[Mike Cirba]

Wait,

I though the multi-level green on the par five second hole at Merion was the "Biarritz"??   

Or was that one the "Double Plateau"?   

Or wait, was the that the multi-level green on the 14th?

Wasn't the par four 15th the "Eden"?   

Who's on First??   


Now, how about a few actual facts instead of this ongoing ridiculous speculation...

The seventeenth green at Merion was completely reconstructed in 1915/1916 for the US Amateur.

At the time, the green was enlarged, ("lengthened and widened") and "lifted", and two brand new bunkers were dug to the right, which can be seen in David's aerial.

Also, the back was built up a bit and a mound was constructed behind the green, which is a bunker today

Prior to the 1916 US Amateur, the hole played as a par four at 230 yards, but was shortened to 215 for the Amateur.

Between 1916 and 1924 the left greenside bunker was enlarged and extended forward.   

A second bunker was dug just off the green to the left.

A fairway "landing area" in the hollow just short of the green was created, which had previously been simply rough grass all the way to the green.

Some "Biarritz"!   

[Mike Cirba]

As we consider what were attempts to build template holes, it is important to note again the Opening Day articles by men who clearly had traveled abroad and due to their close contacts within the club, also distinctly understood both the terminology as well as what Merion had actually attempted.

In that regard we have three accounts, plus Richard Francis' first-person account years later, and they all mention the same very few templates that seemingly existed when Merion opened;

The men were A.W. Tillinghast, Alex Findlay, and "Far and Sure", whoever he may have been;

Findlay mentioned in 1911 after Wilson's return from abroad that to create an Alps hole, Wilson agreed it "needed a lot of making".

Findlay's Opening Day article mentioned the redan and the Alps only.

Tillinghast's Opening Day article talked about many holes, but mentioned only the "Eden Green" at the 15th as some sort of template, which he felt was one of the only flaws on the course as the green was banked too much back to front.

"Far and Sure" mentioned the "Eden Green" on the 15th (he didn't care for it either), and some other foreign touches (largely in the form of mounding and hazards), but that's it.

Here's some of what "Far and Sure" wrote.   He was particularly perceptive in noting that the best holes weren't some type of forced designs, but instead used the natural landforms to create original holes.




And here's what Richard Francis told us about the template holes.   Note that it became a "redan" hole AFTER Wilson's return from abroad.   It's LOCATION AFTER IT WAS BUILT suggested a redan type hole, and the classic deep, low-side corner bunker was built in what had been a bank barn.

[DMoriarty]

Wait,

I though the multi-level green on the par five second hole at Merion was the "Biarritz"??  

Or was that one the "Double Plateau"?  

Or wait, was the that the multi-level green on the 14th?

Wasn't the par four 15th the "Eden"?  

Who's on First??

Another example of Cirba's sleazy tactics.  I have repeatedly explained that the 2nd green with the swale with the biarritz orientation was not the "Biarritz Hole," and that CBM was building such greens on non-par threes.  Sleepy Hollow, for example, had a green with a swale so oriented in addition to their Biarritz hole.   And it was either Travis or Tillinghast who noted that the 15th green was an attempt at the Eden Green.    And the 14th was clearly a double plateau green.

Mike knows all this well.  Yet he tries to make a mockery of it in the hopes of fooling someone into confusion about what really happened.  This is the sort of sleazy non-discussion in which he has engaged for years.  

As for the  17th (Merion's early Biarritz) he is just flat out twisting what happened.  It was always intended to be a one shot hole and reported as such, it always had a swale short of the green, and it was always fairway short of the green.   As usual with the early measurements of Merion, they are off.  The shortened version of the hole (for the Amateur) couldn't have been much over 200 yards to the middle of green but was listed at 215.  Extrapolating backwards, that would would make the original about 215-220.  In 1934 the hole was listed as 230 yards, but in reality it was about 215.  

The "rebuild" was because of agronomic concerns, NOT as a redesign.   See Hugh Wilson's chapter for details on what more of what this entailed, but it essentially entailed adding some subsurface drainage and sodding.   There is no indication that the hole substantially changed in strategic character at this point. Also his statement about the rough running right up to the green unsupported.   There are reports of "fairway" short of the green.  Do you think Mike will insist they listed the hole as a par 4 but then made it all carry?   That'd have been a novice move, but these guys had CBM so they didn't make such foolish mistakes.

In short, it is Mike twisting again.   What we had with Merion's 17th hole was a hole that was a very good match to what CBM had described of his early Biarritz concept, especially the distance of the hole, the character of the necessary shot, and the swale for 30 yards short of the plateau green.  It was not a perfect Biarritz as we have come to think of them, but we ought not to expect to to be.   CBM and/or Raynor did not build it, and CBM had never even built one of his own yet!  

____________________________________________

Mike's latest post is more of the same, and his information selective and misleading.  

In the spring of 1912 (before Wilson had even returned from his trip) it was reported that most of the holes at Merion were modeled after the great holes abroad.  

At the opening it was reported that many of the holes were modeled after the great holes abroad.   In  his earlier article Findlay had acknowledged that many of the holes as laid out by CBM were based on holes abroad.  

How were these guys to right about a Biarritz hole?  It was a concept in CBM's and HJW's mind, not anything they had ever seen before!  

_____________________

I also just noticed he is mischaracterizing what Francis wrote yet again.  Francis didn't write that the 3rd became a redan after the trip.   He said it "benefitted" by the trip but he didn't say how.     It is absurd to suggest the hole became a redan later.  The green and fairway (there was one) and tees had already been built.  And the bunker was a barn!     Do you think they would leave the barn there, or is it more reasonable to think that they removed the barn and threw in some sand?

[DMoriarty]

One of the problems here is that Mike seems to be totally reliant on the Flynn Fakers, and they have cherry picked the sources to the extent that little of what they say or think is complete or reliable.  For example, they have insisted that the 17th was a par 4, until it was changed for the 1916 Amateur.   Of course as usual they don't clarify their source but I suspect it was from a map in one of the articles written preceding the tournament.  (I don't have the map in front of me, but I recall one having some questionable par designations.)  In fact the hole had long been considered a one shot hole.  

Here is the description from Robert Lesley's article from 1914.  

Standing upon a precipice 100 feet in the air with iron railings to prevent the far-swinging player from falling into the depths of the quarry beneath, the golfer finds himself facing the seventeenth green some 220 yards away.  Over the quarry, over an intervening hill, over an intervening valley the ball flies to the big seventeenth green, where two putts make the par three.

The component parts of a Biarritz are there, even the chasm - or in this case the quarry - is present.  

[Mike Cirba]

Here is the 17th hole from the tee prior to the changes made to the hole for the 1916 US Amateur.   Note the yardage, as well as the lack of bunkering, as well as no abrupt terrace rise in the green.




Here's a picture of the 17th green looking back to the tee taken around the course opening.

It's clear that the ridge and drop off short of the green were natural to the quarry and not something manufactured to create the swale as every Biarritz green I've ever seen uses.    

It was simply a matter of placing the green just beyond it.

Also note that the green then did not have the abrupt front rise, or terrace, but simply used the existing low-lying terrain.

[Mike Cirba]

In his earlier article Findlay had acknowledged that many of the holes as laid out by CBM were based on holes abroad.  


David,

Please show us where Findlay wrote that.    Thanks.

Regarding the topic, you keep firing insults and pointless, agenda-driven speculation and I'll keep providing facts and evidence, deal?


As far as there always being fairway in front of the 17th green, please see William Flynn's 1916 drawings and hole descriptions;






Here's a blown-up shot of the hole as originally designed before Hugh Wilson revised the green and bunkering.

Sorry for the size, but the details are important.   I have to ask...is the 16th with it's carry over a quarry and huge false front and bi-level green a "Biarritz" too?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I would be glad to discuss the template holes at NGLA, but don't you think we should start a separate thread devoted to the creation of that course to do that? Oh, wait......

[DMoriarty]

I don't know what Mike thinks he is looking at in those photos, but it is certainly not the same thing I am looking at. 

As for the Flynn drawings of the holes in 1916 the rough and rough lines  are nowhere near accurate.   Lesley described the hole, a par 3, in 1914.   

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I didn't ask about the template holes at NGLA.  I asked about the template holes at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock.

Start a new thread to discuss these is you like.   

[Tom MacWood]

Mackenzie wrote this in the 'Spirit of St. Andrews':

"In a former chapter it has been suggested that in the nature of things no changes to a golf course originated by a green committee in consultation with a professional or greeenkeeper can ever be a complete success. The only exceptions I have known to this rule when any real improvements resulted have been when the committee has been dominated by some benevolent autocrat who has made a lifelong study of the subject. Woking and John L. Low, Sunningdale and Harry Colt and the Merion Cricket Club and the Wilson Brothers are cases in point."

Low redesigned Tom Dunn's Woking; Colt redesigned Willie Park's Sunningdale; the Wilsons redesigned...

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Yes, Hugh Wilson redesigned Merion East a number of times, primarily in 1915/16 and again in 1924.

When was SOSA written?

[Mike Cirba]

Speculation concerning, "Why didn't Merion hire the best?" forgets one very important fact.

They did.

At the time Fred Pickering was brought in to build Merion, according to accounts he had built over 100 courses and was the country's preeminent grass-guy.

He had traveled extensively, and worked primarily with Bendelow, Findlay, and others.    

If Merion had wanted to build an "Eden green", or a "Redan-type" hole, or an "Alps", Pickering and Findlay were certainly well acquainted with how to do that, as was Tillinghast, who was also around at times prior to construction.

This is not to minimize the consultative role provided by CBM, but merely to supplement it with "on the ground" experience that was vast and arguably even greater than Macdonald's experience.

As far as "Alps" holes, they dated back to the Ardsley Casino course and Shinnecock in this country, and when the Ideal Golf Holes were tabulated in GB, the Alps headed the list of par fours.   They were a dime a dozen here by the time CBM built his, yet his was clearly superior.

Here are three articles written by Alex Findlay between June 1912 and September 1912 when Merion opened.   It's clear Findlay spoke to Hugh Wilson before he went abroad, again after, and advised him as well.   Joe Bausch found these articles and posted them prior, but they do provide interesting insight.

It is somewhat curouss that a man like Alex Findlay, arguably the most experienced man in American golf at the time, would 1) equate Wilson with what Leeds and Macdonald had done, simply for going abroad for a few weeks, and 2) Would still feel that Myopia was our greatest course even after the National was built.

[Tom MacWood]

The Spirit of St. Andrews was written in the early 30s. In the previous chapter Mackenzie said normally it was a bad idea to allow a committee to alter existing course designed by a first class architect or to allow a committee to build a golf course designed by a first class architect. Mackenzie was friends with Alan Wilson and I am assuming he had intimate knowledge of how the course evolved. He is categorizing the Wilsons with Low and Colt as unique committee chairs who successfully carried out or redesigned an architects design.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

It would help our understanding if you quoted what was said exactly instead of paraphrasing between chapters.   Thanks.

[Tom MacWood]

He discusses it in the chapters dealing with general principles and economy in golf course construction. If you don't have the book, you should pick it up, it is one of the more interesting and informative books written during the so called golden age.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I have the book...just thought you might have the passages conveniently handy to reference for us.   Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It's hard to tell from that article if Findlay is referring to other Alps holes CBM laid out elsewhere, or if he is saying CBM laid out the other template holes at Merion.  I can see where David believes the latter, but I am not 100% sure we can know.

It also occurs to me that, given their admitted desire to collect information from as many sources as possible, that the choice of Pickering, and his grass knowledge, over CBM/Raynor, whose NGLA was struggling with its turf at the time, was probably a very deliberate attempt to use the biggest experts available.  (i.e. 100 courses built vs 3, with the one they saw struggling at the time with its turf)

And, by extension, with Pickering seemingly given some free reign in the general makeup of the course, as reported by Findlay, it would explain the differences in design/construction style.  As Patrick argues, I have always believed that they were in fact, very concerned about not just copying the NGLA style, but having their own.

And again with the semantics, but if they hired Pickering and his experience in course making, which seems to include building to a certain style (hey, all shapers have a style) all that would argue against calling CBM more than an advisor, but I know others will see it differently.  No doubt they relied on him a lot for design ideas, even though we cannot know the detail of who picked the Redan hole for 3, the Road Hole for 6, etc.

BTW, I recall being told that there was a letter between CBM and Wilson regarding turf issues through June 1911, but in the end, they disagreed strongly on some of his turf advice and its the last correspondance noted between the parties on the matter.  That suggests that Pickering took on a bigger and bigger role in their minds, although it doesn't diminish whatever CBM did to guide them earlier.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

It's interesting to read Robert Lesley's definition of the Principles of an Alps Hole, which he defined with a large front crossing bunker and a large mound behind.   Given the topography of Merion's 10th, it would have been difficult to hide the flag/green without also creating some type of concave punchbowl.  

Given that definition, however, it's pretty easy to see how any number of holes could have been called "Alps", including the one under construction at the time at Piping Rock.   Did Chicago have an "Alps" hole, or any of the other courses CBM was credited for advising at?

I also find it telling that Findlay 1) first tells us he's not ready to "talk about the possibilities" of the Merion course, so I doubt he's then in the next breath saying many other holes at Merion are already "great", and 2) that there isn't a single mention of CBM in his "Opening Day" article that again mentions Wilson and his Committee's great work on par with what Leeds did at Myopia.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I don't know who decided to make the 10th the Alps at MCC, but I suspect that they looked at the road crossing, and figured it wasn't the place for a run up shot so the Alps was the perfect choice to force an aerial shot over the cars......

I agree that CBM would have been mentioned more often. However, while I don't agree, I can see why anyone who thinks there was a mindset at Merion to take credit themselves at the expense of CBM could argue that they purposely downplayed his role at the opening.  And, in reality, as David pointed out once, I really think the idea of designing and building a great course weren't separated in nearly anyone's mind at that time as much as it is now.  Hence the "construction committee" tag vs the design and construction committee, etc.

I appreciate the old articles again. I am leaving town once again, but when I have some time, I swear I am going to copy all of those on my hard drive at some point so no one has to post them again, at least for my benefit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

It seems as though a good deal of the debate may be hidden by semantics and subjectivity.

So, to get things on a more finite basis.

As a percentage, what percentage of the golf course circa 1912, opening day, would you attribute to the committee and what percentage to CBM & HJW ?

You can even poll the Merionettes in exile.

I"d be curious to know what you and others feel is the appropriate number.

David Moriarty & Tom MacWood,

While I'm guessing that your attribution breakdown will be higher than Mikes and the Merionettes, I'd appreciate you're holding off with your response until after they've quantified their attribution based on their research and opinions.

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Mike says that he is not trying to minimize CBM's contribution, but what other point could their possibly be to this scattergun, Anyone-but-CBM approach to Merion's history.

Pickering?   He built the course according to the plan CBM had chosen.  No one at Merion ever mentioned that Pickering had anything to do with the design.

Findlay?  There is no indication anywhere that he had anything to do with the design of the course.  In fact, when he was not indirectly plugging his own business by heaping praise on his business partner Pickering, he indicated that CBM laid out many of the holes, at least.

Tillinghast?   How desperate can they get?   Tillinghast's sole source of information on the design seems to have been CBM himself.   How ironic is that?   CBM tells AWT about the project and shows him plans, and because of that we are to assume that AWT had influence and CBM didn't?    It is ridiculous.

Those at Merion tell us where they got their ideas.  From  CBM and HJW.  All this speculation and inflation of Anyone-but-CBM just goes to show what is really going on here.   
__________________________________________________________

Jeff Brauer, 

I think you may be letting your imagination run away a bit in some of your posts above.

Merion hired Pickering over CBM?  What are you talking about?   CBM was involved in the planning and chose the final routing plan.  CBM was not in the course building business like Pickering.  It is quite clear from all of we know that he never intended to build Merion's course (thus his repeated references to what Merion ought to do.)   Pickering, on the other hand, was a course builder and brought in to build the course.   Or as Merion's minutes say and as my essay said, to build it according to plan, the plan CBM had chosen. 

You also mistakenly speculate about the later letter from CBM and HJW.  In their zeal to besmirch CBM, the Merionettes had blatantly misunderstood and misrepresented that letter and ignored the accompanying letter which explains it quite well.  In context, about all that letter establishes is that CBM was still working closely with Wilson well into the construction of the course.   There was no evidence of a fight or falling out, nor any reason to think that the letter represented the last of their communication.   The only reason we have the letter is that Wilson happened to forward it to Oakley. 

(I don't have the two letters handy, but the gist is that Beale, the British seed guy, had met with Wilson and would later be meeting with CBM, so Wilson asked CBM to try to get and forward Beale's candid opinion on some agronomy issues at Merion.  After meeting with Beale, CBM was passing along what Beale had told him about the Merion project.  Far from being evidence of a fallout, the letter is evidence of a close and continuing advisor relationship.)

[Mike Cirba]

Wait a second...

I thought the Merion Committee was the one whose role was simply to "build the course according to the plan CBM selected", not Fred Pickering!

Or, in David-Speak, they "laid out the course upon the land", aka "it rubs the lotion on it's skin".    

What exactly do you think it was that Hugh Wilson's Committee did again??  

No one is claiming that Pickering and/or Findlay and/or Tilinghast had anything to do with the design, but they certainly were all there to advise on what building an Eden Green might entail!

And there's another reason I'm mentioning them, David...

THEY WERE THERE!!!    

At the very minimum, we KNOW that Alex Findlay was there AT LEAST two times, which is PRECISELY the number of visits that CBM made.

CBM's first visit was June, 1910, and he returned again for a single day TEN MONTHS LATER to help the Merion Committee select the best of their five final routing options.

Pickering was there all through construction and his vast experience in construction and agronomy dwarfed anyone else involved with the project.

And, you have no idea how many times Tillinghast met with the Committee or anyone at Merion while the project was being planned, do you?   You tell us that CBM showed him the plans but you don't have any evidence of that.    Tillinghast told us he talked about the Merion project with CBM while at Garden City, but he also told us in 1911, concerning the Merion Committee;




When Merion opened Tillinghast wrote a lengthy review of the course in the American Cricketer.   There is not a single word about CBM and/or HJ Whigham, even though, as you point out, he spoke with them about the project.

Instead, Tillinghast wrote;




In 1934, in the US Open preview, Tillinghast wrote;




Again, not a single word about CBM and/or Whigham and their supposed design of Merion.

Are you trying to tell us that Tillinghast didn't know that Hugh Wilson didn't actually design the golf course??  

[DMoriarty]

More sleazy deception and misinformation.

Tillinghast wrote that he had seen the plans.  Cirba knows from what else he wrote around that same time that if he saw the plans it was most likely CBM who had shown him the plan.  Cirba also knows that if Tillie was who Cirba thinks he was, then Tillie had not seen the course until after it opened.    And of course Mike forgets that Tillie had already written that that CBM had been working with the committee and had been of great help.

Findlay was there after the course had already been built and the greens and tees seeded.    

Pickering was hired to build the course according to plan.  The plan CBM had chosen.  (What else would one call reviewing a number of plans and then approving either one of these, some combination of these, or something else entirely?)

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Tillinghast did NOT see the course between the time the plans were approved at the start of construction until he played it shortly after it was finished.

But, he LIVED in Philadelphia.   Are you telling us that during the winter months and GAP meetings that he had no discussions with his closest friends like Rodman Griscom and/or Robert Lesley??   Are you losing it??

Tillinghast told us precisely what everyone else did...that CBM advised the Committee...big whup!!  

But, he also told us that Hugh Wilson and Committee were the ARCHITECTS of the golf course, and whatever advise and suggestions that CBM provided Tillinghast didn't think they warranted mention in an extensive review of the entire golf course for American Cricketer.   Do I need to re-post the entire article again??

You keep using words like "chosen".

CBM had absolutely no such authority, I'm sorry to say.   If he did, the Merion Committee wouldn't have had to present their proposal to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th 1911 for ACTUAL approval.

Instead, it's very clear that without such authority, the meaning of the word is the first one, not the second, because CBM had no ability to function within the second definition.

ap·prove  (-prv)
v. ap·proved, ap·prov·ing, ap·proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction: The Senate approved the treaty.
3. Obsolete To prove or attest.
v.intr.
To show, feel, or express approval: didn't approve of the decision.


As far as Findlay, once again you're talking out of your blow hole.

You have absolutely no idea when Alex Findlay was there, how many times, who he met with, over what period, or anything other than what we all know...he was there at least TWICE, just like good Old Macdonald! 

[DMoriarty]

Mike just keeps twisting.   I point to the words of those who were there and to the course itself to make my case.   Mike has to go on these great tangents, pretending people were there who weren't, mincing words, dissing CBM and HJW, contradicting those there, exaggerating the involvement of those not at all involved in the planning.

Tillinghast lived in Philadelphia therefor he must have been involved?

Tillinghast never saw the course and apparently only reported what CBM told him about it, yet we are to believe that Merion was following his advice - and not CBM's?  

Twenty some years later, AWT warmly remembers Wilson and defends his reputation against usurpation by Flynn, and we are to believe this was a statement about the level of CBM's contribution?  

And to hear Mike tell it, apparently CBM and HJW just showed up at Merion one spring day, uninvited, snuck onto the land to go over it again, forced the committee to show them the various plans, and then "approved" what they saw fit, all without Merion's consent, invitation, or involvement?

Bullshit.   CBM and HJW were there because Merion wanted them there.  They approved the plan, because Merion obviously put it in their hands to decide what was best to do with the land.  CBM and HJW were following up on their meetings a few weeks before where CBM was teaching them what to do with their land.  And those meetings were a follow up on CBM's and HJW's earlier involvement.   CBM had been involved from the beginning and was making sure Merion had it right, and signing off on what they (including CBM) had come up with.   There is no other reasonable way to read it.   But then for the Merionettes, this isn't about reason, it is about plausible deniability.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()