Tom,

Flynn wanted to put in a bunker on the left side, and Tom, Bill and I all thought it was a great idea.

Why doesn't that surprise me?    

But seriously, Wayne, why would it have been a great idea? I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but I'm having a tough time picturing what would have been so great about it? Might it have prevented balls from scooting out to Golf House Road?

Thanks for posting those pics, it was nice to have something original after Tom Paul was just repeating things everybody else said, but in much longer form.  

The interesting thing to me is that on the second drawing, the left greenside bunker WAS built as proposed by Flynn.

Of course, it's gone now, and there's a hump there.

Sean:

I agree with you, the hole is more interesting and challenging to play with that left greenside bunker gone and that hump and chipping area in there. That arrangement very much brings the green side bunkers on the right much more into play. The hump and chipping area is pretty controversial with some members though. They say there's nothing else like it on the course.

I disagree with Tom and am not fond of the mound and chipping area.  The 1930 hole had nothing there, if that was a target in time, they chose not to adhere to it.  At least we know the Flynn design was incorporated and it should have stayhed.  I disagree that it brings the right side more into play.  I think average players would rather risk being left than flirt with the bunkers on the right.  The bunker on the left would balance out the dangers and bring the right side more into play.  Well, that's how I see it anyway.

Wayne,

You're absolutely right.

The hump is really pretty silly.  Not quite as silly as the pot bunkers guarding the creek on 5, or the fronting bunkers across the creek on 4, but it's pretty silly nevertheless.  

Wayne,

You don't recall my well-researched story about Flynn tieing one on and going out in the middle of the night to dig those pots on 4 & 5?

The Ardmore police got involved, Flynn awoke the morning after the 1930 amateur (still hungover), realized that for perhaps the first time in his career he had done something completely superfluous and contradictory on a golf course design, drug his weary butt out of bed, and filled the suckers in.

Unfortunately, there were pictures involved, and 70 years later....well, you know the rest of the story.  

Sean/Wayne;

Seriously, why do you fellows think that those bunkers on 4 & 5 only had about 15 minutes of fame?

I'm guessing they were a bad experimental Flynn idea, that he recognized rather quickly.  They don't seem to have lived much past the 30 Am?

Oh, Sean...not even for old time's sake?  

When did Flynn die?  In the 40s??

My guess is that he had pretty much "finalized" the course at that point, and was probably pretty content with it.  That's why I've always felt that if the club was going to "restore" to a point in time, Ben Hogan's Open win was probably a pretty good time.

I'll look forward to the Amateur and getting a first hand view of how those questionable "restored" features on 4, 5, and 14 figure prominently in the result.  

Honestly, Mike. Flynn was farting dustballs by 1945. The previous decade and a half had called for some serious privation, even in the leafy environs straddling Ardmore Ave. It was hardly the time to put the final touches on a masterpiece. Giuseppe Valentini, notwithstanding.

Sean,

I am unaware of any ground level shots of 14 from the 1930s.

The depression hit Merion pretty hard as it did most every club in America.  The membership went from 1,022 in 1930 to 760 in 1933.  By 1938 membership had fallen to 533.  During the period from 1931 to 1933 the maintenance budget for both courses went from $43,000 a year to $23,600.  

The Merion Golf Club spun off from the Merion Cricket Club in the spring of 1942.  The first meeting to discuss the split was held on December 7, 1941.  The golf  membership in the newly formed club included only 283 members.

By 1937 only the front right bunker remained from the Flynn bunkering on 4.  By 1950 there were no front bunkers.  I think I have to go along with Mike Cirba here, Flynn tried it, didn't like it or the powers that be didn't like it and it was taken out not too many years later.

The bunkers on the left side of 5 could not be seen on the 1937 aerial.  The only drawing of them was on a preliminary one, not a presentation copy in india ink on linen.

What features that were not completed until after 1930 were retained in the 1930 restoration?  Well, some of them include the 2nd green that was not moved until the 1934 Open.  Desmond Tolhurst's history had the green moved for 1930 but he was incorrect--so the club went with false information.  The 14th green was remodeled and the hole rebunkered after 1930.  The green was left intact.  The left side did not have a large swale (I think it was a rough hollow) prior to the changes yet the Flynn bunkering and mounding was removed a few years ago in favor of a closely cut swale.  The second left greenside bunker on 7 that Flynn put in for the 1934 Open (I liked it very much) was taken out and the excavation left rather than filling in the pit and restore the slope.

Sean,

There was a generally level rough area on the left side of the 14th green prior to 1934.  The ticking lines might indicate there was a hollow, perhaps not.  That really isn't significant.  Prior to the 1934 Open Flynn designed and more than likely Joe Valentine oversaw the construction of a series of mounds and a large bunker along with a revision to the green and other bunkers. The point is that the club did not go back to the 1930 version of the hole.

The 2nd green was approximately 40 yards in front of its present location.  The bunkers along the left side were revised, the fairway bunkers on the right near Ardmore Avenue were unchanged.

The bunkers were taken out on 4.  Someone decided they should go.  Who else but Flynn or the club members with the authority to do so?  I don't think they were abandoned in order to save maintenence expense.  Therefore it likely, I don't know for certain, that they were removed for aesthetic or strategic dislikes.  What sort of evidence are you looking for?  It isn't like every architectural step was debated and the transcribed.

I have yet to see an old photo of the bunkers on the left fairway on 5.  I don't know if they were built or not.

The slope off the left side of the 7th green still bears the mark of the former bunker, it was not graded as it was in 1930.  I would have left the bunker, but since they did change it, they would have been truer to the 1930 plan if they filled it in.

Overall, the present 2D layout is very similar to the 1930 point of reference, around 90+% would be a guess.

On the 5th, the creek on the left is the primary danger of the hole.  Yet, brlliantly, a drive that lands safely on that side is by far the preferred route for the approach.  

It's one of the most beautiful, natural holes in the world.  Why would anyone think that a bunker, or bunkers should block shots from reaching the creek?  Perhaps I should feel some relief that a modern "beach bunker" wasn't built?  

Flynn probably spent too long on the notebad, overthought himself, and then being the bright fellow he was, corrected his error...IF it was ever built in the first place.  

On the 4th, please...with the creek requiring a carry on the approach with the green tight behind, why oh why put a series of bunkers there?  It's almost as if bunkers were installed between the green and Rae's creek on 13 at Augusta!  

The big hump on 14...according to Wayne research, there is no historical evidence for it.  I don't see how it's an improvement, or strategically more interesting than the bunker Flynn actually put there that was in place for...oh, like a scant 70 years.  

Mike,

I think we ought to be careful not to place complete attribution to Flynn for the bunkering on 4 and 5.  Maybe Valentine did it, maybe they both did it because a certain board member wanted to prevent their ball from going in the creek because he hooked on 5 and came up short on 4.  Who knows?  There are countless possibilities.  What we do know is that they didn't last long (if 5 bunkers were ever built) and they stayed long gone for a long time.  I think it safe to assume they weren't liked by the right people that could decide these matters.  What is Sean getting at?

Perhaps a better question for Sean might be to ask the value and new strategic purpose of each of those new (to me they're "new" because they probably lasted a sum total of 3-4 years, tops, out of Merion's 90 year history) features?

It's one thing to defend Fazio's work as pure 1930 restoration and another thing entirely to defend bad design choices.