[Mike Cirba]

Not sure that the 10th was really blind, as that one news article in a NY paper stated.   This 1912 photo from the 10th tee shows the large, ungainly mound that is BEHIND the 10th green pretty clearly.    Hard to imagine a player who reaches the top of the hill on his drive not being able to see the flagstick, which is not the case on either of the more famous "Alps" holes.



Later a bunker was placed in the lower face of the back mound, and that bunker is clearly visible at the top left-center in 1916 photos from areas around the 9th green/10th tee, as well, as clearly seen below.



Here is the back bunker in relation to the green elevation.



Here, one can see the old 10th green after construction of the new one.   It doesn't appear that anything other than a cross bunker with a few mounds in it would obstruct the view from the fairway, yet one can clearly seen the large mound behind.



Here's an enlarged version.

[Mike Cirba]

As time permits, I'd like to continue the documented timeline of the acquisition and planning process followed at NGLA.

In our last segment, we caught up with CBM in June 1906, on his return from abroad, and still seeking 200 acres somewhere on Long Island, which is what he first stated back in 1904.

It will be helpful to remember as we go through this that CBM told us that after getting turned down on his initial offer (strangely, for only 120 acres) on a site closer to the Canal at Good Ground, it took only 2-3 pony rides (likely a matter of a few days) on the 450 acres of Sebonac Neck for them to determine this was the land they wanted if they could get it at a reasonable price.  They not only got it at the price they wanted, but the seller let them secure 205 acres with the ability to determine the boundaries as they saw fit for their golf course needs.   It is within this context of the whole thing coming together rather quickly that one needs to keep in mind.

July - Sept 1910 - There are no reports found documenting any of CBM's golf course related activities during this period.

More to follow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Thanks for posting those pics. If charitable, I would say that David and I have one thing in common - that we both occaisionally make factual errors posting from memory.  But, he asks just how much I can get wrong in one post, and my response is, apparently, not much, but he batted 0-6 in his post, coming closest to a hit with his two word parsings, and that Findlay wrote something nice about the Alps upon opening, while whiffing on my characterization of my opinion of crude as an outright "falsehood", my understanding of corroboration, as well as every other contention he made in his post.

Nothing wrong with me David, other than I have managed to put my self into your character assination cross hairs by participating in these threads.

At one time, he and Pat claimed that the original hole designs were done by CBM and that he was in frequent undocumented contact with Merion.  Maybe he did do some feature design, if original sketches show the mounds in front of the Alps green.  Maybe he felt the road replicated the Alps hill and the mound behind was merely for safety from the first tee.  Who knows? 

David is now backing off a bit and saying he helped from a distance, which is of course, what Merion said all along.  Before the unwarranted character assination and lies in David's post, my question to Patrick was pretty simple - If CBM was really influential in hole designs at Merion, my question has always been whether or not the Merion Alps wouldn't have gotten built closer to a CBM template.  It sure appears they were willing to stray from the advice of their master, suggesting his role was as advisor only.  Somehow, Patrick takes that same evidence to mean CBM was more involved than Merion said and I was interested to know why.

That said, this thread isn't about Merion, and Mike, frankly, its not about NGLA either.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Fair enough about NGLA.

I did think the related topic of the first use of topos on American courses had a strong crossover to how they were used in the first American course actually seeking to create three-dimensional reproductions of holes overseas at NGLA, and how that might have been done from both a routing & hole planning as well as a construction standpoint, but so be it.

I have to say though, my attempts to ask questions about PV have been answered not with any new facts or findings, but simply ungrounded speculation, uninformed opinion, and personal insults.

Probably a good idea on your part, though...Perhaps if we keep the discussion simply to Pine Valley we can quickly;

1) End this thread which seems to have had little facts but lots of idle and unfounded speculation from the beginning, with missing train stations, 70 foot scrub trees, 70mph trains a mile out of station, lying great architects and journalists, a retread of Crump's suicide reporting (in case anyone happened to miss it the first time), and game hunting in a pear tree.

[JESII]

Jeff,

I hear you, but, if that was the case, why, six years after the purchase was the course still incomplete ?

Wouldn't a prodigy have figured out # 12, 13, 14 and 15 much earlier ?
A prodigy who lived on site ?

The other thing that puzzles me is that Fazio and Ransome crafted an exceptional 10 holer not far away, yet Pine Hill, close by, can't be considered a "peer" golf course, even with 100 years of study and modern tech under the developer's belt

If it was as simple as you seem to indicate, why isn't Pine Hill the equal of Pine Valley ?

Pat,

This is certainly a post worth preserving for posterity's sake...

"Why isn't Pine Hill the equal of Pine Valley?"

Mindbending!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

At one time, he and Pat claimed that the original hole designs were done by CBM and that he was in frequent undocumented contact with Merion. 


Jeff, would you cite the reply number where I claimed that the original hole designs were done by CBM.
As to undocumented contact, the phone lines were up and working quite well between Philly and NY and I stated that you couldn't exclude phone contact between the parties, since Mike and others claimed, unequivically, that the only contact CBM had with Merion was his visits and their visit.

If you're going to quote or paraphrase me, please get what I stated, correct, and don't paraphrase what you want me to have said.

Maybe he did do some feature design, if original sketches show the mounds in front of the Alps green. 

I believe, that like the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA, that there was a raised berm fronting Ardmore Ave.
While Mike's photo of # 10 is from the tee provides a panoramic view, from the DZ the view is quite different.
I believe David went into the elevation changes and views from the DZ toward the green

Maybe he felt the road replicated the Alps hill and the mound behind was merely for safety from the first tee.  Who knows? 
I don't think there's supporting evidence for your road theory.
The safety issue off of # 1 tee was very real.

David is now backing off a bit and saying he helped from a distance, which is of course, what Merion said all along.  Before the unwarranted character assination and lies in David's post, my question to Patrick was pretty simple -

If CBM was really influential in hole designs at Merion, my question has always been whether or not the Merion Alps wouldn't have gotten built closer to a CBM template. 

The answer is pretty simple, the topography didn't lend itself to replicating the original at Prestwick or the original at NGLA, so they manufactured what they thought retained the basic principles of the Alps.

It sure appears they were willing to stray from the advice of their master, suggesting his role was as advisor only. 

Quite the opposite, despite the land not being conducive to the creation of a "good" Alps, they proceeded to replicate it as best they could, given the constraints of the land.  Essentially, they forced a hybrid "Alps" on the terrain.

Somehow, Patrick takes that same evidence to mean CBM was more involved than Merion said and I was interested to know why.
Somehow, you continue to misrepresent what I state, and when I ask you to cite the specific reference, you never do.
I don't mind you paraphrasing me, but, please, get it right.

That said, this thread isn't about Merion, and Mike, frankly, its not about NGLA either.

Mike was the one who diverted this thread away from PV to NGLA, which in turn spilled back over to Merion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Your Cobbs Creek topo/routing plan is five (5) years removed from 1910.
In addition, it does NOT present the configuration of the individual holes.


Jeff, Mike, David & Tom,

I think you've misunderstood my point regarding topos.

The issues ISN'T if they used topos pre 1910, the, or AN issue is if they used topos by superimposing the hole designs on the topo pre-construction.

The second issue, closely related to the first issue, is, did they design the course primarily through the use of topos to the extent that they superimposed the configuration of the holes on the topo.

To date, I have never seen a pre-construction topo with the configuration of each hole superimposed on it, prior to the Blue/Red schematic at PV.

Until I see evidence to the contrary I have to accept that Pine Valley was the first course, or amongst the first course, to employ this method in the U.S.

Hope that clears up what I meant by the use of topos in designing a golf course.

[DMoriarty]

That's rich.  After the outrageous and actionable crap he has pulled with me, Jeff Brauer claims I am in his "character assassination crosshairs?"  Nothing I have said comes close to the "character assassination" in comparison.  But then unlike Brauer I don't just make despicable and damaging lies up about people and post them on public websites.  Besides, Brauer screws up so much in his posts, there is no need to fictionalize anything.  He makes himself look like a dolt.

And my post correcting Jeff's recent falsehoods about Merion was and is 100 percent accurate. Six for six. Fuzzy aerials from after the hole was no longer in play don't change that.   No wonder Brauer is so crappy at the facts when he relies on the likes of Cirba to back him up.  

And now he claims I am backing off my position at Merion?  Once again, he's wrong with the facts. Where they hell did I back off my position at Merion?    Because I said CBM didn't build the holes?   I've ALWAYS said CBM didn't build the holes, so WTF does that have to do with who designed them?  I don't care how many times Brauer claims he read my essay, he is still clueless.  The apparent problem with Brauer is he doesn't comprehend what he reads, but instead just fills in what he wants to believe.  

And I see above where this jerk is still criticizing me for not having gone to Merion to review the documents, despite the FACT that I had many times been denied access to the relevant documents, contrary to the false information that he and his buddies have been spreading for years.  And despite the fact that I HAVE A COPY of the much vaunted internal records which were supposed to prove me wrong. (They don't do anything of the sort.  In fact they reaffirm much of what I have suspected.)

What the hell does Jeff Brauer know about my dealings with Merion, anyway?  And by "Merion" I mean actual representatives of the club, not a pompous drunk who falsely pretends to speak for the club?  

If Brauer wants any civility out of me, he needs to stop making false accusations about me and he needs to make amends and set the record straight about his past false accusations, and he needs to quit telling lies about my dealings with Merion, and he needs to quit misrepresenting my theories.   That he needs to be told this instead of figuring it out for himself speaks to his powers of comprehension, or lack thereof.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The great thing about those pictures, including from course opening thru the 1916 US Anateur, thru replacement, is that they are worth any number of thousands of words you use to otherwise portray the reality.

People can see with their own two eyes, no matter how you try to linguistically convince them otherwise.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
What do you see with your two eyes?

[DMoriarty]

Mike
What do you see with your two eyes?

This ought to be good.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I'd agree, posting pictures of the 10th hole, after the hole was altered from being an "Alps' wouldn't seem appropriate.

If I remember correctly, when we looked at the profile of the original 10th fairway DZ short of the road, and the green, there was an element of blindness created by the lower elevation of the fairway.   And, I seem to recall fronting mounds or berms that further obscured the golfer's view.

Clearly, the original 10th was a forced "Alps", one not naturally found in the land at the green end,
While the "Alps" at Prestwick is distinctly different from the "Alps' at NGLA, both have pronounced earthen works blocking the golfers view of the green from the DZ, unless you drive far right on the 3rd fairway at NGLA.

My point is that the 10th at Merion would seem to be a direct concession or tribute to CBM as the land form doesn't, by itself, shreik out, as it did at NGLA, hey, here's a perfect "Alps"

I think the second paragraph on page 292 of "Scotland's Gift" probably emphasizes this very point.

The Alps also seemed to be a favorite of CBM's.

[JESII]

I don't think there's any doubt this was an attempt at an Alps hole but I do think it's quite important at this point to discuss why Wilson thought his Alps would need alot of making to come closeto matching that of Prestwick.

What were the weaknesses of the Merion version as compared to the original?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think there's any doubt this was an attempt at an Alps hole but I do think it's quite important at this point to discuss why Wilson thought his Alps would need alot of making to come closeto matching that of Prestwick.

What were the weaknesses of the Merion version as compared to the original?

Jim.

The topograhy was lacking.
The terrain at Prestwick short of the green, is very pronounced.
If you've played Old Marsh, think of the intervening hill short of the green on hole # 5.
That's the sort of sharply rising terrain at Prestwick that's totally lacking at Merion.

[DMoriarty]

I don't think there's any doubt this was an attempt at an Alps hole but I do think it's quite important at this point to discuss why Wilson thought his Alps would need alot of making to come closeto matching that of Prestwick.

What were the weaknesses of the Merion version as compared to the original?

Jim,

First, I think it important to note that it was actually Findlay speaking, not Wilson.  Findlay told us that Wilson thought the hole would take a lot of making to compare to Prestwick.   Whenever we have these second hand accounts there is a good possibility that we aren't getting it exactly right, and it is at least possible that Findlay is using Wilson as a vehicle to express his own opinion.

Second, the early changes to the hole suggest that the problem with the hole was with the drive, not the approach.  When Findlay wrote what he did, there were no fairway bunkers and the tee shot was nothing but a drive onto mowed native grass not all that suited for golf.  Very early on the substandard turf was torn out and the fairway sodded, and fairway bunkers were added.  I am unaware of a single report of any changes being made to the green or the surrounds.

Third, only a few months after the Findlay article on which these guys hang their hat, Findlay was praising the hole, not criticizing it. More specifically, he was praising the approach, comparing it favorably to that of the approach to Prestwick's Alps.    If the Alps green and surrounds were so obviously bad, or so obviously "crude" as our own in house "architect" claims, then a bit before the opening, why did Findlay write that the second shot "requires a shot precisely like that to the Alps, or seventeenth, at Prestwick."?  Surely you don't think they completely rebuilt the green complex, and re-grassed the green in these intervening few months, do you?

Likewise, Robert Lesley also compared the approach to that at the Alps in Prestwick. Yet these yahoos know better?  They can tell that this hole was a crappy, crude hole and obviously a mistake? Who knows more about the hole?  Jeff Brauer and his after-the-fact blurry aerial, or A. Findlay and Robert Lesley and others who were there?  

Here is how the NYTimes described the green prior to the Amateur in 1916:

The green 385 yards from the tee and is completely surrounded from the tee and is completely surrounded by breastworks and trenches, so that the result of the shot is always in doubt until the golfer scales the last rampart and glares or smiles at what his hands have done.

Yet Mike Cirba has a blurry photo with undistinguishable details and he arrogantly proclaims that his picture trumps the words of those who were there?  Give me a break!

No doubt the terrain wasn't ideally suited for a true Alps.  But according to the reports of those who were there, it was considered a pretty good hole and a good replica of the approach at Prestwick. For these guys to substitute their agenda in place of the words of those who were there is really too much, yet this has been going on for far too long.  In fact, a history of the discussions about this hole would provide a pretty good outline of the evolution of this entire Merion conversation, and throughout, from the beginning until now, the usual suspects have been wrong every single step of the way!

Findlay and Lesley think they got it right-- the approach matched that of the original.  So who are Cirba and Brauer to overrule them?

[Sean_A]

I always wondered about this Merion hole.  The photos certainly don't seem to bear out much relation to Prestwick's Alps.  Have any of you lot been to Prestwick and seen the height of the dune to be carried?  While Pat suggests there is an element of blindness on Merion's hole, that to me isn't nearly the same thing as totally blind and a much higher carry required.  It seems like the rear berm and what looks like a front berm hard along the road are reversed for size.  That rear berm should be short of the hole and the llow fronting berm should be at the rear of the hole - if indeed the goal is to do a good job good recreating the Alps as existed at Prestwick.  Of course "good" is a very vague term and lord knows even now we can't decide how much a replica should replicate a template and still be considered of that genre. 

I know you lot realize this, but it sure doesn't seem so; in the case of trying to understand and interpret history, cooperation works much better than competition. 

Ciao   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Well put.  The key feature of an Alps is a mound in front of the green.  MCC 10 originally built a mound behind the green, so it doesn't have the key feature.  It may have been somewhat blind, it may have been a good hole, but it wasn't a good Alps template hole.  And I say that because CBM was the originator of the template holes and followed them fairly strictly.

But, who ya gonna believe - Moriarity and Mucci or your own eyes?

What stirred the passion was my added opinion that CBM would never have built or designed this hole or feature, indicating to me that Merion did in fact do most of the feature designs on the course, using what they could of their March NGLA meeting, but not sticking all that close in many cases.  That of course is open to interpretation, even if I am fairly certain of my opinion. 
I am truly sorry for my part in turning this into another Merion thread.

My apologies for my role in turning this into another Merion train wreck.  I blame Mike C, for letting it drift to NGLA!  Of course, all roads eventually lead to Merion.......

[Dan Herrmann]

for the love of the golf gods - please - no Merion mentions here?  Please?

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I am not getting involved in who designed what at best seems a mediocre Alps or the remainder of Merion.  Nothing I have seen written in the past few years has changed my opinion on who the driving force was behind the design of Merion.

Ciao

[Mike Cirba]

Personally, I think it's probably fitting that we've now come full circle, back to where it all started with a thread about the Alps started by David that was titled something like, "Another Piece of the Puzzle?"

Frankly, I think it was just the same sort of contrived, over-exaggerated importance of some events and reporting and purposeful diminishing of other facts and information, and twisting contrived meanings and strained word-parsing still seen here that many of us objected to at that time and still do today, though many have passed on from this site as a result.

Throw in the fact that those of us very familiar with the site just shake our heads in disbelief when we hear someone say a shot from the top of the hill on #10 to a pitch across Ardmore Avenue could in any way be blind, unless someone erected a high wall in front of the green.   By blind, I'm using the term as it's used on both the Alps at Prestwick and NGLA...where none of the green or flagstick is visible

Similarly, the 3rd hole, supposedly a Redan, has a green and approach unlike any supposed Redan hole in that it doesn't allow a run-up shot, and the angle of the green is completely wrong.   However, as we'll see, it's because Wilson and crew took some basic principles of some of the great holes and didn't try to make replicas.

David again tells us that Findlay and Lesley both called it an Alps, and who are we to argue with them?   Well, if we're looking for a shot exactly like Prestwick, as Findlay said in the same opening day article comparing Hugh Wilson with Herbert Leeds (not a mention of CBM), and the construction work of his oft-times associate Fred Pickering, it's clearly, visibly unlike the approach shot at either Prestwick or NGLA.

What did Lesley say....

Well, that's curiously omitted, because Lesley says they only copied the hole "in principle", which he defined as;

"A two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green."   Read for yourselves;




David also tells us he has no clue what Wilson might have meant when he said he had a lot of making to do (to make it play like an Alps), and that it was probably the addition of fairway bunkering.  Of course, this is simple nonsense, as the fairway bunkers were not added until the toughening for the 1916 US Amateur.   It was almost certainly the creation of a deep front cross bunker and likely that monstrosity behind the green.

And why couldn't they have placed the large mound in front of the green?   Well, Ardmore Avenue was there!  

Recall that Richard Francis told us that "In those days, WE thought the road would make a good hazard".   Strangely, Francis didn't mention CBM designing the course either...he doesn't mention CBM at all.

Here is a drawing and description of the hole from the 1916 US Amateur preview.   Note that once one reaches the 250 yard mark on their drive, it is LEVEL to the green.



The article mentions an "eight foot rise" from the bunker to the green", which is strange as one sees in the next picture.   Perhaps the bunker was eight foot deep, but unless one is going from the road to the top of the backing mound, it's hard to see how that is accurate, as seen in this 1916 picture from the left side of the green.



If anyone doubts my term "monstrosity" to describe the mound, this colored photograph shows it from the rear;



Here's another description of the hole during the 1916 US Amateur;




Finally, it's no wonder these guys are seeking to discredit the truthfulness of AW Tillinghast, who conferred with CB Macdonald in person about his role at Merion and who saw the plans for the course prior to construction.   His Opening Day article about Merion East in American Cricketer doesn't mention CBM at all but says Hugh Wilson and his Construction Committee should be credited.   Of course, we were told in David's essay as well as from Tom MacWood and Patrick that the title "Construction Committee" referred only to building the course to someone else's plans.  




However, as seen on the first page of this thread, George Crump and his Committee who were out there designing the course and beginning clearing and construction in the spring of 1913 were also known as the "Construction Committee".

Similarly, no one here has ever claimed Hugh Wilson didn't design Merion West, but note what Tillinghast wrote about them.

Sound familiar?




I think this is a fitting ending.

Patrick, much as you might be fascinated to learn more about Pine Valley's topos, you're going about it with the wrong group.

And in the immortal words of Paul Harvey, "Good Day!"

[JESII]

David,

Based on your third paragraph in that post I think we're safe in assuming Findlay was quoting Wilson fairly accurately...because no, I don't they they rebuilt the hole in those few months and no, I don't think Findlay's opinion would have changed so significantly in that same time...so we're back to a vital point in this conversation IMO.

Why was Wilson disappointed in his attempt at an Alps after seeing the original if CBM were the one that designed the hole and tutored Wilson and the committee through the process?


Mike,

It's not all that difficult for a fairly level shot to be somewhat blind...especially if the blindness were simply referring to the surface of the green. Do you think the entire green would have been in view from say 120 yards? It looks to me like there's a small berm there that even if it's only three or four feet high would obscure most, or all, of the green.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'm defining blindness as it exists at Prestwick and NGLA if that's what the approach is supposed to be like.

There are plenty of holes around the world where the approach is partially blind, or where a fronting bunker hides all but the flagstick, especially to certain hole locations, but there are few like the original Alps on both shores where the entire approach...green, flagstick, bunkering, etc., is COMPLETELY obscured by a huge, almost mountainous obstruction.   Even Patrick concedes that much.

But, that's what Findlay compared the approach shot to and he's demonstrably incorrect.

From the looks of it, I'd agree that front hole locations one could only see the flag, but the back of the green would be visible.

As regards Wilson's statement about "a lot of making"...

The purpose of his trip abroad was to view those holes/courses in person so he could more accurately reproduce those man-made features at Merion.   One of the articles someone produced from an Irish newspaper made that clear.

He came back in May 1911....building/deepening some bunkers and creating some mounds would be part of that effort which happened after grow-in and prior to opening in Sept 1912.

One thing we know for certain is that there were no natural features they could utilize on that hole that would have made it even barely resemble the Alps holes at either Prestwick or NGLA.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I agree with Mike that the key and defining feature of an Alps (original at PW or first template at NGLA) is a huge mound in front of the green.  You and others can debate other nuances all day if you like, but for me, its really as simple as that.  No big mound, no Alps hole.  As Mike says, there are plenty of semi blind putting surfaces, but that is not really the feature of the Alps that make it the Alps.

From looking at the pictures, I will also stick with my assessment that it was pretty crude.  Substitute obviously artificial if the phrase crude upsets you, but it was not great architecture. 

[JESII]

Mike and Jeff,

Well then that's the conversation...why was it such a poor attempt if CBM was calling the shots?

Arguing whether or not it was even an attempt is fruitless when Wilson himself said after seeing the original his would need alot of making. Clearly it was an attempt, no?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Absolutely it was an attempt, as were the redan (again, Francis told us that the hole benefited from Wilson's trip abroad), and the Road, and some other holes had specific features if not direct attempts at reproduction.   That's also why he went abroad to see the originals for himself.

And yes, they are very, very far from the mark which is probably a good thing in that they evolved into unique holes able to stand on their own.

Whigham in Macdonald's eulogy told us that CBM's idea to attempt 18 reproduction holes was quickly met with the reality that the natural land forms are better utilized to create unique, individualized holes, and that he was left with a small handful of replicas at NGLA.

Apparently Wilson and Committee quickly learned the same lesson.

One thing I'll never understand is how Patrick says he doubted David's theory until he saw pictures of the 10th hole at Merion.   If he could look at those photos and have the 3rd at NGLA come to mind, then he's on acid, which would explain a lot.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()