Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: JR Potts on May 14, 2011, 11:22:25 PM
-
Help me out here. I played Merion last summer and as stated before, absolutely loved it. However I keep reading about its great strategy off the tee and quite candidly, I don't see it. Where is it? It all seems quite straightforward to me.
Where are the real choices for the tour pro? I submit that the course is too short for the PGA Tour player to present any real strategic options off the tee.
-
I feel like the strategy at Merion would be like the one in Royal Lytham
because of the severity of the hazards and the roughs, the fairways are hard to hit.. so on each hole you'd have to decide how agressive you want to play off the tee...
and since the course is short enough, you could play 3-iron off a bunch of tees, keeping the ball in play but you'll have longer 6-7-8 irons to greens that are hard to hit.. or hit driver, and have a wedge but you have to hit the fairway.
it's not about choosing a line of play, but how patient or agressive you want to be, especially under pressure
-
Ryan,
In order for me to answer your question, I need to rephrase it: "Where's the strategy off the tee for the pro with a driver in her/his hand?"
By taking the driver out of the pro's hand on certain holes, you create strategy...is it low fairway metal or stinger long iron to enhance run, or is it high hybrid or mid-iron to create a par three-par three scenario on a two-shotter?
The Walker guys, who all bomb the shit out of the driver, were hitting 4-iron from the Hogan plaque on 18 in 2009. Even if they hit driver-6 iron into the fairway and onto the green on 18 in 2013, that green target is going to challenge their approach shots, the bunkers will challenge their misses and the subtle putting surface will demand acuity. And that's one hole only!
-
Tricks:
I respectfully beg to differ with your proposed title change. Most ofthe holes are such that driver will never be an option and given the length of the hole, doesn't need to be an option. Besides the 2nd, 4th and 18th, where does the pro have to make a decision (assumng that theyre not just going to step up and bust driver like i suspect)? Maybe 6, 13 and14?
I don't know, I don't see a lot of agonizing strategic decisions for the best in the world.
-
I dare any pro to pull driver on 13. Now that would be worth televising.
Ryan, you might be right about this, but, I suspect the narrow fairways are likely responsible. Otherwise, I could extrapolate that there would not only be directional strategies, off the tee, but also, length. Allowing the player to attempt to play their shot from a lay of the land that would assist them in accessing the pin on their approach.
-
I think he might be right as well. But couldn't it be said for most US Open courses?
I have played it twice, at different times of the year with the rough not too severe. It was VERY playable that way....Tough but not unfun, even with the tightish fairways.
Chip explained in the other thread why the fairways are so narrow, so we can stop fighting it now. It makes sense for what the club is trying to accomplish, not what 18 handicap internet cowboys want. Although I would love to play it with restored fairways.
Ryan, what do DA and the other pros think of Merion and how it will play in 2013?
-
Sean: I haven't plated with any Tour guys who have played Merion in the last 5-10 years. And candidly, those guys dont think about the host clubs until they're figuring out their schedule for the year. I'll bet 70 percent plus of the Tour has no idea where next years Open is going to be.
My question was a little loaded as traditional US Open and PGA sites get critiqued for being on diminutional off the tee for tour pros as they just have to bust driver....and my point....is the strategy any better if they just bust hybrid all over the place? I don't think so.
I think it's almost impossible to architect strategy for the tour game.
-
Sean Leary:
I didn't say the fairways were THAT narrow - in fact, my description of 24/7 championship condition mentioned just about everything EXCEPT fairway width.
Actually, the fairways have been widened in many cases from the 1981 Open/1989 Amateur mowing patterns.
-
Chip, Since you know it so well, you could probably hand pick specific locations on every hole which would be the ideal. Is that true? Wouldn't that be strategic planning?
-
Unfortunately I tend to agree with Ryan. For the elite, world class professional angles do not really matter. If you give one of those guys a fairway lie they are going to be able to hit the green and are furious about making more than par. They may play to a fat portion of the green in some cases but only on shots outside of 150 and only if there is some real huge penalty for short siding themselves.
In order to have "strategy" for a tee shot where one side of the fairway or another actually matters you must have width. For 99.5% of golfers I would think 40-50 yard wide fairways would be able to provide sufficent width that could allow for attemptng to favor a particular portion of the fairway. If you give the best players in the world 40 yard wide fairways they will just bomb drivers and have wedges in in which case angles are irrelevent.
For US Opens (at Merion or wherever else) the fairways will be 22-27 yards wide and in that case all you are trying to do is hit any portion of the fairway.
All the more reason for a bifurcation of equipment. Let the pros play steel, wood and older balls and let everyone else play whatever the hell they want to and quit messing up the golf courses.
-
Ryan,
Anytime you narrow the fairways to about 20 yards, you essentially constrict strategy and emphasize target golf.
I think that's true of most Major events.
While, as their ad says, "These guys are really good", as good as they are, I don't know if the reward for hugging one side of the fairway outweighs the risk associated with that plan of attack.
And, with the aerial nature of the game, for the best players in the world, does "strategy" actually exist ?
Can you give me 5 examples of strategy on a narrowed USOPEN/PGA course ?
I'm hoping that other than a new tee or two that NGLA doesn't touch the golf course in terms of fairway width for the Walker Cup
-
How about the tee shot on #4? (for starters). I'd think #11, #12, #14, a#15, #18 would also require a lot of thought.
And #2, #5, #6, #1 too.
-
Pat; I think that was Ryan's point. He has consistently suggested that the courses used for the US Open and PGA are set up to test ball striking and not strategic thinking. I suspect the genesis of this position is the consistent criticism of Medinah on this board. Ryan has expressed the view that Medinah is now designed to be a test for major championshios and less a members' course. Hence he argues that much of the criticism is unfair.
-
How about the tee shot on #4? (for starters). I'd think #11, #12, #14, a#15, #18 would also require a lot of thought.
And #2, #5, #6, #1 too.
Dan,
The tee shot on #4 confuses me. I think it may be one of the least strategic actually. All anyone is trying to do is hit any portion of the fairway in order to give themselves a lay up shot. What difference does one side of the fairway have if the second shot is a lay up for 95% of the best players in the world? Now the second shot may get the guys thinking as to where they want to be for their third shots.
#11 is a hole where anywhere in the fairway is fine. With a wedge second shot and a green that does not have huge movement, anything but the left rough is fine. (Right rough is no treat but left rough is dead).
#12 I don't remember one side being any better than the other. #14 and #15 are lay ups most likely either short of the narrowing point at #14 and certainly on #15 to keep from going through the fairway there. #18 is a busted tee shot up to whatever point the fairway gets really narrow (if that is how it is set up).
The firmer and faster will result in lots of divots on those tee boxes ;) Most on this site praise firm and fast but for Merion as firm and faster shortens an already short course (by world class standards) and narrows fairways, the tee shot becomes nothing more than "what club can I chase down there to keep it in the fairway"? On holes that dogleg players will play to the turn point. On holes that narrow up alot they will play for the roll out to stop at that point and on a few holes like #2 and #18 that are long and straight where length can result in a significant;y easier next shot, they will try and bomb it (again provided the fairways are not narrowed up at 300 yards).
Please don't misunderstand this post--I think Merion is fantastic and one of the greatest courses our country has. I just don't think that the way 99.5% of us view strategy of the tee bears any resemblance to how the elite, world class golfers look at the same shot. I don't think it will be necessarily a great test of driving skill with a driver but unlike many golfers I don't think that is always bad. Nicklaus hit three drivers a round I think (#2, #4 and #18) back in '71 and I think that will be the case for many again in 2013. Again, I think it is more interesting to see players pick different clubs off the tee versus instinctively grabbing for the same club. However, they will be playing to distance spots with those clubs not really trying to favor one side or another. There will certainly be a game plan and strategy as to what second shot they plan on attcking with and that is a strategy of course but not the startegy we like to think of on this site necessarily.
Tiger's display at Hoylake was masterful and I think when he did pull out driver it made for more interest than having him just grab for driver all day long. In that case weather and conditions dictated a very strategic "tacking" around the course. This is in contrast to Muirfield (1972) where I think Jack Nicklaus hit irons for three days due to thick rough on every hole. Of course many may argue it was a poor strategy as he left himself too far behind and his final round charge (with driver in hand) came up short.
-
The strategy is on the approach shots, not on the tee shots -- what do you have to do to keep the ball below the hole, and how far below the hole do you have to play to be certain you wind up there? Merion has a great set of greens, and strategy will never go out of style with greens like those, even if the players often have wedges in their hands. [And where don't they?]
-
The strategy is on the approach shots, not on the tee shots -- what do you have to do to keep the ball below the hole, and how far below the hole do you have to play to be certain you wind up there? Merion has a great set of greens, and strategy will never go out of style with greens like those, even if the players often have wedges in their hands. [And where don't they?]
Probably so. It will wind up being a wedge/putter championship. Snooze.
-
Much of the same was said in 1981, and I saw the first two days. Here is a good summary of David Graham's win in 1981 at Merion:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1124588/1/index.htm
17 fairways and 18 greens hit on Sunday will probably win it again.
-
Devil's Advocate Time (or Reality Check, I'm not sure):
The trouble isn't Merion (or any other golf course in the world). The trouble is our pre-occupation and parrot-like yammering on about 'strategic thinking'. No matter what the golf course, there is very little 'thinking' required to play golf. You can aim to the left side of the fairway or to the right, to the right side of the green/pin or to the left. One practice round and it's suddenly crystal clear: all black or white, all right or wrong. That's not 'thinking'; geez, that's barely even 'choice'. It's binary, it's how computer's 'think' -- and goodness help us if that's what passes for 'thinking' in the modern world. By comparison, a much maligned and Rees Jones-doctored US Open course where it's straight up the middle every single time, requires, at the very most, exactly 50% less 'thinking'.
Peter
-
Peter's comment highlights the reason why I never truly understood the term "strategy" when trying to hit my tee shot. I'm usually just holding on for dear life while trying to find any part of the fairway.
-
There was a point of discussion about the tee shot on #4, saying that is a layup hole. Not so fast my friend. I was following Molinari during round #1 of the last US AM, and he got home in two. You have the strategy of playing aggressively, or making it a 3 shot hole. The tee shot on #5 is important as the further right you go the more the right to left slope, and you do not want to be coming into a left hole location there with a draw. And that hole is now over 500 yards so driver may be the play there. Merion is my favorite course because of the angles. I think even the pros will need some strategy off the tee if they want an easier approach shot to put the ball on the proper place on the green. A player like Tiger may hit driver 5 - 6 times tops, probably less, but will still need to think about where to put his tee shot. And some of the bombers may try to go deep on holes like #8 or #10 to try to leave a pitch or sand shot to the green. I don't think it is bombs away but neither is it all irons and hybrids. At least not if you are going to win.
-
The strategy is on the approach shots, not on the tee shots -- what do you have to do to keep the ball below the hole, and how far below the hole do you have to play to be certain you wind up there? Merion has a great set of greens, and strategy will never go out of style with greens like those, even if the players often have wedges in their hands. [And where don't they?]
Tom,
How much strategy can there be when wedges are hit into those greens ?
Being below the hole is an inherent, if not a universal, strategy, especially for the best golfers in the world.
Will transforming the greens into rock hard surfaces be another line of defense ?
While these guys aren't infallible, it's hard to imagine any course defending par without gimmickerie
-
Patrick:
I never said anything about defending par. I don't care about that, as long as the championship requires its champion to play great golf.
I agree with you that watching guys hit wedges to every green is kind of dull. It's been a problem everywhere for ten years or so ... not just at Merion. Merion has dealt with it for a lot longer, maybe they have the answer. I just wish they weren't out there tearing up the course right now to try and "handle" the problem.
The greens were rock hard for the 1971 Open, I've heard Bill Kittleman describe it in gruesome detail. That was a pretty good championship.
-
Merion has a great set of greens, and strategy will never go out of style with greens like those, even if the players often have wedges in their hands. [And where don't they?]
+1
-
Peter's comment highlights the reason why I never truly understood the term "strategy" when trying to hit my tee shot. I'm usually just holding on for dear life while trying to find any part of the fairway.
R - and THAT'S why, IMO, modern courses that come in at about 6900 yards and that are routed expertly through quality sites with smartly-contoured greens and a limited amount of random bunkering are better than the rest, i.e. not because they require a great deal of (or a great deal more) strategic thinking than other courses, but because they offer more interesting golf in a more aesthetically-pleasing environment as part of an enjoyable journey that can be pleasantly walked.
P
-
Peter's comment highlights the reason why I never truly understood the term "strategy" when trying to hit my tee shot. I'm usually just holding on for dear life while trying to find any part of the fairway.
R - and THAT'S why, IMO, modern courses that come in at about 6900 yards and that are routed expertly through quality sites with smartly-contoured greens and a limited amount of random bunkering are better than the rest, i.e. not because they require a great deal of (or a great deal more) strategic thinking than other courses, but because they offer more interesting golf in a more aesthetically-pleasing environment as part of an enjoyable journey that can be pleasantly walked.
P
And we generally agree. However, it's hard to "play-down" to those set-ups and most guys (me incuded) don't want to do it all the time. I equate it to having a bazooka at your disposal - that you know you probably shouldn't shoot - but you know doing so would be so much fun. So you do....
I guess that could be considered strategy though.
-
Play down?
Ryan, Come on out to Holyoke and see if you can play our simple little track?
-
How much strategy can there be when wedges are hit into those greens ?
Not as much as I would like to see, but not every hole is a wedge. #2 should see some number going for the green in 2. #3 can play long. One of the Walker Cup matches played the 3rd hole from the 6th tee and it was a 270 yard par 3 instead of 215. #4 will see some attempts at getting home in 2. #5 will be a mid-iron. #6 is strong enough, especially if a driver is not used. #9 is at least a 7 iron. Then the course gets short but the greens on 12, 14, 15 and 16 are challenging. And #17 and #18 are not short irons. Yes, the middle holes are wedge-fests, but Merion is short where it is short, and long where it is long. I expect low scores but everyone is going to make some number of bogies. These guys are going to have a lot of wedges unless you build an 8,000 yard course. I think Merion has enough non-wedge holes to challenge anyone other than Bubba Watson. It is not Congressional or Bethpage, but should have enough tough shots to keep the players on their toes.
-
Play down?
Ryan, Come on out to Holyoke and see if you can play our simple little track?
I'd love to....need to ditch this work, kids, wife thing and get out and see the world.
-
Adam:
Yes, I can identify the "garden spot" on each hole but so can about a zillion other guys that love Merion.
Chris:
I couldn't disagree with you more about the tee shot on #4. The only flat spot is along the right rough next to the fairway bunker - classic Hugh Wilson strategic design. As for the auto-layup, those days are long gone and Tom O'Rourke beat me to it. In 1971, it was a big deal when Lanny Wadkins hit driver + driver to get across the creek in two shots (he never actually got it on the green). Now, a big 3 metal (there's a cross bunker at 350 yards - and it's become reachable!) and a strong 4 iron ought to work as the second shot is downhill.
Mike Sweeney:
David Graham hit 17 fairways in his final round of the '81 Open? I only count 14 - where are the other three?
Tom Doak:
I surely don't have your eye or your expertise but how/where is Merion currently "tearing up the course"? The new tee box on #14 provides a questionable angle over a Stop Sign (sort of like #17 at TOC?) but, assuming they take that down, it's a hell of a hole from back there. The new tee box on #9 seems alright from what my untrained eye can see. The new tee box on #7 points the player right straight at the OB, so that will require a little thought. The other new tee boxes (#'s 3,5,6,12,14,15,17 and 18) were all put in place for the 2004 Amateur and seemed to work well for that event and the subsequent Walker Cup.
What's happening now that you don't especially care for?
-
Obviously the weather will play a huge role but if more than 5% of all players go for #4 green in two I'd be surprised. Assuming the fairway is 26 yards wide I can assure you no player will give a hoot about a flat lie for their lay up shot. No professional would risk hitting a ball in a bunker or rough to avoid an awkward fairway shot--they are too good to care about that minor inconvenience.
I like the hole and don't think there is anything wrong with it playing as a three shotter for the best players. I just don't think the guys feeing it up there are concerned about which side of the fairway they hit.
The freakish lengths you often hear about occur at the US Am more so than the US Open. The pros play a much more controlled game off the tee.also, course management is still quite different between those two groups of payers.
-
Devil's Advocate Time (or Reality Check, I'm not sure):
The trouble isn't Merion (or any other golf course in the world). The trouble is our pre-occupation and parrot-like yammering on about 'strategic thinking'. No matter what the golf course, there is very little 'thinking' required to play golf. You can aim to the left side of the fairway or to the right, to the right side of the green/pin or to the left. One practice round and it's suddenly crystal clear: all black or white, all right or wrong. That's not 'thinking'; geez, that's barely even 'choice'. It's binary, it's how computer's 'think' -- and goodness help us if that's what passes for 'thinking' in the modern world. By comparison, a much maligned and Rees Jones-doctored US Open course where it's straight up the middle every single time, requires, at the very most, exactly 50% less 'thinking'.
Peter
Pietro
Of course you are right. Strategy for the pros off the tee is really about distance VS risk. There aren't too mnay holes which tax the thinking after a few rounds unless tehre is serious wind and/or f&f conditions prevalent. This is probably true for us schmucks as well only less so because we "can't afford to give up distance". Oddly, around the greens is where our games diversify immensely. Guys at my level really do have serious questions asked of them if they know their limitations. The pros are so good that most often the recovery back to the green is very one dimensional. For us it can be a real head scratcher to take our medicine or go for glory. Bottom line, for the pros, strategy is executing and then seeing if they can make the putts.
Ciao
-
These type of threads baffle me. Can "tee-shot strategy" be defined as the attempt to select a line and distance to hit the tee shot in order to increase the chances of making the lowest score possible considering the features the hole presents at that point in time? Or something similar?
-
These type of threads baffle me. Can "tee-shot strategy" be defined as the attempt to select a line and distance to hit the tee shot in order to increase the chances of making the lowest score possible considering the features the hole presents at that point in time? Or something similar?
Sounds spot on to me.
-
Chip - Boy, we disagree on the new tee on #14. I think it's a joke, but then again, I don't hit the ball 300 yards.
As far as "tearing up the course" (Doak) --- In early April, I made a combination bagel run/Golf House Road trip and couldn't believe where that silver-colored tarp was on "#14". I originally thought to myself, "Are they expanding the size of the practice putting green?" When I found out about the new tee and actually spent time standing on the tee looking at the "new #14", I felt like that Native American from the 70's commercial that cried a tear when he saw people littering on his sacred land.
Lord knows what else Fazio has in mind. But I'm not expecting good things. I can only hope that Mike Davis brings some sanity to the situation and helps to protect "the old lady" known as Merion East.
-
Dan,
I don't know where the new tee might be, but 2 years ago I played with a friend who is very good, and longer than most and he hit 3 wood up to the crest and an 8 or 9 iron 10 feet left of a 3/4 deep pin. This was from the back of the then back tee. What do you propose? There's about 75 yards behind that tee before you bother anybody else...
-
Where is the new back tee on 14?
-
At what point does great architecture lose its character and quality? If the course was designed without the thought of rock hard greens or greens stimping at 12 does it lose its character when those conditions are introduced anymore than say cutting fairway width by 30 or 40%? I don't know the answer but the question is certainly a difficult one.
-
Wouldn't a golf course's "character and quality" change daily and perpetually?
Every course is different to every person every day.
If you think Merion is a lesser course because they added a tee for the US Open guys to play you should probably check your priorities regarding golf course evaluation.
-
Chip - Boy, we disagree on the new tee on #14. I think it's a joke, but then again, I don't hit the ball 300 yards.
As far as "tearing up the course" (Doak) --- In early April, I made a combination bagel run/Golf House Road trip and couldn't believe where that silver-colored tarp was on "#14". I originally thought to myself, "Are they expanding the size of the practice putting green?" When I found out about the new tee and actually spent time standing on the tee looking at the "new #14", I felt like that Native American from the 70's commercial that cried a tear when he saw people littering on his sacred land.
Lord knows what else Fazio has in mind. But I'm not expecting good things. I can only hope that Mike Davis brings some sanity to the situation and helps to protect "the old lady" known as Merion East.
Dan, What makes you think that they are Fazio's ideas? I thought the USGA was the one who was pushing changes more than anyone....
Also, I don't get why everyone gets antsy about new back tees. Who cares, if you aren't going to play it?
-
I'd be curious to know where the new back tee for 14 is as well.
Based on the aerials, it looks like the putting practice green is behind 14 tee, and if you go back too far you'd be right in range to get struck by a ball from #1 tee.
P.S. Where are the tees for 15? Do they now share the space with the right fairway on 16?
-
Kalen,
15 tee goes down the hill and to the right which turns into 16 fairway.
-
I'd be curious to know where the new back tee for 14 is as well.
Based on the aerials, it looks like the putting practice green is behind 14 tee, and if you go back too far you'd be right in range to get struck by a ball from #1 tee.
P.S. Where are the tees for 15? Do they now share the space with the right fairway on 16?
Kalen,
How many of those US Open guys do you figure will cold shank their three-irons off that first tee?
-
I'd be curious to know where the new back tee for 14 is as well.
Based on the aerials, it looks like the putting practice green is behind 14 tee, and if you go back too far you'd be right in range to get struck by a ball from #1 tee.
P.S. Where are the tees for 15? Do they now share the space with the right fairway on 16?
Kalen,
How many of those US Open guys do you figure will cold shank their three-irons off that first tee?
I would hope none...but I was thinking more of day to day member play.
Unless a new tee on 14 would only be used for the big boys....which would seem like a waste to build a new tee just for one tourney.
-
I would imagine any of the members could play the new tee if they wanted...just as they could on any hole there.
-
and since the course is short enough, you could play 3-iron off a bunch of tees, keeping the ball in play but you'll have longer 6-7-8 irons to greens that are hard to hit.. or hit driver, and have a wedge but you have to hit the fairway.
Phillipe,
I'm not sure there are any holes that actually offer this choice. Merion has long holes where players will hit a driver or 3wood and some sort of middle to long iron and they have short holes that will rarely call for a driver and will always leave some sort of wedge.
Of the 12 par 4's, my read is:
1 - Hybrid/PW
5 - Driver/Mid-long iron
6 - Drive/Mid-long iron
7 - 3iron/Wedge
8 - 3iron/SW
10 - 3W/chip or 3 iron/SW
11 - 3iron/PW
12 - Driver or 3W/PW-8iron
14 - Old tee 3W/7 or 8iron
- New tee Driver/mid-long iron (I guess
15 - 3W 7 or 8iron
16 - 3W or Hybrid/7 or 8iron
18 - Driver/5iron
-
I would imagine any of the members could play the new tee if they wanted...just as they could on any hole there.
There is the hazard then!! ;D
-
I figure that the following holes will require more than wedge for over 50 % of the field.
Numbers 3-5-6-9-14-16-17-18...that is almost half of the golf course, so it will not be merely a wedge shot event.
The qulaity of the long par threes with the greens they are hitting to may well be the single biggest determinant of who ends up as champion...he who handles those holes the best will be in with a serious shout.
But Merion is more than about hitting short irons into the rest of the holes, the green complexes will create huge challenges to the players, greens like numbers, 3,7,11,14,15,16,17 and 18 are so tough to putt especially if you are not on the correct side of the hole.
Personally I think the course will hold up quite well to the threat of low scores, but as Tom Doak said, so what as long as good golf wins.
-
I figure that the following holes will require more than wedge for over 50 % of the field.
Numbers 3-5-6-9-14-16-17-18...that is almost half of the golf course, so it will not be merely a wedge shot event.
The qulaity of the long par threes with the greens they are hitting to may well be the single biggest determinant of who ends up as champion...he who handles those holes the best will be in with a serious shout.
But Merion is more than about hitting short irons into the rest of the holes, the green complexes will create huge challenges to the players, greens like numbers, 3,7,11,14,15,16,17 and 18 are so tough to putt especially if you are not on the correct side of the hole.
Personally I think the course will hold up quite well to the threat of low scores, but as Tom Doak said, so what as long as good golf wins.
M W-P,check your inbox.It turns out we have a mutual friend.
-
The new tee on 14 is back in the direction of the first green. I'm guessing it's 40-50 yards back from where they played during the Walker Cup. It's right along Golf House Road and will require a shot over an existing stop sign at the junction of Exeter Road.
-
The issue for strategy will be determined by just how firm and fast the course is for the Open.
Let me also point out something regarding #18 - you get Quiros or any of the other big time bombers and they can easily hit a short iron if wind conditions permits (and I'm not speaking about a gale wind behind their back).
If Merion is soft then the boys can hit driver at-will and the approaches will hold quite nicely -- even with mid or even longer clubs.
If the place is close to brick hard then strategic choices will be needed to get in the right position.
-
If the place is close to brick hard then strategic choices will be needed to get in the right position.
On how many holes will the choice on the tee be something other than the tradeoff between hitting driver and decreasing the chance of being in the fairway, vs. hitting something less and increasing those odds? If it's hard and fast and the rough is penal, isn't finding the short grass going to be much more important than finding a particular angle?
-
What I find so interesting about Merion as an Open venue is that it was most definitely designed to be a strategic course where the line off of the tee very much mattered, because it determined the difficulty of the next shot. But this sort of strategic design generally depends upon wide fairways. I am interested whether any of this type of horizontal strategy still exists at Merion, or whether it has been negated by narrower fairways and tree growth.
Does the course as is present the types of horizontal strategic choices off the tee as was originally intended? Perhaps those familiar with the course can fill me in.
There are many potential examples of how width and horizontal strategy came into play initially. Here are just a few:
No. 6. The sixth was designed to play with "a road hole" strategy, where the golfer faced an option off the tee of playing directly over the O.B (at one point a corn field) which jutted into the course right in front of the tee, and along the out of bounds right. This was to have left the golfer with a preferred angle and shorter shot to the plateau green, while avoiding the nasty bunker at the left front corner of the green. The safer route was out to the left but this left a longer shot to a difficult to hold plateau green and no way to run it up because of the left fronting pit.
While according to JES this hole still requires a three wood or driver, does the line of the drive ever even into the equation, or is the goal simply to hit the fairway? Does anyone even consider the O.B. anymore, or is it too far out of play to worry about?
No. 7. While never a long hole, the seventh was nonetheless an interesting hole using the slope of the ground and the out of bounds to create a natural "bottleneck" as one approached the green, which because of the shape and contours was easiest to hit and hold from alongside the out of bounds right. As one approached the green this area became narrower and narrower. Golfers who unsuccessfully tried to go too far up into this natural bottle neck saw there balls either out of bounds or rejected down the slope to the left, thus leaving a very difficult and unforgiving angle into the green.
Now there are trees along the out of bounds line to the right, but would the hole be more interesting for pros and amateurs alike if one could hug the right side O.B. for a better angle in? Would it even matter? What if the green was rock hard, so that it was difficult to hold a ball from well below the hole on the left?
A shot of Chick Evans, near the property line, 1916.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/21729495.jpg?t=1305582470)
Bobby Jones, as a teenager, 1916, caught in the greenside bunker on his second.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/51a80c44.jpg?t=1305583071)
And one of Bobby Jones, circa 1930.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/1b50c233.jpg?t=1305582605)
No. 14. The horizontal strategy on this hole was somewhat dictated by the out-of-bounds and by the orientation of the "double plateau" green. As can be seen in the linked photo below (from the Hagley library collection) the 14th fairway used to extend all the way to the Golf House Rd., thus giving the golfer an opportunity of hugging the out of bounds left and setting up a shorter and approach and avoiding having to carry the bunker at the short right of the green. Also the golfer could play for position depending upon the pin location and orientation of the plateaus.
Are there any horizontal choices off the tee, or is it more a matter of just trying to hit the fairway? Were the tees to remain as they are, would any of the professionals hit driver? If they could cut the corner toward the left bunker, would they?
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=1477&DMY=1086&DMTEXT=%20merion&REC=5&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
David,
1. #6 and 7 clearly favor an approach from the right side as you can see from your picture of #7 above. I have hit OB right on both holes for sure. I think the holes on #7 protect the neighbors more than change the hole.
2. The only place I ever think of trees being in play are #7 if you are along the right edge and in the old days #12 from the tee and maybe some very errant shots on a few holes including #2 and #16. Many are gone now, but Merion from my memory was never a parkland style course.
3. Great aerial of #14, and I don't have a very good answer to your questions.
-
David,
Very cool pics.
Has the routing changed since then? Because in that 1st pic, it shows the boundary along the so called "4th hole". However, the current #4, if I understand it correctly, is an interior hole...after the par 3 3rd hole.
Thanks in advance for any clarification on this.
Kalen
-
Jim Sullivan,
Do you feel that hitting driver on 4 of 12 par 4's should inherently disqualify Merion as the venue for a US Open ?
-
David,
Very cool pics.
Has the routing changed since then? Because in that 1st pic, it shows the boundary along the so called "4th hole". However, the current #4, if I understand it correctly, is an interior hole...after the par 3 3rd hole.
Thanks in advance for any clarification on this.
Kalen
the routing did change the current #7 was at one point #4
on a different note, i posted this on the Seve thread.
I was speaking to Seve's tour caddy (81-87) who frequently uses the putting green at my course. He claims that Seve was the only player in the entire field to get on the fourth green in two during the 81 open.
I also have it from a very reliable source that there will be a new tee on #4 that will be 50+ yards behind the current tee.
-
D_Malley,
I'm not saying your source is incorrect re: a new championship tee box on #4 but, for the life of me, I can't envision where it could be without completely interrupting the flow of play on #7 and, possibly, the 3rd green.
50 yards further back would put it squarely in the left rough about 150 yards from the 7th tee box. Even if the club brought in a couple of big trees to protect it, there's no way anybody on #'s 4 or 7 would tee of until the other was clear.
Actually, I'm not sure I like the idea as it would (I think), then make the second shot a lay-up - how boring. From the current location, there should be a lot of "do I or don't I?" depending on the tee shot, the lie, the wind and the rough around the green. Now THAT would be exciting.
-
Jim Sullivan,
Do you feel that hitting driver on 4 of 12 par 4's should inherently disqualify Merion as the venue for a US Open ?
Two things Pat - first is that I assume they'll use the new tee on #14 so that's a fifth Driver and I personally would always hit driver on #12 although I recognize some guys may not...regardless, that's a sixth for me so 6 out of 12 plus both par 5's is pretty good IMO. The guys only hit driver at Shinnecock on 1, 3, 6, 9(some of the time), 12 and 18 and at Pebble on 2, 9, 10, 13 and 15.
-
D_Malley,
I'm not saying your source is incorrect re: a new championship tee box on #4 but, for the life of me, I can't envision where it could be without completely interrupting the flow of play on #7 and, possibly, the 3rd green.
50 yards further back would put it squarely in the left rough about 150 yards from the 7th tee box. Even if the club brought in a couple of big trees to protect it, there's no way anybody on #'s 4 or 7 would tee of until the other was clear.
Actually, I'm not sure I like the idea as it would (I think), then make the second shot a lay-up - how boring. From the current location, there should be a lot of "do I or don't I?" depending on the tee shot, the lie, the wind and the rough around the green. Now THAT would be exciting.
chipoat,
And thats exactly why you don't work for the USGA. Thier idea of "compelling" golf is watching pros butcher thier way around the course struggling for a par on each hole. If they can get home in 2 on 4, this would make for too many easy pars....hence be no good! ;D
-
Jim,
I'm not so sure about your Shinny and PB stats.
In addition, while conditions differ, driver seems to be the club of choice on almost every hole at PB during the ATT.
I seem to remember one of the golf magazines publishing the tournament stats, (Fairways, GIR, Putts, etc.,etc.)
It would be interesting to see the correlation between driving distance and fairways hit in regulation at the Opens.
It would have been even more helpful to know fairway widths in conjunction with hole yardage.
Somewhere, perhaps someone has these stats.
It would be interesting to study the FIR, Distance and GIR stats on a per hole basis
-
Pat,
I think you'll agree the decisions on which club to hit off a tee during the AT&T at Pebble are substantially different than those during the US Open...my estimates were just that because undoubtedly there are players that hit Driver on holes I didn't list and don't hit Driver on holes I did. The same thing will happen at Merion...but what's important at Merion is that Driver COULD be hit on all but #11.
-
David,
I haven't played TOC, NGLA or any other "Road Hole" that I'm aware of to compare #6 to, but it does feature those shot options you ask about to at least a certain extent. Was the original tee further right than today? This would increase the angle over the corner...
Re #7: Yes, they have planted border pine trees so you do not get the same visual as the pictures from 80+ years ago but there is a very real decision off the tee in which exactly matches those you describe. The ideal tee shot is about 220 down the right center/right edge of the fairway. Any longer and you have to aim a bit more left and lose the angle with each yard...any shorter and your stance increases in difficulty as it's some part of downhill/sidehill back to a nice flat spot at about 175 into the green...
-
Pat,
I think you'll agree the decisions on which club to hit off a tee during the AT&T at Pebble are substantially different than those during the US Open..
Why do you think that is ?
Is it strictly the rough ?
What else could it be ?
-
Mike Sweeney,
Thanks for the response. I was thinking only of the 7th regarding the trees, although I know some here have argued that the there is a tree to the left of the tee/shoot on the 10th that limits one's options there. I was more thinking of the fairway widths. For example on the 7th I have the impression at that an offline ball would have run well left leaving a very difficult angle. With the narrower fairway corridor, I wonder if the rough stops balls from suffering that fate. Likewise on other tilted fairway locations such as the right side of the 15th and left side of the 4th.
Jim Sullivan,
Judging from the early descriptions and the early aerials it seems that the original tee may have been on a line to the right of the current tee. So originally the out of bounds would have been staring the golfer more in the face and forcing a choice of how much of the OB to carry. In other words it was more akin to the choice presented at the other Road Holes.
Here again, an aerial circa 1925 (from the Hagley Museum.) Notice 2nd green was still in its original location, about thirty yards shorter and closer to Ardmore Avenue. There are a series of tees starting close the the green, and there may have been another tee left of and just behind the green as well.
The aerial unfortunately cuts off, but it still shows how wide the fairway was on this hole, thus allowing for a large fan of driving angles, and a number of different angles (and distances) of approach.
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=891&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
As for the 7th, thanks for the confirmation. Any opinion on my comments above to Mike?
-
Pat,
I think you'll agree the decisions on which club to hit off a tee during the AT&T at Pebble are substantially different than those during the US Open..
Why do you think that is ?
Is it strictly the rough ?
What else could it be ?
Pat,
I don't think it's the rough much at all, it's the firmness of the greens which make it both more difficult to get anywhere near the hole from good positions and easier to get into bad trouble from bad tee shot positions...implied in that is that it's also more difficult to get it in the fairway/best position to approach the green because once the ball starts bouncing they have a little less control over it.
The 10th hole was a pretty cool case study during one of the rounds because the wind was very strong from behind and the guys were hitting wedge and sand wedge in due to the wind and very hard ground. I don't think the scoring average dropped much on the hole that day from the standard mid-iron approach to softer greens.
The firmness of the golf course makes position exponentially more difficult, as will be the case at Merion. I believe the case will be exagerated at Merion due to the large number of iron/wedge holes...IF par is the goal.
-
David,
Those tees for #6 don't look to be on a much different line than today, it's still a walk across them to get to the third tee. The fairway is certainly tremendously different now...and for as long as I can remember...~20 years. All I can say is that in the context of a US Open, that width would be excessive on a long hole because you'd take away any concern. The hole is long right now and I assume they'll use the back tee at least three of the four days and from the back tee there will not be many hitting less than driver.
As for #7, there is a point when the tilt of the ground switches from to-the-right over to to-the-left. I've never hit a club that would reach the part that tilts to-the-left but I've seen others do so. Your picture of Chick Evans shows this a little. He's standing in the ideal "crotch" of the swale. Everything behind him tilts right. The "crotch" runs at an angle from short right at maybe 120 to the center to long left at maybe 75 or 80 to the center. To reach any slope running left you have to take on some risk with the distance you're intending to hit the tee shot. Other than getting it 30 or 40 yards from the green (about 290 into a narrow area) I've never seen the reward being worth the risk...that being said, I've peppered those houses out to the right in recent plays so an adjustment might be in order...
-
David,
Do we have any good images of the green complex on #6 from early on?
-
Jim, I may be mistaken, but I think the tee is further left now, by quite a ways. I think it is deceptive because the new green is further left than this one. Look at the location of the tees in relation to the 5th green and I think you can see that at least the first one (closest to the 2nd green) is much further away than the current tee.
Also, while I am not sure, I wonder if the original tee was right behind the 2nd green, to the left of the rear bunker visible in this photo. Notice that there are two paths to/from the second green area, one to/from the green itself, and one from paths runs to/from the mowed area behind the left side of the green.
This particular aerial does not show the 6th green. A few later ones do, but changes had been made. I think I have a few photos from the 1916 Amateur I'll try to dig up when I get the chance.
Here is the 6th green from June 1930.
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=1358&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=715&DMY=3176&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=16&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
-
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=0&DMY=891&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
David,
The configuration of those two sets of tees in comparison to the 5th green is very similar currently to that picture with the exception of some added length on both 3 and 6. If there was a shift to the left of the 6th tee, from that picture to now, I would say it was just a few yards. As for the two paths coming off the 2nd green, I'm sure it's possible one was from a tee but my primary question would be...why would someone tee off there and then walk down to the other tees? The path would most likely go out to the fairway if it was primarily a tee. I think it's just two different paths off the green and down to the next tee. A better image might change that opinion.
As for the 1930 image of the 6th green, that is a good one, but it has none of the characteristics of my impression of a Road Hole green other then the steep embankment up. The angle of approach is hardly suggested by that green configuration. I'll bet the 1916 pictures show something different.
-
Not a photo but this 1916 drawing by William Flynn provides a pretty good indication of the hole and green configuration;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/5733506849_be5f58ca88_o.jpg)
-
Sure does, thanks Mike. First thing that jumped out at me was the pinched fairway at the driving area.
Flynn sure did improve his drawing skills as he went because the detail he provides in other plans are several degrees better than these drawings for the tournament.
David,
I think this hole could best be described as taking a couple aspects of the Road Hole concept without taking all of it...would you agree?
-
Jim,
As for the location of the tees, as I said you could be correct, but we'll have to agree to disagree until I have time to put together an overlay or something. And I see three tee boxes left of the second green, not two.
As for path to/from behind the 2nd green, I don't think it was a path from the tee, I think it was the path to the tee. At this point in time wasn't this the road hole No. 6? So golfers would have been trekking from the 5th green to the sixth tee. Follow the path and it looks like it comes from the 5th green.
Here is the image closer up. You can see the green with the biarritz-type swale running through the middle of it, but it also seems that there was an elevated and maintained area behind the back left corner of the green. If this wasn't a tee, what was it? A picnic area?
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=438&DMY=2087&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
And here from June 1930 (again from the terrific Hagley collection.) It looks as if work is being done on the course in preparation for the 1930 amateur (to be held in September) and the holes and tees have been marked, and they appear to be working on this teeing area.
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=1338&DMSCALE=50.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=758&DMY=909&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=20&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
First, note that the out of bounds has been reconfigured. In 1924, the OB line everything but the bunker was OB at the corner. By 1930 the fence had been pushed back and one could play over the bunker without playing over the out of bounds.
Second, note that while the area behind and left of the green was no longer being maintained, there is still what appears to be the traces of a path from this area to to the corner and the fairway, as would be created if golfers had been teeing off from this area.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Merion-6-1930.jpg?t=1305736980)
David,
I think this hole could best be described as taking a couple aspects of the Road Hole concept without taking all of it...would you agree?
I guess it depends on what you mean but "a couple of aspects." For example, there was no road. But generally,no, I wouldn't agree. The hole was referred to as a "Road Hole" and early descriptions of how the hole played are very much in line with the strategies of a road hole. So, I'd have to say that Merion tried to build a hole with the strategic underpinnings of road hole. Over the years this concept has been watered down some, but originally the hole was intended to play as a road hole!
As for the 1916 Flynn diagram from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, like many of those early Flynn drawings, it is not an perfectly accurate depiction and is not consistent with descriptions of the hole at the time, or with photos, or with the aerials earliest aerials from mid-1925. Using these newspaper drawings as if they were blueprints is questionable at best.
-
David,
I see the third line of teeing area now, but I still don't see anything right off the back left corner of the second green. Why wouldn't we if the other tee pads are pretty clear? As for the path up there, it's in front of the other back tees, isn't that counterintuitive to you?
When I say it looks like the hole had some of the concepts of the original as opposed to all of the concepts I was thinking specifically of the green orientation and Road Bunker. In the end, you could put the hotel and railroad shed in there but if the green orientation and design doesn't make it awfully compelling to challenge the right edge of the fairway then you lose alot of the total concept in my opinion. Maybe the original green did that and we just haven't seen the picture yet.
-
I think the green from 1930 in the aerial looks somewhat like the green in the 1916 Flynn drawing, although obviously not to scale.
Perhaps part of the issue is that by 1916, that green was one of those plowed up and remodeled for the 1916 US Amateur by Hugh Wilson and William Flynn. The 8th, 9th, and 17th greens were also significantly changed at that time.
At the same time, the left green-side bunker was enlarged and the left fairway bunker in the landing area was built.
I think Jim's point is that host "Road Hole" greens tend to be slender, table-top after the swale and more diagonally positioned, with a "road" type hazard running along the right just behind the green at a diagonal, as well as a left-center prominent pit jutting into the very vitals, as one wag put it.
***EDIT*** Jim, our posts crossed. Great minds.
-
Jim,
Here is the image closer up. You can see the green with the biarritz-type swale running through the middle of it, but it also seems that there was an elevated and maintained area behind the back left corner of the green. If this wasn't a tee, what was it? A picnic area?
(http://digital.hagley.org/cgi-bin/getimage.exe?CISOROOT=/p268001uw&CISOPTR=200&DMSCALE=100.00000&DMWIDTH=600&DMHEIGHT=600&DMX=438&DMY=2087&DMTEXT=%20Golf&REC=19&DMTHUMB=1&DMROTATE=0)
David,
Regarding this specific question...the entire area around the green appears maintained at an equal degree to your "elevated and maintained area off the back left corner"...
Do you agree that it's fairway height grass all the way over to the road and around the two back bunkers?
Also, do you see a little entry from Ardmore Ave off the back right corner of the green? That could be a maintenance entrance whose carts caused the path you're seeing...
-
That area behind the old 2nd green might not be a picnic area, but that would certainly be a better use for it than a tee area! ;) ;D
Unless Hugh Wilson was perhaps prophetically envisioning the building of the Old Course Hotel in 1968 and trying to emulate that edifice, I can't imagine any reason why he'd build a tee that forced one to drive directly into a large, mature tree about 40 yards ahead. :o
There have been a lot of ludicrous claims made about Wilson here over the years, but to date I can't recall anyone claiming he was clarivoyant. ;D
Perhaps Tom Fazio can bring this challenging, if unorthodox "strategy" on the 6th back for the pros in an effort to protect par in the 2013 US Open. He can even claim that he stole the idea directly from CB Macdonald! ;) ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3223/5734725484_5e37bd0667_o.jpg)
-
I think the hole offers some of the strategic features of The Road Hole such as a reason to drive over the corner and hug the right and a green perched up on a plateau. What's missing though is the improved angle of attack if you go to the right...you do get a reduced distance in, but it's going to be minimal compared to the risk of OB. The lack of an improved angle of attack is due to the configuration of the green and surrounding hazards, at least in the images we've seen so far. How is it that there are no original pictures or drawing available? The good player has every reason to challenge the boundary line on #17 at TOC, but #6 at Merion does no such thing, even the 1924 drawing doesn't hint that way.
-
Jim,
If we had the pre-1916 Merion drawings we could probably have avoided about six-zillion posts on GCA over the past few years. ;) ;D
-
You're probably right.
I've been hoping the Merion conversations would eventually shift to some of those original hole designs but if we really don't have any evidence of what they looked like it could get ugly, huh?
-
David and others:
There is a drawing in George Thomas' book of a nameless hole which has a corner of OB jutting into the hole from the right, in a discussion of holes utilizing out-of-bounds as a hazard. At some point years ago it occurred to me that his drawing was probably the sixth hole (original third hole) at Merion. See if you think it's the same hole.
-
Jim
1. As for the area at the back left of the 2nd green I see what you are saying, but am not sure (as I have said from the beginning.) I am glad we both see three tees to the left of the 2nd green. I would suggest to you that at least one of these was to the right of the current tee. I'll try to do an overlay if I get some time, but it really doesn't matter. Either way the corner is still very much in play and was moreso before the corner was reconfigured.
2. As usual Cirba is spewing lots of information without providing any backup or basis whatsoever, so I think I'll just ignore it. He is obviously just parroting others with whom I have no interest in conversing anyway. If they ever start trying to back up their claims maybe I'll address it, but I won't hold my breath for that.
3. You wrote:
I think the hole offers some of the strategic features of The Road Hole such as a reason to drive over the corner and hug the right and a green perched up on a plateau. What's missing though is the improved angle of attack if you go to the right...you do get a reduced distance in, but it's going to be minimal compared to the risk of OB. The lack of an improved angle of attack is due to the configuration of the green and surrounding hazards, at least in the images we've seen so far. How is it that there are no original pictures or drawing available? The good player has every reason to challenge the boundary line on #17 at TOC, but #6 at Merion does no such thing, even the 1924 drawing doesn't hint that way.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion but I am sure you will understand if I continue to defer to those who were actually there and familiar with what was on the ground. From the New York Times in 1916:
The 3rd hole is 427 yards, par 4, and the best way to play it is to "cross a fence before you come to it." In other words the shortest route to the green is across the corner of somebody's corn lot, with an open shot to the green if the carry is made, and a half dozen assorted shots back to the fairway if the ball falls short. The golfer who plays safe by taking the dog-leg journey to the right toward the green will hardly reach his destination in two strokes, as there is a pit just short of the green directly in his path, and placed there for the express purpose of thwarting his intentions.
It sure sounds to me like playing for the angle of the second was not only imperative, it was very much dictated by the "pit" directly in the line of play from the right side. There is a similar description indicating how difficult it was to hold a ball on the green with a long shot over this bunker, but I don't have it handy.
[If I recall correctly this green was originally entirely on the plateau, but was expanded in front down off the plateau. I don't remember the year off hand.]
_______________________________
Tom Doak,
I think I see the drawing(s) to which you refer (pge 280) and while they are similar to Merion neither are quite the same. The first differs in that the tee is along the out of bounds, and then the hole widens (instead of a tee tucked behind an out of bounds jutting into play like the shed at St. Andrews.) The second differs in that the out of bounds doesn't jut into the fairway until about 1/2 way to the green. Merion almost seems more of a hybrid of the two drawings.
-
Here is the green in 1916. Note the "pit" in the front left corner and the skewed alignment of the plateau green toward the OB.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion6th1916.jpg?t=1305783774)
-
David,
That picture makes it pretty clear to me, I'd bet the edge of that "pit" is at least a few yards right of the edge of the current bunker which obviously has the effect of forcing the tee shot to the right for the best angle in. Good find, thanks.
Regarding the green cut falling down the rise in the front, I'd bet it's mowed like that simply to ensure balls don't stop on it on wet or longer grass days...a minor issue IMO.
-
David,
That picture makes it pretty clear to me, I'd bet the edge of that "pit" is at least a few yards right of the edge of the current bunker which obviously has the effect of forcing the tee shot to the right for the best angle in. Good find, thanks.
Great. So then are we in agreement that the key strategic characteristics of a Road Hole were incorporated into Merion's 6th? (But with no road, of course.)
Regarding the green cut falling down the rise in the front, I'd bet it's mowed like that simply to ensure balls don't stop on it on wet or longer grass days...a minor issue IMO.
I agree and see what you mean, but when one simply looks at an aerial or map one might not realize that (despite this front mowed area) the green is essentially plateaued and the left front bunker is built into that plateau. Much like a road hole.
In an earlier exchange on a different thread, Chip Gaskins commented that this green had always reminded him of a road hole green. Here is the exchange with a couple of photos he posted:
Chip: Wow, OK, so this makes sense. Macdonald was there at some point. Now I realize that the green at #6 is really a Road Hole rendition. Cool!
Me: Chip I am not sure if you are joking or not, but either way here is a description of the 6th (then the 3rd) from the New York Times in 1916:
. . .
Chip: David-
I wasn't joking. The current #6 green reminds me of a Road Hole (minus the US Open rough around the bunker). Not so much the tee shot, though maybe what it used to look like did...
See for yourself:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5085/5244744800_bff96b13a1.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5126/5244744952_ea45cd1253.jpg)
___________________________________
The green photo looks fairly similar to the one above from 1916, doesn't it? With the exception that the pit may have been moved as you mentioned?
-
When was the bunkering scheme on the 6th first conceived and built?
-
David and others:
There is a drawing in George Thomas' book of a nameless hole which has a corner of OB jutting into the hole from the right, in a discussion of holes utilizing out-of-bounds as a hazard. At some point years ago it occurred to me that his drawing was probably the sixth hole (original third hole) at Merion. See if you think it's the same hole.
This may be it:
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm66/chriscupit/Thomas.jpg)
-
Great. So then are we in agreement that the key strategic characteristics of a Road Hole were incorporated into Merion's 6th? (But with no road, of course.)
Absolutely. With that green oriented to the right like that and the bunker looking less on the side.
Mike,
Do you agree? Your question seems to imply that you agree that in 1916 the hole had those characteristics but that the concept would not have been developed until sometime after opening...
-
Jim,
Correct, and nobody really knows.
When Merion opened it had very few bunkers and even three years later in 1915 it was stated that it had less bunkers than a short nine hole course.
Since many of the template holes such as road are defined by their proscriptive bunkering patterns, we don't know when it was done.
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion6th1916.jpg?t=1305783774)
OK Mike, but would you disagree that this hole, in 1916, has an awful lot of the features and characteristics of a Road Hole?
-
That green looks far too large to be considered a "road hole" in my mind.
Unless we're calling every green that has a left side bunker a "road hole"
-
That green looks far too large to be considered a "road hole" in my mind.
Unless we're calling every green that has a left side bunker a "road hole"
+1
I agree, where is the hourglass-like shape and whats up with the bunker being in the front left.
Isn't the road and wall and what replicates it's 'hazard' characteristics kind of important?
Somebodies getting a little loose in the details when comparing, or describing, the green characteristics.
It seems like the thread is actually touching on the tee shot comparisons, not the approach shot. The only problem there being that the trajectory of the tee shot isn't being discussed.
-
Jim,
Apparently even Mike now agrees that this hole was Merion's version of a road hole. (How could he deny it given it was reported as such?) Yet he claims that this might only be the case because maybe the bunkers were added later. This seems specious to me, especially given that Merion placed the tee directly behind an OB, with the OB directly between the tee and the green.
Here is a photo from the 1916 Amateur taken from the left of the fairway looking across, with the OB corner in plain site. The tee is back behind the corner to the right of the photo and the green to the left. Notice the mounds and features apparently built into the corner. And comparing Guilford's position to that to that of the other figure gives one an idea of the width of the fairway and the importance of the angle of the drive. Guilford would have been facing long shot directly over the pit, would not he have?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion19166thAG.jpg?t=1305938048)
Recall also that, according to contemporaneous reports written both before and after the opening, many of Merion’s holes and features were modeled after great holes and features on overseas courses. Is it at all reasonable to assume that this was not one of them?
___________________________________________
Ralph,
I agree that this thread is supposed to be about whether there is strategy off the tee, and I was trying to discuss the merits of the strategy off the tee. Then Jim asked for a picture of the green to help him understand the strategy off the tee because Merion was a very sophisticated course strategically, and it is impossible to understand the strategy off the tee unless one considers the approach shot and that means at least giving some consideration to the green. The two go hand-in-hand. As was described in the NYTimes excerpt above, risky drive over the corner sets up the shorter and easier shot to the green while the safer drive leaves the longer and more demanding approach over a nasty pit. (If I recall correctly, one of the finalists (Chick Evans or Bob Gardner) failed to extricate themselves from the bunker on the final day.)
Anyway, that is why I find it strange that you and Kalen want to come to conclusions about the hole based on the shape of the green. There is a heck of a lot more to the hole concept and and how it plays than that! I'll stick with the opinions of those who were there at the time. The contemporaneous descriptions of the playing characteristics of the hole match that of the road hole. And it would have been pretty bizarre to build a tee directly behind a corner of an out of bounds if they were not building a road hole, don't you think?
_________________________________________
Kalen,
Who knew you were an expert on road hole greens? What was the maximum size to qualify in 1912? I would think one would need to consider 1) the rest of the hole, and 2) how the hole actually played, 3) what the people who were there thought of the hole. But then maybe you have considered these things but are not letting on . . .
_________________________________________
From the Philadelphia Evening Ledger, July 6, 1915:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MERION1915076PELRDclip.png?t=1305949109)
-
David,
Do any of the Opening day articles mention a Road Hole? Any from the first year?
Do you know when the bunker was built?
What about the tee? Any idea?
-
The reason i ask is that it appears from all evidence that the "template" hole features, such as the proscriptive bunkers that define many of them, seem to have been added after Wilson returnewd from abroad.
For instance, Richard Francis tells us that one hole that benefitted from Wilson's travels was the redan, which he told us was ano idea suggested by the location of the hole. Note he doesnt say they were looking for a place to put a redan hole but instead the location of the hole with a hilltop green suggested the theme, a bunker was built in the front corner where a old barn had been, and voila! Instant redan!
Similarly, Alex Findlay told us the after Wilson's return from abroad he "thought it would take a lot of making" to emulate the Alps hole after having seen the original.
Far and Sure and Tillinghast's articles also refer to the template features being added after Wilson returned from abroad.
-
Mike,
To suggest that there was NO routing or individual hole designs until AFTER Wilson returned from abroad is a distortion of the facts for the sole purpose of furthering your agenda ;D
-
Pat,
If you guys ever find any facts or evidence to the contrary, please just produce it and we'll be haPpy to consider it.
Thanks.
-
Mike, I have no idea why you want to turn yet another thread into another idiotic Merion thread.
There is ample evidence about what specific changes to the course took place between the opening and the U.S. Amateur only four years later!
If YOU have any evidence that the particular holes in question had undergone substantial redesigns between the opening and the Amateur (or in this case the opening and July of 1915) bring it forward. If not then stop with this nonsense.
-
David,
Surely you jest!
Youre the one who has been trying to advance your CBM template agenda here from the get-go, referring to the Lbiarritz" 2nd green and the "bottle" of the 7th hole, although no one ever called either hole those things in 100 years.
The 6th hole had the green completely reconstructed. A greenside bunker (left) enlargesd, and a fairway bunker placed on the driving zone on the left for the 1916 US Amateur.
Any new tees were also added.
What evidence or facts do you have? m
-
Mike, The bottle neck description of the 7th wasn't my description, it was Robert Lesley's from 1914 and it helps describes the strategic choices the golfer faces off the tee. Are you going to tell us that Merion re-contoured the entire landscape after 1913? As for the biarritz-like swale running through the second green, I referenced it to distinguish between the green and what may have been a tee behind. Are you suggesting that the swale running across the green wasn't there at the time the course opened? That seems a bit silly, don't you think? (For what its worth, I personally would distinquish between such a swale and a true biarritz hole - they were both CBM concepts but sometimes used on distinct holes - but use the term because this is what is now commonly referred to as a biarritz swale.)
As for the sixth hole, I fail to understand your point. In July of 1915 it was reported that the hole was a reproduction of the road hole. At the time of the 1916 Amateur, the descriptions of the playability and strategies of the hole match that of the road hole. Are you arguing that between July 1915 and September 1916, the hole was remodeled to be LESS like a road hole? If so that would cut directly against the points you were trying to make yesterday! If the opposite, it would reaffirm that the was intended to be a road hole from the beginning. Either way, I fail to understand your point.
You keep speaking of the complete redesign of this hole prior to the 1916 Amateur but you have produced NOTHING to support such a claim.
-
For what it is worth, my understanding is that at some point prior to the Amateur the 8th green was rebuilt to the right of the original green. In addition the 17th was re-grassed, and the 9th was rebuilt and/or regrassed and expanded in he same location. I don't think that the 6th was remodeled prior to this tournament-- no new green, no new tees, no new greenside bunker. Changes may have been made after, but I am unaware of changes made before. I suspect that is why Mike hasn't supported his claims. I suspect Mike has his dates wrong or is simply making things up to fit his argument. But I could be wrong and am awaiting proof backing up his claims about the remodel before the Amateur.
______________________________________
Back to the topic at hand, the picture looking across the fairway, above, goes directly to the question at the start of the thread. Merion's 6th was designed with substantial strategic options off the tee, and the nature of the green reinforced those options.
Others familiar with the course indicate that these options still somewhat exist, but it seems that they do not exist to the extent they once did.
Query which would be more interesting in a USOpen, the configuration as it is now, or something more like the original, with a drive to the left side leaving a longer and more difficult shot over a nasty pit to a difficult to hold green. It may be that technology has rendered such a hole meaningless, but I am not so sure.
-
Pat,
If you guys ever find any facts or evidence to the contrary, please just produce it and we'll be haPpy to consider it.
Thanks.
To be clear, and avoid any doubt, you're stating that the golf course was NOT routed until after Wilson returned from his trip to the UK in 1912.
I think there's an abundant body of evidence that contradicts that position.
By the way, who are the individuals who comprise "We'll" ?
The ones who are going to consider the evidence ?
In defending your position didn't you ask yourself: Why would they buy and swap land if they didn't have a routing plan in place ?
Or do you think they engaged in those purchases and swaps just for the fun of it, without any routing plans
-
David,
Please provide the supposed "ample evidence" of the changes to Merion that took place between opening day in September 1912 and the US Amateur 4 years later.
Please provide the ample evidence on a hole by hole basis. Please also try to avoid stealing from Joe Bausch or Wayne Morrison's prior research while you tell us how the course evolved in those early years.
Better yet, why don't you tell us what each hole looked like and what features and bunkers existed in 1912 when the course opened?
I'm sure you'll try to dodge this straightforward question, but you're full of it, David, and it's time someone called BS.
-
Mike,
You are the one who claimed that the 6th was remodeled from tee to green prior to the Amateur in 1916. So prove it.
As for stealing from Wayne's research, that is a laugh. Were it not for my IMO, Wayne would still be claiming that CBM was nothing but Wilson's travel agent. But they should have paid more attention because they still have it all screwed up. These are the guys who couldn't even find Merion with the metes and bounds, literally.
As for Joe, his research is terrific, I am sure. Unlike you, Wayne, and TEPaul, he has made the most of his proximity and access to the resources. I tip my hat to him as usual. That said, if the Faker Flynn .pdf is any indication of what Joe has found, then even he doesn't have too much that I haven't already seen. Besides, you shouldn't pull Joe into your petty and immature disputes, I am sure he wants no part of them. Last I heard, Joe was claiming neutrality and more than willing to share his research with anyone. Or is he now drinking the Kool Aid, too?
What is your evidence for claiming that the 6th green was remodeled from tee to green between the opening and the Amateur?
And were these changes toward the Road Hole concept, or away from it? Because as of July of 1915, it was a road hole.
-
Jim,
Correct, and nobody really knows.
When Merion opened it had very few bunkers and even three years later in 1915 it was stated that it had less bunkers than a short nine hole course.
Since many of the template holes such as road are defined by their proscriptive bunkering patterns, we don't know when it was done.
Mike, that's NOT true.
The original Road hole at TOC is absent all bunkering, save the lone bunker at the green.
The Redan, hog's back, Valley, Knoll, and other templates are NOT defined by their bunkering as you insist
Please stop making statements for the sole purpose of furthering your agenda ;D[/size]
-
Patrick,
Why do you think you can tell a MacRaynor course anywhere on the planet from just an aerial view?
Three guesses... ;)
-
David,
Francis described the second green more like a double plateau than a Biarritz, and when I look at that photo, I see more of a stairstep than a swale. The back left that you say may be a tee (or picnic area!) looks a bit small, but I wonder if it really is the upper left plateau of the green?
Thanks for the old photos. Always interesting. No doubt in my mind they considered the 3rd/6th a Road Hole, despite no road. Even Raynor never built one with an actual road, to my knowledge, and I don't have any sense from Wilson's writings that they were trying to copy any feature to the inch, so if the green shape is a little different, etc., it is still a road hole conceptually, at least at the start. Not sure what the argument about it might be, but this is golfclubatlas, and a thread about Merion......
Funny to see how the front left bunker has moved out of such a key position over the years to a more "bunker left, bunker right" mentality. The angles are certainly more subtle today than they appear in photos from the old days.
-
Patrick,
Why do you think you can tell a MacRaynor course anywhere on the planet from ano aerial view?
Three guesses... ;)
I could show you aerials of holes that some/many would consider a template that you couldn't tell who the architect was.
It's easy to create generalities after you know who the architect was or which course the aerial is of.
Please define the bunkering scheme for road holes.
Valley Holes ?
Double Plateau holes
Plateau holes
Hog back holes
Knoll Holes
Thanks
-
In July 1915, Merion had very few bunkers, this despite the fact that clearly most template holes from abroad are defined by a regimented, repeated bunkering strategy, including the Road, the redan, the short, the biarritz, the Eden, the Bottle, the Alps, the Long, and Sahara at minimum.
Yet, nearly three years after opening, the course had almost no bunkers. How could this be?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2657/4231756886_9ca826071e_o.jpg)
Once Merion was awarded the 1916 US Amateur, Hugh Wilson and the Green Committee, with William Flynn, set about to change all of that, and in the next 14 months went on a whirlwind of stiffening the golf course for the national tournament. The changes, including those to today's 6th (then the 3rd), are summarized in this terrific April 1916 article by William Evans.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3396440071_e07b7a1859_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3473/3397289532_91053a9939_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3580/3396440077_8feb20b58b_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
It says there were new pits added to the left of the fw and the front left of the green, with the green extended back left on then 3.
So, while maybe the hole was a road hole just because it played over OB short right off the tee, the nice green side bunker (which does seem to have some TOC character as a pot bunker rather than "white face of Merion" seems to have been added in 1915. Also seems odd that they felt the need to add a fw bunker left, since there was none at TOC AND the new pot would seemingly discourage that play anyway. I guess its hard not to put hazards on both sides, even then, for a national championship of importance.
Nice to know it took a few years for the Wicker Baskets to appear, and that a fallaway green was considered a problem then, even though many on this site seem to think they were prevalent back in the Golden Age and before.
-
In July 1915, Merion had very few bunkers, this despite the fact that clearly most template holes from abroad are defined by a regimented, repeated bunkering strategy, including the Road, the redan, the short, the biarritz, the Eden, the Bottle, the Alps, the Long, and Sahara at minimum.
Mike,
That's completely untrue and you know it.
The Road hole isn't "defined" by its bunkering scheme. The road hole has but one bunker at the green.
The Redan isn't "defined" by it's bunkering scheme, it's defined by its green, in terms of angle and structure.
The Alps hole isn't defined by any bunkering, it's defined by the intervening earthen feature.
The Biarritz isn't "defined" by it's bunkering scheme, it's defined by the green.
The Long isn't "defined by it's bunkering, it's defined by its length.
You continue to make up absurd declarations in order to further your agenda.
Dare I say it, you're being disingenuous again.
Another flaw in your position is that your ignore CBM's taking the commitee on a tour of NGLA, before Wilson's trip, his supplying the committee with draings/detailed sketches and probably Raynor's renderings. The committee, subsequent to their visit to NGLA was armed with in depth knowledge and details of the template holes.
As to the bunkerless nature of Merion, it's almost irreleveant, the course was routed, the individual holes that comprised the routing determined, hence the bunkering was merely the final micro touch, the macro work had been completed before Wislon's trip to the UK
-
Patrick
To me, that pit and green extension combined have a very nice feel of the original at TOC. Had that small pit (as opposed to a white face typical of the rest of the MCC course) not been built, and the green wrapped around it, it might be a road hole, but it was even a better road hole after the 1915 changes.
David challenged him to produce evidence of changes around 1915. David asked, Mike posted. Please tell me how that is being disingenous?
For the record, the bunkering is NOT irrelevant nor a micro touch. MCC wasn't known for its "irrelevant white faces of Merion." It is interesting that while CBM showed them those holes, that they waited for many seasons and reasons, perhaps including Wilson seeing the real ones themselves, to install the bunkers.
While they understood it to be a road hole, apparently they perfected it later. Without that pot bunker, it probably wasn't as good as the 1915 version.
-
Patrick
To me, that pit and green extension combined have a very nice feel of the original at TOC. Had that small pit (as opposed to a white face typical of the rest of the MCC course) not been built, and the green wrapped around it, it might be a road hole, but it was even a better road hole after the 1915 changes.
David challenged him to produce evidence of changes around 1915. David asked, Mike posted. Please tell me how that is being disingenous?
Jeff, you're going to have to start reading replies more carefully.
Mike stated, unequivically, that bunkers defined template holes. (the Redan, Biarritz, Alps, Long, Road)
That's NOT true, and Mike's redoubling of his effort to restate that bunkering defines the templates is disingenuous.
He continues to make outlandish statements.
I wouldn't mind that normally, but, he does so for one purpose and one purpose only, to put forth his agenda, which you are evidently blind to.
My comment refuted Mike's contention that bunkers, not unique physical properties, defined template holes.
I stand by my statement and refutation of Mike's absurd declaration.
For the record, the bunkering is NOT irrelevant nor a micro touch.
Would you SHOW me where I said it was "irrelevant" ?
Absent your abilty to do so, would you please retract your erroneous statement ;D
MCC wasn't known for its "irrelevant white faces of Merion."
The "white faces" are more of a bunker style, a trademark so to speak
It is interesting that while CBM showed them those holes, that they waited for many seasons and reasons, perhaps including Wilson seeing the real ones themselves, to install the bunkers.
I think that' was a prudent decision.
Remember, we're dealing with a "committee", a group of novices at a time when golf course architecture was still in its infancy.
There's an old adage: "do you know what's best done if a hurry ?........ Answer "Nothing"
I think, uncertainty had to be an element that ran through the committee, individually and collectively. Waiting until Wilson returned to put in the final touches makes sense in 1911-12.
As the construction committee, they had tremendous responsibility on their shoulders, why rush to get something wrong when they had no deadline to meet ?
While they understood it to be a road hole, apparently they perfected it later. Without that pot bunker, it probably wasn't as good as the 1915 version.
I'd agree, that little bunker creates a unique playing challenge.
I've never seen a "road" hole where that bunker didn't create havoc.
-
Patrick,
Yes, the slow addition of bunkers was once considered wise and normal, as opposed to today, where most courses get up and out of the ground by opening day in nearly final form (except the mistakes, which are corrected, as always)
I agree Mike was perhaps a little rash in defining template holes by bunkers only, rather than a sum total of the features. At the same time, it appears the original road hole at MCC was in name mostly at first, because of the OB in play at the right. The real interest of the hole that truly makes it a Road Hole, IMHO, was the pot bunker and the green extension beyond it, both of which certainly had to increase the reward for playing right.
I also note they did change the OB to give more room right, and nearly take that portion out of the equation, although skirting the OB is nearly as (but not totally as) dramatic as playing over a wall. I would think it should have been enhanced with similar size shrubs, or a faux wall.
But, it seems well documented that MCC wasn't into exact copies, as Raynor later got go be with CBM templates, so exact dupes aren't really important. Nor is the debate about what exactly makes a template. For that matter the parallel 3rd/6th has been held up as a Reverse Redan, and while described that way, many have opined it didn't really look like a Redan either.
So, how close does Merion have to be to build CBM's template holes to call them CBM template holes? It doesn't appear they were as close as some of the hole names suggest, either originally (without clearly placed bunkers) or later. But, that is a matter of debate.
-
Patrick,
Yes, the slow addition of bunkers was once considered wise and normal, as opposed to today, where most courses get up and out of the ground by opening day in nearly final form (except the mistakes, which are corrected, as always)
Jeff, today we live in a world of instant gratification where turnkey products are pretty much mandated, but, back then I don't think they had that onus thrust upon them. Taking their time to try to produce a quality product made sense
I agree Mike was perhaps a little rash in defining template holes by bunkers only, rather than a sum total of the features. At the same time, it appears the original road hole at MCC was in name mostly at first, because of the OB in play at the right. The real interest of the hole that truly makes it a Road Hole, IMHO, was the pot bunker and the green extension beyond it, both of which certainly had to increase the reward for
playing right.
I think the OB was a critical factor in trying to replicate the principles of the "Road" hole. The bunker is the icing on the cake, architecturally
I also note they did change the OB to give more room right, and nearly take that portion out of the equation, although skirting the OB is nearly as
(but not totally as) dramatic as playing over a wall. I would think it should have been enhanced with similar size shrubs, or a faux wall.
I think the faux wall or even a real wall would have been a spectacular addition
But, it seems well documented that MCC wasn't into exact copies, as Raynor later got go be with CBM templates, so exact dupes aren't really
important. Nor is the debate about what exactly makes a template. For that matter the parallel 3rd/6th has been held up as a Reverse Redan,
and while described that way, many have opined it didn't really look like a Redan either.
I think the identifiable "concept" is what differentiates "templates from other holes.
I don't think there's's a need for exact duplication in order to qualify as a template, although I tend to adhere to the concept or categorization of "pure", "hybrid" and "mongrelized" templates.
Charles Banks employed the hybrid template on more than a few occasions [/size]
So, how close does Merion have to be to build CBM's template holes to call them CBM template holes? It doesn't appear they were as close as
some of the hole names suggest, either originally (without clearly placed bunkers) or later. But, that is a matter of debate.
Again, I think the genesis of the concept identifies authorship
Nothing was more manufactured than Merion's "Alps" hole.
That hole wasn't't just sitting there, it was deliberately crafted as a concession to one of CBM's "ideal" golf holes.
Certainly replica topography didn't exist in Ardmore, so they constructed a hybrid or mongrelized version.
What is clear is that CBM's influence was considerable. There's no other way to explain Merion's Alps hole.
The Merion Redan is not unlike other hybrid versions, so, I don't see a disconnect on that hole.
Like every teenager, there's a desire for each club to create their own identity and that's where I think deviation from the "pure" form enters the equation. [/size]
-
Mike,
It says there were new pits added to the left of the fw and the front left of the green, with the green extended back left on then 3.
NO. The green-side bunker was already there. This article says it was expanded, not added. Obviously it was at some point, although I doubt the timing suggested by that article.
David challenged him to produce evidence of changes around 1915. David asked, Mike posted. Please tell me how that is being disingenous?
Jeff Brauer, What are you talking about? The April 23, 1916 Evans article from the Ledger directly contradicts Mike's claim.
- Mike claimed that hole was completely remodeled. New green, new tees, new bunkers, equals new hole. Wrong.
- Mike claimed the green had been plowed under. Wrong Again.
- Mike claimed the bunkering key to the concept was not in place. Wrong Again. The greenside 'road hole' bunker was in place. If it was changed at all (again a big if) it was merely expanded.
- Mike seems to be arguing that hole was not a road hole prior to these changes. Wrong Again. The same paper had reported a year before that the hole was a reproduction of the road hole!
And why are you fudging my position by claiming that I challenged Mike to produce evidence of changes "around 1915." "Around 1915" obviously doesn't cut it because, according to the Ledger in July 1915, the hole was a reproduction of the Road Hole. I specifically requested that Mike back up his claims regarding changes made in preparation for the Amateur. I also noted that Mike appears to be quite confused regarding the specific timing of all of this and about just what he is claiming, and asked him specifically about changes between July 1915 and the Amateur!
As for the sixth hole, I fail to understand your point. In July of 1915 it was reported that the hole was a reproduction of the road hole. At the time of the 1916 Amateur, the descriptions of the playability and strategies of the hole match that of the road hole. Are you arguing that between July 1915 and September 1916, the hole was remodeled to be LESS like a road hole? If so that would cut directly against the points you were trying to make yesterday! If the opposite, it would reaffirm that the was intended to be a road hole from the beginning. Either way, I fail to understand your point.
You keep speaking of the complete redesign of this hole prior to the 1916 Amateur but you have produced NOTHING to support such a claim.
Mike hasn't adequately addressed any of my questions, and the April 23, 1916 article contradicts his claims!
__________________________________________________________________
As for the April 23, 1916 Ledger article, I suspect it might have been getting ahead of itself regarding these changes. The same paper reported that changes to the sixth green began in the fall of 1916 and because of inclement weather, they were not completed until the spring of 1917. Here is the article. It confirms the work on the eighth and seventeenth the previous year, but says nothing about changes to the sixth green before the Amateur. Perhaps the changes were planned but did not begin until the fall.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion19170706PEL.jpg?t=1306121314)
_________________________________________
As for the general issue of adding bunkers later, so what? If anyone ever bothered to actually read my IMO, they'd already know that I noted that many of the bunkers were added later. And if anyone ever bothered to carefully read CBM's book, they will see that his was CBM's preferred methodology --build the course first, then add bunkers later after play has been observed So in waiting to add some of the fairway bunkers later, Merion's approach was entirely consistent with CBM's methodology. Given that Merion realized the value of his advice this should come as no surprise to anyone.
Of course there are certain bunkers - such as the the redan bunker and the road hole bunker - which have locations that are pretty fairly definitely set by the concept. These bunkers were in place at Merion. Merion's Redan was reportedly a redan from day one. And the bunker at the left front of the Merion's Road Hole was in place as well. It was expanded for the Amateur, not built.
_______________________________________________
The rest of Mike's claims are bizarre. A biarritz is defined by the bunkers? Idiotic. At the point Merion built their version of the Biarritz (the 17th) it was a concept only. To my knowledge there had never been a biarritz hole yet built in this country. In fact there were none in the world -- CBM borrowed the concept from Biarritz in France (I think from a different hole than is commonly believed) but if I recall his comments correctly he was not a big fan of the actual underlying hole.)
By the way I think Patrick is slightly off on this as well in that originally the Biarritz was not really defined by the green. The original biarritz concept was mainly defined by 1) the distance of the hole 2) the hogs back or plateau ending about 30 yards from the green, and 3) the 30 yard wide swale between the first hogback or plateau and the green. It gets confusing because CBM was also designing greens with swale across the middle such as Sleepy Hollow's sixth and Merion's second.
So while today I think we would think of it as a Biarritz green, I agree with Jeff Brauer that the 2nd green had much in common with the double plateau concept. And at this time, I don't think that this configuration of the double plateau and the Biarritz concept had yet been combined. I disagree with his description of the 2nd green as stair step, unless he means one step down followed by one step up. And I don't think that back left area was part of the green. It isn't on any of the drawings or in any of the descriptions and in the aerial there seems to be a break between the green and the area.
-
To me, that pit and green extension combined have a very nice feel of the original at TOC. Had that small pit (as opposed to a white face typical of the rest of the MCC course) not been built, and the green wrapped around it, it might be a road hole, but it was even a better road hole after the 1915 changes.
Again, this is NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS. The pit was already there.
And again the changes were described as happening in 1916, although it appears they were not started until after the Amateur and not completed until 1917.
-
David,
The chasm/gorge was an important, if not integral feature of the original Biarritz, but the early models in the U.S. Had that distinctive green as there identifier
-
David,
The chasm/gorge was an important, if not integral feature of the original Biarritz, but the early models in the U.S. Had that distinctive green as there identifier
Patrick, it would better be addressed in another thread, but I think it is unlikely that CBM's early biarritz concept came from the chasm hole. So far as I know, neither CBM nor Whigham ever connected the biarritz concept with the "chasm hole." The early descriptions do not mention a "chasm" and that'd be an odd detail to leave out! There was another hole, one down in the Chambre d'Amore, that seems to be a much better fit to the early description of the biarritz. Perhaps CBM combined the chasm concept with the concept from the other hole, but the early descriptions don't mention the chasm.
(Wouldn't it me interesting if CBM got the idea for combining the concepts from Merion's quarry and what would eventually become Merion's 17th?)
-
David,
That might cause problems in PA
Yale, The Creek and Piping Rock all have the chasm feature
-
David,
That might cause problems in PA
Surely. But that goes to show you just how screwed up the perspective of some in PA has become. Imagine denying the obvious influence of CBM on a hole like the sixth at Merion! It was and is a terrific golf hole because at it's bones it was directly modeled on the fundamental strategic principles underlying on of the world's greatest golf holes! And even after all these years and changes and attempts to water down the concepts, it remains a terrific hole where vestiges of the original concept remain viable!
That to me this is absolutely awesome. It casts Merion in an extremely favorable light and makes Merion even more relevant and impressive than it already was before I figured all of this stuff out! Yet Merion is being duped and mislead by a couple of hacks and their lapdog, all with petty agendas, and all unable and unwilling to admit that someone else figured all this stuff out! Ultimately, Merion's legacy suffers.
-
You guys are funny. You're so desperate to try and cllaim Merion as a CBM course without a single shred of evidence that you're now arguing that CBM's template holes didn't have proscriptive bunkering patterns.
That's desperation and it's transparent.
Sure, they had other features, such as the standard Biarritz "dip" between the front and back sections of green, and some of them were more descriptive of the natural contours such as "hogback", or "valley", but on nearly every template hole the holes are both visually and strategically defined by their bunkering pattern, usually in conjunction with a particular green orientation, or sometimes, its reverse. But virtually every Biarritz on the planet also has long, framing, trench like bunkers curving along each side and that's undeniable.
I think you all need to read George Bahto's book and not come back here until you do your homework! ;) ;D
It gets even funnier when we have David Moriarty claiming that William Evans, who tells us that he has just been over the changes on the course in person, "is getting ahead of himself".
Well, no...he "suspects" that he's getting ahead of himself.
His whole agenda is also transparent and yes, desperate, where he's now seemingly crying out for attention because he's failed to prove his specious theories to ANYONE except CBM-hero-worshiping Patrick with statements like this;
That to me this is absolutely awesome. It casts Merion in an extremely favorable light and makes Merion even more relevant and impressive than it already was before I figured all of this stuff out! Yet Merion is being duped and mislead by a couple of hacks and their lapdog, all with petty agendas, and all unable and unwilling to admit that someone else figured all this stuff out! Ultimately, Merion's legacy suffers.
Merion's legacy is suffering because nobody believes David's ridiculous theories! You absolutely can't make this stuff up! ;D
And Patrick...you have the nerve to ask people to come back to this site when you're backing a jerk just constantly spewing personally insulting garbage like that??! You should be ashamed of yourself.
Thanks for the comedy routine David and Patrick...I needed a good laugh on an early Monday morning. You guys deserve each other.
-
David,
As to the second green, yes the back looks too small to be a plateau to modern eyes, but I don't see the shaded area in the middle as a valley. This puts me in an interesting position of having to decide who to believe (a la Groucho Marx) you, or my own eyes......
No one has yet mentioned that the hole is a par 4, whereas the 17th at TOC was surely still a par 5 at this time. That is just one of the things that leads me to believe that the reason it was called a road hole was solely the OB carry on the right.
I am not sure about the article you posted, but appreciate it. It may be they were talking about turf. The Fw bunker shown in front of Guilford must have been the added left side fw bunker, though. On the other hand, if the greenside bunker had been "enlarged" by the time of the photo you posted of the 1916 Am, it would have been little more than outhouse sized to start with, so perhaps you are right that this green, despite intentions, didn't get done in time for the Am.
And I agree that the argument over every little detail and what it means to CBM's contribution is getting fairly ridiculous. I like your commment - "It was and is a terrific golf hole because at it's bones it was directly modeled on the fundamental strategic principles underlying on of the world's greatest golf holes! And even after all these years and changes and attempts to water down the concepts, it remains a terrific hole where vestiges of the original concept remain viable!"
At times we all forget that we wouldn't be arguing at all if it weren't for the greatness of Merion.
-
Jeff,
The article David posted is referring to the old 6th green (today's 3rd).
It has nothing at all to do with the changes to today's 6th green (the old 3rd) that were described in William Evans article, much less changes to bunkering or green sizes and or orientations that took place as described by Evans.
As far as the Biarritz, that's a joke. Every Biarritz hole MacRaynBanks built was a par three, yet they want to tell us any green with more than one level was either a Biarritz or a "Double Plateau". This would be comical if there weren't folks here who are less versed with history and might be inclined to think these jokers actually knew what they were talking about.
I don't know if he's just getting careless or perhaps simply not letting facts get in the way of the story "he discovered".
It smells like desperation to me.
These guys just want a moving target rather than simply giving proper attribution to the men who deserve it.
By this time CBM hadn't been to Merion in four fricking years, his second and final single day visit happening before a spade of dirt was turned.
-
Mike,
Well, I was reading the article during my first cup of Joe, and did not spend the night at a Holiday Inn Express!
I did like David's respectful comment as I mentioned. It is ridiculous to continue to argue the relative merits of CBM's contributions. Okay, he realized that the OB right of the tee resembled the Road Hole. (Or pointed out it was a great concept and they realized it) It got built without him ever seeing it. It got changed without him ever seeing it.
As I have said, he should probably get a lot more credit than he did a generation ago, and perhaps a little more than he got initially. He advised and they acted largely on his advice, but since they never went back, we cannot say they followed it to a "T." So, how do we attribute that design credit? Not too much different than it was originally, I suspect, but perhaps with a bigger emphasis and detail on his good effect.
While holes at Merion may not be the ones to discuss it, I would love to have a thread about holes that are so good inherently, that they cannot be screwed up with architectural changes!
-
Jeff,
It's funny...for years David and Tom MacWood have tried to cast doubt on the Philadelphia press crew (poor William Evans took a particularly nasty post-mortem beating for daring to write in October 1913 that Hugh Wilson, "some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect".
Now evidently David is clinging to their every word! ;) ;D
Regardless, the shameless, transparent ploy that Moriarty, MacWood, and Mucci (the 3M's) try to foist over everyone here is that if they can create some doubt on the veracity of a writer with any single fact that can be called into question, they can then summarily dismiss whatever else they wrote, even if that writer was someone like Evans who was among the most connected and respected writers for decades.
However, their collective purposefully blind denial of facts gets us no closer to actually understanding these events clearly as they happened and as everyone who documented those events at that time understood them to happen.
For instance, their attempt to cast doubt on William Evans as a messenger because they don't like his message is really not valid, because A.W. Tillinghast, "Donald MacTee", "Sandy McNiblick", "Joe Bunker", "Billy Bunker", and other writers for other local papers also said Hugh Wilson designed Merion East. What's more, I think we need to look a little deeper at what these men actually wrote about Wilson's trip abroad, particularly in light of the article Joe Bausch originally uncovered that shows by 1915 not much was actually done when Merion was originally grassed except that tees and greens were located and grassed, essentially.
Evans wrote;
Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect."
Before attempting to devalue Mr. Evan's opinion, perhaps the 3M's can tell us how that differs from what others at the time said and how they said it.
For instance, in February 1916, A.W. Tillinghast wrote;
"Certainly a reference to the Merion Course over which the championship of 1916 will be played, must be of interest. The course was opened in 1912, and the plans were decided upon only after a critical review of the great courses in Great Britain and America."
Later that year, in April for the Philadelphia Inquirer, author "Joe Bunker" wrote about Merion;
"Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result being that Merion's East course is the last word in course architecture. It has been improved each year until it is now nearly perfect from a golf point."
Earlier, in December, 1914, Joe Bunker wrote;
"Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “
In January 1913, right after the course opened, "Far and Sure" wrote for American Golfer;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee ,headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used."
And, we all know what Richard Francis wrote in 1950 about Wilson's trip abroad and its purpose;
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Francis-Statement-4.jpg?t=1243443526)
So, I think in light of the fact that William Evans and many of these other authors seemed to be talking about "constructing" as creating the man-made golf course features that define the strategies (problems) of the holes, or the "mental hazards" as Alex Findlay termed it, then there is nothing erroneous at all about what William Evans wrote.
These accounts, and others of the time, seem to have given credit to Wilson for both the basic "laying out" of the holes in their raw state, as a location and physical placement of tees, fairways, and greens, as well as the design and creation and "construction" of the "mental hazards" over time as play on the course was closely observed and determinations made on how best to challenge the top golfers, while still remaining playable and fun for the average club member.
Yet, it's undeniable that Merion and Wilson wanted to follow CBM's example and use ideas from the great holes overseas, even trying to create some outright copies, as we've seen. At least initially, this seemed to be their thinking. Over time, I believe they realized that it was more profitable to simply build the natural holes suggested by the land and features at their disposal instead of getting trapped into the thinking that a golf hole had to be based on some proven method before being deemed worthwhile.
Nevertheless, this reality that Merion wanted to build a course based on ideal principles has caused a LOT of confusion here, as well as the overreaching and erroneous themes David has tried desperately to perpetuate, such that CBM actually routed the golf course when we all know that's not true.
This is what I think happened;
Let's go back to the Alex Findlay article that Joe posted some months back and start there.
“I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot”. – Alex Findlay, talking about Hugh Wilson in May 1912 after Wilson’s return from overseas
What do you think Findlay means when he says that it will take a lot of making in this context? As we already know, the golf course and the holes have already been routed, the basic tees and greens were placed on the ground, the greens and tees shaped and seeded, and now growing in. That all happened over the previous year and now the course is months from opening so why would some hole concept still “take a lot of making”, or require much more work to be anything resembling the original?
Let’s examine some previously stated assumptions as stated by the author of the Merion whitepaper published here;
1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.
You may be very surprised to learn that I agree with almost everything written here with the exception perhaps that the first point is an overly broad generalization and oversimplification but the second point is where I’d like to get more specific because I’m not sure it’s a valid assumption.
I want to be sure I address this comprehensively, and I guess we have enough generally agreed examples to work with using Merion holes 3 (redan), 10 (Alps), and 15 green (Eden Green) that consensus concurs that were based on some overseas principles.
Let’s start with the redan hole, the third.
Richard Francis tells us directly that this is one of the holes that “benefited” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that “the location of the hole lent itself to this design”.
You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole. He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.
This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad. Francis also tells us clearly that the idea all along was to “incorporate their good features on our course” AFTER Wilson returned in May of 1911.
How could this be? Weren’t the holes already “designed” before Wilson went abroad, as you rightfully ask?
The simple answer is, no, they weren’t designed. Eighteen tees and greens were fitted into the property in a routing, again using the natural features and conditions at their disposal on the property that had been selected as their canvas.
None of these tasks required Wilson to go abroad to study first because all they were using at this point was their own carefully studied knowledge of the property, their understanding of good golf holes in the U.S. through their own individual experiences playing golf at a high level nationally for over a decade, as well as what knowledge Macdonald had imparted regarding agronomics and construction techniques, as well has his knowledge of the great holes abroad that he communicated during their visit with him at NGLA (as well as seeing CBM's versions of those holes at NGLA).
All of the early accounts mentioned that what was built at first was incomplete, that there were very few bunkers and pits, and that “mental hazards” and additional strategies would be added later. THAT was the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad…to see in person the type of great hole strategies they had discussed with Macdonald and now wished to apply to their evolving golf course.
Some months ago, we had a great debate here re: whether the 3rd hole was indeed a redan, because it does not have the characteristic green sloping front to back, and tilted severely to the low side. In fact, the 3rd green at Merion slopes back to front, the opposite of what you would expect.
If you think about the definition of the great holes abroad, almost every one of them are self-defined by a few key attributes, and in almost every case it’s not due to some natural feature that needs to be present, but due instead to the placement of artificial hazards which determine strategy. THAT is what makes them somewhat repeatable. Almost every template hole is self-defined by its bunkering pattern which defines the hole strategy…the road hole, the redan, the eden, the short, the alps…
I would contend that when the Merion course was first routed, shaped, and seeded, the 3rd hole was simply a tee in a valley, and a green located on a plateau hilltop, much like probably hundreds of uphill par threes in existence, although that barn-top abrupt rise does make it admittedly a bit special.
If nothing else was done to the hole after that it would still be a very good hole…it could even be bunkerless and would be a very good hole.
Yet, to apply some of what they saw as “redan principles”, the Wilson committee decided to build the key “redan bunker” into the face of the hill diagonally to one side (which Francis tells us was the basement of the barn), and also put some “high side” bunkering in on the left to catch the golfer playing a bit too cautiously away from the visually obvious front-right hazard.
I would contend that those bunkers, and thus the entire hole strategy as a “redan” were added AFTER Wilson’s return from abroad. The green design doesn’t exactly fit the redan concept because as you mentioned, that was already done and in place. But we already know they weren’t looking for exact copies…they were simply looking to implement specific features and principles of great holes abroad and apply them to their natural inland conditions.
So it goes with the other examples. Robert Lesley tells us the “principle” of the Alps Hole they wanted to copy was the large crossing bunker in front of the green, and possibly the large mound behind. Well, we already know that when Wilson returned from his trip abroad and spoke with Findlay, he admitted that to create anything like the original Alps, “it would take a lot of making.”
But what about the “Eden Green” on the 15th, I’m sure you’re thinking. Didn’t that require previous intent? After all, it was built with a large back to front slope and we know that it was roundly criticized as too severe, as was the 8th, which Francis tells us “originally…took the contour of the hillside so that players had to play onto a green which sloped sharply away from them.” The 8th green was rebuilt before 1916.
In the case of the 15th, we know that Tillinghast claimed it sloped so much from back to front that players had to “skittle” their approach shots up to the front.
But, was it an Eden green because of the back to front slope, which on the uphill 15th also probably originally took much of “the contour of the hillside”, or was it the typical Eden bunkering pattern, where a large front right bunker cut into the face of the upslope is only matched in challenge and difficulty by the “Hill bunker” to the left, where those playing away from the more obvious frontal attack often end up?
Once again, I’d contend that the bunkering created the strategy of that approach, and defined the principles they wanted to copy from overseas on the 15th. Of course, this doesn't even mention that fact that all of the Eden holes built by CBM and his followers were par threes, not fours.
There was also some previous speclation that the 6th hole had some characteristics of a Road Hole, and I agreed. What made it a road hole?
Well, we know it had a property boundary on the right but that was simply happenstance of the routing. However, Merion CHOSE to utilize that boundary and you told us that they created a tee area that required a carry over the corner, built some large mounding in that corner, and then build a large hazard left of the green to challenge those playing too cautiously away from the boundary on the drive.
Once again, these are/were all artificial touches that created the hole strategies, and that were added AFTER the course was routed, based on what Wilson learned abroad, and based on how the Merion committee determined to apply them to the natural conditions at their disposal.
So, to draw an alternate timeline, this is what it looks like to me;
Jan – early march 1911 – Wilson and Committee create many golf course layouts, none of which they are completely satisfied with.
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some valuable insight based on seeing drawings of holes abroad as well as hearing CBM pontificate on their principles, followed by a day seeing his application of those principles at NGLA.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.
Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.
March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.
May 1912 – Sept 1912 – Wilson puts the first “overseas touches” on the golf course, almost certainly in the form of bunkers and mounding influence play and creating internal, artificial hole strategies that he emulates based on great holes he has now both seen and discussed with Macdonald through sketches and Mac’s NGLA versions, as well as the originals he’s seen with his own eyes. Some of it was termed "experimental".
Sept 1912 – Sept 1916 – This work continues slowly because the natural hazards make the course difficult and challenging enough for the average member. Work accelerates in mid 1915 when Merion is awaded the US Amateur of 1916.
-
Mike,
No need to recite the timeline for me. I agree. And I think I have seen DM write that he knows Wilson's contributions came later and were substantial to the produce we know today. But, since the championship course we know evolved from a member friendly course when it opened, I think its funny how much time we spend arguing over the initial concepts!
And, who should get credit for them? I mean, if they get improved 4 years in, who wants credit for that? As DM says, its great that so many holes have such a good routing framework as to stand the test of time, but the features placed on top of that routing evolved over time.
I did think most agreed that the trip came later than initial design of MCC, no?
-
Notice how the mere mention that it was me who figured out what happened at Merion throws Mike into an name calling hissy fit? My "agenda" was to figure out what happened, and while of course some details are missing (and probably always will be) I was largely successful. That Mike and his cronies cannot seem deal with this fact is very telling.
David,
As to the second green, yes the back looks too small to be a plateau to modern eyes, but I don't see the shaded area in the middle as a valley. This puts me in an interesting position of having to decide who to believe (a la Groucho Marx) you, or my own eyes......
Believe what you want, but you are wrong. Anyone with any familiarity with what was on the ground knows the green had a swale or hollow running across the middle of it, much like one would expect to see on a double plateau green, only with the swale horizontal. The swale is visible in other aerials, including the 1930 aerial posted above. There is a photo of someone in the swale floating around somewhere. Here was a recent thread discussing the issue:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46732.0.html
Here is the Brooklyn Daily Eagle describing the hole in 1916. Notice that the back area next to the bunker is not part of the green, and that the green had a large hollow running through the middle of it.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion19162ndBDE.jpg?t=1306175202)
From that description: "The green is like the sixth at Sleepy Hollow, with a depression running across the middle of it."
Anyone know who designed Sleepy Hollow?
________________________________________________________
No one has yet mentioned that the hole is a par 4, whereas the 17th at TOC was surely still a par 5 at this time. That is just one of the things that leads me to believe that the reason it was called a road hole was solely the OB carry on the right.
The road hole bunker was there, so it was NOT just about the diagonal carry over OB. As for the changes to the green, Mike's claim that the article I posted was about a different hole is bogus. Even his own Faker cronies in Philadelphia have acknowledged that the 1917 article was discussing this hole!
And I agree that the argument over every little detail and what it means to CBM's contribution is getting fairly ridiculous. I like your commment - "It was and is a terrific golf hole because at it's bones it was directly modeled on the fundamental strategic principles underlying on of the world's greatest golf holes! And even after all these years and changes and attempts to water down the concepts, it remains a terrific hole where vestiges of the original concept remain viable!"
At times we all forget that we wouldn't be arguing at all if it weren't for the greatness of Merion.
This was and is my entire point. Merion's greatness is not due to superficialities like pretty bunkers, it is great to it its bones and it is great because if its bones. That is the irony in all of this. I am the one arguing for the greatness of Merion through and through. All this crap being thrown out there by it supposed defenders - about how it is only great because of where Wilson placed some fairway bunkers or because Flynn made it all look pretty - really sell the place well short!
That is the problem when these guys try to cut down and diminish everyone else but who they worship. They end up undermining their own position. Merion is a hell of a lot better than these guys give it credit for, and for much more substantial reasons!
-
You guys are funny. You're so desperate to try and cllaim Merion as a CBM course without a single shred of evidence that you're now arguing that CBM's template holes didn't have proscriptive bunkering patterns.
NO, that's not what I'm trying to argue.
You stated, unequivically, that the bunker patter "DEFINED" the template holes.
That's simply not true.
I cited, hole specifically, how you were wrong.
You know you're wrong, Jeff knows you're wrong, Jim knows you're wrong and i know you're wrong.
So what do you do, you change your position, but argue your revised position as if it was your original position.
That's disingenuous
Bunkering does NOT "DEFINE" template holes.
Redan, Long, Hogback, Plateau, Double Plateau, Biarritz, Valley just to name a few.
Please stop trying to present your altered/changed/modified position as if it was your original position.
Your typed words are proof positive that you erroneously declared the bunkers as the "defining" feature for template holes
That's desperation and it's transparent.
Sure, they had other features, such as the standard Biarritz "dip" between the front and back sections of green, and some of them were more descriptive of the natural contours such as "hogback", or "valley", but on nearly every template hole the holes are both visually and strategically defined by their bunkering pattern, usually in conjunction with a particular green orientation, or sometimes, its reverse. But virtually every Biarritz on the planet also has long, framing, trench like bunkers curving along each side and that's undeniable.
You can repeat your claim over and over and over again.
It's NOT true.
The bunkers do NOT "DEFINE" template holes.
I think you all need to read George Bahto's book and not come back here until you do your homework! ;) ;D
If that's your sole source of understanding template holes as crafted by CBM-SR-CB, I can see why you would make that statement.
It gets even funnier when we have David Moriarty claiming that William Evans, who tells us that he has just been over the changes on the course in person, "is getting ahead of himself".
Well, no...he "suspects" that he's getting ahead of himself.
His whole agenda is also transparent and yes, desperate, where he's now seemingly crying out for attention because he's failed to prove his specious theories to ANYONE except CBM-hero-worshiping Patrick with statements like this;
That's one of the most assinine statements you've made, and you've made plenty.
If your memory serves you for non-agenda driven subjects, you would recall that I disagree vehemently with David and Tom MacWood when they originally presented the case for CBM's significant involvement regarding the early design at Merion. But, with the presentation of more and more information, it's become clear that CBM had a significant influence on the routing and design of Merion.
That to me this is absolutely awesome. It casts Merion in an extremely favorable light and makes Merion even more relevant and impressive than it already was before I figured all of this stuff out! Yet Merion is being duped and mislead by a couple of hacks and their lapdog, all with petty agendas, and all unable and unwilling to admit that someone else figured all this stuff out! Ultimately, Merion's legacy suffers.
Merion's legacy is suffering because nobody believes David's ridiculous theories! You absolutely can't make this stuff up! ;D
And Patrick...you have the nerve to ask people to come back to this site when you're backing a jerk just constantly spewing personally insulting garbage like that??! You should be ashamed of yourself.
Encouraging TEPaul, Wayne and others to return as active participants has NOTHING to do with my opinion/position on any one thread, collection of threads, or the entire body of threads.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I agree or disagree with David, Tom MacWood or anyone else.
I MADE the request almost exclusively for TEPaul's benefit.
It was an attempt to bring someone, whom I'm very fond of, back into a forum that I know he misses and thrives in.
Obviously, you don't have the slightest understanding of my efforts.
Your attempt to disqualify and/or demonize participants, based on their position or opinion, is absurd.
Thanks for the comedy routine David and Patrick...I needed a good laugh on an early Monday morning. You guys deserve each other.
-
Mike Cirba,
You wrote:It's funny...for years David and Tom MacWood have tried to cast doubt on the Philadelphia press crew (poor William Evans took a particularly nasty post-mortem beating for daring to write in October 1913 that Hugh Wilson, "some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect".
Now evidently David is clinging to their every word!
Regardless, the shameless, transparent ploy that Moriarty, MacWood, and Mucci (the 3M's) try to foist over everyone here is that if they can create some doubt on the veracity of a writer with any single fact that can be called into question, they can then summarily dismiss whatever else they wrote, even if that writer was someone like Evans who was among the most connected and respected writers for decades.
Would you cite, with precise specificity, where I tried to cast doubt on a writer on this thread ?
Once again you've resorted to a reckless statement in order to demonize anyone who doesn's share your opinion.
In particular, would you identify any comment/s I made challenging the veracity of William Evans.
Absent your ability to substantiate your wild, reckless and irresponsible claim, simply admitting that you were wrong will suffice..... for now.
-
Mike Cirba,
You wrote:It's funny...for years David and Tom MacWood have tried to cast doubt on the Philadelphia press crew (poor William Evans took a particularly nasty post-mortem beating for daring to write in October 1913 that Hugh Wilson, "some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect".
Now evidently David is clinging to their every word!
Regardless, the shameless, transparent ploy that Moriarty, MacWood, and Mucci (the 3M's) try to foist over everyone here is that if they can create some doubt on the veracity of a writer with any single fact that can be called into question, they can then summarily dismiss whatever else they wrote, even if that writer was someone like Evans who was among the most connected and respected writers for decades.
Would you cite, with precise specificity, where I tried to cast doubt on a writer on this thread ?
Once again you've resorted to a reckless statement in order to demonize anyone who doesn's share your opinion.
In particular, would you identify any comment/s I made challenging the veracity of William Evans.
Absent your ability to substantiate your wild, reckless and irresponsible claim, simply admitting that you were wrong will suffice..... for now.
Patrick, Noone has done what Mike accuses us of doing. All we have done is challenge Mike's tenuous interpretations of these various articles. The writers were competent, but Mike is incapable of figuring out how the articles fit with all the other information. Yet despite the dozens of times Mike's interpretation has been proven wrong he continues to insist that his readings and interpretations are the only sound ones.
When I read Mike's past few posts above and his recent posts on the other thread, and cannot help but think of what may be the fundamental problem with with a forum like this. Mike obviously has an agenda. Just as obviously, he is not very good at this sort of analysis. He is downright awful. Yet he continues to dominate the discussion by sheer will and sheer ignorance, never learning a thing.
Like golf or anything else, there is a skill to this stuff. Mike lacks that skill. When it comes to this sort of analysis he is a double or triple bogey handicap, yet he continues to try to dominate these discussions as if he were scratch!
-
Mike,
I asked you, on a number of occassions to support your claim that Merion was designed by Wilson and the committee upon his return from the UK.
You never produced any concrete evidence to support your claim.
But, you did provide, in your own words, support for my position that the routing and individual hole designs were completed prior to Wilson sailing to the UK in March of 1912. Basicallly, you've confirmed that the course was routed, with 18 tees and greens constructed and seeded, fully six months prior to Wilson's trip to the UK.
Thanks for finally confirming my position.
In reply # 124 you stated the following:
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some valuable insight based on seeing drawings of holes abroad as well as hearing CBM pontificate on their principles, followed by a day seeing his application of those principles at NGLA.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.[/color]
Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.
March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.
I'm sure, like many courses, that fine tuning continued for years and years after the course was initially designed, routed, constructed and seeded.
-
Mike,
I asked you, on a number of occassions to support your claim that Merion was designed by Wilson and the committee upon his return from the UK.
You never produced any concrete evidence to support your claim.
But, you did provide, in your own words, support for my position that the routing and individual hole designs were completed prior to Wilson sailing to the UK in March of 1912. Basicallly, you've confirmed that the course was routed, with 18 tees and greens constructed and seeded, fully six months prior to Wilson's trip to the UK.
Thanks for finally confirming my position.
In reply # 124 you stated the following:
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some valuable insight based on seeing drawings of holes abroad as well as hearing CBM pontificate on their principles, followed by a day seeing his application of those principles at NGLA.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.[/color]
Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.
March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.
I'm sure, like many courses, that fine tuning continued for years and years after the course was initially designed, routed, constructed and seeded.
-
Patrick,
It's not a mystery and it's very well documented.
Please go back and ACTUALLY READ my reply #124 on this page. Thanks.
-
Patrick,
It's not a mystery and it's very well documented.
Please go back and ACTUALLY READ my reply #124 on this page. Thanks.
Mike, I did better than read your reply, I directly quoted your reply # 124.
Are you now refuting your typed words ?
With the course routed, the individual holes designed, and under construction, including greens and tees, and then grassed, by late April 1911 to the fall of 1911, which is what you've declared, then Wilson's trip to the UK in March-May of 1912 had absolutely no bearing, absolutely no influence on the routing, individual hole designs and construction of the course, including the greens and tees since that was all done six months prior to his departure.
This is significant.
First, it debunks your promoting the theory that all of this was done after his trip.
Second, it almost makes the fine tuning, subsequent to Wilson's return, irrelevant in terms of who routed and designed Merion
It means that all of the heavy lifting was done at least a year before Wilson sailed abroad.
Hence, you can dismiss Wilson's trip in terms of its significance in the routing and initial design of Merion.
-
Patrick,
Wilson had already seen most of the best courses in the US, including NGLA and Garden City (and very likely Myopia, Chicago, and others) by the time he routed and built the initial tees and greens at Merion. Accounts stated that he studied not only the best courses abroad, but also the best courses in this country. He had also seen CBM's drawings and photos of the great holes abroad. He had been a superb golfer for over a decade and had served on the Green Committee at Princeton while they were building their new course in 1901-02.
Other members of the committee, as well as Merion's Robert Lesley, travelled abroad repeatedly prior to then, as well. Both Griscom and Dr. Toulmin had prior design/construction experience.
The Wilson trip abroad was a finishing school, prior to applying architectural touches and strategies (largely through the introduction of man-made hazards such as bunkering) influenced by those holes that happened AFTER the course was opened for play, as ALL the articles indicate.
Your points are true, but moot, and really tell us absolutely nothing. If you have to reach so far as to state that a few template holes aren't defined largely by their bunkering patterns, I think you're really on the wrong side of understanding what actually happened back then.
-
Wilson had already seen most of the best courses in the US, including NGLA and Garden City
Which ones other than GCGC and NGLA, and, he had only been to NGLA once, hadn't he ?
(and very likely Myopia, Chicago, and others) by the time he routed and built the initial tees and greens at Merion.
That's pure speculationi on your part.
Why do you present it as fact ?
Accounts stated that he studied not only the best courses abroad, but also the best courses in this country.
How could he have studied the best courses abroad when he didn't go abroad until 1912.
Merion was already routed and constructed before set foot in the UK
How can you continue to make these outlandish claims.
Exactly what courses did he STUDY in the US prior to March of 1911
He had also seen CBM's drawings and photos of the great holes abroad.
According to you, he only saw them on one occassion.
And you're saying that that qualified him to be an eminent architect ?
That qualified him to be put in charge of the project and route the course and design the individual holes ?
Does anyone else buy into your theory ?
He had been a superb golfer for over a decade
So was Gary Player
and had served on the Green Committee at Princeton while they were building their new course in 1901-02.
And, serving on a green committee qualified him to be an eminent architect ?
To be put in charge of routing and designing a golf course ?
I think not.
Other members of the committee, as well as Merion's Robert Lesley, travelled abroad repeatedly prior to then, as well. Both Griscom and Dr. Toulmin had prior design/construction experience.
Then why weren't they named Chairman if they had more experience.
Could it be, that Wilson was appointed Chairman of the Construction Committee for one purpose ?
To BUILD the golf course according to the plans that were approved, plans where his role was not that of designer/architect
The Wilson trip abroad was a finishing school, prior to applying architectural touches and strategies (largely through the introduction of man-made hazards such as bunkering) influenced by those holes that happened AFTER the course was opened for play, as ALL the articles indicate.
Horseshit. The course was in the ground, the routing set in stone and the individual hole designs completed
Your points are true, but moot, and really tell us absolutely nothing.
Of course my points are true.
And, they tell you plenty unless you have a closed mind
If you have to reach so far as to state that a few template holes aren't defined largely by their bunkering patterns, I think you're really on the wrong side of understanding what actually happened back then.
Do you actually THNIK before yu type.
You were the one who stated that bunkering defined the template holes, when we know that's NOT true.
To help you out on this, pretend for a second that I built a redan, only I didn't include any bunkering.
Do you think the position of the bunkers are vital to identifying the hole as a redan ?
Same question, ALPS hole ?
The bunkers are window dressing.
The CORE, the HEART of the hole is its physical properties, not the precise location of the bunkers.
It's one of the most absurd arguments you've put forth, and you've put forth plenty of absurd arguments.
But, let me leave you with this.
Here's what Ran Morrissett has said about the early deisgn of golf courses
"The architectural skill employed in these courses is minimal and yet the lesson learned is invaluable: nature provides the most enduring challenge. The architects of this day spent only one or two days on site to stake out the tees and greens. They had few decisions to make: they didn’t have the ability to move much land. These courses have been largely modified over the past century to adjust to equipment changes."
-
Patrick,
I don't have time to answer your same questions over and over.
The funny thing is that you consider yourself an impartial, unbiased observer when you're simply a Macdonald groupie.
That's ok...he was a great architect and I love his courses, but he didn't design Merion and he never said he did, nor did anyone else.
If you have ANY evidence to the contrary, it's well past time for you and David to put it out there because all I hear is crickets when I ask that question.
-
I wonder if anything else at all will ever be discovered. It'll be fireworks around here if and when...
-
Patrick,
I don't have time to answer your same questions over and over.
Mike, they're NOT the same questions and you never answered them the first time or any time.
The funny thing is that you consider yourself an impartial, unbiased observer when you're simply a Macdonald groupie.
It might appear that way to you and to other Phillyfanatics, but, I'm really looking to identify and pin point who did what and when.
You make rash, irresponsible statements, holding them out as factual, and I continue to challenge them.
When concrete documentation is provided, I'll support the evidence, not an agenda.
You should try to do the same.
That's ok...he was a great architect and I love his courses, but he didn't design Merion and he never said he did, nor did anyone else.
There you go again, deliberately making a statement that you KNOW is UNTRUE>
Whigham stated that Macdonald designed Merion, and YOU KNOW THAT.
So why lie and state that no one ever said he did.
Here's the quote:
"The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America.
Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of Saint Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at the expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."
As to Whigham's qualifications:
"H.J. Whigham was the 1896 United States Amateur Champion Golfer and one of the foremost authors and experts on golf courses in America and abroad. He helped Macdonald route NGLA and was involved in its creation. The two of them co-authored the 1914 series on ideal golf holes (including the Alps and the Redan) for Golf Illustrated. Outside of golf, he was an expert, author, and commentator on foreign affairs, a reporter, a war correspondent, an author on architecture, editor of Metropolitan Magazine and Town and Country, and golf editor of Country Life. I am sure there is more, but I don't know it offhand.
More importantly, H.J. Whigham was there.
- He was there with June 1910 when Merion brought H.J. Whigham and C.B. Macdonald in to inspect the potential golf site.
- He was there at NGLA in March 1911, when Wilson and his Committee traveled to NGLA so that CBM and HJW could teach them about the underlying fundamental principles of the great golf holes, and how these kinds of holes fit onto the natural features in at Ardmore.
- He was there in April 1911 when Merion brought CBM and HJW back to Ardmore to review the land again and to choose the final routing.
Bottom line is that H.J. Whigham knew first-hand who came up with the hole concepts and placement for Merion East. He knew first-hand that CB Macdonald was the creative driving force behind the routing and hole concepts. We have no reason to doubt him.
- So far as I know, Hugh Wilson never claimed to have come up with the hole concepts or the routing.
- So far as I know, Hugh Wilson never wrote anything that contradicts Whigham on this issue. In fact, while Hugh Wilson's 1916 work doesnt ever directly address the issue of who was primarily responsible for the routing and hole concepts, his account is entirely consistent with Whigham's.
- No one who was there contradicts Whigham wrote anything necessarily contradicting Whigham.
Some dismiss Whigham's word as the emotional blubbering of a grief-stricken son-in-law [Ironically, these same people hold up the Alan Wilson letter, written after his younger brother's untimely death, as a holy grail.] They obviously haven't considered the man or his life experiences. Whigham didn't just sob out his father-in-law's eulogy, he authored important obituaries for such notable men as President Theodore Roosevelt.
So yes, there is written proof that Merion East is a CBM course. H.J. Whigham, tell us so. He was not only there, he was knew what was going on, and he knew how to accurately describe it. ..."
If you have ANY evidence to the contrary, it's well past time for you and David to put it out there because all I hear is crickets when I ask that question.
That's because you're tone deaf when the subject is Merion.
-
Another item which seems to be taking on less significance is the official date of any land swap.
It seems to me that the parties in charge, had everything under control, in terms of the land to be used, and that the official dates of the swap is almost irrelevant.
-
Mike Cirba,
Here's your time line.
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some valuable insight based on seeing drawings of holes abroad as well as hearing CBM pontificate on their principles, followed by a day seeing his application of those principles at NGLA.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.
You would have us believe, that Wilson and the committee members, guys who had never designed a golf course in their lives, guys who spent two days with CBM and HJW, were sufficiently prepared by that meeting at NGLA that they returned to Ardmore, and in less than 30 days crafted five routings, complete with individual hole designs. One of which would become Merion ?
Does anyone believe that's how it actually happened ?
That Wilson and his attending committee had individual and a collective epiphany, an elightenment that imbued them with years of architectural expertise, such that they could perform this Herculian task within 30 short days.
Didn't you tell us that it took months if not years for Macdonald and Whigham to route NGLA ?
And Macdonald had already designed golf courses, he had already routed and designed individual holes, after years and years and years of earnest studying, here and abroad.
Yet, these amateurs, inspired by a single evening at NGLA, in less than 30 days, produced not one routing, not two routings, not even three or four routings, but, FIVE routings all by themselves, and without any assistance.
Does anyone other than yourself believe that's how it happened ?
-
(I thought we were talking about strategy off the tee for the pro?)
-
(I thought we were talking about strategy off the tee for the pro?)
We are...but establishing some baseline is obviously the key.
For instance, don't you think the pro's play Pete Dye courses different than they play Tom Fazio courses.
In that same vai, the pro's tee shot strategies during the 2013 US Open will be predicated on who the actual designer of the course is...so we better get to work fellas...
-
Another item which seems to be taking on less significance is the official date of any land swap.
It seems to me that the parties in charge, had everything under control, in terms of the land to be used, and that the official dates of the swap is almost irrelevant.
I don't understand why...fr example, if we knew exactly when it was, without doubt, it would likely tell us when the bulk of the initial routing work was completed. That's important to me in determining if it was before o after they selected the actual land they were going to buy.
-
Patrick,
Good morning and yeah, me and millions of others do believe that's the way it happened! Not really so crazy back in the day.
What's crazy is thinking that MCC relied on almost totally on CBM, and he created them a great golf course, but a year later they decided that Hugh Wilson should design the west course rather than go back to the source of their success!
If Hugh hadn't been a big part of routing the first course, what would have qualified him to route the second, as the same scenario would apply, no? Seeing someone else do it is not the same as having the ability to do it. You could sit around and watch Tom Doak route a 100 courses, and possibly not be able to ever route one yourself.
We also know that CBM advised many clubs in this time period, before putting Raynor out there full time, and didn't seek design credit.
And, history shows Wilson had a knack for it, since he went on to other designs, based on what - CBM having designed Merion? Hugh Wilson had some talent for it. The club minutes say that the routed the golf course and CBM approved. To what degree, we do not know, but they sure got the inspirations for some holes at Merion from him, and also improved many later.
They said the committee did most of the work, and I believe them. They said CBM was a trusted advisor, and I believe them. While I would love to have been a fly on the wall, I don't think there is much point in pushing your agenda much further. I am not even quite sure what it is, since most of us agree on the basic outlines. We just cannot know
-
Jim,
The other day, you mentioned that Mike and I believe it occurred after April 19. Just to clarify, I have theorized that it happened just a few nights (maybe just one night) before CBM came back on April 6. CBM's upcoming visit might be the thing that would trigger the excited, midnight work by Francis. He certainly describes it as the final piece of the puzzle and also makes it sound like construction was imminent, also suggesting April, but the blasting story has some questions around it.
-
Jeff,
I may have written it poorly but I was trying to say that you and Mike have said in the past that it was more likely to have happened after April 19th than before November 15th. I've always believed your opinion was that it happened soon before April 6th.
-
Mike Cirba,
Here's your time line.
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some valuable insight based on seeing drawings of holes abroad as well as hearing CBM pontificate on their principles, followed by a day seeing his application of those principles at NGLA.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.
You would have us believe, that Wilson and the committee members, guys who had never designed a golf course in their lives, guys who spent two days with CBM and HJW, were sufficiently prepared by that meeting at NGLA that they returned to Ardmore, and in less than 30 days crafted five routings, complete with individual hole designs. One of which would become Merion ?
Does anyone believe that's how it actually happened ?
That Wilson and his attending committee had individual and a collective epiphany, an elightenment that imbued them with years of architectural expertise, such that they could perform this Herculian task within 30 short days.
Didn't you tell us that it took months if not years for Macdonald and Whigham to route NGLA ?
And Macdonald had already designed golf courses, he had already routed and designed individual holes, after years and years and years of earnest studying, here and abroad.
Yet, these amateurs, inspired by a single evening at NGLA, in less than 30 days, produced not one routing, not two routings, not even three or four routings, but, FIVE routings all by themselves, and without any assistance.
Does anyone other than yourself believe that's how it happened ?
I don't believe it. It defies logic, but attachment to legends turns normally clear thinkers into emotional basket cases.
-
TMac,
Well some legends do. Like the Edmund Fitzgerald. But having followed this, I don't know that anyone has really said this is a legend, other than you. The club reported it initially, before anyone would get attached to it. A few transcription errors occurred along the way.
But, at what point do you believe that Merion started purposely fudging the truth about their history to create (or at least enhance?) Hugh Wilson's legendary status? Since you throw that out there as a "truth" I suppose that is as worth analyzing as triangles and land swaps, no?
-
TMac,
Well some legends do. Like the Edmund Fitzgerald. But having followed this, I don't know that anyone has really said this is a legend, other than you. The club reported it initially, before anyone would get attached to it. A few transcription errors occurred along the way.
But, at what point do you believe that Merion started purposely fudging the truth about their history to create (or at least enhance?) Hugh Wilson's legendary status? Since you throw that out there as a "truth" I suppose that is as worth analyzing as triangles and land swaps, no?
Jeff,
Do you think that Merion stating on their website that the golf course was designed AFTER Wilson returned from his trip to the U.K. Was an attempt to skew the truth or just an honest mistake ? After all they did possess all of the archival documents, no ?
-
Another item which seems to be taking on less significance is the official date of any land swap.
It seems to me that the parties in charge, had everything under control, in terms of the land to be used, and that the official dates of the swap is almost irrelevant.
I don't understand why...fr example, if we knew exactly when it was, without doubt, it would likely tell us when the bulk of the initial routing work
was completed. That's important to me in determining if it was before o after they selected the actual land they were going to buy.
Jim,
What gave me this sense was the following
According to others, the Merion Board approved the final plan on April 19th. (they probably approved it, informally, prior to that date)
According to others, they began building the course in April. Are we in agreement so far ?
Does anyone disagree ? And if so, how ?
-
Patrick,
Sure we agree. At least the committee approved the routing April 6 when CBM was in town. Probably got shown around. They had an agreement to complete a golf course with HDC and time was a wasting by this time. Had to start to seed in September.
Lost in all of this is that there is no discussion of when Pickering was brought on board. Not sure why, as his contract would have shown up in some minutes somewhere, no? And, probably informally secured well before the season to make sure that no one else took him off the books for another project.
-
This is an epic thread jack.
If The Music Man is on television, do you guys start arguing with Marian, Madam Librarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrian?
-
Jeff,
Tom MacWood mentioned that Pickering worked for Johnson Contractors, of Boston,
In the April 19th, 1911 minutes the Committee, after first thinking they could do the construction inhouse but realizing they are woefully equipped from an infrastructure and equipment perspective, recommends using them.
The passage is in Wayne and Tom's book, and part of the Wilson Committee report read by Robert Lesley.
-
Jeff,
OK, we agree that Merion's board approved the plan/routing/hole deisgn on April 19th and they began construction in earnest immediately thereafter.
But, here's the rub.
They didn't own the land.
So, how could they start construction on land they didn't own.
The land was officially purchased/deeded to them on July 19, 1911.
What I've contended all along is that these fellows were in pretty good control of the land dynamics and could acquire or gerrymander pretty much whatever their needs were or would be.
Hence, I don't think Merion was as confined or trapped in terms of determining a routing.
If CBM suggested acquiring a spit of land to benefit the club/course, I can't see anyone preventing the acquisition from happening.
CBM didn't just make the wrong turn and end up at Merion's front door, he was invited in for a purpose.
And, I think that pupose extended far beyond just feasibility.
These fellows, powerful, influential fellows wanted to build a championship course and to do it they invited the most reknown figure in American Golf to show them how.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
-
D_Malley,
I'm not saying your source is incorrect re: a new championship tee box on #4 but, for the life of me, I can't envision where it could be without completely interrupting the flow of play on #7 and, possibly, the 3rd green.
50 yards further back would put it squarely in the left rough about 150 yards from the 7th tee box. Even if the club brought in a couple of big trees to protect it, there's no way anybody on #'s 4 or 7 would tee of until the other was clear.
Actually, I'm not sure I like the idea as it would (I think), then make the second shot a lay-up - how boring. From the current location, there should be a lot of "do I or don't I?" depending on the tee shot, the lie, the wind and the rough around the green. Now THAT would be exciting.
Chip,
next time you are there take a look at this area, because from what i understand this new tee for #4 has already been built. Although there are several trees around the tee that have not been taken out yet.