[JESII]

Note how Findlay doesn't mention the visibilty, only that the shot required is the same. Assuming the distance is the same, it's simply a matter of carrying a front bunker and stopping short of the back mound. No?

[Sean_A]

So now we are back to discussing if indeed the 10th was in fact an Alps on the ground or only in name?  I thought was was said in the old days made it defacto an Alps.  In any case, if we are comparing, I can't see how anybody could say the two holes would have played the same.  I ask again, have you lot seen Alps and the size of dune to be carried?  I can't understand how anybody could say Merion's 10th would have played remotely similar.  For crying out loud, we are debating if it was blind.  There should be absolutely no question as a high mound similar to the one in the rear of the green would have to be short of the green to make the holes play similar. 

In any case, regardless of what people called the hole or how it played, does it matter in terms of design credit (which is what I originally that the conversation was about, but David seems to think we are now debating how good Merion was back in the day)?  This is why I think the entire question of design intent is interesting.   

Ciao 

[DMoriarty]

David,

From everything posted the 8 foot reference is either the number of feet at an angle to get down to the green (a couple feet of elevation and 6 or 7 feet forward) or it is in fact a reference to climbing up from the recessed street level up to the green level.

From everything posted, I disagree.  It was between the bunker and green, not the road and the green.  And the slope was described as the same as on the sides and in the back.  It was the slope down to the green from the bunkers.

If there were a large mound in front of the green the picture from the 9th green hillside would show it. Following your logic in the line of play versus the line of the picture, a mound short of the green would be to the right of that visible mound behind the green...agreed! Why can we see the right greenside bunker and no interruption against the white of the clubhouse in the area right of the rear mound?

Huh?  I don't think that is the right green side bunker.   I think it may be a bit of the front bunker.   And there is interruption against the clubhouse area.   Pretty substantial interruption on the left side of the clubhouse.  And look at the shape of the back bunker in the other pictures.  The bottom, especially the bottom on the right is not visible in this one.  Apparently it is being blocked by something in front of the green.  

I am not sure what your point is here, Jim?  Surely you are not saying the green was visible. If so, then where is the green in the picture to which you refer?  I've said repeatedly I cannot say for certain whether the entire flagstick would be invisible, only that from the descriptions and pictures it is possible.  So what are we arguing about really?  
_________________________________________________

Sean Arble,

What was said on the old days indicates it was an alps in their minds.  They tell us they tried to build and alps modeled after prestwick's and they tell us that thought that had such a hole.  Like in the debates about the Redan, your righteousness about the impurity of the hole doesn't change any of this.   Could it be that your perspective is distorted from up on your high horse?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

What's the date of the stick routing ?

We know that the date of the survey used for the stick routing was April 1913, but so far, no one has identified the date of the stick routing..

Do we know the actual date the stick routing was created ?

[Dan Herrmann]

We're baaack!


---------------
OK - Back to your regularly scheduled Merion bickering.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Here is a blowup of part of a photo from behind the 8th.  Neither the right nor the front bunker are visible.  Again, it looks to me like the bottom of the back bunker is defined by mounds short of it, particularly on the right. 

[Mike Cirba]

This photo cuts off the fairway, which contains a grouping of very artificial looking mounds.  This is what the enlightened Philadelphia School came up with all on their own?


David,

Thanks for showing your ignorance as well as your motives.

So sad to have such a bright guy so filled with venom.

[DMoriarty]

More inconsequential, substanceless drivel from Cirba.  How dare I question the architecture from an old aerial!

Jim, Perhaps you could explain what is your point?   Because I am not so sure what it is.

[Mike Cirba]

Here is the "Alps" hole at Cobb's Creek where a fronting cross bunker was complemented by large mounding on the rear and sides (since removed) and a back bunker into the mound.

Of course, no one called it an Alps hole, but it presented much the same challenge as did Merion's old 10th, except the hole at Cobb's also had a very steep upslope to negotiate on the drive.

Here it is today, with the supposed horribly unnatural looking mounding facing the golfer as he crests the hill on his drive.

Much like at Merion, the white flagstick is visible behind the front bunker, which obscures the view of the surface of the green.

Similarly, I can't decide if it looks more like the challenge described by CBM and Whigham at either NGLA or Prestwick?

Sorry for the large size (please use the scroll bar), but I wanted to be sure everyone could see how unnatural they look.   

[Mike Cirba]

I'm definitely not a spatial relations measuring guy, but did think it might be worthwhile to attempt to measure the difference between those people on the fronting mound versus the guys on the green (as well as the flagstick) and against the people standing on the rear mound, which was supposedly 15 feet high.

Perhaps someone here who better understands those things can give us their perspective?

Here's the photo sized to fit;



Here's a blowup of the photo.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Sorry, I don't think that provides any insight.  There are too many variables.  You guys are trying to infer too much precise elevation information into the photos.

Where do you suppose the camera was when this picture was taken.  Clearly it was above the peoples' heads in the foreground side of the green.  Perhaps from the top of a truck on the road?  Or maybe from the top of the ramparts on the tee side of the road?   

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Understood...just trying to get some perspective here.

Also, thanks for the humor.  

I'd estimate that the photo was taken from about 40-50 yards left and short of that green, from either the roof of a  truck on Ardmore Avenue as you suggested, or perhaps possibly a small tree.   Probably the former.

[Bryan Izatt]

I found the Macdonald article on the original Alps interesting.  There  is much in the description that is still evident as the hole is today.  But, there are also some things that are not the same.  No doubt the the hole has changed over time, but one wonders just how exactly CBM documented it.  In any event, if he designed and drew it for Merion, then he either watered it down a lot or Wilson did a lousy job of building it.  Even Wilson seemed to feel that they had a miss as far as being a template hole after he saw the original.  Perhaps, after seeing the original he felt that it would take "a lot of making" to match the orignal, and decided it wasn't worth the earth moving required to get closer, and thus left it until the hole was realigned.  That doesn't mean that they thought that it was a good replica.  Others may have felt it prudent to praise it as a replica because that was the fad of the day introduced by Macdonald.  The idea that the second shot was precisely as the original hole is almost laughable.  Or maybe just indicative that they had very low standards of comparison.

Anyway, as of two days ago, here is what the real (and best, Pat) Alps looks like.

From the tee.  Notice the remnant of the cardinal bunker right in front of the tee.  But there is no issue carrying it.  Notice that there is no mound in the fairway, nor any fairway bunker pinching the fairway.  Did there used to be as Macdonald described?




Here are two from the landing area that show graphically the size of the dune to be carried.  It is high enough that getting the ball up thaat high is a concern, let alone the blindness.  Notice the aiming blocks on the top of the dune.







This one from the right edge of the top of the dune looking down on the green.




And, this one from the 18th tee looking across the green from the right side.  Notice that there is a backing mound on the left side of the green but it slopes down to nothing on the right.  And there is no bunker in the back mound.  And, the green is in the form of a trough.  It is not in a trough.  The green is also in the width, whereas Merion appears to have been in the length.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Just terrific pictures...thanks for sharing them.

Whether they support the "Alps hole??...are you kidding??" contingent or not, they are just terrific golf pictures of a wonderfully adventurous hole.

[JESII]

Jim, Perhaps you could explain what is your point?   Because I am not so sure what it is.

My point about what David? My point in questioning your claim that the 10th was undeniably an all-world Alps replica that could only have been conceived, and designed by CBM?

I think this hole, among others, are the best evidence that the Merion committee designed and built the holes with input and advice from Macdonald and Wigham.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Sorry, I don't think that provides any insight.  There are too many variables.  You guys are trying to infer too much precise elevation information into the photos.

How the hell does Cirba go from claiming the mounds were eight feet yesterday to denying the hole was blind today?   The guy was pure sleaze.


At least it shows us again how far mike will go to try and manipulate things.  What the hell are those red lines for?  

Actually one thing the photo does is show the problem with the photo or copy on the far right side.  The area that looks like the front bunker is actually an undeveloped anomaly.  There is another such anomaly in the crowd on the right.  We cannot tell from that photo just how high up the mound those people are, but they are high enough to be laying against the mound and peering over it.   If people right in front of the green had to do this, then how much would be visible from the fairway?  Anyway, the mound is at least as high as they are save for their heads, and we cannot see below them to see how far they are up the mound.
______________________________________________________

Bryan,  Thanks for the photos.   While I don't necessarily disagree with your commentary and opinions it really doesn't change anything that was written about the hole.   Again, as with other "templates" I think you get too caught up on the  actual physical features as opposed to the concept.   For whatever reason, Findlay strongly disagreed with your assessment of the approach, and since you were there I am inclined to agree with him.  

As for differences between CBM's description of the hole and how you claim the hole is today, again CBM's view must control.  First he was there and you weren't.  Second the co-author of the article was HJ Whigham.  Whigham was not only familiar with the Prestwick, he grew up in a house overlooking the course!  There was no family more closely associated with the course than the Whigham's.  

But CBM's ideas on the Alps did substantially depart from Prestwick as described in the book.  One departure though that is not described is the actual location of the Alps.  The high point at NGLA was substantially short of the green, so much so that there is a substantial swath of fairway after the high point but before the green.  Of course it would depend upon the natural terrain, but I think that ideally, CBM's "alp" wasn't part of the green complex but was back a bit from the green.  

Here is the plasticize  of the Alps hole at Lido, on a flat manufactured site, where CBM would have had the freedom to place the alps hole as he pleased.   Note the location of the Alps mound relative to the green.


Not sure what this means for Merion, but I thought I'd point it out.   I suspect that Merion focused on getting the green right, and was relying on the mounding between the bunkers and the green to create the element of blindness.   I am still very curious as to what if anything was short of the road.

Does that green remind you of anything?

______________________________

Jim,

Well then you have no point.   Because I never claimed it "was undeniably an all-world Alps replica."  Please don't go all Cirba on me.  

[JESII]

David,

You've reached that pathetic point of debating in which each point of contention is obviously further support of your position.

You have spent the last 5 pages or so working hard to tell us how high the perceived quality of this hole was, have you not?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Great photos, thanks.

I first traipsed the fairways at Prestwick in 1952 and NGLA about a dozen years later.

While I've been back to play Prestwick, I've played NGLA, exponentially more times and thus am more familiar with it..

#17 at Prestwick is a wonderful hole, a great hole, but, I think that the 35 additional yards and the more dramatic topography give NGLA the nod.  No doubt, Prestwick is the original, but, I think NGLA is the superior hole.

I realize that's a subjective perspective and that you may feel otherwise, but, I have to ask, have you played both holes ?

David,

You have to remember that Mike Cirba argued, vehemently, that the 11th at LACC North was a genuine Redan, thus it seems he was willing to accept, if not expand his interpretation of templates from pure physical resemblance to a conceptual acknowledgement.

Yet, he rejects that notion, the conceptual acknowledgement with respect to Merion's 10th.
That's a double standard and He can't have it both ways, try as he may..

If the 11th at LACC North fits his definition of a Redan, than so does the 3rd at Merion, especially when contemporaneous accounts from knowledgeable people characterized it as a Redan.

Similarly, contemporaneous accounts from knowledgeable people characterized # 10 at Merion as an Alps.

If one is going to champion the "conceptual" characterization at other clubs/holes, the same standard, the same "conceptual" characterization has to apply to Merion.  For him to argue otherwise would be ....... disengenuous 

But, I'd really like to get back to Pine Valley and the topos.

Paul Turner,

I may have stated that the topo/survey which was the basis for the stick routing and the Blue/Red routing was performed in April, 2013, when it was drawn up in March, 1913.  Off the top of my head I had forgotten which month it was created.

If the stick routing was superimposed on the topo circa March 1913, then we know it had to be done on or subsequent to March  1903.  The question remains, WHEN was the stick routing superimposed on the March 1913 Topo ?

The issue of multiple writings/authors is an interesting one.
Perhaps, establishing the date it was crafted will help determine who was or wasn't involved in its creation.

1898 USGS Topo
1913 March Topo
____ Stick Routing  ?

Another related issue is, If Colt was summoned by Crump, and paid for his services, did Crump include a topo with his request/invitation, either the 03-1913 topo or an earlier version, assuming the contact was a written contact.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I played with David Moriarty at LACC.   We both know it's a reverse redan, and in fact he called it one to both me and Dr. Geoffrey Childs.   Ask him if you don't believe me.   Better yet, ask someone from the west coast who actually knows something about history...why not give Geoff Shackleford a call and tell him your revisionist view and get his take?

David,

I have to admit that I find your tough-guy posturing, mean-spirited bullying, and constant personal insults both incredibly revealing and hysterically funny.

Only a man with so little evidence to make his case would resort to such a stream of personal attacks, simply because he has absolutely nothing left.

Do you want to know what was on the fairway side of the 10th hole short of Ardmore Avenue?  

Nothing, same as 99% of your posts.

Do you want to know how many people here actually believe your specious theories?

Almost none, except for those like Patrick who just like to argue.

What is wrong with you, David?   What the hell happened to you at Swarthmore that has you so angry at Philadelphia and Philadelphians?   Did someone beat you up at a frat party?   You really need some help.

Besides, all of this anger and venom cannot be good for your health.  

And that's the funny part...

Across the country you sit behind your computer and act the tough guy, but hell, David...the last time I saw you I saw this soft, frail, puffy wimp of a man who has the spine of a jellyfish and the strength of a flea.   I KNOW for certain that if you and I were sitting over a beer you'd cower and wouldn't dare say a word.

All of this anger can't be good for your blood pressure and heart, and as I sit and read your personally insulting posts and realize that it's like being insulted by the Stay-Puff Marshmallow man, I can only laugh.

Really...for your own good, get some help.

[DMoriarty]

David,

You've reached that pathetic point of debating in which each point of contention is obviously further support of your position.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  Judging from your last few posts, I'd be surprised if you knew my position. You are banging the table here, and I am not even sure what you are banging about.   What exactly do you think is my position?

You keep arguing about blindness, but I have said from the beginning that I don't know whether any of the pin was visible or not.  You and Mike seem to think you can come up with these pronouncements based on these aerials and photos, but I don't think they are nearly as dispositive as guys think they are.

You have spent the last 5 pages or so working hard to tell us how high the perceived quality of this hole was, have you not?

There is a huge gap between me claiming it was "undeniably an all-world Alps replica" and my noting that those who wrote about the hole seemed to think it was a pretty good golf hole requiring an approach shot similar to that at Prestwick, at least in principle.  That is what they said.   I don't see why they'd have said it if they didn't think it was a decent hole.  

[DMoriarty]

Across the country you sit behind your computer and act the tough guy, but hell, David...the last time I saw you I saw this soft, frail, puffy wimp of a man who has the spine of a jellyfish and the strength of a flea.   I KNOW for certain that if you and I were sitting over a beer you'd cower and wouldn't dare say a word.

Now this is entertaining.  I don't think I've ever been described as frail, weak, spineless, or wimpy before.   And the idea of Mike Cirba claiming that I'd cower at his physical presence?  Priceless.  

Oh well.  It goes to show the depth of his observation skills and analytical abilities. Pretty poor judgment too.
__________________________________________________

Cirba posted a photo of a green at Cobbs above. Here it is with the rest.


The photo is from the mid-30's, when the course was only a few years short of 20.    Looks like that nasty teenage acne hadn't yet cleared.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Re post 815, you have included YOUR "sleazy" comment in MY quote.  Please edit the post and remove it.  Thanks.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

No, I haven't played NGLA.  But, by my definition, the original of any template hole has to be the best.  Not to disagree with your contention that NGLA may be a better hole, in your opinion.

And, back to the topo question.  You have previously stated that you could determine topography that was good for a golf course, and route a course, all based on a topo map (or words to that effect).  Given the topo map below, which piece of property would you have chosen and how would you have routed the course?  Why would you pick one side of the tracks over the other? Why the north-west segment rather than the sout-east or vice versa?

[Tom MacWood]

How do we know for certain that the BLUE lines are Colts and the RED Lines are Crumps ?

The blue line map is very similar to the Colt July 1913 map and identical to the map that appeared in the Inquirer January 1914. They are both in the same style and hand. Who drew the red lines is a mater of speculation.

How do we know for certain if and when they adjusted their lines ?

It is very difficult to know. The earliest possible date for the red lines would be around late 1914 when it was reported the new 13th was discovered and the new 14th hole would be a water hole. Colt had a photograph of the lake and the present 15th tee in his 1920 book taken by Strohmeyer. I believe Strohmeyer photographed the course in the Spring or Fall of 1915. So the map would have to be prior to that.

We have the 1898 Topo.
The stick routing topo is Dated March 1913.
But, do we know the date the stick routing was created.
The Blue/Red Topo is dated March 1913.
But, do we know the date the Blue Lines were Drawn
The dates the Red lines were drawn
The dates either were amended.
The date the dam/pond was created.

The topo map is dated March 1913, no one knows when the stick map was drawn on top of that topo map or who drew it. The original plan (pre Colt, as late as the April 1913 letter) was to have 18 men create 18 holes. Colt arrived in May 1913. The stick map could be drawn by Crump and the other 17 designers or perhaps some smaller number. It could be early rough map drawn by Colt. I think the latter is more likely.

Regarding the dates of the red and blue, see above.

Strohmeyer photographed the lake in 1915 so my guess it was created late in 1914 or early 1915. Again Colt had a photograph of that lake, which tells me he continued to consult for a number of years.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Then it's even sadder that no one around you will tell you the truth.

And, since you seem obsessed with that one-off hole at Cobbs Creek, what can you tell us about it and the challenge of the hole, having played there?

All of us who play there with some regularity find it intriguing, as it is so different from all of the very lay-of-the-land holes and greensites predominant through the course. Some have speculated that perhaps it was an idea from Walter Travis, who sometimes built those type of fortress holes.   He was involved during the construction process, but we don't know for sure.  Also, what can you tell us about those mounds, and their source?   I'm sure we'd all enjoy hearing your speculative take.

Perhaps you should also ask the architects of your local public course for their take on the hole, as well.

By the way, does LACC have a reverse-redan hole?   Patrick seems to think no.


Paul Turner,

What would you say the odds are that the stick routing map was drawn by Colt?


Bryan,

Yes, the use of topos is a nice theoretical topic, but when specifics are mentioned or questioned everyone seems to run away.

For instance, if CBM designed Merion from a topo map as a few here contend, what precisely was it about the topography of the 10th hole that suggested an Alps type hole could/should be built?

Was it the presence of Ardmore Avenue?

What is the fact that it was completely level for the last 130 yards from approach area to green?

Was it the fact that he wanted to create three parallel back and forth holes in a row?  

On a more realistic note, in re-reading CBM and Whigham's definition article from 1914, I think Jim nailed it with his reading and interpretation of "slopes about eight feet to the green" and "requires a stroke precisely like that to the Alps" meanings.

Looking again to CBM and Whigham's article defining the Alps, note that 1) the "Alps" IS the "Saddle back hill" between the golfer and the fronting bunker, and 2) the intrigue of the approach is not only the blindness caused by the Alps hill, but also the fact that there is so much variable element of chance to what happens to a shot clearing the front bunker.   They write;

"The green lies in a hollow with a bunker in front and a high bank behind.   If the ball carries far enough to get over the bunker by only a foot it gets a running fall and may go right past the hole into the bent beyond.   Therefore, the difference between being in the bunker short of the green or in the bent beyond the green is often the difference in two or three feet of the carry".

No one ever said the 10th hole at Merion was blind.   Not Lesley, not Findlay, not the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, not the Philadelphia paper that called it a "simple pitch".   Now, was the green surface hidden, particularly towards the front of the green?   Very likely.   Was the flagstick visible anywhere on the green.   Also very likely.  

Reading Lesley's comments along with CBM's definition, it seems pretty clear which principle of the Alps hole that was being utilized by Wilson here, and when we think of Findlay's original quoting of Wilson saying "it would take a lot of making", it seems there were any number of variable construction elements to consider here to get the right playability effect.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()