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?