[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

It wasn't me who wished for that!!  

As an old public course guy, I'm not used to bunkers that stay within their boundaries.  In fact, those to me seem to be timid little souls, afraid to venture out and expand their purpose.  

In the case of Merion, those new high tech walls and Alcatrazian surrounds will be sure to keep the sand contained, that's for certain!  

[James Bennett]

Mike Cirba

Alcatraz!  Now there is a name for a bunker that conjures up great imagery.

Is there a bunker anywhere called Alcatraz?

James B

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

The sand leaking out of the bunkers is small potatoes.

Wait 'til you see this.

As you know, since you've heard Ron Prichard speak about his beliefs about the history of golf and architecture, how interesting and thought provoking he can be.

From time to time Ron and I get into these long conversations about architecture, its histories, the evolution of it etc.

After a long conversation the other night that among other things touched on the bunkers of Merion, Ron said in his opinion those original Merion bunkers were hallmark in a sea-change in a type of bunkering the significance of which most of us may not appreciate.

I was going to call Ron and ask him if it's OK to post his email but reading it again it appears obvious to me that's what he intended----eg he wanted the subject to be put on here for the purposes of discussion and education.

So, here it is:

Tom;
 
                 The sort of bunkering favored' [as we discussed last week], by Hugh Wilson; was based on a "new belief" born following his visit to The British Isles in preparation for
the layout and construction of the courses at Merion. He felt it was more appropriate that players could better "see" the hazards strewn across the path of their journey to the green.
Years ago as a young player on a trip of spring college matches, I had a long conversation with the original superintendent at Merion and this topic was discussed at some length.
 
                  This decision by Hugh Wilson had an impact which still shakes the world of golf, and if your fellow posters will think about this a bit more, [slowly], they will be able to put into place a cornerstone of their understanding of the history of golf architecture. Of course there will also be those who will question what I heard. I'll be interested to see where that goes.
 
                 I mentioned this to you last week, because I feel a lot of the questions and discussions posted on GCA could be better answered, and shaped if you all had a clearer historical frame of reference to begin with.
 
                 Let me know if I can better clarify and/or discuss what I'm saying here.
 
                                                                                     Take care of yourself;
                                                                                                   Ron


As you can see, Ron must have had a long conversation with Joe Valentine about those Merion bunkers and how the idea came to be with Hugh Wilson. Joe Valentine, along with Flynn was certainly there at The Creation, so to speak?  

I’ve always found Ron’s ideas about the history of golf and architecture just fascinating. Were the bunkers of Merion, the ones Bob Jones labeled the “White Faces of Merion” an original idea in the evolution of bunkering in which it (the bunkering) was supposed to be always visible as well as always of the sort of construction that offered progressive recoverability (the latter is what Hugh Wilson wrote himself)? Is the genesis of the dished, always upswept sand faced bunker the peculiar and unique brain-child of Merion’s Hugh Wilson as well as basically the DNA of a uniquely American bunkering style?

Interesting! Let the discussion begin.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That's an awesome post and thanks to Ron Prichard for sharing with us.  I always find him extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking.

Given the merit of this post, I'll eschew my usual rapid, tongue-in-cheek response and take time to think about it, slowly....as Ron suggests.

Thanks!
Mike

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Here are some representations of what I think Hugh Wilson might have been inspired by when visiting the British Isles in 1914. (This is from one of my favorite golf books, Horace Hutchinson's British Golf Links 1897)

Merion to me on my two visits there in the year 2000 embraced a raw, rough at the edges feel that embraced the finest aspects of golf as many of us like to lay claim that we know and love.

My first visit there was an architectural epiphany. This was GOLF as it was meant to be played. Hence much of my aggravation to see the direction the club was going in the hiring of Tom Fazio, a person who is celarly talented as a landscape architect, but dearth on the keenest observations of what what makes GREAT golf. It can be evidenced in the evolution of Pine Valley in the last few years with our inherit need to clean, fix and organize. Golf was born on less then perfect landscapes--wastelands. The sand dunes were usually good enough just for sheep to graze. The randomness of nature and it's unpredictability is what I feel Hugh Wilson saw, as what was further explained to him. For me, it's the great secret lost from Golf's Golden Age, and which very few of us through time and study have unearthed in our endeavors. We've been fortunate to be students and observers of this lost art.

Don't misconstrue these images as anything copied during the construction of Merion. Look at them for the randomness and their style.

Thanks for the great stuff Ron Prichard.

[Sean_Tully]

Well here are some pics from 1916 that were used to describe the course in anticipation of the Amateur that was to be held there that year. The pics are from Golf Illustrated in 1916 that show the course very well. Pretty good look at the bunkers on the 6th and 7th holes!

http://homepage.mac.com/tullfescue/PhotoAlbum8.html

Tully

[SPDB]

TEPaul -
Thanks for posting Prichard's thoughts, I'd be curious to hear more about his conversations with Valentine, as I'm a bit unclear on the aim of his comments from his note to you. I don't think the visual element that he describes is compromised by the current incarnation of the Merion bunkers.


Tommy - Nice images, and nice thoughts (and nice restraint!). I think its beyond dispute that the raw, rough at the edges feel that you fell in love with at Merion is also a euphemism for bunkers that had fallen into a state of disrepair (or as some have described it, the result of benign neglect).

I think there is much merit in the work that has been done there, and the soul of the course and its bunkers has been preserved. For example, on your trip in 2000, had you stood on the right side of 5 green (afforded you the same perspective as the shot in Sean Tully's post of looking across the then 6th toward the then 7th hole), you would have seen a lot of grass and a solitary carry bunker in poor shape. The current view would allow you to see the 2 carry bunkers (including the one on the left), similar to the arrangement visible in Sean's shots.

Benign neglect has its charms, as you attest, but it also has its pitfalls.

And, by the way, I haven't forgotten that I owe you an email back!

[ChipOat]

Kelly:

Interesting - thanks.

It would, in fact, be a good thread all its ownself.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba

Alcatraz!  Now there is a name for a bunker that conjures up great imagery.

Is there a bunker anywhere called Alcatraz?

James B

James,

The only "Alcatraz" reference I've heard of in golf is the 17th island par three at Pete Dye's PGA West Stadium course.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul -
Thanks for posting Prichard's thoughts, I'd be curious to hear more about his conversations with Valentine, as I'm a bit unclear on the aim of his comments from his note to you."

SPDB:

I thought a lot about that before posting his email and so I called him again to talk about it. What is his aim with those comments in that email?

I think it's pretty obvious that he believes it may have been Hugh Wilson who made a "decision" with bunkering during the creation of Merion that has influenced a good deal of bunkering in golf architecture ever since.

Clearly his point seems to be the almost formulaic requirement that bunkering needs to be VISIBLE. One might even ask, visible in what way? It seems he means the real visibilty of the sand surfaces of bunkers. After-all that was probably why Wilson had bed-sheets laid on the ground---eg so he could mimic the look of them with sand flashed up the bunker face and in the golfer's face.

If Ron means more than that I'm not aware of it.

I guess one could prove Ron wrong about this by simply finding some architect who preceeded Wilson and Merion who said he felt that ALL bunkering should have its sand visible to the golfer by always flashing the sand up the face.

Ron apparently believes in what might be referred to as an architectural "family tree", in other words certain architectural elements can be traced back to a certain time and a certain architect. He did say the influence of the look of Merion's bunkering can certainly be seen in Flynn, Dick Wilson and perhaps many more who believed in always using visible sand in bunker creation and bunker architecture.

[Kyle Harris]

Is it important that the sand is visible, or just that the bunkers are presented in such a way that the golfer understands visually that a bunker is there?

Ron is noted for restoring the grass faces to a lot of Ross bunkers and in some cases the visibility of the sand may be suspect, yet you still realize the location of the bunker by the terrain.

I was thinking about Merion's bunkers before going to sleep last night, especially the depth. Tom Paul is fond of noting the changes in depth to the bunker fronting the 13th green at Merion based on an old photo of Bob Jones. I'd also imagine such cavernous places of ill-repute have changed depths in the front of the 8th green and 12th green. How has this evolution changed the visibility?

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

If that bedsheet story of Merion is true I'd assume the thing he wanted to be visible is the sand, wouldn't you? A white bedsheet lying on the ground looks a lot more like the sand in bunkers than it does their grass surrounds, don't you think?  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I agree with you there regarding Hugh Wilson's intent.

However, is there a function difference? A psychological one?

[SPDB]

TEPaul - I guess I'd like to know your thoughts on the restoration efforts at Merion vis-a-vis Prichard's comments on Wilson objectives and influences. Personally, I don't think the visual element of the Merion bunkers was compromised by the Fazio work. No one, for instance, would claim that they are grassed down to the bunker floor, or would confuse them with say, Aronomink.

[Mike_Cirba]

TEPaul - I guess I'd like to know your thoughts on the restoration efforts at Merion vis-a-vis Prichard's comments on Wilson objectives and influences. Personally, I don't think the visual element of the Merion bunkers was compromised by the Fazio work. No one, for instance, would claim that they are grassed down to the bunker floor, or would confuse them with say, Aronomink.

Sean,

I doubt Prichard would want to directly enter that frey.  He seems to me to be too smart for that.  

Instead, I think he said what he thinks in a more oblique way and one can read into it if they so choose.

Personally, while they are not grassed to the bottom floor in the manner of Aronimink, neither are they upswept sand faces (i.e. white faces) to the lip as they had been before, and in every historical account or picture I've seen previously.

Is that nitpicking?  No, I don't believe so.  Not when not only were they famous and historical, but now it also seems they were trendsetting in the history of American golf, as well.

[SPDB]

Mike -
I never asked for Prichard's thoughts, but rather Tom Paul's.

What did you think of Hanse's work at Merion?

Not when not only were they famous and historical, but now it also seems they were trendsetting in the history of American golf, as well.

It seems that they were trendsetting since the middle part of this thread?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike -
I never asked for Prichard's thoughts, but rather Tom Paul's.

What did you think of Hanse's work at Merion?

Not when not only were they famous and historical, but now it also seems they were trendsetting in the history of American golf, as well.

It seems that they were trendsetting since the middle part of this thread?

Sean,

In answer to your questions, I think Tom Paul's opinions on the bunkers have a long history here.  I'm sure he can sum them up and my apologies in thinking you were asking for Prichard's.

In the case of Hanse & Kittleman's work on the bunkers previously, I don't want to open that can of worms but I thought they did a very detailed job.  (see below)



If I thought their worked was lackluster, or inconsistent with Merion's history and look, I wouldn't hesitate to say so.

As far as trendsetting since the middle of this thread, apparently Joe Valentine thought differently.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul - I guess I'd like to know your thoughts on the restoration efforts at Merion vis-a-vis Prichard's comments on Wilson objectives and influences."

SPDB:

That's very much qualifying the question of Merion's bunkers, and my opinion of them, before and after and frankly I thank you for that.

But as I understand Ron Prichard's point about the significance of Merion's bunkers, and Wilson's "decision" on them---eg basically having their sand surfaces very flashed up and visible to the golfer on his journey around the course, as Ron worded it, I think today the redone bunkers of Merion still have a good deal of that original sand visibility. They are not sand flashed as high as the bunkers before the project and obviously that's because the old bunkers had none of that ultra thick grass surround around the tops and sides. Frankly the way the faces of the bunkers today are constructed vs the old bunker faces is pretty different, I think. I believe I could explain that properly but if not I'm sure Ron Prichard can correct me.

By the way, there are 2-3 bunkers at Merion East, that are just about as good as they can get, in my opinion. They were done in-house and a bit later though, and they're also in a place and position that's quite different from the rest.

[SPDB]

Mike - Besides the lower perspective in Carlyle's picture, what are the salient differences between your picture (post Hanse), and Carlyle's (post Fazio):

[TEPaul]

SPDB:

Good for you for posting that photo in juxtaposition to the one MikeC posted. What's the differences in those two photos? Well, as anyone with eyes can see the grassing on the surrounds of the present ones is a bit heavier, a bit longer than the top photo of Mike's and the grass comes down the sand a couple of inches more, maybe six at the most.

All in all those the bunkers in both those photographs are virtually identical, and if someone says otherwise I fail to see any reason to pursue the point any further.

Sean, do you want to know what one of the real ironies is here on these Merion bunkers? When I first got involved, I mean way back when Gil and Kittleman were still working on the bunkers and before the 2005 US Amateur got scheduled at Merion and even before Matt Shaeffer, a friend of mine from Merion got me over there and showed me the bunkering on the 7th hole (just redone by Hanse and Kittleman) and even though he liked it he said the membership were basically freaking out because the surrounds were too grassy and too cuppy and too penal.

Well, guess what, the grassing they have around all those bunkers now is about twice as grassy and penal as what Hanse and Kittleman did.

MikeC:

Are you sure the bunkering in that photo of yours is Hanse and Kittleman? I know they did a few but I didn't know #9 was one of them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom/Sean,

I'm not 100% sure if Gil and Co. did number nine or not.  Even if they did, I'm not sure the original source of that photograph I posted but it does appear on Ran's Feature Innterview with Gil Hanse where Gil states;

"At Merion we have been fortunate to be involved in the restoration of the bunkers on the following holes: 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, and 17. Jim Wagner was our man on site, and his shaping was spot on. All of the details were as seen through the eyes of Bill Kittleman and his immense knowledge of the course. The three of us spent many hours with shovels in hand, knowing that it would only be through hand work and attention to detail that we would be successful in preserving the intricacies of these bunkers. We have also prepared a tee report for the lengthening of the course, which was done in anticipation of the US Open returning to Merion. We labored with the question of lengthening the course and finally decided that we would do so only on holes where we could maintain the original line or angle of play."

I hesitated to use that photograph because to be frank, and as both you and Sean point out, there isn't a whole lot of obviously visible difference, at least from the distance and perspective of these photos except for some longer, thicker grass, and lower, thicker grass faces into the bunker.  The "Wooly Mammoth" lips, let's call them.  

I have photographs from the timeline that shows Hanse's work but unfortunately they aren't digital and unless someone was willing the scan them (I'm not sure it's worth peeling back old wounds even if they were), I can't post them.

I will say that having seen the work that Gil, Jim, and Bill did in person and having seen the work that was done by Fazio & Co in person many times, I'm perplexed how either of you who saw both can tell me that they look identical?

Let me ask this, since both of you seem to admit that the bunkers as they look today look different than they did during any time in Merion's history.

Did either of you say that after the work that Gil & Co. did?

If so, I didn't hear it.  All I heard is that they were doing really exceptional work but that it was taking too long according to the schedule that Merion was looking for.  Of course, that was another debateable point, but the bottom line is whatever work Gil did is gone now, and if you think it's an even trade in the final results, then we just disagree and that's ok too.

You can tell me that they look better, if that's your opinion.  You can tell me that they look worse, too, if that's how you feel.

Just don't try to tell me they look the same.  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I understand Ron sent you an email. A good thing, indeed. I'm certain he'd be happy to have his feelings known on here. He's been doing this stuff for over thirty years and even if some such as Tom MacWood may have a very hard time admitting it, it's probably reasonable to conclude that Ron knows a bit more about this stuff than we do.    

[Sean_Tully]

I have added some new photos of Merion to my Merion page. It is from a article on the course that mentions the new holes 10-13, and the addition of nearly a hundred new traps, and new back tees at the 4th, 15th, and 18th holes where the carry was close to 200 yards!!. Very good info for the upcoming Am in 1924 of that year. For those wanting to look at the article it is in the Sept. 1924 issue of GI. That same issue also has an article on Greenbrier and Frenchlick!

The pics are a little over exposed but you can see enough detail. i played with them a little bit to bring some more features out.

http://homepage.mac.com/tullfescue/PhotoAlbum8.html

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()