Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

« **Reply #100 on:** November 27, 2006, 05:35:04 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 27, 2006, 04:04:11 PM

David Moriarty:

The 10th does not play substantially uphill.

You are wrong about this, Tom, at least according to the United States Geological Survey.

According to a USGS Application, Merion No. 10 has around 15 feet elevation change from the largest tee in the photos above to the site of the old green. This is about the same elevation change as exists between the tee and green at NGLA's alps (according to the same source.)

Quote

Do you know precisely where that back tee was in 1930 . . .?

Well, I have Wayne's chart of Jones' shot on No. 10 and he says it is "exact." I have no reason to doubt him. Lining up the chart with the aerial, Jones' apparently teed off of the front of the largest tee in the photos above.

But even if I dont have the tee right, he still didnt hit it 300 yards, unless he teed off from the backyard of the big house behind and above the 10th tees. Otherwise he would have hit it over the road.

As for your last post, I am glad you have come around to see it my way, but I am not sure the others have yet.

Quote

Man was that mound behind that green humongous. It looks like it could've been close to 20 feet high.

Interesting. Wayne descibed it as much smaller.
_____________________________________

Mike Cirba said:

Quote

But I sense that some feel you have an agenda (I'm not sure if you do or not) to somehow prove that Macdonald and Whigham were the real designers of Merion . . .

Quote

I sense that as well, but know that it is absolutely absurd. First, I don't believe it to be the case. Second, I have never said it was the case. Third, if I did believe it I'd just come out and say it. As you are aware, I generally dont mince words (intentionally) when it comes to expressing my opinion.

As a contrary notion of what may be going on, could it be that some are much too protective of those (past or present) who they love, as well as their long held notions, and this makes them way too defensive and unwilling to even consider contrary opinions or anything that might challenge what they feel is sacred? It has certain happened before on this site, some have even accused me of this . . .

Quote

. . . and I think that there is nowhere near enough evidence to support that conclusion and much evidence to the contrary.

I agree, and I very seriously doubt any evidence will surface supporting this because I dont think it was the case.

As for the the rest of your post, I dont disagree with much of it. You are arguing against a position I dont hold and never have.

That being said, there is quite a lot of wiggle room between MacDonald designed the Merion and all the holes are templates on the one hand, and MacDonald had nothing to do with anything that happened at Merion (even if indirect) and none of his hole concepts (or their originals) had any influence either. Both these notions are equally absurd, and neither is supported by the evidence.

Quote

Also, there is absolutely no evidence of the type of geometric style used by Macdonald and Raynor. Lines are much more curved, even in the old photos going back to the inception of the course.

This is purely an aside, but I think that calling MacDonald's style "geometric" really overstates the case, at least with regard to early NGLA. I dont have them right now, but in the past I have posted a number of early photos which were not geometric at all.

Similarly, I am speculating here, but I think you may overstate the degree to which the MacDonald/Raynor holes were "templates" which were more or less exactly implimented. I've seen very few MacRaynor courses, but what little I have seen makes me think that they were much more concepts than templates, and that they were applied accordingly.

Quote

I personally love to do historical research, and thus enjoy this discussion greatly, but I also think that's why some folks are scratching their heads wondering how far you're looking to press your case, and what you're ultimately hoping to discover.

I love this type of research as well. As for the rest, since it is not "my case," I dont know what to tell these people . . . except that they should loosen up.

« **Reply #101 on:** November 27, 2006, 05:52:11 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on November 25, 2006, 12:31:46 AM

Nowhere here, nor anywhere else, will you find that I claimed the old 10th hole at Merion was an "Alps hole".
You seem to be supporting Lesley's statement that it was an Alps hole. [/color]

Instead, I stated that what Lesley and others were referring to was the fact that the approach was likely blind, but much more pertinently, had to carry a huge crossing bunker, exactly like the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA.

What "others" ?[/color]

I agree with you that this in and of itself does NOT make the old 10th at Merion an Alps hole in the way we normally think of it.

In those above examples, the approach also needed to carry a large, hillside that accounted for the blindness. I believe a true Alps hole needs this feature to be considered an Alps.

I"m glad that you've finally seen the light[/color]

However, Seth Raynor didn't seem to think that was the case. He built a number of "Alps holes" where not only did the approach not need to carry some hillside, but also wasn't blind in any way. I cited the "Alps" at Yeaman's Hall as an example,

and if memory serves, the "Alps" at Yale isn't blind either.

Your memory isn't serving you !

From George Bahto in "The Evangelist of Golf"
"From the position of the second shot only the mound in front of the green is visible"

"Years ago, teh essential elements of this "Alps" hole was altered dramatically near the green site. Though the hole still maintains the general concept of a blind approach, the deep cross bunker in front of the green was filled in, and the hill-top ridge was flattened to improve target visibility from the fairway. Still a fine hole, but sadly no longer the true Alps as conceived by Raynor"

Mike, I often wonder about the naming of a hole issue.
Did the architect build a replica hole, an "Alps"
Or, was that merely the nomenclature assigned by the club ?[/color]

Instead, as George Bahto points out, what became the distinguishing feature for Alps holes was simply the need to carry a large, "Sahara" type, cross-bunker just short of the putting surface.

If you're going to quote "George Bahto", then you should include his description of the "Alps" hole and its distinquishing features in "The Evangelist of Golf".

One of his comments with respect to the generic Alps is as follows:
"The fascination with the Alps hole is the unknown result of the shot over the HIGH HILL.

A fronting bunker does not an Alps hole make.[/color]

While neither you or I agree that such a hole is a classic "Alps", that's how the terminology evolved back in those days, and it's why a fellow like our Mr. Lesley felt comfortable comparing the 10th at Merion in 1916 to an Alps hole.

I disagree.
I think that Lesley was uninformed and unfamiliar with golf course architecture, and thus his erroneous categorization, was way off base. And, he certainly shouldn't be cited in an effort to offer indisputable evidence on the issue.[/color]

This is really pretty simple stuff, Patrick, unlike my chipping game. I'm not sure why both of us respectively find both of those concepts so darn complex.

« **Reply #102 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:01:07 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on November 27, 2006, 05:35:04 PM

Quote from: TEPaul on November 27, 2006, 04:04:11 PM
David Moriarty:

The 10th does not play substantially uphill.

You are wrong about this, Tom, at least according to the United States Geological Survey.

According to a USGS Application, Merion No. 10 has around 15 feet elevation change the largest tee in the photos above to the site of the old green. This is about the same elevation change as exists between the tee and green at NGLA's alps (according to the same source.)

David,

This is silly to measure the height of tees vs tees and green vs green and conclude that the variation is small so it is some sort of Alps. The Alps at National, Yale, Piping and I assume Prestwick is all about the second shot. As I have mentioned and you confirmed, the tee shot at Merion played with hickories and/or modern clubs lands at least 200 yards out from the tee, and thus passes over most of the steepness in that hill. The ball lands above the height of the tee in your diagram!. At 200 yards out, it looks like a 10 foot climb to the old 10th green. I would be interested to see the same chart at National. The ball in the fairway 200-250 yards out at National is probably 20-30 feet below the tee. Then the height carry has to be 30+ feet.

You have played both shots into the greens at National and Merion. Forget the charts and quotes from 19XX. Is there any real comparison in terms of angles and visuals for those shots? I will make the assumption that you now accept that the old and new 10th greens had little height variation, but visually we all accept the old 10th was visually more intimidating.

« **Reply #103 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:07:25 PM »

"Interesting. Wayne descibed it as much smaller."

Really? how much smaller did Wayne describe it? Maybe saying it was 20 feet high in the rear is a bit much---it's not that easy estimating the height of something from well over 300 yards away, even for you

but let's just say however high it was it cut off most of a few trees behind it.

« **Reply #104 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:35:12 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on November 27, 2006, 05:01:43 PM

Do you feel that Macdonald and Whigham had a much greater role in the specific design of the holes at Merion's original course than has been reported or understood?

Straighforward? Reported or understood by whom?

My understanding is that at the time, MacDonald was reported and understood to have advised on the project. For example, in the January 1913 issue of American Golfer, Far and Sure (Travis?) said that MacDonald had been of great assistance in an advisory way.

My further understanding is that, at the time, a number of holes at Merion East were thought to have been modeled (however loosely) on features from some of the holes which MacDonald also used as models.

I have no reason to doubt either poiint, and do not think that much evidence has been produced to the contrary.

As for MacDonald having a direct role in the specific design of holes at Merion, I have not seen evidence of this thus far, nor do I believe it to be the case.

Quote

If so, why are there almost no template holes (possibly one or two, but even they seem in some dispute) and no geometric construction?

Since I didnt answer in the affirmative above, I guess I dont have to answer, but I will foolishly offer this . . . . I dont understand why you think this is so significant. I guess if MacDonald had designed the entire course one might expect this but I dont think anyone is making this claim. I certainly am not.

But as to whether MacDonald was an influence? I dont see how your concern matters one bit. Maybe we was an influence on some holes but not on others? Maybe he gave advice on everything but only some of it was followed? I have no idea, but dont see the relevance of there not being 18 MacRayner model holes.

TomPaul said:

Quote

"You are wrong about this, Tom, at least according to the United States Geological Survey."

Oh no I'm not. If that's what the USGS says then just screw the USGS. It wouldn't be uphill unless you played from the ladies tees.

This is what I mean about you on this thread.

Well I think we've may have identified a good example of one of our sources of disagreement. I appreciate your knowledge and input as well as the knowledge and input of Wayne, Mike, Mike, Patrick, Tom and anyone else. I realize you all have much more knowledge and experience than me. But you are not infallible, individually or collectively, and when a better source of information exists, I'll always tend go with that information, especially when it is somewhat objective in the sense that it doesnt have a horse in this race.

To my mind, when it comes to information on elevation change and I have a choice between USGS data, on the on hand, and you eyeballing it, on the other, I will go with the USGA every time. Maybe I am wrong . . . so I reserve the right to change my mind if someone shows me that I am. No offense, but your statement that you know you are right doesnt convince me.

« **Reply #105 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:36:33 PM »

Mike Sweeney,

You're correct.

The tee shot, other than the need to navigate a series of bunkers is not the relevant or defining shot on an Alps hole.

The approach shots at NGLA and Merion are as different as night and day.

The 3rd at NGLA has a high, massive intervening hill that would obscure the Queen Mary were it docked on the opposite side.

The 10th at Merion has no such feature, NO HILL and, if you add the elevation of the golfer's eyes, the differential is negligible at the most.

Lesley's description is limited and off base, perhaps a description prompted by his unfamiliarity with a "true" Alps hole.

« **Reply #106 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:38:09 PM »

I'm looking at Desmond Tolhurst's club history and it shows the tee shot from the back tees. If the fairway is uphill, it looks very slight. He says "The tee is set back in the woods, and you play out of a chute of trees over a depression, then up onto a plateau. From the tee, the ground drops at least 40 feet, and then starts back up again where the fairway begins. The fairway is still rising at the point where the fairway bunkers are placed."

Tolhurst also states "A long hitter who can draw the ball could drive this green." And "The smart play for him is to try to drive the ball about 295 yds. to a position to the right of the green. He can then play up the length of the green."

As a side note, Tolhurst says a famous story has floated around that Dutch Harrison won more money betting that he could hit the green w/ a 4 wood tee shot than Hogan won winning the Open.

I don't know what good this info. does, I just thought I'd cite it.

« **Reply #107 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:41:29 PM »

DMoriarty,

The elevation of the tee is irrelevant.

The defining features/elements of an "Alps" are ALL related to the approach shot, not the drive.

Nor is the defining feature/element of an "Alps" hole related to the elevational differentiation between tee and green.

It's solely related to the DZ and its relationship to the green and intervening features.

« **Reply #108 on:** November 27, 2006, 06:54:26 PM »

DavidS:

Were you looking at the Tollhurst Merion history book from 1989? If so where is the story about Dutch betting he could drive the green with a 4-wood?

I think I'll have to check with some of my very long-in-the-tooth Merion member friends about what the story is on #10 about various tee boxes over the years because Nebraska's Long John Hurley hauled off from the present tips in the US Amateur and hit a great draw with a 3-wood hole high to the right of the green, and I will absolutely guarantee you that Long John can hit a 3-wood a Nebraska country mile farther than old Dutch Harrison could hit his 4-wood.

Now, I think I've told this story on here before but I'll tell you again and also warn you that it may be somewhat apocryphal but back when Davis Love was still in college he came up here to Merion and never having seen the course, shot a 64. As it's told, Davis was hitting that ultra distance-famous Berrylium 1-iron a lot that he used in the Walker Cup at Pine Valley and on #10 he hit that up into the fairway and seeing how his reputation for length seriously preceded him they got him to tee up another ball and with his persimmon driver that ball was last seen by the Phiily Airport radar as it flew high over Ardmore Ave to somewhere on the other side of the golf course.

« **Reply #109 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:03:55 PM »

"It's solely related to the DZ and its relationship to the green and intervening features."

Patrick:

You can think whatever you want to think about what an "Alps" hole really means but I submit you have no real idea how that term or description was used back in those days.

It seems to me it was used for all kinds of things that entailed some blind shot;

Witness this:

Father Carr of Pine Valley wrote in the teens that Crump was determined to have a miniature "Alps" for the second shot on #7 when he turned that hole into a double dogleg.

That mound that would've created Crump's "alps" on the second shot on #7 can still be seen on #7.

So, instead of calling an august man like Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent, perhaps you should realize what you mean by an "Alps" hole and what he meant by an "Alps" hole may not be the same thing.

« **Reply #110 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:08:37 PM »

"The course was opened in 1912, and plans were decided upon only after critical review of the great courses of Great Britain and America...Many of the hazards are natural, and a creek which winds through the tract is encountered frequently. Probably the most interesting section is found at the very end of the round...Other holes present the characteristics of the famous Redan and the Alps of Prestwick. Ben Sayers, the well-known professional of North Berwick, spends a great deal of time at Merion, where his son George is engaged, and he declares that the course is thoroughly good."

~~AW Tillinghast

Other famous features incorporated in the original design, the Eden green was used at the par-4 15th and there was Principle's Nose complex in the middle of the fairway of the old par-5 5th (the current 4th).

TE
The fact that Macdonald and Whigham advised Merion is well documented ...multiple contemporaneous sourses. You'll also find it in Merion's first club history.

« **Reply #111 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:11:01 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 27, 2006, 06:54:26 PM

DavidS:

Were you looking at the Tollhurst Merion history book from 1989? If so where is the story about Dutch betting he could drive the green with a 4-wood?

I think I'll have to check with some of my very long-in-the-tooth Merion member friends about what the story is on #10 about various tee boxes over the years because Nebraska's Long John Hurley hauled off from the present tips in the US Amateur and hit a great draw with a 3-wood hole high to the right of the green, and I will absolutely guarantee you that Long John can hit a 3-wood a Nebraska country mile farther than old Dutch Harrison could hit his 4-wood.

Now, I think I've told this story on here before but I'll tell you again and also warn you that it may be somewhat apocryphal but back when Davis Love was still in college he came up here to Merion and never having seen the course, shot a 64. As it's told, Davis was hitting that ultra distance-famous Berrylium 1-iron a lot that he used in the Walker Cup at Pine Valley and on #10 he hit that up into the fairway and seeing how his reputation for length seriously preceded him they got him to tee up another ball and with his persimmon driver that ball was last seen by the Phiily Airport radar as it flew high over Ardmore Ave to somewhere on the other side of the golf course.

Great story about Davis, Tom. Sadly Davis' career could be defined as "Great unfulfilled potential."

The book is from 2005. I just acquired it. He cites that the Harrison story as a club rumor, whatever that means.

« **Reply #112 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:19:00 PM »

Quote from: Mike Sweeney on November 27, 2006, 06:01:07 PM

This is silly to measure the height of tees vs tees and green vs green and conclude that the variation is small so it is some sort of Alps.

my bolds

Where did I conclude this? I dont recall concluding any such thing. Rather, I posted the facts (as surprising as they seem to me) as I understand them.

Quote

The Alps at National, Yale, Piping and I assume Prestwick is all about the second shot. As I have mentioned and you confirmed, the tee shot at Merion played with hickories and/or modern clubs lands at least 200 yards out from the tee, and thus passes over most of the steepness in that hill.

First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.

Second, I dont think I confirmed that even hickories carry at least 200 yards. I said I hit in the bunker, which begins a little less than 170 yards from the tee.

Quote

You have played both shots into the greens at National and Merion. Forget the charts and quotes from 19XX. Is there any real comparison in terms of angles and visuals for those shots?

I've tried to play both with hickories. But whatever the club composition, I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.

I think one thing that may be skewing the NGLA chart above is that I measured NGLA straight to the tee to green (I was clear about this as well), but most people play the hole well right of this line and therefor end up further away and at a lower elevation. So you may be right about the difference in distance from 200 yards out, at least from where people actually play. I'll double check when I get the chance.

Quote

I will make the assumption that you now accept that the old and new 10th greens had little height variation, but visually we all accept the old 10th was visually more intimidating.

Yes and no. The elevations are currently the same, but so far not that much has come out about the construction of the green site.

For example, Flynn has an arrow left of the green in his sketch, a symbol is apparently used to denote a decline. I assume that this doesnt show really show up on old site, or does it? Further, if this left side was indeed above the green enough for Flynn to denote it with an arrow, then that could have increased the blindness at least from the right side of the fairway (or even from a layup right) since the hole played as a dogleg right.

For another example, We really have no idea how high those three mounds were in that drawing, nor do we know just how high the ground was below those mounds in the bumper structure. Nor do we know how visible the green was in between the gaps in the mounds.

I am still curious as to whether the putting surface actually sat below most of the ground around it, at least in the front, back, and left. If it was, then the hole could be pretty flat but still blind. Where did the dirt come from for the massive berm that Tom notes? could it be that they hollowed out the area where they built the green and pushed the dirt up to make it sort of a punchbowl? It looks like a semi-punchbowl to me in the pic above, but others will undoubtedly disagree.

Another thing I dont quite get yet is Wayne's description of the road and the stairs up from the road (he said this is a few feet but it looks like 6 stairs to me which would more likely have been close to 4 feet.) What I dont understand is when he says there was another stair on the other side. At first I thought he meant up to the road, but now it is clear that he meant down to the road. This seems bizzare to me . . . a road would be in a trough with 4 foot sides? If this was truly the case then it is quite clear why they had to fix the road.

.

« **Reply #113 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:37:52 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on November 27, 2006, 07:19:00 PM

I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.

D,

I will take this as a moral victory.

One last question - is this an Alps hole?

« **Reply #114 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:43:45 PM »

Here are some more excerpts for the 2005 edition of the Tolhurst club history.

"In 1910, the Committee (which comprised of Wilson, Rodman Griscom, Dr. Henry Toulmin, Richrd Francis and Horatio Gates Lloyd) decided to send Wilson to England and Scotland to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course. Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA, then under construction in Southampton, NY. While there he discussed an itinerary w/ Macdonald."

"When Wilson returned from England, Macdonald and Whigham freely gave him their advice. So the club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the Committee."

« **Reply #115 on:** November 27, 2006, 07:55:43 PM »

""When Wilson returned from England, Macdonald and Whigham freely gave him their advice. So the club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the Committee."

DavidS:

Yes, what freely given advice was it? That's what we all would just love to know. The Wilsons were most certainly not hesitant about writing, and for some reason we have so little from them about what Macdonald or Whigam did to advise on the actual design of Merion East. I suppose I should say we have nothing. Maybe what they wrote has all been lost. That is more than just possible. The club's records also report that Hugh Wilson returned from GB after six months with reams of his own drawings, yet unfortunately they've not been found.

There very well may be something out there about all this---I'm certainly not saying that is impossible or even unlikely, particularly after the documentation I've seen turn up in the oddest places---eg in old barns in Bucks Co, Pa, and behind boilers at courses in New York.

But if any of these people on here are going to make those claims then let them produce the documentation, and not just vague references from articles from golf magazines of that time.

« **Reply #116 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:02:32 PM »

Tom, do you know Desmond? Perhaps he may have more info in regards to Wilson's sketches?

This is just a thought, but the book says that Francis was a officer of an construction co., an engineer and surveyor and it says "his skills were invaluable." Perhaps Francis family might know what became of the sketches, that is if Francis' co. carried out the work, he would've needed the sketches for reference while the work was being done??

« **Reply #117 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:06:02 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 27, 2006, 07:03:55 PM

"It's solely related to the DZ and its relationship to the green and intervening features."

Patrick:

You can think whatever you want to think about what an "Alps" hole really means but I submit you have no real idea how that term or description was used back in those days.

It seems to me it was used for all kinds of things that entailed some blind shot;

Witness this:

Father Carr of Pine Valley wrote in the teens that Crump was determined to have a miniature "Alps" for the second shot on #7 when he turned that hole into a double dogleg.

That mound that would've created Crump's "alps" on the second shot on #7 can still be seen on #7.

So, instead of calling an august man like Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent, perhaps you should realize what you mean by an "Alps" hole and what he meant by an "Alps" hole may not be the same thing.

TEPaul,

Perhaps you missed the part where Lesley refered to one of the qualifying features of the hole as being a TWO (2) shot hole.

Father Carr's reference to ONE of the features of an Alps hole, albeit, a MINIATURIZATION of that feature, doesn't make the hole an Alps hole.

« **Reply #118 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:09:09 PM »

DavidS:

Believe me, I think we've searched everywhere and anywhere for information relevent to the creation of Merion East and West. Probably more than anyone ever has. More than the club or anyone who has written about it to date.

It wasn't that long ago that Merion did not fully understand the significance or what William Flynn did there. They do now and they freely admit it, as they seem glad to do.

« **Reply #119 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:11:32 PM »

Oh well, a fool's dream of mine I guess. I should've known you and Wayne would've thought of that!

« **Reply #120 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:14:42 PM »

Tom MacWood,

Having the characteristics of a Redan or an Alps hole doesn't equate to being a Redan or an Alps hole.

And, what were those characteristics ?

A fronting greenside bunker doesn't an Alps hole make.

The topography on # 10 at Merion in NO WAY resembles the topography required for a true Alps.

An intervening hill of notable size should be present and no such hill exists between the DZ and the green at # 10.

Having just spent two days playing Seminole I can report, without fear of contradiction, that Seminole is not flat, and more importantly, that you shouldn't believe everything you read.

« **Reply #121 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:15:57 PM »

Patrick:

It makes it an "alps" feature.

The fact that you assume there must have been an important and specific distinction in the way they used this term back then is, frankly, laughable.

And don't use Lesley to justify anything you've said about an Alps hole. You're the one who called him incorrect and incompetent in that context, not me!

« **Reply #122 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:25:36 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on November 27, 2006, 07:26:03 PM

"TE
The fact that Macdonald and Whigham advised Merion is well documented ...multiple contemporaneous sourses. You'll also find it in Merion's first club history."

Tom MacWood:

I've read all the Merion history books, and I know precisely what all of them say about what Macdonald did for Merion. The fact that Macdonald & Whigam advised Merion is well documented, I just said that and I also explained what is well documented about his or their advice to Merion.

How can you have a more unimpeachable source of how Macdonald (and Whigam) advised Merion than Hugh and Alan Wilson?

They both explained how much help Macdonald gave them in Southampton during their stay at NGLA for two days, but that was before Wilson traveled to Europe and well before the course was designed and constructed. Furthermore Wilson wrote about Macdonald's help at NGLA before he went to GB well after the course was built.

Try answering my question! If Merion was so effusive in its thanks to Macdonald for that session at NGLA prior to Wilson traveling to GB for six months, then why didn't either Wilson or the club say something about his advice after Wilson returned?

I'm getting a bit sick or your vague 'multiple contemporaneous sources' bullshit. Golf magazine articles can be informational about Merion or anything else to some extent but certainly not as important as the Wilsons and Merion itself.

If you want to be a good researcher then you need to support your opinions with something other than just vague magazine references. If you have more than that, let's hear it or see it.

TE
We went over this on a previous thread...go back and look it up, the exact sitations, dates, quotes, etc...the usual suspects American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, newspapers if you aren't keen on searching the backpages (I recently discovered another - The Golfer Magazine - that mentions Macdonald & Whigham's advising).

Its a fascinating architectural history...good stuff.

« **Reply #123 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:29:44 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on November 27, 2006, 07:19:00 PM

First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.

That's absolutely untrue.

The topography of A tee shot has absolutely no bearing on the topography of an approach shot. The two are independent of one another and solely dependent upon their seperate topographies.

This is true at # 10 and many other holes at Merion.
Does the topography of the tee shot on # 11 determine the topography of the approach shot on that hole ? # 12 ? # 14 ?
# 15 ? # 16 ? # 18 ?

Are you now going to tell me that the elevation of the tee on
# 17 at NGLA determines and affects the approach shot to the green ? How about at # 16 ? How about # 18 ?
How about # 8 ? How about # 11 ?.

# 1, # 9, # 10 or # 18 at Riviera ?

The 2nd, 4th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th at Pine Valley.

The 2nd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 17th and 18th at ANGC ?

The segmented topography from tee to DZ and from DZ to the green are independent of one another in many cases.
[/color]

« **Reply #124 on:** November 27, 2006, 08:30:15 PM »

Thanks Tom and Wayne
and all, for all this discussion. It will all be there in the Walker Cup Program !

Chaos, panic $& disorder -- my work is done !

News:

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Sweeney

TEPaul

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci

David Stamm

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

David Stamm

DMoriarty

Mike_Sweeney

David Stamm

TEPaul

David Stamm

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

David Stamm

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Patrick_Mucci

Willie_Dow