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.


Patrick_Mucci

Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« on: September 28, 2010, 07:59:58 PM »
I was just reading the Merion Golf Club's official website and noticed that their official position agrees with mine regarding the 3rd hole.

The website says the following:

"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England.
The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan)"

I've been saying this for over 40 years, and yet have been villified about my position by the likes of Wayne Morrison, TEPaul and Mike Cirba.

So why are they in disagreement with me and in conflict with Merion's official position ?

Am I entitled to an apology ? ;D

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #1 on: September 28, 2010, 08:33:15 PM »
Patrick,

If you were a little more generous with apologies yourself, then perhaps some might come your way.

BTW

Congratulation on the Mountain Lake(sic) ;D event.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

mark chalfant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #2 on: September 28, 2010, 08:38:18 PM »
Patrick,

iI dont think any of the main line Wilson experts owe you an apology.  However  I tihnk they should serve  2 weeks in the Eastern State Jail  (near the art museum) It has a bldg with arcihtectural  and historic merit. The cells  are spacious and airy.....plus the light in the courtyard  is ambient, so folks can review their documents in good light  !!

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2010, 08:59:15 PM »
Patrick,

Where have you been??   This one was decided a long, long time back.

Were you busy planning an event or something?  ;)  ;D

In any case, here's what Merion co-designer Richard Francis has to say about the creation of the redan hole at Merion;


JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2010, 09:05:34 PM »
I still don't see how the 3rd at Merion is a Redan.  I find very little in common with the original 15th at North Berwick.  A diagonal green canting to one side does not a Redan make.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2010, 09:14:48 PM »
John,

As the greensite would have already been built prior to turning the hole into a "redan", it makes sense that Wilson and co. Did a loose interpretation of the principles of the hole adapted to their own natural conditions, which was really just crating the diagonal bunker carry on a fortress-like par three..in other words, the hilltop greensite had already been located and grown in, and then as Francis said, that location suggested the application of a redan type hole after Wilson's return from abroad.


JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #6 on: September 28, 2010, 09:22:34 PM »
John,

As the greensite would have already been built prior to turning the hole into a "redan", it makes sense that Wilson and co. Did a loose interpretation of the principles of the hole adapted to their own natural conditions, which was really just crating the diagonal bunker carry on a fortress-like par three..in other words, the hilltop greensite had already been located and grown in, and then as Francis said, that location suggested the application of a redan type hole after Wilson's return from abroad.


Mike,

I can definitely see how that sort of thing would have played out.  I suppose I can see some influence drawn from NB's 15th, considering that the green site was already there at Merion's 3rd.  This sort of thing happens with architects all the time, no? They see a concept at one great course and try to apply that concept loosely to their own.

However, I believe there is difference between saying the 3rd at Merion was "influenced by the Redan," and calling the 3rd "The Redan."  Merion's 3rd might draw influence, but it is not a Redan.  I think problems occur when people try to stretch definitions of template holes to include any hole that contains one characteristic of a classic template hole.  Just as I would not call 18th at Leatherstocking a Cape Hole or call the 2nd at Garden City a Short Hole, I would not call the 3rd at Merion a Redan Hole.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #7 on: September 28, 2010, 09:43:36 PM »
John,

I agree that those looking for template holes can find them virtually anywhere, and that loose interpretations generally are not enlightening and often serve to confuse the issue, but there were any number of reports back then that called the 3rd hole a redan, so its clear they ad at least the intent, if not consistent execution.

I find Francis' wording very revealing;  you'll notice he doesn't say they looked for a place to put a redan hole...instead he tells us the the location of the green that had already been built suggested the application of the principles of a redan hole.

I think that's a crucial distinction to a proper understanding of the origins and early evolution of Merion East.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #8 on: September 28, 2010, 09:53:05 PM »
Mike - I think the last two lines of your last point are really good - the clearest and simplest and best articulation I've read in the last three years of your understanding of the origins and early evolution of Merion East.

Peter 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #9 on: September 29, 2010, 05:06:48 PM »
Mike, that is a strange take on Francis, particularly because BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad it had already been reported that the holes were based upon the great holes abroad.   The hole was already there.   The green built. The redan bunker dug out.    Unless of course you think they built a green right behind a barn, and that they planned to leave the barn there!  That'd be a little much, wouldn't it?  

Francis said the third hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip, but he doesn't say how.   For example he doesn't say the redan was copied after Wilson's trip.   That would be nonsensical since the hole had already been built.  And he said that the location of the hole lent itself to the design, and it obviously did.  The barnyard became the green, and the barn basement became the bunker.  But these things happened BEFORE Wilson's trip not after.
____________________________________________________

Patrick,

The bit about the apology is pretty funny.  If they owe you an apology, then what do they owe me?
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 05:09:02 PM by DMoriarty »
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)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #10 on: September 29, 2010, 05:28:09 PM »
David,

I could be wrong, but with all the changes that happened after the initial opening of Merion (esp before 1916) are we sure the Redan version was built before Wilson's trip?  If we take Francis at his word, and I know you do, then it sounds to me like the green was rebuilt after Wilson's trip abroad, doesn't it?  Lord knows a lot of the other greens seem to have been rebuilt, or at the very least bunkered later.

Of course, it could be that CBM suggested it, and he was referring to Hugh's trip to NGLA......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #11 on: September 29, 2010, 05:59:47 PM »
Jeff, can you point out to me where Francis wrote anything about the  green being rebuilt?   Because I don't read it that way.   Francis said the hole benefited from Wilson's trip.   He didn't say how the hole benefited. 

What do you suppose the press was writing about in the spring of 1912 when the reported that most of the holes at Merion were based upon holes abroad?

In 1916 Wilson described in great detail the agronomic process of creating the course.  They began seeding on September 14, 1911, and the course opened one year later, which was quite fast for back then.    As far as Wilson's trip goes, he didn't even arrive back in New York on May 9, 1912, which was only about four months before the course opened.   He wrote nothing about rebuilding a green.   The grow-in took one year, and Wilson commented that while the course was in good shape at the opening, "naturally, the greens had not a finished surface."   I don't think it is feasible for the green to have been rebuilt and then grown in four months.

I am unaware of any green being rebuilt after Wilson's trip but before of the opening, and I don't think there would have been time for it.    A few greens greens were rebuilt a few years after seeding, but those were low lying greens.

Again, this seems like you guys are grasping at straws once again.
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: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #12 on: September 29, 2010, 06:02:47 PM »
I think it would be great to see what it looked like in 1912 - 1916, until then it really is up to individual interpretations of the words coupled with a liberal range for what the definition of a particular hole type is.

For instance, could the hole have more closely resembled a Redan initially than it does today? How? It seems the diagonal approach and flanking deep bunker qualify it for the category even though the green slopes towards the player and there is no opportunity to run up, or feed in from the side...is this enough? It's up to you.

Mike Cirba

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #13 on: September 29, 2010, 06:19:59 PM »
All the greens and tees were there, before Wilson left for abroad, and of course Wilson and Merion were hoping to pattern at least some of them after the principles of some of the great holes abroad applied to their own natural conditions or why go on the trip at all?  Why even go see NGLA in March 1910 for that matter?

This seeming paradox perplexed me too, until I realized two things;

1) Almost all of the great template holes rely on a bunkering strategy, and we know that reports in 1915 said Merion was barely bunkered, and,

2) Wilson and his committee had already seen Macdonald's versions of those holes at NGLA, AS WELL AS his detailed drawings of the great holes abroad during their visit to NGLA pre-design and pre-construction.

Thus, while they may have gotten an idea that certain holes and their locations might have fit the template profile, those things really don't seem to have been applied much prior to him going overseas.   Certainly they played around probably with some ideas thinking perhaps the uphill 10th might be a location for an Alps feature with cross-bunkering, or the green up on the hill over the barn might become a redan, but it seems from all accounts that "very little bunkering" took place prior.

Thus, they ended up with holes like today's "redan", where there is no kicker, no way to run the ball in, a green that tilts back to front, but if you stand on the tee, you have the fortress green and a diagonal "redan bunker" to contend with.

The purpose of Wilson's trip was to learn first hand, to create his own sketches, and bring back his own ideas and opinions, so that Merion could apply them over time as they saw fit on their new golf course.


Back when David first posted the Francis article, I realized what i believe is the answer to this quandary, and at the time wrote to him;

“I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot”. – Alex Findlay, talking about Hugh Wilson in May 1912 after Wilson’s return from overseas

What do you think Findlay means when he says that it will take a lot of making in this context?   As you pointed out, the golf course and the holes have already been routed, the holes on the ground, the greens and tees shaped and seeded, and now growing in.   That all happened over the previous year and now the course is months from opening so why would some hole concept still “take a lot of making”, or require much more work to be anything resembling the original?  

Let’s examine your timeline again;

1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.  
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.  
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.  
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.

You may be very surprised to learn that I agree with almost everything you’ve written with the exception perhaps that the first point is an overly broad generalization and oversimplification but the second point is where I’d like to get more specific because I’m not sure it’s a valid assumption.

It’s also why I’ve been asking you for any other specific examples of holes on the original Merion course that you believe were directly influenced by great holes overseas.   I want to be sure I address this comprehensively, but I guess we have enough generally agreed examples to work with using holes 3 (redan), 10 (Alps), and 15 green (Eden Green).

After all, we have outside, contemporaneous support for all of those holes/features being template-based, so we can comfortably work within that construct.

Let’s start with the redan hole, the third.  

Richard Francis tells us directly that this is one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that “the location of the hole lent itself to this design”.

You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole.   He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.

This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad.  Francis also tells us clearly that the idea all along was to “incorporate their good features on our course” AFTER Wilson returned in May of 1911.

How could this be?   Weren’t the holes already “designed” before Wilson went abroad, as you rightfully ask?

The simple answer is, no, they weren’t designed.    Eighteen tees and greens were fitted into the property in a routing, again using the natural features and conditions at their disposal on the property that had been selected as their canvas.

None of these tasks required Wilson to go abroad to study first because all they were using at this point was their own carefully studied knowledge of the property, their understanding of good golf holes in the U.S. through their own individual experiences playing golf at a high level nationally for over a decade, as well as what knowledge Macdonald had imparted regarding agronomics and construction techniques, as well has his knowledge of the great holes abroad that he communicated during their visit with him at NGLA.

All of the early accounts mentioned that what was built at first was incomplete, that there were very few bunkers and pits, and that “mental hazards” and additional strategies would be added later.   THAT was the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad…to see in person the type of great hole strategies they had discussed with Macdonald and now wished to apply to their evolving golf course.

Some months ago, and again as Adam Messix questioned yesterday, we had a great debate here re: whether the 3rd hole was indeed a redan, because it does not have the characteristic green sloping front to back, and tilted severely to the low side.  In fact, the 3rd green at Merion slopes back to front, the opposite of what you would expect.

If you think about the definition of the great holes abroad, almost every one of them are self-defined by a few key attributes, and in almost every case it’s not due to some natural feature that needs to be present, but due instead to the placement of artificial hazards which determine strategy.   THAT is what makes them somewhat repeatable.   Almost every template hole is self-defined by its bunkering pattern which defines the hole strategy…the road hole, the redan, the eden, the short, the alps…

I would contend that when the Merion course was first routed, shaped, and seeded, the 3rd hole was simply a tee in a valley, and a green located on a plateau hilltop, much like probably hundreds of uphill par threes in existence, although that barn-top abrupt rise does make it admittedly a bit special.

If nothing else was done to the hole after that it would still be a very good hole…it could even be bunkerless and would be a very good hole.

Yet, to apply some of what they saw as “redan principles”, the Wilson committee decided to build the key “redan bunker” into the face of the hill diagonally to one side (which Francis tells us was the basement of the barn), and also put some “high side” bunkering in on the left to catch the golfer playing a bit too cautiously away from the visually obvious front-right hazard.  

I would contend that those bunkers, and thus the entire hole strategy as a “redan” were added AFTER Wilson’s return from abroad.   The green design doesn’t exactly fit the redan concept because as you mentioned, that was already done and in place.   But we already know they weren’t looking for exact copies…they were simply looking to implement specific features and principles of great holes abroad and apply them to their natural inland conditions.

So it goes with the other examples.   Robert Lesley tells us the “principle” of the Alps Hole they wanted to copy was the large crossing bunker in front of the green, and possibly the large mound behind.    Well, we already know that when Wilson returned from his trip abroad and spoke with Findlay, he admitted that to create anything like the original Alps, “it would take a lot of making.”


 
« Last Edit: September 29, 2010, 06:27:32 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #14 on: September 29, 2010, 10:15:00 PM »
Mike,

Your post contradicts itself.   You start off admitting that the holes were designed from the beginning to represent holes from abroad, as taught to Wilson and committee by CBM and HJW.  But then by the end you are claiming that they just happened to have built a par three and only figured out it was a Redan later.  The former theory makes sense.  The latter doesn't.    For example, the Redan was there from the time they built it.  Given that the bunker was the basement of a barn, then that was there as well.

You seriously don't think that they planned to leave the barn there do you?   
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: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #15 on: September 29, 2010, 10:37:11 PM »
"Mike, that is a strange take on Francis, particularly because BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad it had already been reported that the holes were based upon the great holes abroad.   The hole was already there.   The green built. The redan bunker dug out."


Is that right? I must have missed that somewhere along the line. Where was it reported, back then, that the hole was already there and the green had been built and the bunker dug out BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad?

TEPaul

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #16 on: September 29, 2010, 11:14:17 PM »
Pat:

Honestly, I cannot really imagine why you would start a thread like this one unless you were just trying to be humorous or perhaps humorously ironical.

But since I don't know what your reason really is for beginning a thread like this I will just say if you want my apology you can have it but I should tell you I do not remember ever vilifying you or anyone else either today or back when Merion East was built for calling Merion's 3rd hole (once its 7th hole) for being a redan or being called a redan. If you can find an instance of me vilifying you or anyone else for saying that please do it and produce it or retract it. And I really do mean PRODUCE it and don't just continue to refer to what I said without producing evidence of what I said as discussion group sleaze-balls like Moriarty and MacWood constantly do on here with both me and others!

I am aware that others have argued you about that and perhaps in your mind vilified you but I don't think I have because I am aware of many different holes done in America that were called redans even if not much similar in numerous ways to North Berwick's #15.

Frankly, I think both me and George Bahto are perhaps the only ones on this website who really understand, and for years, what Macdonald really meant to do with his so-called template holes------and identifiably copying the prototypes from abroad (or anywhere else for that matter) was certainly not necessarily what he had in mind.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2010, 11:52:42 PM »
TEPaul,

If it wasn't you, it was your cretin cohorts, Wayno and Cirba.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #18 on: September 30, 2010, 12:27:32 AM »
"Mike, that is a strange take on Francis, particularly because BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad it had already been reported that the holes were based upon the great holes abroad.   The hole was already there.   The green built. The redan bunker dug out."


Is that right? I must have missed that somewhere along the line. Where was it reported, back then, that the hole was already there and the green had been built and the bunker dug out BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad?

You should work on your reading comprehension.
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: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #19 on: September 30, 2010, 01:05:28 AM »
Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 12:37:11 PM
"Mike, that is a strange take on Francis, particularly because BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad it had already been reported that the holes were based upon the great holes abroad.   The hole was already there.   The green built. The redan bunker dug out."


Is that right? I must have missed that somewhere along the line. Where was it reported, back then, that the hole was already there and the green had been built and the bunker dug out BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad?




“You should work on your reading comprehension.”




David Moriarty:

A far better response from you would be that you should just answer the question.


Here it is again:


Where was it reported, back then, that the hole was already there and the green had been built and the bunker dug out BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad?  


Can you actually answer the question or can't you? With responses like your last one I'm betting you can't! And so the best next resort for you is to respond with the likes of:



"You should work on your reading comprehension”...


.........and no more!  ;)





« Last Edit: September 30, 2010, 01:15:55 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #20 on: September 30, 2010, 02:03:33 PM »
Hugh Wilson wrote that the fairways and the greens were seeded in September 1911.  The only exceptions were the 10th through 12th fairways, which were thought to have good enough grass already.

In the Spring of 1912 - BEFORE Wilson returned from his trip abroad -  it had already been reported that many of the holes were based upon the great holes abroad.
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: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2010, 03:02:43 PM »
Thank you.

What then do you suppose Richard Francis was referring to when he wrote the following?

"While the committee was at work, Mr. Wilson went to the British Isles to study golf-course design, and returned with a lot of drawings which we studied carefully, hoping to incorporate their good features on our course. One of the holes which benefited was the third. It was copied from the Redan at North Berwick..."

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2010, 04:06:11 PM »
He said the hole benefited, but he doesn't say how it benefited.  I don't see any reason to speculate.
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)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2010, 05:30:35 PM »
TEPaul,

With Wilson's visit to NGLA and MacDonald, I'd be hard pressed to believe that he left Southampton without knowing about the configuration, beauty and playing benefits of a Redan.

He and his committee examined the Redan at NGLA.

CBM had sketches and his personal experiences from abroad and from NGLA which could be imparted onto Wilson and his committee.

With the landform at # 3 at Merion, it just cries out for a "REDAN" like hole.

I don't think Wilson needed to visit the UK in order to be "enlightened" regarding a REDAN.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Not to bring up a sore subject, but,
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2010, 05:39:12 PM »
Patrick,

And let's not forget that CBM not only went over the land in 1910, he also spent 2 days with Wilson & Co. at NGLA working on the layout, then traveled back to Merion a few weeks later to go over the land yet again, and chose the final layout plan.  So even on the off chance Wilson and/or Francis hadn't yet figured out it was a Redan (surely they had) Macdonald knew. 

All of CBM's courses post NGLA have Redans or reversed Redans, don't they? 
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)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back