Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson / AWT chats with CBM

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

In all fairness, that's your conclusion with respect to the huge mound behind the 10th green.

Or, are you stating that Wilson routed the course so poorly that he created a safety hazard on the first tee and had to compensate and ameliorate the problem by creating a huge mound behind the 10th green, one that would probably have an adverse impact on drainage on # 1 and # 10 ?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

In all fairness, that's your conclusion with respect to the huge mound behind the 10th green.

Or, are you stating that Wilson routed the course so poorly that he created a safety hazard on the first tee and had to compensate and ameliorate the problem by creating a huge mound behind the 10th green, one that would probably have an adverse impact on drainage on # 1 and # 10 ?  

Patrick,

That's exactly what I'm saying.   The guy was learning on the job, and wasn't anywhere near perfect out of the box. 

Unlike some of you, I don't idolize my heroes as flawless and magical, able to route the perfect course in a day! 

But Wilson learned pretty darn quickly, or probably more appropriately, he was the personification of Calvin Coolidge's definition of persistence, which is likely why he was picked to do this job by major captains of industry in the first place..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Didn't Wilson or Merion name # 10 an "Alps" ?

Or was it AWT or others who named it an "Alps"

If one examines the 3rd at NGLA or the 17th at Prestwick, it's clear that the back of the green is a critical element in the design of the hole.

Since Wilson had been to NGLA and seen the 3rd hole, I"m sure he was aware of the need for a "backstop" on his "Alps"

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Didn't Wilson or Merion name # 10 an "Alps" ?

Or was it AWT or others who named it an "Alps"

If one examines the 3rd at NGLA or the 17th at Prestwick, it's clear that the back of the green is a critical element in the design of the hole.

Since Wilson had been to NGLA and seen the 3rd hole, I"m sure he was aware of the need for a "backstop" on his "Alps"

Jeez Patrick,

Either Wilson and Findlay smoked a crack pipe or did 'shrooms together, or somebody was blowing smoke up someone's butt.

C'mon...let's get real here.

THE FEATURE of an ALPS HOLE is the HUGE, FRONTING, DAUNTING, INTIMIDATING, BLIND FREAKING MOUNTAIN that intercedes between the golfer and his TARGET.





Please don't make me find a picture of the 17th at Prestwick.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

We both know that no such "huge, monstrous" hill intercedes at # 17 at Prestwick, the original "Alps" for CBM.

To diminish the structure at the back of # 17 at Prestwick, the model for # 3 at NGLA is wrong.

While NGLA's "Alps" is probably the best there is, you can't fixate on the enormous scale of that hill to the exclusion of the other features, including the back of the greens.

However, I'm glad to see that you too seem to acknowledge that # 3 at NGLA is the premier "alps" of all alps.

Any you guys said it was easy to create template holes.
It just goes to show you what a genius CBM was.

[DMoriarty]

There is so much factually incorrect and/or misleading information in your past few posts that I do not even know where to begin.

1. While the photos do show at least part of the mound behind the green, there may be mounds in front of the green as well.  I cannot make out for sure one way or another, and neither can you.  For example, look a the photo of Tillinghast.  There is something that appears to be a lighter colored mound in front of the backing mound.  For another example the first photo also shows what may be very large fronting mounds.

2.  You write that the first photo shows the old Alps "still visible as it played for the first 12 years."   If true, then there must be one heck of a huge mound in front of the green, because we cannot even see the bunker well up the mound behind the green!   Either the hole had been changed or there is large mounding is in front.   Either way your description is wrong.

3.  You claim these photos show the hole was not blind?  Really?  Where are the bunkers on the side of the green.  The one in back?   The bunkers in front?    If this was not blind, we would see them, so where are they?   The green was set substantially below these front bunkers, and if we cannot even see the bunkers, how can you say the hole was not blind? 

4.  You write that Hugh Wilson quickly learned the error of his ways ?  Then why did they play the hole as an Alps for a dozen years!   And why was the hole commonly praised?    What makes you think they changed it because he had learned the error of his ways?  There is no proof of that.  None whatsoever.   

5.  The mound was for protection from the 1st hole??   Not built as an integral part of the Alps??  You may want to tell this to Robert Lesley!   At this point, Mike, statements like this is absolutely absurd.   The sources describe the mound as at the back of the 10th green, describe it as PART OF THE ALPS, and even describe the role it played in concept of the hole!   Yet you are sure it was built to protect golfers from the 1st hole??   WHAT IS THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS CLAIM?  WHAT DOCUMENTS SUPPORT IT?     

6. The colorized picture is the same one as in my essay (mine is a black and white copy.)  You claim that it was taken just before the opening.   Then how was it on a dinner program from 1911?  Was the real date inconvenient to your claim that features hadn't really been built yet?

7.  Your entire point of these pictures is to demonstrate that this really was not an Alps Hole, even if Wilson, Findlay, Lesley, and others all described it that way.   If they thought it was an Alps, then they must be on crack.   Once again, you put your own story ahead of the facts.  You KNOW, and if the so-called facts contradict what you know, then the facts are wrong.  If the facts contradict you.  Just ignore them or dismiss them.   

8.  You tell people they can come to their own conclusions, but you have given them false information about the hole in every post!  How can they draw any sort of conclusion when you misrepresent what they are seeing.


Yet you have the nerve to write that you respect history?    What a joke.
 

[TEPaul]

Interesting stuff on the original 10th (Alps).

The problem with analyzing that hole is there are no drawings of it (I've ever seen) and the photographic evidence of it (at any particular time) is somewhat confusing.

We certainly do know there was a very large constructed mound behind the green (maybe 12+ feet high) because we have multiple photographs of it from behind the green and also photos of it right at the green.

What we don't have is particularly reliable photos from somewhere in front of the green and from somewhere near the old approach shot area. All we have from in front of that green is that Tillie photo from the tee in 1912 making it around 300 yards away).

It is also interesting to recall that the colorized photo was from 1911 (so that at least dates the first evidence of the mound behind the green). I'd sort of forgotten that photo was from a dinner program. Merion's archives include numerous dinner and menu items because primary Merion historian Capers likes that stuff a whole lot too.

I would throw in this idea at the moment. Findlay mentions in his June 1912 article that at that point Wilson felt to make this hole any good it would still take "some making." Does that mean, at that point (June 1912) there was no "alps" mound somewhere in front of the green? It probably does. I'd also included that Findlay's article was also some months before the course formally opened for play----but Tillie's photo was a few months after the course opened for play (plenty of time to be able to add a prominent mound in front (between June 1912 and the Fall of 1912).

The next problem is to figure out if the prominent mound we can see in the 1912 photo (Tillinghast's) is the same mound behind the green or another mound that Wilson and Merion had constructed somewhere in front of the green between June 1912 and the date that Tillinghast photo was taken (the Fall of 1912).

It probably was and that would be why the green was blind and considered so when the hole opened for play. I say that because if one stands on the land at this time (or even before any construction or after the hole was changed there is really nothing landform-wise between the tee shot LZ and where that old green once was that would make visibility to that old green area blind.

It's just so hard to see where that mound is that we can see on that Tillinghast photo. Is it on the tee side of Ardmore Ave, on the other side of Ardmore Ave somewhere in front of the green making the hole one that had a prominent mound both in front somewhere and behind? Or is it the mound behind the green that we've always known existed?

The problem is there is no clear photographic evidence of a really prominent fronting mound I've ever seen. If the mound we see in the Tillinghast photo is somewhere in front of the green (either on the tee side OR green side of Ardmore Ave, it must have been right in line with the mound behind the green (or we could probaby see that mound behind the gree too in that Tillie photo).

Honestly, the top of the mound behind the green looks quite a bit flatter to me (in the earlier colorized photo from behind the green than the sort of convex top of the mound we can see in the Tillinghast photo of the hole from the tee.

I would have to think if that original hole in play really was a blind approach to that original green there must have been a prominent mound somewhere between the approach area and the green too because I do know from real familiarity with that land that if there wasn't another prominent mound in there somewhere that approach shot to that original green just wouldn't been that blind at all (it's pretty flat from the 10th fairway LZ all the way across the street to the present first fairway where the original 10th green used to be).

This doesn't have much of anything to do with who routed and designed Merion East in 1911 though, except I suppose one could assume if Macdonald had actually routed AND DESIGNED the features on that original hole or routed and DESIGNED the features of any other hole at Merion East in 1911, then one certainly would wonder why Wilson was still struggling at the time of that Findlay article to come up with what had to be "made" to make the hole any good! If Macdonald had routed and DESIGNED the course and certainly that hole why then hadn't he just shown Wilson and his Committee what to do ON APRIL 6, 1911, the one and only AND LAST day he was at Merion for the purpose of "helping and advising them" with a paper plan in hand, as to the "making" of the hole? 

After all, according to Moriarty, all Wilson and his committee were in the creation of Merion were a group of guys who were just responsible for "building" the course according to a set plan from someone else (Macdonald/Whigam or perhaps H.H. Barker?).   

On that note, and once again, if Moriarty's definition of what "laying out" meant is even semi-correct----eg "laying out" only meant "building" to a drawn paper plan from someone else and not routing and designing a course on a paper plan THEMSELVES----then how could they have said they "laid out numerous different courses and plans" in the winter of 1911 A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE ANYTHING was BUILD AT ARDMORE and A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE the club even APPROVED of ANYTHING to get built?? 

That wouldn't make any sense at all, would it? Of course not. Therefore, Wilson and his committee were doing exactly what we've said they were doing, and they said they were doing----eg creating numerous different routings and design plans on paper (their topo survey maps we know they had as early as the beginning of Feb 1, 1911) in the winter of 1911, a number of months before anything was approved and certainly a number of months BEFORE ANYTHING WAS BUILT!! 

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I don't have the time right now to check the dates of those photos you posted from the 10th from the tee. The first one would be something like a dozen years after the one Tillinghast took, right?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Yes, that top pick is from 1925.

I'd also mention that the 1916 drawings show no such fronting mound...just fronting bunker complex stretching across.   Neither does the hole description in that newspaper talk about a blind shot.

There was also that picture floating around with people laying on the bank of the fronting bunker watching play during the 1916 Am.

It wasn't a mound in front at that date, unless somehow there was a mound short of the bunkers, but I've seen no evidence at all of that in either descriptions or pictures.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

We both know that no such "huge, monstrous" hill intercedes at # 17 at Prestwick, the original "Alps" for CBM.

Patrick,

I don't have time to find a picture this morning, but you're kidding us, yes?? 



Prestwick was home to the very first Open in 1860 and since then the sand, heather, seaside bent, cavernous bunkers, sloping fairways, the menacing Pow Burn, fast true and undulating greens, and the wind have tormented many Open Champions. At the 17th club selection on your second shot is the key to this hole, with a blind second shot over the 'Alps' dune to a green guarded by the Sahara bunker.

[Mike_Cirba]

More pics of the 10th to follow this weekend...

I'll trust everyone to use their own eyes and judgement instead of telling them what they see.

In the meantime, if anyone has a pic of the original Alps at Prestwick taken from the area where second shots are normally struck I think it would be instructive...thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

My first encounter with # 17 at Prestwick was in 1952.

I returned again in 1992.

In neither visit did the fronting dune come close to matching the massive hill that exists at NGLA.

The fronting hill at Prestwick seems to serve a singular, primary purpose, the obstruction of the green.
The second purpose is to dictate ball flight to the green.

NGLA's massive hill serves more functions, including the impeding the drive.

The two have some common functions but can't be compared in size, scope, versatility, height and interfacing with the golfer from tee to green.

P.S.  I wasn't kidding.

[TEPaul]

"One current example:    Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course.    If this is true, so be it, but let's see it.  What did the documents say?    You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.

___________________________________________________

TEPAUL and MIKE:   WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?"




David Moriarty:


Why don't you get in touch with MCC and ask them yourself, as we did?

You should've done this a few years ago BEFORE you began to research and write about what you THINK happened at Merion and NOT AFTERWARDS!

[TEPaul]

"Tom, that's a heck of a good and logical question and I'd love to hear DaveM's response to it..."



Shivas:

So would I. I have no doubt he'll probably just continue to slough it off somehow or come up with more completely tortured logic and responses as he's been doing for a couple of years now.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let's start with these;

The original 10th green from up high sometime shortly after abandonment.   There used to be a a long bunker in the face of the large mound, which I'll dig up pics of this weekend..





Next, the original 10th green after the 1924 changes with the back bunker no longer kept up and overgrown;




Next, zooming back, the original 335 yard first hole is seen coming from the clubhouse, turning left past  the back of the 10th green.   The first tee is just right of the clubhouse building.   

[Mike_Cirba]

From the drive landing area, here is the blind approach over the dune of the original Alps at Prestwick.

[DMoriarty]

On that note, and once again, if Moriarty's definition of what "laying out" meant is even semi-correct----eg "laying out" only meant "building" to a drawn paper plan from someone else and not routing and designing a course on a paper plan THEMSELVES----then how could they have said they "laid out numerous different courses and plans" in the winter of 1911 A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE ANYTHING was BUILD AT ARDMORE and A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE the club even APPROVED of ANYTHING to get built?? 

That wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?

Tom, that's a heck of a good and logical question and I'd love to hear DaveM's response to it...

Dave, the problem with the question is the usual one.   It misstates my position.   I've explained my understanding of how "laid out" was used many times, yet TEPaul gets it wrong repeatedly.    After a while I think we should ask ourselves why TEPaul has to misstate my position in order to argue against it.   Here is what I recently explained to Mike about my understanding of how "laid out" was used.  (I know TEPaul saw the post because he threw a little fit about another portion of it.)

Despite the tone, sarcasm, and absolutely absurd depiction of my position, there may be a legitimate question in here somewhere and I will attempt to answer it without rehashing too much. 

We've covered this before at length but the phrase "to lay out" is very problematic for all sides because it is used different ways in different circumstances by different people, and not at all consistently.  I've looked at the accounts of the creation of many dozens of courses and will continue to do so, , but at this time I believe that my understanding as set out in the essay is generally accurate.   However, if one looks hard enough one can find the phrase applying to almost anything (except for maybe trip itineraries.)  There is enough variance of use that I will probably take another shot at this section in my essay to clarify, that is if I am ever given a chance to update the essay with more current and accurate information.   

That being said, while routing and conceiving of the holes was sometimes included in the meaning of "to lay out," it was often not included.   And many of the other aspects of creating a golf course were often included, with or without the sometimes independent act of planning.  For example, sometimes the phrase meant to stake out on the ground, sometimes it meant to construct, sometimes it meant to set out the hazards.   Sometimes it is some or all of the above. Occasionally, it apparently meant plan, and little else.

So how do I know what they meant in the case of Merion?   I look at how and when the term is used, and by whom, and I try to figure out what makes the most sense, realizing that I may have to modify my understanding as I learn more.  I also try to imagine what the articles would say if Wilson (and Committee) routed the course and planned the hole concepts (as compared to other articles about other designers and courses.  But mostly I try to figure out what makes sense in the context, and what the phrase might mean versus what it cannot mean, versus what it necessarily means given that context . . .

With that in mind, I don't think the "laid out numerous different courses and plans"snippet is inconsistent with my take on what happened or with my understanding of how the phrase was used.

A few things I do find interesting about the snippet . . .
- Lesley reported that they laid out numerous different courses and plans, almost as if there were two things ongoing.  I am not entirely clear what they were doing; staking out courses on the land? drawing them up on paper? both?   Do we know for certain that they did written plans at this point, or could they have been simply walking around with flags or stakes trying different things to make it work?
- The snippet gives us no indication of the basis (if any) for their efforts.   For example, we know that Barker already had done a rough layout plan.  Had they looked at it?   It seems impossible to think that they hadn't.    But we cannot tell from the single snippet whether or not they were building on and/or refining Barker's rough plan, (although given how little they knew it seems unlikely they would ignore it.)   Likewise, M&W were already involved in the project and had toured the property.  While the single letter we have doesnt provide much specific guidance (except to add the land by the clubhouse) other communications may have been more specific.  We also do not know that M&W had told them while they were inspecting the site or after.   
- If I understand correctly from the various leaks, this snippet refers to the committee's actions before the NGLA trip, and that with the NGLA trip, these plans were scrapped and replaced with the five drafts that M&W then reviewed to choose the best.  (Again, who really knows without seeing the source material.)    Yet we are to believe that the NGLA trip had nothing to do with planning the course??  Hmmm . . . 
- As I note above, we have to look at how they use the phrase in the context, so we'd have to see the MCC minutes and the rest of the record to try and figure it out.   But TEPaul won't give us the context; he would rather we trust him to tell us what it all means.
_______________________

"One current example:    Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course.    If this is true, so be it, but let's see it.  What did the documents say?    You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.

___________________________________________________

TEPAUL and MIKE:   WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?"

David Moriarty:


Why don't you get in touch with MCC and ask them yourself, as we did?

You should've done this a few years ago BEFORE you began to research and write about what you THINK happened at Merion and NOT AFTERWARDS!

- I figured out what MCC had and tried to get it from them before I wrote my essay.  But alas I am not a member and therefore was denied access.  So I figured it out myself. 
- But you guys have no such excuse Tom.  You and Wayne are the self-ordained experts, and have been talking and writing about early Merion for years.   You guys told us you have been researching early Merion for almost a decade, and you have all the access and information right there.  Yet neither of you ever bothered to go to MCC and look at their records??   You never even knew they had them??  You didn't even look at the Sayre's scrapbooks??   You didn't even look at Haverford Library??    Had it not been for my essay, you'd probably never have found and looked at any of this stuff.  I had to send you guys documents from Los Angeles even though they were right under your noses!   Sad.   

But let's move on. 

You asked for problems with the logic of the time line.   

One problem is that you do not adequately account for what happened at NGLA.     That you won't when asked in another problem altogether.   

__________________________________

Shivas, aren't you curious why Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA?  Why do you suppose TEPaul won't tell us?

[TEPaul]

"- I figured out what MCC had and tried to get it from them before I wrote my essay.  But alas I am not a member and therefore was denied access.  So I figured it out myself. 
- But you guys have no such excuse Tom.  You and Wayne are the self-ordained experts, and have been talking and writing about early Merion for years.   You guys told us you have been researching early Merion for almost a decade, and you have all the access and information right there.  Yet neither of you ever bothered to go to MCC and look at their records??   You never even knew they had them??  You didn't even look at the Sayre's scrapbooks??   You didn't even look at Haverford Library??    Had it not been for my essay, you'd probably never have found and looked at any of this stuff.  I had to send you guys documents from Los Angeles even though they were right under your noses!   Sad."




Sure, right, you figured it out yourself. What you figured out about Macdonald's involvement or what you wrote about it is a joke. The truth on Macdonald/Whigam's involvement with Merion wasn't anything more than Merion always said, but I think we all realize, at this point, you can't admit that and you never will, so I guess I don't blame you for trying whatever you can now to pat yourself on the back.

Apparently you've forgotten or never knew it but our research was on William Flynn, and not Merion before he ever got there. But I'm glad Wayne and a couple of member from Merion Golf and MCC did find those minutes as they just confirm what Merion East and West's history always said. Other than the 1912 trip abroad there was nothing new revealed.   




"One problem is that you do not adequately account for what happened at NGLA.     That you won't when asked in another problem altogether.   
Shivas, aren't you curious why Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA?  Why do you suppose TEPaul won't tell us?"




What's in the Wilson's report to the Golf Committee that was given to the board isn't any different than what Wilson said 1916 and no different from what Mike Cirba already told you and I've already told you----eg the first day they went over Macdonald's plans and surveys FOR NGLA from abroad and the next day they spent studying the course itself---ie NGLA. That's it, that's all the report says, there is no more.

There's nothing at all reported about any plans or surveys of Merion or any discussion about them while Wilson and his committee were at NGLA those two days, not by Wilson and his committee or anyone else, but if you find that impossible to believe, then fine, just find it impossible to believe, who cares? If you want to just make that up that they discussed Merion's plans at NGLA then fine, you're pretty good with making stuff up about what happened with the routing and design and creation of Merion East, that's for sure.




"But let's move on. 
You asked for problems with the logic of the time line."


I'd be happy to move on but it wasn't any of us who the time-line created problems for----the time-line created a number of problems for you and your essay. Time-lines that are well developed and properly understood are beautiful things.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Here's a picture of Merion's 10th green in 1916, taken from a perched position (probably from a tree, actually) left and short of the green.

Seen in the pic is the rear mound (this time, WITH bunker), the fronting bunker (it actually looks like some spectators are reclining on the front wall), and the fact that Ardmore Avenue looks to be at the time a bit recessed from the surrounding terrain.

Please compare this to the approach at Prestwick and NGLA.




This picture is from just short-right of the green, showing some of the features in a bit more detail.




I hope this is historically accurate enough.

[TEPaul]

As far as your version of what "laying out" referred to when used by Wilson and Merion here it is from your own essay:



"Note that Wilson did not even bother to mention the Committee’s lack of experience designing courses, but instead only described their lack of qualification for course construction and green keeping.  It was not that he was an expert in design.  Rather, his concern was only with building the course and growing grass on it.   

Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.”  In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design.  To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal.   He was charged with laying out the course on the ground.   According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.”   This was precisely how Wilson used the phrase.  “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.'  The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan, and Macdonald and Whigham gave them a good start in understanding how to do so.

Wilson’s entire discussion of his role focuses not on the planning, but on the building."




Again, Wilson and his committee's report in April 1911 to Golf Committee chairman Robert Lesley to be given to the board mentions that he and his committee had "LAID OUT numerous different courses and plans throughout the winter of 1911 months BEFORE ANY BUILDING began and months BEFORE the Board of Directors even APPROVED of ANYTHING TO BE DONE! You can mince words and rationalize what you said or what you mean all you want to but you'll never get around that fact!

[Mike_Cirba]

This picture was taken from down in the valley of the 9th green, from the adjoining right hillside, looking back up 10.

You can tell the fairway from the men holding the gallery ropes.

Even from this very lowpoint, you can see clearly the back mound of the 10th green with the bunker embedded in it.  Heck...you can even see the very BOTTOM lip of the back bunker, clear and unobstructed.   

You can also get a little flash of sand from the front bunker, again even though the pic is from way down in the hollow and not way up on the hill where a approach to the 10th would be struck.

Ahh...can't you almost smell the auld sod as you prepare to strike your approach over a vast dune fearfully nicknamed the Alps?     Close those peepers and you can almost smell the haggis boiling!  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

If there ever was a prominent Alps mound in front of that original 10th green it would've had to be on the tee side of Ardmore Ave. Those couple of photos show there just wasn't enough room for it on the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave, plus it even looks like a couple of steps right up from the road itself in one of those photos and you sure can see there wasn't any big prominent mound in front of the green on the clubhouse side. Also a bunker or some bunkering over an Alps mound and between the green is a traditional feature of Alps holes too.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

If there ever was a prominent Alps mound in front of that original 10th green it would've had to be on the tee side of Ardmore Ave. Those couple of photos show there just wasn't enough room for it on the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave, plus it even looks like a couple of steps right up from the road itself in one of those photos and you sure can see there wasn't any big prominent mound in front of the green on the clubhouse side. Also a bunker or some bunkering over an Alps mound and between the green is a traditional feature of Alps holes too.

Tom,

Please see my last post and picture.

I argued this point with David some time back.   When Robert Lesley was talking about this hole as an Alps type, he was talking about the fronting cross bunker, not any other blind features and it's now very clear for everyone to finally SEE for themselves.

"The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods
and its green has for background a high hill covered
with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick;
in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross
bunker guarding the green." - Robert Lesley 1914


It certainly isn't like anything CB Macdonald ever built as an Alps, much less Prestwick, as some have fallaciously argued. 

I certainly wouldn't want to disrespect history (or my own eyes) by arguing that it was even a kissing cousin!

[TEPaul]

"A few things I do find interesting about the snippet . . .
- Lesley reported that they laid out numerous different courses and plans, almost as if there were two things ongoing.  I am not entirely clear what they were doing; staking out courses on the land? drawing them up on paper? both?   Do we know for certain that they did written plans at this point, or could they have been simply walking around with flags or stakes trying different things to make it work?"



Well, David Moriarty, let's see if it's possible for you do get your mind around this because the rest of us here haven't had much trouble figuring out the meaning of it. Did they do paper plans or just stake stuff out on the ground including five different plans on the ground for Macdonald and Whigam to look at on April 6, 1911?   

The report given by Lesley to the board that includes the report from the Wilson Committee mentions they developed ("LAID OUT") five different plans following the visit to NGLA and one of them was selected to be approved by the board and Lesley reported that PLAN was ATTACHED HERETO. Maybe you think they might've ATTACHED a bunch of stakes to Lesley's report but I and others here tend to think they attached a paper plan to that report! And that PLAN that they LAID OUT was APPROVED and built in the weeks and months following that. But seeing as how you think they were all such a bunch of NOVICES maybe all they showed the Board was a bunch or stakes with numbers on them or some such novice-like shit!

I don't know how many times I need to tell you that H.H. Barker's "rough sketch" that wasn't even given to Merion by Barker but to Connell, the real estate developer in the middle of June 1910 was never again mentioned by anyone involved with Merion that I've ever heard about after July 1, 1910, but again, if you want to believe that's what Wilson and his committee relied on for a number of months in the winter of 1911 when they said THEY "Laid Out numerous courses and plans", then go for it.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I don't really see why we're continuing to discuss the original 10th at Merion anymore. What's the point? I think we can all pretty much see what it was. This whole 10th hole thing was just some pointless strawman anyway that Moriarty threw in here a few years ago apparently to show he'd figured something out about Merion's history that they never knew. It's as pointless today as it was back then, in my opinion.