or even sloping gently backwards into that fronting bunker on #13 Merion.

But examples like that are real exceptions with the effects of evolutionary sand splash build-up compared to other bunkers that do not get anywhere near the same amount of play.

[Bradley Anderson]

Jim,

This is long winded sentence but here goes:

I think that landing that shot was harder when the green was convex to the surrounding hazards than it would be now, using the same equipment that they used then, to a green that decades and decades of sand accumulations has made concave to the surrounding hazards.

Either way, it is amazing to me that this has happened to all of the older greens in America that have bunkers really close to the putting surfaces. And Tom says above, especially bunkers that see a lot of activity.

Maybe I am not looking at it rightly, but I can see it clearly in the photos that Joe Bausch and Mike Cirba put up.  Look at the series of photos that Joe put up on #1 Reply, and then look at the photos that Mike put up on #57 Reply. There might be three feet of elevation change there.  

[Mark Chaplin]

It saddens me that so many GCA'ers are able to give such considered views on Merion as they were given the opportunity to visit this wonderful club due to Wayne's kind nature. This forum will be stronger if members of the classic clubs are able to share their views and knowledge with the wider world, however collectively we need at times to look at how we debate and challenge or we will never get people sticking their heads above the parapit to share their experiences.

[TEPaul]

"This forum will be stronger if members of the classic clubs are able to share their views and knowledge with the wider world, however collectively we need at times to look at how we debate and challenge or we will never get people sticking their heads above the parapit to share their experiences."


Mark Chaplin:

It's scarely possible to tell you how much I appreciate what you said above and for putting that sentiment on here. And I surely know Wayne Morrison will appreciate it too.

I'm afraid the line got crossed on here when a few began implying that Merion or some of us here---a member in Wayne's case or others such as myself who have known so many from the club for so many years were attempting in some way to hide factual information about the details of the history of the club or course in some attempt to inaccurately glorify the rolls of those who designed and built it. We have never done anything of the kind and either has the club, and certainly never intentionally----nor will any of us ever do such a thing.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

It seems very hard to tell, at this point, what that original 9th green was designed like (from 1911-1916) not that that really matters to you, as the first photographic evidence of it seems to be when it was redone to essentially what we know it as and see it as today.

We do have a drawing from Flynn of it (which is not that much the way it became in 1916). At this point we can't really figure out why that was or even if Flynn's drawing may've been done by him a few years before we've believed he did it (in 1916).

But I think it's probably pretty safe to say that the most significant facet of the 1916 alteration is that they extended the green in the rear and brought up the rear of it (back to front) and also created that very prominent extension out to the left rear (which does not appear at all on the Flynn drawing we thought was from 1916).

As far as these reputed (and reported) "experimental mounds" that were mentioned in a 1913 article and seem to appear on that late 1912 photo posted on here----I think we need to look into the fact of those mounds just a bit more--or that everything surrounding that green in that photo was supposed to be that. At this point, I think it is certainly possible that what we see in that 1912 photo that we think are mounds (or some of it) may actually be sand pilled next to where they are preparing to dig out bunker cavities.

One reason I say that is some of it certainly is remarkably white and we need to appreciate that photo was taken at least a year AFTER that course went into its year long grassing (growing in) phase from Sept 1911 to Sept 1912 when it was first opened for play---at least reputedly. My point is why are some of those things that look like mounds that white over a year after the "grow-in" began on the course?

Actually Merion East may've been in a basic "grow in" phase until late 1913. I say that because initially MCC reported they would leave their former Haverford course when they opened the new East course in Sept 1912 but they actually kept the Haverford course open for play for their members until the fall of 1913. There must be a good reason for that app. 16 month extension and the continuing development and growning in of the East may be the reason.

Not to mention the fact that a few of the so-called "lower" greens on the East totally failed early on; they had to be rebuilt and the turf from some of the greens on the old Haverford course was stripped off, brought over to Ardmore and used on those early rebuilt greens.

Actually, at one point Merion (the Wilson brothers) had an entire green of turf trucked from Merion over to Pine Valley to returf the failed 8th green at PV! 

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

The USGA piece from 1924 indicates that the mounding in the back served to help hold shots on the green. And I think that is sensible when you consider how hard it was to come in over the top of a pond that is so close to the green. To those golfers it probably looked like an aircraft carrier landing. Unless I am mistaken, they did not have the means of putting backspin on that shot. Just guessing, but that ramp in the back might have been to preserve the pond from being removed.

Those mounds are indeed odd. Might those be dredgings from the pond, or was the pond already there?

Those mounds could not have been dumped there by a truck or trailer, because they are too high. But if they are stock piles, they would not be stock piles for bunkers, rather for green construction. Those are the kinds of stock piles you would make if you were mixing topsoil and amendments, and then piling up your mix with an aggregate elevator - the kind they used in gravel pits.

Guys, I know I do a lot of guessing and conjecturing on here. Thanks for indulging me. 

[archie_struthers]

 


Bradley . I know just enough about Merion to be dangerous. It just struck me funny that the ninth hole was considered one of the "harder shots in golf".  If indeed the hole rolled from front to back I wold have changed my opinion that it wasn't too difficult a shot.  Feel fre to opine on anything you choose, save whether Jack or Tiger is the better player LOL!   Best wishes!

This being said , the 10th at Pine Valley used to be much harder when the putts could roll off the green back into the DA , an infamous bunker that may of you know well.   

[Joe Bausch]

From the Sept 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated:

[TEPaul]

Speaking of very early Merion East, even though we've never seen such a thing as a pre-construction topo contour map of the property, we are very much aware that such a thing existed when the club was both routing, designing and building the golf course.

It is mentioned in a Feb. 1911 letter from Hugh Wilson to Russell Oakley of the US Dept. of Agriculture (Wilson enclosed it in his letter in the hopes the US Dept of Ag could use it to help the club with soil analysis). And it also seems the same preconstruction topo contour map with the design of the course drawn on it was attached to the MCC Board Meeting report of the committee which talks about the various plans and mentions this one is being attached for board approval. I think Wayne even said you could still see the old rusty paper-clip mark where it was attached.

Those preconstruction topo contour maps seem to be all gone now but we're still hoping we will find one hiding in closet or drawer somewhere. It would tell us everything we would want to know about the way that land once was before a golf course and what they did to alter it architecturally for golf.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That previously attached topo map and those 5 "plans", or even just the final one would really be the Holy Grail of golf course architectural archeology.

I wonder if Robert Lesley's papers are archived somewhere.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

The problem, as I see it back then, is obviously they didn't have copy machines and so what was attached on that board meeting report, and approved, was probably taken out in the field and used at least for a while. When that kind of think happens who can ever tell where it may find a final resting place.

That Colt map we bought off of eBay is a good example. At some point someone involved out there walked it right off site in their pocket and it never returned. Probably ended up in some house around there that got sold, cleared out and that's how it turned up in a flea market about nine decades later.

Those kinds of things do have some historical tell-tale marks sometimes though like really apparent fold-lines or just over-all wear and alteration markings, notations, calculations of all kinds and types. That kind of thing tells me the extent and nature of their use on site or during a project. But once the time comes when they get put away for good, the needle-in-the-haystack thing begins for people like us.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Remember that Richard Francis (an engineer/surveyor btw) story he wrote in 1950 about all the hours they spent running instruments in the field and all the hours at night at the drawing board? What do you think he was working on all those hours and days and weeks and months if it wasn't one of the topo contour maps with the course drawn on it by him and/or the committee?

If somebody thinks Macdonald or Whigam did all that in a single day in June 1910 or April 6, 1911 they are just flatout nuts, in my opinion, or they don't really understand much about architecture and the way it happened back in that day.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Since we know that the committee came up with 5 "new" proposed plans in the spring of 1911, I imagine Mr. Francis was drawing his fingers to the bone.

[Joe Hancock]

I hit my last Top Flite into that pond, and took matters into my own hands....I'm still waiting for my invitation for a return visit....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()