Chip,
I agree with you about the green on No. 6, but some things are best suggested by someone other than me.
As for the tee shot, with todays fairway widths, conditions, equipment (and without a shed) it is more difficult to immediately see, but back in the day of wider fairway and shorter drives I think it would have been more apparent. Various old descriptions (such as the one above from the NYTimes) indicate that the strategic underpinnings of the hole were very similar to that of the road hole.
The tee was placed behind the corner of a lot that did not originally belong to the club (the "corn lot") and the green side bunker (which apparently used to be a very nasty pit) was placed so that a successful drive over the corner would have provided the golfer a big advantage. Even as club chipped away at the adjacent property, they built and maintained bunkers and mounds right at the corner, front of the tee, so that the golfer would continue to face this difficult choice.
In short, this was pretty sophisticated stuff, strategically, and intentionally so. This sort of sophisticated strategy was common at Merion but my opinion it represented a substantial departure from most of what was out there, especially around Philadelphia.
Could an American architect of that day have thought to place a swale into a relatively flat putting surface without going to Britain or seeing drawings of overseas courses ?
Could an American architect or
did an American architect? I ask because at this point I don't see much reason to speculate about whether anyone at Merion
could have come up with this stuff themselves. Because we know that they did not come up with it by themselves. In Brief:
-- Macdonald and Whigham had been involved since before Merion had purchased the land, and had inspected and considered the property long before Hugh Wilson was reported to have entered the fray.
-- The first record of Hugh Wilson's involvement (February 1, 1911 letter to Piper) indicates that Wilson was already consulting with CBM regarding Merion.
-- A few weeks before the layout plan would be finalized and construction begun, Wilson and his committee were at NGLA with CBM and Whigham working on the layout plan and studying the holes at NGLA. (My guess is that this was a pretty one sided conversation.)
-- CBM and Whigham returned to Merion a few weeks later, again inspected the land a reviewed the options the Committee had come up with, and then CBM and Whigham
determined the final layout plan.
--
Add to this that a few months ago, TEPaul mentioned that he was in possession of a disc with information indicating that CBM and HGLloyd had been corresponding about the potential layout throughout the fall of 1910, and that it now looked to TEPaul like CBM and Whigham had planned the layout that fall. Isn't that right, TEPaul?So I think the time for speculating about what Wilson or anyone could have done on their own is long past. We know that Wilson was far from on his own.
Same goes for this speculation and implication that, if Griscom, Lloyd or any other of the committee might have golfed abroad at some point, then they must have been the genius and inspiration behind the sophisticated strategies and features at Merion. It is an interesting theory, but one without basis. We
know to whom Wilson went for his ideas and we know where he went for inspiration and examples. Wilson himself told us so, as did Lesley, Tillinghast, Findlay, and Whigham, and even Alan Wilson.
JC Jones wrote:
As for #2, my point was that the presence of a swale on #2 does not indicate, verify nor confirm the involvement on CBM. There could potentially be a million reasons why there was a swale on #2.
There is no need "to indicate, verify, or confirm the involvement of CBM" at Merion? We know he was deeply involved throughout the design process. He may have spent more time at Merion and done more at Merion than he did at some of the other courses he is credited with designing.
But I am curious, do you really think there could be a million possible reasons why Merion would create a green like that? Are these million other possible reasons more likely than the most obvious one?
Better yet, are there a million reasons why Merion would have attempted so many strategic concepts and features that were commonly utilized by CBM? A million reasons for attempting a Redan, an Alps, a double plateau, another double plateau with a more biarritz orientation, a reported attempt to copy the Eden green, four short holes to the CBM distance recommendations, holes behind the clubhouse on land CBM recommended they add, and more?
Are there really a million reasons that Merion could have come up with this stuff on their own? Isn't the most likely reason that, whoever the designer, Merion East was an attempt at a course that, strategically, was very much in the CBM mold?
_____________________________________________
TEPaul,
This is as good a thread as any for you to finally come clean about those Drexel documents, don't you think?