News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #275 on: December 02, 2009, 10:55:00 AM »
What CBM penned in 1906 (apparently in Outing magazine) for a hole (#12) from Biarritz France of 210 yards with a hogsback feature before the green does not sound anything like any so-called "Biarritz" hole from Macdonald/Raynor that I've ever seen or played. The fairway area before the prominent swale of all the biarritzes I've ever seen are both fairly flat and also pretty much on the same level as the green behind the swale. Merion's 17th hole is very little like the latter and it definitely has no hogsback feature anywhere on it. Consequently it would be a true stretch to categorize Merion's 17th hole as a biarritz or biarritz concept. But to categorize the massive dip before the green on Merion's 17th as something akin to TOC's "Valley of Sin" makes somewhat more sense, even if the 17th hole may in fact be mostly a pre-existing (to golf) landform which would mean it really doesn't matter if Wilson and Committee just used it as it is (in 1911) before Wilson went abroad (in 1912) and actually saw TOC's "Valley of Sin" for the first time.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 11:02:47 AM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #276 on: December 02, 2009, 04:12:49 PM »
David M...

I finally had the time to read your latest posts in detail.

Good stuff.

I think you might be correct in your assertion, that if I had seen the inspiration for the Biarritz hole, the Chasm hole in France, I might not have thought it was a Biarritz.  This carry idea is new to me, but based on all of your work and the other thread on Biarritz's that has recently been revived...I get it.  The carry over the dramatic chasm starts the hole...like the pond at Yale or the rumpled ground at Lookout Mountain.  Not identical to the Chasm, but identical in the intent and strategy of the original hole.

Also, you and Tom P have mentioned the idea of multiple holes being at Le Phare/Biarritz being combined to form the Biarritz hole concept of CBM.  Tom P talkes about the 3rd and 12th hole at Le Phare being mentioned and I think it is his theory that these are the two combined holes.  I think that is perhaps probable and I, therefore, understand the drive to search out knowledge and facts about it.

Cool stuff!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #277 on: December 02, 2009, 05:37:21 PM »
What CBM penned in 1906 (apparently in Outing magazine) for a hole (#12) from Biarritz France of 210 yards with a hogsback feature before the green does not sound anything like any so-called "Biarritz" hole from Macdonald/Raynor that I've ever seen or played. The fairway area before the prominent swale of all the biarritzes I've ever seen are both fairly flat and also pretty much on the same level as the green behind the swale.

Tom,

I found this link www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1915/gi34k.pdf to a page that shows a plasticine model of the biarritz that was planned for the 8th hole at Lido. That was the hole that bordered the ocean, and ultimately shelved in favor of a MacKenzie submission.  Well in any event, that plasticine model, looks like it has a hogsback ridge in front of the fairway.

CBM describes the Lido version as an improvement on the Piping Rock version of the hole. The major difference that is noted in the plasticine model, besides the ocean border, is the hogsback ridge that must be carried.

The odd thing about that ridge is it would have hidden the swale, which is the funnest part about playing the hole. I mean, depending on the height of the tee, and the ridge, you probably wouldn't even get to see the low trajectory ball disappear in the swale and roll back up for the hole. But then again, the ridge might knock down the low trajectory ball which would force players to hit a higher trajectory ball, now coming up short and leaving many a player putting or pitching from out of the swale?

Imagine how cool that would have been--a biarritz hole on the ocean.



« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 05:45:33 PM by Bradley Anderson »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #278 on: December 02, 2009, 06:20:29 PM »
Bradley...so the 8th at The Lido didn't go through with the Biarritz?  What was Mackenzie's submission?
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #279 on: December 02, 2009, 06:40:36 PM »
Mac,
The Biarritz was built along the ocean, ergo the name "Ocean" on the card. It didn't last long, being so close to the sea, and it was moved a few years after it was built.
Mackenzies hole was the 15th, I believe.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #280 on: December 02, 2009, 10:48:45 PM »
Bradley...so the 8th at The Lido didn't go through with the Biarritz?  What was Mackenzie's submission?

I had that wrong. It was the 18th that was used for Mackenzie's drawing. See the link:

www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1923/gi184u.pdf -

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #281 on: December 02, 2009, 10:52:55 PM »
Bradley,

Thanks for mentioning the Lido Plasticine.  I just posted the Cape hole on another thread, but hadn't thought to post the Biarritz.

The Lido Plasticine is a particularly important resource because CBM had a free hand to shape the land the way he wanted it, at least in the planning stages. Also, the project was relatively pretty early chronologically, so presumably the core concepts hadn't involved too much by that time.  Here is a blow up of the Biarritz at the Lido, from the article mentioned above.


A few observations:
1.  The hole featured a forced carry over a bunker of about 130 yards, and a carry of about 170 yards to get to the middle of the "hogsback."
2.  The ditch/swale/valley/hole/trench/dip begins in earnest about 180 yards from the tee and appears to be around 20 to 25 yards from side to side.  This is approximate because it is tough to tell exactly where it ends on the on the green side because of the camera glare and the roll of the green down into the swale.  The drop off into the swale on the tee side appears to be more abrupt.
3.  But whatever the exact measures, the ditch/swale/valley/hole/trench/dip was more substantial than what many associate with the Biarritz.  That it, it was much further than 10 or 15 yards from further from beginning of the downslope off the hogsback and to the green.   
4. The "hogsback" looks nothing like the front plateau closely associated with the Biarritz concept.  Rather than being flat and uniform, it seems rather wild, with micro hills and hollows.  It seems if it would be difficult to run a ball over it, so I wonder if the better play wasn't to almost clear it and hit on the downslope of the swale?

Below are the holes at Merion, Lido, and Piping Rock.  The Lido was listed as a 220 yards, while the white line and yellow line on the other two are each 230 yards. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #282 on: December 02, 2009, 11:09:11 PM »
www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1927/gi272g.pdf -

David,

See what you can make of this link. It looks like the 8th hole ended up as something different than what was modeled in plasticine. From what I have been able to magnify the green looks very elevated with a steep embankment - rather more like a knoll green than a biarritz green, and the yardage is only 160-165, which doesn't work at all too well for the biarritz hole concept.

I suspect that the ocean may have forced a change in plans here. Perhaps there was a biarritz style hole here, but only for a brief period and it was changed?


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #283 on: December 03, 2009, 12:21:52 AM »
Bradley

Here is a blow up with a further blow up of the green. 


It is hard to tell but I think I can make out something of a hogsback with more irrigated land behind it.   I've marked what I think is the hogsback in yellow, and what might be the back of the green in red.   

I recall reading (probably in George's book) that the Biarritz got brutalized by the weather and was one of the first to changed.  I think it may have been shortened a number of times.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #284 on: December 03, 2009, 06:27:28 AM »
Brad:

Those are some pretty interesting analyzes of that Lido biarritz hole. Let me just say that there's a lot I sure don't agree with. As for some significant hogsback feature in that fairway before the swale I really don't see it at all on that on-ground photo (and I sure don't need someone's yellow outline on that on-ground photo that seemingly exaggerates it ;) ) and I don't see that Macdonald mentioned it either. He did mention a hogs-back feature at Lido but it was on the 7th hole and its fairway which he mentioned was a shorter version of NGLA's 5th hole which is a par 5 (now a par 4) that is named "Hogsback" on NGLA's card.

Why was Lido's biarritz shortened from 220 to 160? There was one sort of general explanation given but in my opinion there may've been another pretty good reason to shorten that hole that I've never heard mentioned before but actually shows up on both that on-ground photo as well as the plasticine model of the whole golf course.

Once again, I can't see that there was any "hogs-back" feature on any biarritz hole Macdonald/Raynor did. It looks to me like the only time he mentioned it was in 1906 in his article in Outing magazine about that 12th hole at Biarritz France which may or may not have been the same hole as the famous "Chasm" hole at Le Phare (most often mentioned as the 3rd (again, did Le Phare flip the nines at some point?) that had a forced carry over an inlet of the Bay of Biscay of well over 100 yards. And again, as far as I've ever known, no one really knows if that famous "Chasm" hole had a prominent swale before the green. And I have definitely never heard that the famous Chasm hole in Biarritz had something like 60 yards of terra firma over the inlet and before the green!   ???

Actually, here's another potentially good reason that 210 yard hole (#12) Macdonald mentioned at Biarritz France with a hogsback feature may not have been the famous "Chasm" hole (#3?)-----I don't know that the Chasm hole at Le Phare in Biarrtz ever played close to 210 yards (at least not in 1906 when Macdonald and Whigam saw it). It may've been more like 160 max. (I think when Vanderbilt met Dunn at Le Phare in the late 19th century and was given a shot demonstration by Dunn on that hole I think the carry mentioned was something like 120 yards over the inlet).
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 10:24:34 AM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #285 on: December 03, 2009, 07:30:57 AM »
Very interesting!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #286 on: December 03, 2009, 10:13:39 AM »
Mac,

I agree.


David,

I had the impression of the "Hogsback" being an elongated mound running in the direction of the shot but that plastecine model looks like it runs perpendicular...unless you think that shiny area is the bunker. I assume it's the mound because it reflects the same way the green-side of the swale does.

Either way, it seems the playbility / shot test of the hole is to hit a long, low shot that carries to a point 15 - 30 yards short of the green and runs up the slope...when all along (based purely on the holes I had seen and the one I played) I assumed the decision when trying to get to the back shelf was either a well controlled high shot or an equally well controlled very low shot that would land on the front shelf and run down and then up ontl the green pad in the back. You would never intentionally land a ball in the trench at Yale.

Under the prescription of that plastecine model and Wigham's description of the hole, #17 at Merion could certainly fit the requirements...which begs the question of why the common Biarritz these guys created changed the dynalic so much? Any opinion?

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #287 on: December 03, 2009, 10:30:58 AM »
Sully:

With Merion's 17th as some kind of "biarritz" concept the huge difference in Merion's is there is just no fairway area in front of some swale that is essentially at the same basic level as the green behind the swale. To me that is the huge difference between Merion's 17th and any other Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or heard of. For that reason along it pretty much takes Merion's 17 out of consideration as having anything to do with a biarritz type hole or concept.

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #288 on: December 03, 2009, 10:36:48 AM »
Furthermore, I don't think I would put all that much stock in what one thinks are the contours of Lido's 8th hole off that plasticine model. Somebody on here may be implying that looking of that photoraphic image of that plasticine model is the same thing as looking at an aerial of a golf course with the light and shade in undulations. I've seen a couple of plasticine models in person, including the one of NGLA and even though they certainly do have undulations on them they are also often painted in various shades as well so I wouldn't necessarily say looking down on one shows vertical dimension as an actual aerial of a actual course in long light can and does.

Another significant and probably important question to ask and answer is what was a plasticine model like that one of The Lido done for anyway? Was it used as a model to construct the course or was it just done after the fact for some decorative reason? I think it was generally the latter and if that is the case it sure would be hard to match all the undulations on a plasticine model to what the course looked like in an aerial, not the least reason being that in 1914, 1915 probably few if any aerial photographs of golf courses had ever been done due to the incipiency of aviation itself at that time.

I think the earliest aerial photograph of a golf course or golf hole I've ever seen was 1917, and even that was remarkably early.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 10:46:09 AM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #289 on: December 03, 2009, 10:52:19 AM »
Tom,

The point I'm coming from is that #17 matches Wigham's description (David posted it a couple pages ago) other than the orientation of a hogsback and it's driving my curiosity as to why they never built one that actually matched his description of those playability requirements...

The perpendicular ridge (old rail cart line) at Merion could certainly suffice based on that plastecine model if the ridge was supposed to run side to side instead of down the direction of the hole.

My primary question for David (or anyone) is why this family of architects never built a Biarritz that matches the description Wigham gave of the shot requirement? Or did they?


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #290 on: December 03, 2009, 01:27:55 PM »
Jim,  

You may be right about the first light colored swath, but it looks like a bunker to me.  My assumption was that the up slope of the hog's back approach is the shiny half circle just beyond what I thought was a bunker.  Whigham's description describes the feature deflecting balls to the sides, so it must have had some sort of knoll or bump to do this.   Either way, this doesn't look like anything I want to try to run the ball across.  

I too have been trying to make sense of his description of the role of the hog’s back-then-30 yard dip-then green as well as Macdonald’s earlier description of hog’s back-then 80 yard dip-then-green.  Surely CBM wasn’t contemplating running the ball 80 yards onto the green?  Although I would probably try the shot, it seems a bit much, and if this was the “chasm” hole that doesn’t leave much room for the fearsome “chasm” even if the hole was 210 yards. Turns out Scotland’s gift contains a typo.  The snippet from Outing is below; 30 yards between the hog’s back and the green, not 80 yards.

But CBM did describe it as a “sharp hog back” and when this description is considered with Whigham's description and the Lido plasticine, it is pretty clear that initially they were contemplating  some sort of hog’s back (or bump or hill) which would deflect rolling or bouncing balls not hit perfectly true.  I agree that this would make landing it on or short of the sharp hog’s back a rather unappealing option, and that on this hole the better play would be to carry to the down slope of the dip/valley/swale and let it run from there.  But given that the dip was 30 yards, there would have been ample room to do this without hitting into the upslope.

As for why they never built such a “sharp hog back” it is difficult to say, but here are a few things to consider:
2.    They did build the Lido, and the feature shown on the plasticine would reject balls as Whigham anticipated, and it did contain more room to land the ball on the downslope and run it up.
1.   As you said, this would make the shot extremely demanding, especially with a wood, so perhaps they figured it was too demanding on shorter hitters and cut off the top of the hog's back to make a plateau.  
2.  Contrary to popular belief, for the most part CBM worked with what the site gave him (thus no Biarritz at NGLA.)   And it may be that the early sites did not have such a feature to incorporate into the hole, and so he did without, realizing that the hole was plenty demanding anyway.
3.  The landing area as a plateau still serves the purpose although to a lesser degree,  if one misses is well off line the ball will roll down the steep sides of the plateau and into trouble.
4.  Given that the full green valley/dip/swale, and hog's back would have been a monumental undertaking to create, it may have been more practical to compress things a bit, makin the swale more abrupt and less far across.   But without ample room to land the ball on the downslope on the short side of the dip/swale/valley, the hog's back would have made the hole nearly impossible for the run-up, and a more forgiving approach would have been necessary.
5.   All of CBM’s Biarritz holes were built by Raynor, and CBM had little or nothing to do with many of the holes we consider Biarritz holes.   Raynor had never been to Biarritz that I know of, and the plateau may have been his take on the concept.   (That is why I find the Lido plasticine model so compelling;  it shows what CBM planned to do, whether it was perfectly carried out or not.  

Not laying down the law here, just throwing out a few ideas of what might have happened, and keeping in mind the playability concerns.

Jim and Mac and anyone else, did anyone notice that two days ago TEPaul was arguing that the Valley of Sin short of Merion's 17th was the inspiration for all future Biarritz swales to come, yet now has concluded that Merion's hole has nothing to do with the Biarritz concept hole type or concept?    I just wanted to point it out for your consideration.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #291 on: December 03, 2009, 01:51:23 PM »
David,

It seems to me that the key to the Biarritz concept it the very abrupt climb to the green pad at the end of a hole in which a long club must be used to reach in 1. You've focussed on the architecture of these holes when every (both) written piece(s) I've seen about the concept holes focusses exclusively on the playability requirements.

Think about this one...the hole is long enough that nobody should be able to fly it onto the green - the shot has to be truly played so as to carry the short garbage but still have the run to make it up the slope - the primary concession has been to ease things for those that didn't make the short carry. Think about how low the ball would have to be to bounce and run through 20 yards of fairway and still have the speed to go up a steep incline (I presume also cut at fairway height) when the fairways were as long as in those days.

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #292 on: December 03, 2009, 06:53:49 PM »
Sully:

Concerning your #289 I guess I must have missed that description by Whigam on this thread. But the way you sort of just described Whigam's description I sure can't recall anyone building a biarritz hole or biarritz concept like Merion's 17th. I have also never seen this hogs-back feature on a biarritz hole by Macdonald/Raynor.

Frankly, I think Merion's 17th hole was largely found not built. I think if they did much of anything there it was probably just leveling the green enough off a gradual bank coming down from the left. Wayne mentioned the other day that the quarry track that creates that berm 30-40 yards before the upslope to the green probably got its fill from that huge depression before the green but of course that was probably long before the course there. As you know that was a working quarry on both #16 and #17 long before the golf course.

JC Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #293 on: December 03, 2009, 06:57:03 PM »
Sully:

With Merion's 17th as some kind of "biarritz" concept the huge difference in Merion's is there is just no fairway area in front of some swale that is essentially at the same basic level as the green behind the swale. To me that is the huge difference between Merion's 17th and any other Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or heard of. For that reason along it pretty much takes Merion's 17 out of consideration as having anything to do with a biarritz type hole or concept.

Tom,

Could that be a product of mowing patterns and not design?  I have no clue as I've not seen the hole.
I get it, you are mad at the world because you are an adult caddie and few people take you seriously.

Excellent spellers usually lack any vision or common sense.

I know plenty of courses that are in the red, and they are killing it.

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #294 on: December 03, 2009, 07:00:47 PM »
"Think about this one...the hole is long enough that nobody should be able to fly it onto the green - the shot has to be truly played so as to carry the short garbage but still have the run to make it up the slope - the primary concession has been to ease things for those that didn't make the short carry. Think about how low the ball would have to be to bounce and run through 20 yards of fairway and still have the speed to go up a steep incline (I presume also cut at fairway height) when the fairways were as long as in those days."

Sully:

That is precisely why I keep saying on this thread that every Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or heard of has the fairly extended fairway before the abrupt swale (both abruptly down and abruptly up extending no more than about 10-15 steps) on about the same level as the green space behind the swale. This is just not remotely the case with Merion's 17th.

Furthermore, I don't recall anyone ever calling Merion's 17th a Biarritz (all I've ever heard is the dip in front of the green looks like an interpretation of TOC's "Valley of Sin" on #18) other than this fellow you keep discussing it with. Personally, I think he just keeps pushing this idea of Merion's 17th as a biarritz or biarritz concept to try to keep assigning more and more of the architecture of Merion East to Macdonald and Whigam which was essentially the whole point of that highly speculative and speciously reasoned essay he wrote entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." ;)
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 07:06:38 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #295 on: December 03, 2009, 10:01:26 PM »
David,

It seems to me that the key to the Biarritz concept it the very abrupt climb to the green pad at the end of a hole in which a long club must be used to reach in 1. You've focussed on the architecture of these holes when every (both) written piece(s) I've seen about the concept holes focusses exclusively on the playability requirements.

I've been trying to address the playability issues, but was also trying to address some of the questions/issues raised about the architecture. 

Quote
Think about this one...the hole is long enough that nobody should be able to fly it onto the green - the shot has to be truly played so as to carry the short garbage but still have the run to make it up the slope - the primary concession has been to ease things for those that didn't make the short carry.

1. I think perhaps that long hitters could fly it to the green under some conditions at least, and thus be tempted to try.

2. Not sure what you mean, but if you mean that the hog's back may have been flattened to a plateau to make the hole a bit less demanding on the shorter hitter, then I agree. 

Quote
Think about how low the ball would have to be to bounce and run through 20 yards of fairway and still have the speed to go up a steep incline (I presume also cut at fairway height) when the fairways were as long as in those days.

No doubt between the two of us you are the expert golfer, but I nonetheless disagree.  Are you perhaps considering these holes with today's technology in mind?  Get yourself a hickory shafted driver from that period and go out to HV and hit a few (with about a 3/4 swing to match the way they were hitting the ball then.)   I think you will find that the trajectory is very low, and that the run-out accounts for a surprisingly large chunk of the total distance.   A brassie shot will fly a but higher but still low compared to today's equipment, and a skilled golfer can make the shot run-out a surprising distance (or so I am told.)

Here is what Ralph Livingston had to say about the old drivers on his terrific website hickorygolf.com:  Drivers were viewed differently in that period than today, they were used for the trajectory and the amount of roll that characterized this club. They tended to be used for shots that were into the wind and for holes that had more forgiving fairways.

In short, my response to your scenario is: Only 20 yards?   I hope the green plateau takes enough off it so it doesn't run through the green. 

Seriously. One reason they may have made the hog's back into a plateau may have been to give the golfer more room to run the ball onto the green.  Notice that many of these greens were slightly banked back to front? 

Along these lines, if Merion's hole has a shortcoming as a biarritz it is that there may not be enough room to run in a driver and keep it on the green.  I believe that the area just short of the steep downslope used to be maintained as fairway, and may still be for all I know.  If so, why do you suppose it was?  It wouldn't surprise me if the slope down used to be fairway as well.   

TEPaul seems to think that if the hole was there naturally then it couldn't have been inspired by CBM's and HJW's early conception of the biarritz.   By that logic, NGLA's Redan and Alps could not have been inspired by the originals because CBM and HJW found them!   While some features were manufactured, most of Merion's holes were found instead of built, and this may explain Merion's enduring quality.   I imagine CBM's and HJW's mouths were watering back in the Summer of 1910 when they first laid eyes on the site for this hole.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #296 on: December 03, 2009, 10:22:47 PM »
You know something, you guys might be arguing an irrelevant point in most people's eyes...that is Tom and David.

When I read your posts, I try to cut through the agendas and desire to be proven correct and simply discern the facts.  And I find the knowledge and facts so intensely interesting, which I think you guys take for granted and use them to try to prove some other point.

Take David's last post...

He talks about how a hole's configuration might tempt a long hitter to try to pull of a shot that he might not be able to...but will neverhteless be tempted to try it.

Then he talks about how a ball struck by a hickory shafted club differs from what we hit today and how the architecture of a hole effects that ball and what the dangers are to the golfers score, etc.

That is the crux of the golf course architects job/challenge, right?  To know these things, create illusions, challenges, opportunites, subtle clues for the golfer to see, things to potentially overlook, etc.

So from my perspective, I don't care if the 17th at Merion is a Biarritz or not.  I don't care if CBM was the designer or if it wsa Wilson, Barker, or Whigam.

I am simply taking all the knowledge that you guys throw around on the site and absorbing.  You guys take the knowledge for granted and are looking to prove specific and exotic points.  And I get that...you are at a level far and above the average Joe and I get the importance of giving credit where credit is due.  So keep it up and find the truth.

but from my perspective, if I cna listen and learn about what these architects are doing and why, then I should be able to appreciate it and understand it better and perhaps play a better game of golf and have more fun and enjoy the magic of the game even more.

So keep it up and honor the game!!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #297 on: December 03, 2009, 10:29:52 PM »
"TEPaul seems to think that if the hole was there naturally then it couldn't have been inspired by CBM's and HJW's early conception of the biarritz.   By that logic, NGLA's Redan and Alps could not have been inspired by the originals because CBM and HJW found them!   While some features were manufactured, most of Merion's holes were found instead of built, and this may explain Merion's enduring quality.   I imagine CBM's and HJW's mouths were watering back in the Summer of 1910 when they first laid eyes on the site for this hole."


Well, that kind of thing would presuppose that Macdonald/Whigam actually routed Merion East in a SINGLE DAY about five months before the club agreed to consider buying it (and we don't even know the specificity of the land being offered at that time) and about 6-8 months before anyone finally routed it. Anyone who knows a damn thing about how golf course routing and architecture works today and certainly back then knows that's completely preposterous. Luckiliy, however, we have a letter to MCC from Macdonald in June 1910 explaining exactly what he and Whigam felt and DID SAY about that basic site (which Wayne Morrison found, by the way) and a routing and design from them was most definitely not even close to what they said or mentioned to MCC.

Macdonald/Raynor would not return to Merion East for the next ten months, and when Wilson and his committee went to see Macdonald and Whigam at NGLA in early March 1911 they recorded what-all they did there and planning the Merion East course was not even remotely reported. One can certainly speculate that might have been discussed but that is total speculation and there is not a single VERIFIABLE FACT  ;) to indicate it!!  

TEPaul

Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #298 on: December 03, 2009, 10:40:58 PM »
Mac:

There is one reason and one reason only Moriarty keeps trying to make these tenuous connections to Macdonald concepts with Merion and now a hole like Merion's #17 as a biarrtiz  ??? and at this point I suspect you know what that reason is. But if you don't know, at this point, I would be happy to explain it to you. ;)

Believe it or not he has been trying to do this with Merion East for a number of years and MacWood has been apparently trying to do some variation of that for close to seven years now.

But this is your thread and you've done well with it so it's probably the time for you, AGAIN, to suggest this thread go on to some other item that is ground-breaking or revolutionary.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 10:42:36 PM by TEPaul »

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses
« Reply #299 on: December 03, 2009, 10:45:50 PM »
Tom...

I am hitting the rack and will check in tomorrow.

Later!
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back