News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike Sweeney

Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #75 on: May 30, 2013, 08:30:36 AM »
Honestly, as I look at the big hill and trees, I am not sure I recall any landform quite like that at Merion East.  Could the photo be mislabeled?

Does anyone have the old/original routing to post? That may help.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #76 on: May 30, 2013, 09:43:53 AM »


If the camera is on GHR near the entrance to the clubhouse, the picture makes sense. The tenth tee is at least as high in elevation as the 10th green/1st green.

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #77 on: May 30, 2013, 09:45:52 AM »
The far tree covered hillside from the hole 1 corner picture is the trees that are in the lower right hand corner of the above aerial photo. 

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2013, 09:49:17 AM »
David:  In my post #58, I thought I opined, but perhaps I only inferred, that the location of the original 10th green did not seem to be a routing error but, rather, a necessity given that the extra land I referred to was not acquired until later.

Bryan: You may be right about the small amount of land that was acquired for the current 10th tee box.  Either way, I believe the original tee box was on the north side of the little brook that feeds into Cobbs Creek.  Even if that is not so, if the original tenth green had been on the south side of Ardmore Avenue, the hole would have been awfully short - especially given the 1.62" ball + no fairway watering system.

Bryan and Jeff: The road to the right of in the picture of the old first hole could be Golf House road although the angle suggests it might have been the club's entrance driveway which was accessed off GHR in those days.

Mike Sweeney

Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #79 on: May 30, 2013, 10:19:56 AM »
Honestly, as I look at the big hill and trees, I am not sure I recall any landform quite like that at Merion East.  Could the photo be mislabeled?

Does anyone have the old/original routing to post? That may help.

From Tom Paul:


There is a depiction of the East course in 1912 in Jeff Silverman's new book on the history of the East course. It is not a contemporary (to 1912) drawing; it was done from extensive research, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is it shows how few bunkers the course had originally. The first drawing we have of the course is by Flynn in 1916. We sure have looked everywhere for the original drawing of the course that was presented for approval to the Board on April 19, 1911 but we've never found it. It was attached to the report to the board and you can still see the paper clip depression where it was attached.
 
 
Tom

Mark McKeever

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #80 on: May 30, 2013, 12:22:41 PM »

[/quote]

From Tom Paul:

 It was attached to the report to the board and you can still see the paper clip depression where it was attached.
 
 
Tom
[/quote]

Thats really interesting....Its got to be in someone's attic.

Mark
Best MGA showers - Bayonne

"Dude, he's a total d***"

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #81 on: May 30, 2013, 12:51:23 PM »
If those trees are the ones behind the tenth tee they must be mammoth trees.  They are 400 yards or more away from the first green. 

David,

What is the source of the picture?

Mike Sweeney

Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #82 on: May 30, 2013, 01:19:08 PM »
More from Tom Paul:




That thread begun by Lynn Shackelford asks why Merion and Merion's forty year historian attributed the discovery of the 1912 trip abroad in a Golf Digest article to Merion architecture historian Wayne Morrison and not MacWood or Moriarty. I have not read the GD article but I suppose it was because Merion's historian, John Capers, has not looked at Golfclubatlas.com in years so he is probably not aware what was said on it. And generally if he has detailed questions about the architectural history of Merion, he speaks with Wayne. Wayne Morrison has definitely done more than anyone else on the architectural history of Merion and its archives, and by about nine miles, and provided more over the last decade or so to fill in the blanks and the details on Merion's architectural history. Also pretty much anything and everything anyone would ever want to know about the details of the architectural history of Merion East and West is in the Flynn book, The Nature Faker. The recent book on the history of Merion East by Jeff Silverman is also quite comprehensive and an excellent presentation of the history of that course from its beginnings, including those involved with its architecture.
 
As for who first discovered again that Wilson was abroad in 1912, I would say MacWood and Moriarty made it public on the website. However, Wayne and I did read that letter of Richard Frances to Russell Oakley about Wilson being abroad in 1912 perhaps 2-3 years before this subject ever came up on the website. We spent an entire day at the USGA reading all app. 2,000 of those so-called "agronomy letters" which had come in to the USGA just a month or so before and covered close to twenty years but we only copied the letters that mentioned William Flynn because we went to the USGA to do research on Flynn for our book on Flynn. I went back to the USGA in 2008 to look at the dates on all Hugh Wilson's letters to Oakley from Feb. 1911 to March 1912 simply to see if Wilson even had time to be abroad in that time-frame. The first Merion history writer, Richard Heilman, actually said in his 1977 book that Wilson went abroad in 1911. Wayne and I did not think much of that 1912 Frances letter because it only said Wilson made a 'hurried trip abroad' but it did not say why he went abroad. At that point, we thought he had just made a second trip for some reason. Not long after that we began to find out at Merion exactly how and when that 1910 trip abroad story happened and got into Tolhurst's 1988 book.
 
I would certainly like to see a discussion from the participants on that thread on what they think that essay and the endless discussions about it have actually meant to Merion and the way it interprets the details of the history of its East Course now, and particularly the involvement of Macdonald/Whigam and Hugh Wilson and his committee. Probably most don't realize it but the involvement of Macdonald/Whigam was originally never minimized in the slightest by Merion (MCC). That did not really happen until about a half century later when that 1910 trip abroad and for seven months story gained some currency, particularly in the 1988 Desmond Tolhurst Merion history book. But the fact is that story had no bearing on what actually happened back in 1909-1912, the purview of that essay and discussions about its subject on the website. Actually MCC was extremely grateful to Macdonald/Whigam in 1910 and 1911 and recorded their help liberally (Lloyd even offered a resolution to the board in 1910 thanking them for their one day visit to inspect the property the club was considering buying. That fact alone should certainly make one wonder if he actually did route and design the East course for it to be merely constructed by Wilson and his committee, then why would MCC simply have not liberally said that too? It is probably also important to know that either fortunately or unfortunately, that website may not have the importance for those who do not use it or participate on it that most on it think it does or should. It is unfortunate that that subject on the website just got too long, too complicated and redundant, too adversarial and personal for the vast majority of observers or potential observers to even want to bother with it. This is something I know first hand because I was certainly responsible with others for getting it out of hand like that.
 
I would say both The Nature Faker and Silverman's recent book, A Centennial Celebration of The East Course, are the best sources of information on how Merion looks at its course history and how it presents it now, including who they attribute its architecture to and who else was involved with Wilson and how.
 
I believe if Merion is willing and GD is willing it would be appropriate to at least mention in a letter to the editor that this subject did have a huge amount of currency on the golf architecture website, Golfclubatlas.com.
 
I think one of the most interesting ironies of that essay and the discussion of it was that what the website concentrated on most was not the thing that interested Merion most. Merion just didn't see that the essay was particularly credible but they certainly were thankful that the essay brought up an ancillary subject that really had been pretty much lost to history recording----and that was the participation of Horatio Gates Lloyd in the move of the course from Haverford to Ardmore. We have done a lot more research and reporting on Lloyd and the club now considers him to have been perhaps one of the greatest "angels" any golf club has ever had. Why was the club so unaware of what Lloyd did? Probably because, as best he could, he tried to act anonymously. That's the way some of those people like Horatio Gates Lloyd were back then.
 
 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #83 on: May 30, 2013, 02:42:34 PM »
As for TEPaul's latest dubious explanation about how TEPaul and Wayne Morrison had long known the correct timing of the Wilson trip because of the April 11, 1912 Francis/Oakley letter, I refer TEPaul and everyone else to Reply No. 14 from the first page of this thread:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55760.msg1294373.html#msg1294373
In the quoted post and in many others, TEPaul was adamant that he and Wayne Morrison had never seen the letter until long after I had figured out the correct timing of the trip.

As for the rest of the post, I'll not waste my time.

Wayne Morrison KNOWS that he did not figure out a single thing for which he was credited in that Golf Digest article!
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 04:15:43 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #84 on: May 30, 2013, 03:13:43 PM »
Now back to the discussion at hand.  A number of you have expressed doubts about the photo of the first green because of the trees in the back.  Any of you care to speculate where another such giant artificial berm existed at Merion, aside from near the first green?

Seriously, hopefully these next photos will clear it up.   The first photo was taken some time in the fall or early winter of 1911, many months before the course would open.  It appears to have been taken generally facing south or southeast, toward the 18th green and 14th tee.   The buildings to be used for the clubhouse are in the left side of the photo and the 18th green and 14th tee apparently are visible as well, although it is hard to see them in the photocopy.  The huge earthwork behind the Alps green is visible on the right.  



I've zoomed in on the area around the Alps, and it appears there are trees and perhaps a hill visible in the background, much like in the photo some have been questioning.  This even though the photo was taken from quite a bit further away, and with quite a bit more foreground to block the distant view.



Hopefully this clears it up for the photo some are having trouble understanding.

[ADDED:
Just remembered something about that last 1911 "photo" I copied.  I obtained the version I posted from the Sayres Scrapbook and it is a photocopy of a colorized photograph used on a Dinner program.  I guess it is possible that whoever did the colorizing could have just randomly filled it trees in the background.  I doubt it, but thought Id mention it nonetheless.]
____________________________________________________


Bryan you asked about where I found the photo. I found it among others of the Amateur, and the label indicated that it was the First green. The source is no big secret and a pretty easy find, but I've grown a bit tired of Wayne Morrison's and friend's habit claiming they had actually previously "discovered" items and information I post here, and so I don't want to make it too easy for them.

As for your speculation about the height of the trees, I don't think so.  With a relatively long lens the vertical field of view seems about right to me for 1200 feet.  But do we really want to go down this avenue again?  
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 04:40:51 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Sweeney

Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #85 on: May 30, 2013, 04:39:36 PM »
Last one as I am out of pocket after this ....

From Tom Paul:



I did not say we knew in 2008 the correct timing of Wilson's trip abroad to study architecture. What I said was we knew he'd been abroad in 1912 because we read all 2,000 of the "agronomy letters" in 2001 (it was actually seven years previous to 2008, not five) that included Frances's April 1912 letter to Oakley. Frances did not say in that letter what Wilson went abroad for. All that occurred to us at the time was that what Tolhurst said about a "romantic story" of Wilson almost sailing on the Titanic was in fact true. And then we found Wilson's daughter's letter to Charles Price confirming it.
 
Read what I said in 2008 carefully which was we read them all and copied only what pertained to Flynn because that's what we went to research at the USGA before this issue of Macdonald and Wilson and Merion ever began on Golfclubatlas.com:
 
But if you want attribution and credit for everything then just take it because frankly we don't really care and I doubt Merion does either. We know what we did and so does Merion and we know what you and MacWood did and when.
 
So carry on with some irrelevant debate about the redan. By the way, Rodman Griscom (Wilson committee member), knew that hole probably twenty times better than Macdonald did. Does anyone actually know or care why? Does anyone really care who figured that out? It wasn't Wayne or me and it wasn't you or MacWood. So I guess that says that Wilson didn't really need Macdonald's take on a redan; he had a guy right on his committee would probably knew it better than any American. Griscom even brought NB's George Sayers to America and to Merion.
 

Quote from: TEPaul on August 02, 2008, 09:35:11 AM
. . .
Wayne and I went through the entire collection of those Wilsons to Piper and Oakley letters about five years ago scanning through about 2,000 letters during an entire day. The only ones we copied at the Green Section of the USGA in Far Hills were the ones pertaining to William Flynn since he was all we were researching and writing about then. I would estimate that we copied about 15% of the total of approximately 2,000 letters.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #86 on: May 30, 2013, 08:22:42 PM »
The obfuscation continues.   Yesterday TEPaul had long had that Francis letter "in [his] files."  Today, he admitted that while he didn't have it he nonetheless insisted he had read it, yet never bothered to mention it.  

Let's again turn to one of TEPaul's past posts for clarification, in response to a direct question from Tom MacWood to Wayne about why he had never mentioned the Francis/Oakley letter ("Wayne: The legend had Wilson travelling in 1910. How come you didn't mention this April 1911 letter?")

Mr. MacWood:
Because we were not aware of this letter until around May of this year. I went back to the USGA at that time to go through every single letter in those so-called "agronomy files" for the years 1911 and 1912
. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone got that?   They never mentioned the letter because they were unaware of the letter until May 2008, after I had explained the correct timing of the trip.

And here is something else Tom Paul had written the same day:
As far as what Mr. Moriarty discovered about the history of Merion, he definitely did discover that Hugh Wilson really did go abroad in 1912 and may not have in 1910 before design and construction of the course began.

For that, we here and Merion too are more than willing to give him credit and we've all said so on here numerous times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like they changed their minds.  
« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 11:34:44 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #87 on: June 01, 2013, 06:30:49 AM »
The one issue I have with the templates being used as evidence in favour of CBM is a hole like the 3rd being called a Redan.  Its hard to believe CBM would call it as such. 

Notice how in the original there is an opportunity to bounce a ball in off the slopes.  That basic Redan shot does not exist at Merion.  The 3rd is essentially a shelf green - nothing like a Redan in any sense of the concept.

So I wonder about the other templates and how closely they followed the originals because CBM would have known the story.   

Ciao

SArble,

I've taken out the photos above to compress your quote but want to address the comments via two points.

First, broadly speaking Macdonald took hole templates and sometimes used them in full but sometimes used specific features or "half" the hole. He mixed and matched, and he mashed. He could take a tee shot from one template then add a green from another template -- then use different features as stand-ins for those in the original. A bunker might stand in for the original's road, for example.

And, yes, he could reverse the original yet still refer to his version by its template name.

Second, specific to the Redan template and in addition to my first comment, he (or Raynor) did design redans without front "kick aprons." Here is Charles Banks's description of Yale's redan:

"The approach to the green rises to the green proper whence the green slopes away to the back with the front right corner the highest point on the green. From the above it is evident that the play for the green is to catch the approach a little above and beyond its center for a kick in or carom off the right corner and a curving roll across the green to the pin at the back left corner."

I am not saying CBM designed Merion, I am just saying you can't rule it out on the grounds that Merion's is not a redan and that CBM would have known better than to call it a redan: that pic you showed of Merion could fit CBM's definition of a "Redan."
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #88 on: June 01, 2013, 06:47:59 AM »
Great quote, Marco.

Banks' descritpion of Yale's "Redan" seems to be entirely faithful to the original (unlike MacDonald's attempt at NGLA, which is a downhill hole, regardless of what Mucci "thinks".......).

That being said, if the 3rd at Merion is any kind of "Redan" (except in the twisted minds of rabid MacDonaldophiles) I'll eat my shorts (metaphorically, of course....).

Ricardo
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #89 on: June 01, 2013, 07:47:49 AM »
Redanman,

Yale's redan, as Banks writes, crests at roughly the front of the green. There is not a fore apron; the golfer can't land a ball short and bounce it in. Not saying Merion 3 is a redan, just contesting SArble's assertion that Macdonald never would design a redan without an apron or that he would always stamp out an exact (or close) replica. Now, from what I can see from the SArble pic, the biggest "mistake" I see is the apparent forward tilt of the green. That would seem to me a deal breaker but as I wrote in my post loc cit, MacRaynor could be flexible in their execution of templates.

For these reasons I say it's possible Macdonald could have called Merion 3 a redan.

May I suggest for your meal you save the yoke for last? That's where the cholesterol is in most shorts.

Skivvily yours,
Rabid Macdonaldophile
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2013, 08:46:58 AM »
Marco

I certainly have not ruled out CBM's possibly being more than a minor contributor to Merion for any reason.  I don't know enough about the subject to be definitive either way.  I expressed doubts based on the so-called Redan which makes me wonder about the other templates.  That said, the topic doesn't interest me enough to want to pour through "Merion" documents to form a more informed, but not necessarily more accurate opinion.  In other words, I think its a fools errand to chase this tale.  I will be a fool where my child and wife are concerned, but certainly not for Merion or CBM.  This is entertainment, thats all folks.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2013, 09:21:41 AM »
It's too late, you're in. Uh, I guess I am, too.

I'm not saying or even implying CBM was / was not involved one way or the other, just that I could see him calling Merion 3 a Redan and therefore you can't rule out his involvement based on your assertion.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #92 on: June 01, 2013, 10:04:37 AM »
I'm with Ricardo on this. Unless CBM meant by 'Redan Hole' any long par 3 with an angled green, I don't see it.

Bob

 

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2013, 11:56:39 AM »
I can see CBM calling Merion 3 a Redan or even the original 10th an Alps even though they may have borne only a slight resemblance to the template original.  Equally I could see Wilson et al or the local press calling them that based on CBM's template concept being popular at the time.  In Merion's case we know that they discussed architecture with CBM so they could have picked up the names there.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #94 on: June 01, 2013, 12:15:31 PM »
I continue to be amazed by those here who purport to respect for the history of golf course architecture, yet they discard and ignore the opinions of the experts who were actually there when history was being made.

C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham not only "discussed architecture" with those at Merion, they were involved in the design process throughout the formation and finalization of the design, and they even chose and approved the final layout plan!  And each of them knew something about the Redan concept as it was understood in America in 1910 and beyond.  CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham described hole as a Redan, right along with NGLA's Redan, Sleepy Hollow's reversed Redan, and Piping Rock's simplified Redan.   [Given it was a drop shot, CBM's reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow most likely wouldn't pass muster with the experts here.]

Robert Lesley was president of the Golf Committee at Merion,and had been involved during the design and construction of the course, and introduced the new courses to the golfing world in an article in 1914.  He thought the hole was a Redan.  Richard Francis was on the Construction Committee with Hugh Wilson and decades later he still recalled that the hole was based on the Redan concept.

Alex Findlay had toured the property with Hugh Wilson before the opening and reviewed the course at the time of the opening.  He too considered the hole a Redan, based on the famous hole abroad.  So did Walter Travis and AW Tillinghast and many other commentators who wrote about the course at the time of the opening and before the Amateur.

Who here is in a better position to say whether the hole was considered a Redan 100 years ago?  Sean, Bob Crosby, and Rich?  Or CB Macdonald, HJ Whigham, Robert Lesley, Richard Francis, Alex Findlay, Walter Travis, AW Tillinghast, and many others who were actually there?  

By any reasonable standard, Rich ought to be metaphorically eating his shorts.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 12:33:12 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #95 on: June 01, 2013, 12:47:27 PM »
David,

Are there any other examples of other holes on other courses being called redans (or other template named) that didn't really fit the bill? If you have mentioned them, I apologize for having missed it.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #96 on: June 01, 2013, 01:31:15 PM »
For David's enlightenment:  "OUR best Redan photos" can be found at http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34782.0/


Like Rich - I have several pairs of shorts to munch on :)

Adam_Messix

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #97 on: June 01, 2013, 01:37:58 PM »
I believe this has been answered before, but just to make sure the record is correct:  Has the 3rd green at Merion been redesigned?  If memory serves, the answer is no but would like to confirm. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #98 on: June 01, 2013, 02:15:16 PM »
Sean Leary,

I assume you are asking about other American holes called "Redan" early in Merion East's history or before.  

The seminal article on the the Redan concept in America was (and is) CB Macdonald's and HJ Whigham's 1914 Golf Illustrated Article called "Redan at National Golf Links" from their brief but excellent series on "Representative American Golf Holes."   This "Redan" article discussed the original Redan hole at NB and NGLA's Redan hole, and also briefly described other American examples of the hole:  

There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher.

CBM played a large part in in the design of each of these courses, but as near as I can tell neither Sleepy Hollow's Redan nor Merion's Redan were a close match the original.   Both of these holes were reversed (and thus didn't perform as Redans for right handed golfers) and as CBM/HJW mentioned Sleepy Hollow's Redan was more of a drop shot, which (arguably) also defeats one of the primary design elements of the hole (although like with Merion, the design elements are pretty much out the window with the reverse nature of the hole.) The article also speculated that Pine Valley would feature "the Redan principle," but that this hole (the 3rd) would also feature a tee set well above the green surface, so ti wasn't a good match either.

Also, as explained by Mark above, many of the later CBM/Raynor Redans wouldn't stick closely to the original either.

So when you ask whether there were other holes that "didn't fit the bill" I guess it depends on what you mean by "the bill."  
  -  CBM and HJW called these holes "Redans," and emphasized that the concept was quite broad, so they all fit the bill: "The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course." so all of the mentioned holes would qualify.  
  -  But for these modern day commentators who think they know better than CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham knew, "the bill" is quite narrow. None of the holes would qualify, but especially not Sleepy Hollow's, Pine Valley's, or Merion's Redan.  In fact, as ridiculous as it may seem, both Rich Goodale and Sean Arble have long argued that not even NGLA's Redan hole is a Redan hole!  

In other words, when these guys pronounce that Merion's Redan wasn't a Redan either, Merion's Redan hole is in good company.

Other than the holes mentioned above, I cannot think of any other examples except for the short 10th hole at Myopia which was named "Redan."   Except for the name, the Myopia hole reportedly had nothing to do with Redan in North Berwick, and was reportedly designed based on a different hole entirely (the 2nd at Prestwick.)  This was not the case with Merion, where multiple reports not only called Merion's hole a "Redan" they specifically discussed that the hole was based on the famous Redan at North Berwick and contained characteristics thereof.

______________________________________

Adam, as explained earlier in the thread, the front left bunkering may not have existed originally.  Also, the grass in front of the green was cut short and running the ball onto the green was common enough that Flynn wanted to grow rough right up to the edge of the green.  Apparently Flynn was not keen on the ground game option for this hole.
______________________


This last point merits emphasis.  Conditions were different then than now, and under conditions of the time, the hole played more like what we think of as a Redan.  
 -  The ground game was an option before William Flynn grew the rough right up to the edge of the green, and before the left bunker was added.    
-   Golfer's who tried to hold the green by attacking it directly faced a daunting task.  According to Robert Lesley's 1914 description of Merion's "Redan Hole" the approach "requires the most delicate placing to hold the green."  
« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 02:22:24 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #99 on: June 01, 2013, 03:08:53 PM »
Sean Leary, while I think the info is important, the post above is pretty long, so here is the quick and dirty on American holes called Redan as of 1914.

1.  NGLA. Designed and built by CBM beginning in 1907.
2.  Sleepy Hollow. Reversed drop shot Redan designed by CBM and built by CBM/Raynor circa 1910-1911.
3.  Merion. Reversed Redan  built by Whigham/Committee in 1911, according to layout plan which CBM/HJW helped develop and finally approved.  
4.  Piping Rock.  "Simplified" Redan designed and built by CBM/Raynor around the same time as Merion.
5.  Pine Valley. Not yet opened but according to CBM the hole would feature "Redan principles."
6.  Myopia. short 10th called "redan" but reportedly based on Prestwick's second.

By the standards of some posting here, none "fit the bill" of a Redan, but especially not Sleepy Hollow, Merion, Pine Valley, or Myopia.

By CBM's standards (and the standards of many others of the time) all "fit the bill" except for the last, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with NB's Redan except for borrowing the name.

Merion is in good company when it comes to the other non-Redans (except Myopia.)
« Last Edit: June 01, 2013, 03:15:44 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back