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.)
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.
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:
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 . . .
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 . . .
. . . 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.
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.
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.