Arts & Crafts sidetrack

« **Reply #275 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:40:42 PM »

Come on, Patrick.

I did say berm in the post 228 (in a question not a sentence.) But was talking about holes where no backing hill existed.

MacDonald wrote "steep bank" but obviously he couldnt have meant too steep or the ball wouldnt stop and leave the golfer with the tough downhill shot. (You know, like you say exists at NGLA No. 3.

You are being intemperately literal here, to the point of absurdity. Let's review. Here is my position. . . .

-- The purpose of the bank behind NGLA No. 3 was not (only) as you suggested, but also because MacDonald wanted to create the possibility of the ball running through the green and stopping above the green, leaving the golfer with a tough shot from a downhill lie.

--MacDonald employed this feature on a number of Alps greens, and may have considered the bank (whether natural or created) an integral part of Alps Hole Greensites.

As near as I can tell, your disagreement with these points breaks down as follows:

1. MacDonald's description is wrong because at NGLA No.3 the grass is mowed so that the ball often comes off the bank and back onto the green.

2. Some of the banks behind other nAlps holes aren't as steep as that behind NGLA No. 3.

3. MacDonald (and/or Rayner) didn't build artificial berms behind Alps Greens when there was a already a bank behind the greensite.

Your points are picayune. And even if they are correct, my positions still survive virtually unscathed.

So what is the point of this, really?

« **Reply #276 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:45:00 PM »

Pat
Why don't you ask George Bahto if the Alps at Merion matches others created by Macdonald, Raynor or Banks? I reckon he has seen all the different versions of the hole.

« **Reply #277 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:48:26 PM »

I believe it was the old tenth at Merion that Tillinghast and Lesley referred to as the Alps, which has similar characteristics to the Alps at Camargo and St. Louis.

« **Reply #278 on:** December 19, 2005, 11:55:47 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 19, 2005, 11:09:14 PM

But, I'll bet you there wasn't a person on this website that picked the feature that you picked as the rear berm on # 10.

You'd lose, Patrick. I downloaded this photo to my photo site to post here on Saturday, but didnt post it because I figured you'd summarily dismiss it. And you would have summarily dismissed it if it had come from me instead of Craig . . .

« **Reply #279 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:01:12 AM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 19, 2005, 11:40:42 PM

Come on, Patrick.

I did say berm in the post 228 (in a question not a sentence.) But was talking about holes where no backing hill existed.

MacDonald wrote "steep bank" but obviously he couldnt have meant too steep or the ball wouldnt stop and leave the golfer with the tough downhill shot. (You know, like you say exists at NGLA No. 3.

Dave, that was partly my point.
STEEP BANKS as CBM called for only impact the marginal miss, and the punishment is severe. Yale's embankment isn't as steep although it's much more substantial.

My other point was that you can't be too literal with what these fellows stated. They often contradicted themselves and co-mingled their terms. So reliance on a single passage has to be viewed with enlightened suspicion and in the context of what they actually did as opposed to what they are alleged to have said.[/color]

You are being intemperately literal here, to the point of absurdity. Let's review. Here is my position. . . .

-- The purpose of the bank behind NGLA No. 3 was not (only) as you suggested, but also because MacDonald wanted to create the possibility of the ball running through the green and stopping above the green, leaving the golfer with a tough shot from a downhill lie.

Perhaps, but, even if there was no berm there, the shot from just beyond the green to the green that slopes away from you is very dicey. And, without the berm, shots that went long would be unduely punished given the blind and long nature of the approach and the hazards and topography that surrounds the green.[/color]

--MacDonald employed this feature on a number of Alps greens, and may have considered the bank (whether natural or created) an integral part of Alps Hole Greensites.
It's logical to conclude that the blind and long nature of the shot would call for a backstop, a safety net, which is what I've maintained all along.

I think the feature was like Yales when the terrain presented it naturally, and like NGLA's when the terrain wasn't as cooperative.[/color]

As near as I can tell, your disagreement with these points breaks down as follows:

1. MacDonald's description is wrong because at NGLA No.3 the grass is mowed so that the ball often comes off the bank and back onto the green.

No, that's incorrect.
Grass can only grow so long, and growing grass on a steep bank is difficult. I maintain that the feature at NGLA is more of a safety net then an intended hazard for several reasons, one of which is that the feature only penalizes slightly marginal shots and rewards more errant shots.[/color]

2. Some of the banks behind other nAlps holes aren't as steep as that behind NGLA No. 3.

It's not that they're not steep, it's that they're so minor, and not a KEY element in classifying a hole as an Alps hole.
CBM stated that it's the intervening feature that determines if a hole is an Alps hole, not the features around the green.[/color]

3. MacDonald (and/or Rayner) didn't build artificial berms behind Alps Greens when there was a already a bank behind the greensite.

I'm not so sure that they didn't fortify existing landforms.[/color]

Your points are picayune. And even if they are correct, my positions still survive virtually unscathed.

We disagree.[/color]

So what is the point of this, really?

I find it informative.[/color]

« **Reply #280 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:09:58 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2005, 11:45:00 PM

Pat
Why don't you ask George Bahto if the Alps at Merion matches others created by Macdonald, Raynor or Banks?
Because you're the one making the claim with respect to the old 10th at Merion.

Why haven't you addressed the issue of the escape route found on all Alps holes, and why haven't you addressed the elevation and sight line issue I raised ?

If you're going to champion a theory, you, and not some third party designate should be able to respond in reasoned fashion.

Your lack of response would seem to indicate that your not sure, and strident in the defense of your theory.

If there's merit to you position it will surface and be recognized, if' there's no merit, it will be dismissed, but, at least we'll know one way or the other.

And, I have no dog in the fight, I just want to know the answers.

You may recall that I advocated restoring the 4th and 9th greens on another thread.[/color]

« **Reply #281 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:12:21 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2005, 11:48:26 PM

I believe it was the old tenth at Merion that Tillinghast and Lesley referred to as the Alps, which has similar characteristics to the Alps at Camargo and St. Louis.

Tom, the old 10th at Merion is an uphill hole.
The 18th at St Louis is a downhill hole.

How do you hold them out to have similar characteristics, especially when the feature behind the 18th at St Louis doesn't compare to the feature behind the old 10th at Merion ?[/color]

« **Reply #282 on:** December 20, 2005, 12:14:56 AM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 19, 2005, 11:55:47 PM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 19, 2005, 11:09:14 PM
But, I'll bet you there wasn't a person on this website that picked the feature that you picked as the rear berm on # 10.

You'd lose, Patrick. I downloaded this photo to my photo site to post here on Saturday, but didnt post it because I figured you'd summarily dismiss it. And you would have summarily dismissed it if it had come from me instead of Craig . . .

I'm not so sure.

Most would have identified the feature in the center backround as a part of the Alps hole.

You may recall that I indicated that the view of the Alps hole was across the 17th hole.

But, if your fingers are uncrossed, I'll take your word for it.[/color]

« **Reply #283 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:31:56 AM »

Quote

Pat - The 5th is "Punchbowl," the 18th is "Alps," I was only trying to help you clear up your confusion of the two. Would you say that Yale has two Alps?

Dave Moriarty insists that the rear of the green have the Steep Bank as a KEY feature in determining if the hole is an Alps. The 18th at St Louis has no such feature.

With CBM naming the hole "Oasis" I have my doubts as to whether CBM would classify a downhill hole as an Alps
hole. A deep bunker fronting a green doesn't make a hole an Alps hole.

George Bahto identifies the 5th at St Louis as the Alps hole.
Yet, you maintain that it's the 18th. Why is that ?
What do you base your classification on ?
And, why are you in disagreement with George Bahto ?

Pat - Have you played SLCC? It doesn't sound that way.

Your hairsplitting is humorous, and absurd. You never answered my question about the Redans at NGLA and PRC. No one except you is insisting on absolute adherence to a STEEP BERM. Capitalizing doesn't make it any more relevant. You seem to suggest that all these features should be indistinguishable from one another, with no allowance for site specific alterations, or else they are just coincidences.

Here is a pic of SLCC #18. It doesn't matter to me that you think there is no berm/steep bank/incline/rise, etc. behind the green.

Quote

Where is the alps hole at The Creek you refer to?
The 15th, the Plateau/alps.

It's a hybrid, like the punchbowl/alps you refer to at St Louis.[/color]

Pat, Now you've revealed yourself. The 15th at The Creek is a hogsback/double plateau hole (it is called hunchback, i think), if it is indeed a hybrid at all. It was a trick question, because there is no alps hole hole at The Creek.

It wasn't a trick question and it's not called a double plateau.

I suppose the first hole isn't a redan, despite its name.
Perhaps you feel that the 8th green bears a greater resemblance to a redan green then the 1st green does.

And, the 15th at The Creek isn't a hogsback, despite its name, the 5th at NGLA is an architectural hogsback.

I don't know what you're talking about, and from this rambling, it appears you don't either. In your previous post you called the 15th a hybrid Alps hole, which is patently false. The first has redan qualities, as does the 6th, but that doesn't make them Redan holes. Your supposition that the first hole is not a redan hole despite its name is correct, which is the only correct statement you've made regarding the Creek.

Given these statements and past ones regarding the Creek (e.g. that the 5th is currently a skyline green), I think you'd be much better off simply staying silent.

Quote

If I recall an earlier post correctly, you didn't even know that the 11th green at The Creek was a Biarritz.

You don't remember correctly. You are either projecting your lack of knowledge of the Creek onto me, or you've simply lost it. Based on your posts thus far on this thread, its not clear to me which one is the culprit.

I do however seem to recall you saying that the 11th was shaped like a football. I thought it was a remarkable statement, believing that all Notre Dame grads must be familiar with the shape of football. But your misapprehension of the green shape makes more sense now in light of your subsequent comments about the Creek.

« **Reply #284 on:** December 20, 2005, 01:35:47 AM »

Patrick,

I reread the MacDonald quote. He doesnt say "steep," he says "high."

My point in bringing whole thing up wasnt to say that Merion's 10 resembled NGLA No. 3 in every respect. Rather, I noted that the green complex has strong similarities with NGLA No. 3 and other green complexes on MacDonald "Alps" holes.

This is NOT to say that Merion 10 has a "Alp" that one must hit over, or that Merion 10 was blind, or that Merion 10 had an alternate route. Rather, I am only noting similarities in their green complexes.

Think of the genesis of the conversation . . .
-- someone suggested that MacDonald had an influence of the design of Merion
-- others said there was little or no actual evidence of MacDonald's influence
-- a caustic debate followed regarding whether Merion No. 10 could be considered a MacDonald-type alps hole.
-- I offered that (whether or not there was an alps hump) the green complex closely resembled those on some of MacDonald's Alps holes.

You seem to want to believe that I misidentified the "Alp" feature, but I dont think that this is the case. I am talking about the greensite on Alps holes. That's it.

Isnt it possible-- likely even-- that Wilson followed MacDonald's lead on some features, but not others?

And if Wilson used MacDonald's Alps Hole greensite as a model for Merion E No. 10, then isnt this strong evidence that MacDonald had a significant influence on Wilson's design at Merion?

_________________________

Quote

So what is the point of this, really?

I find it informative.[/color]

I find it informative as well. But it could be much more informative if it wasnt always so adversarial. This is a conversation, and the standard of proof in a conversation ought to be less than that of a court of law.

« **Reply #285 on:** December 20, 2005, 05:20:23 AM »

How many of the berms behind CBM Alps holes--NGLA and maybe St. Louis since it opened about the time of the article (it makes no sense to discuss later CBM courses or any by SR and CB since they were not architects when Lesley wrote his article) served the purpose to protect players on a hole directly behind the green? This was THE reason for the berm behind the 10th green at Merion. The principle of that large unnatural berm is for safety at Merion and not for any strategic purpose. Look how far off the green the berm is and the obvious rough in between the green and the berm. Long shots would likely have never made it to the berm.

If you guys are trying to say that a green with a bunker in front and a berm behind is an Alps hole because of the similarity in their green complexes, I'd say that is a stretch. Firstly, it fails to consider the primary feature, a hill or ridge obscuring the green. How do you know the Merion green is similar to Prestwick, NGLA and perhaps including SLCC (although it is likely in 1914 Lesley had not seen the course)? Is there the substantial internal contouring on the right side which is so pronounced at Prestwick? Is there as much back to front slope? I don't think any of us really knows but it looks doubtful from the photographs. Does the artificial berm behind the green look anything like the one at Prestwick? No. Prestwick has a natural slope that is more on the left and does not resemble the berms behind the Merion green nor the NGLA green. I don't know which Alps Lesley could be referring to. Does the Merion green resemble the NGLA green? It looks unlikely. The NGLA green is far bigger and not square with rounded corners.

What was the defining characteristic of an Alps hole? It isn't the berm behind or even the sand in front although this added a lot to the difficulty. To me it is a hill or high ridge that obscures the green from the approach. I do not believe at all that the low level ridge in front of Merion's green would do that. I therefore think there is only some principles that correspond to the Alps hole at Prestwick or NGLA. One of the commonalities, the berm was built for a specific reason and is removed from the green at Merion. The primary feature, an obscuring hill or ridge is missing.

Calling Merion's 10th an Alps, the 3rd the Redan, and the 17th a Valley of Sin is more an effort to validate/promote the architecture rather than an astute analysis from which you can derive that Macdonald and Whigham influenced the design at Merion. Although Colt had a great deal to do with Pine Valley, the attribution change over a period of time from Crump to Colt and a further re-attribution later on might be partially due to a promotional effort as an accurate attribution.

The third is not a Redan by any means. It was less of one in the earliest days of the course as the angle off the tee was different. Maybe Macdonald and Whigham did more than direct Wilson to what he should see in the UK and advise them that the land under consideration was worth purchasing. I just don't think you can derive that notion from your arguments and architectural examples. It is a bit of a stretch. But keep digging, something may turn up.

« **Reply #286 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:07:50 AM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 20, 2005, 12:09:58 AM

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 19, 2005, 11:45:00 PM

Pat

Because you're the one making the claim with respect to the old 10th at Merion.

Why haven't you addressed the issue of the escape route found on all Alps holes, and why haven't you addressed the elevation and sight line issue I raised ?

If you're going to champion a theory, you, and not some third party designate should be able to respond in reasoned fashion.

Pat
That makes a lot sense...you don't want to call in the foremost Alps expert to help clear up the issue...a man who has seen more Alps than all of us combined...because I'm making the claim? What kind of logic is that? George Bahto is not some third party designate.

I've never heard of the esacape route...is that a feature of the original Alps at Prestwick?

« **Reply #287 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:18:00 AM »

Wayne
The 11th tee at Lido was protected by a berm that was part of the 10th green complex.

You've got Wilson studying holes abroad. You've got Macdonald and Whigham consulting on site. You've got a redan. You've got an Alps acording to Tillinghast and Lesley (and the photos). You've got a Principles Nose. You've got another feature or two from the old course.

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 20, 2005, 05:20:23 AM

Calling Merion's 10th an Alps, the 3rd the Redan, and the 17th a Valley of Sin is more an effort to validate/promote the architecture rather than an astute analysis from which you can derive that Macdonald and Whigham influenced the design at Merion.

We did not make this stuff up. Travis, Tillinghast, Lesley and others referred to these holes.

Why is it so difficult to accept the 10th was an Alps?

« **Reply #288 on:** December 20, 2005, 07:49:34 AM »

"Why is it so difficult to accept the 10th was an Alps?"

Because it is not an Alps hole whether Tillinghast or Lesley said it is. It may have some of the features found on an Alps hole (cup and flag among them) but not the primary feature.

"The 11th tee at Lido was protected by a berm that was part of the 10th green complex. "

The Lido was built after Lesley's article so it has no bearing on the judgement made by Lesley.

"You've got a redan. "

No, I do not as it is not a Redan, nor was it in 1914. Please explain in detail how the current 3rd hole is a Redan.

"You've got Macdonald and Whigham consulting on site. "

This is a distortion of the truth and you know it. What did their on-site consulting consist of? How long were they on site? They were there in 1910 and concluded that the site was suitable for golf, after which the board purchased the property. They returned (nobody knows how often) and did what? Do you know? Merion records do not indicate anything. Yet you say they were consulting (implying ongoing work) on site. This is a stretch of the truth and was clearly made to support your argument not because of its own merits.

If Wilson had some features found on the Old Course (Principal's Nose) and whatever unnamed other features you suggest, why does that necessitate that it is due to Macdonald and Whigham providing on-site consultation? Do you think Wilson wasn't going to the Old Course unless he saw Macdonald? Do you think he couldn't come up with design ideas on his own based on his visit to the Old Course? Now I think it likely that Macdonald helped him learn what to look for at TOC and elsewhere, but how does this indicate to you in no uncertain terms that it must mean that Macdonald and Whigham were consulting on site? Your drive to discover seemingly leads to stretches of logic.

« **Reply #289 on:** December 20, 2005, 08:05:12 AM »

Wayne
Tilly called the hole an Alps in 1916. I'm not sure why it matters if Macdonald/Raynor built similar holes before or after Merion...the point is they built similar holes.

Your problem appears to be with Travis, Tillinghast, Macdonald and Lesley...not any of us on this thread. Evidently you believe they were all mistaken in the way they described these holes, therefore you disregard their comments. It appears you have settled upon who did what architecturally and the two outsiders (Macdonald & Whigham), and features associated with them, don't really fit into the equation.

« **Reply #290 on:** December 20, 2005, 08:25:39 AM »

"It appears you have settled upon who did what architecturally and the two outsiders (Macdonald & Whigham), and features associated with them, don't really fit into the equation."

Wrong, Tom. I made no attributions outside of Wilson and Pickering for the original Merion East course. There isn't enough evidence for that. You did, and without real proof. Yet you say my passive approach is mistaken more so than your own. Sorry, I find that hard to believe.

Your version may make a good story, but that is all it is unless there is archival support. Saying that these holes are templates or concept holes from The Old Course, Prestwick or elsewhere of a sort used by Macdonald to imply that he provided on-site design consulting is far-fetched and fails to meet any standards of research method and analysis.

The fact is, these holes share some similar qualities but not enough to suggest active participation by Macdonald and Whigham and certainly not enough to suggest they must have required their participation in the design process. Wilson's approach was more refined. He didn't design according to polls nor did he use templates in the same manner as Macdonald and his followers. This much must be clear.

Now, I would like you to tell me exactly how the current 3rd hole in any iteration after its construction resembled a Redan hole. If you are going to rely on other people's interpretations you either are too trusting or wish to stop investigating when you think it supports your hypothesis. Explain the commonalities of 3 with N. Berwick and NGLA's Redan holes if you please.

Tell me how the 17th at Merion is at all like the 18th at TOC. One is a long downhill par 3, the other a short level par 4. They both have a slope leading up to the green, one blind (Merion) the other visible. Do you think in all instances in the 1910s where slopes lead up to a green implies that Macdonlad and/or Whigham were on-site consultants or that they are concept recreations of the Tom Morris hole? I know this is a charicature of your analysis, sorry for the diversion.

Your null hypothesis should be that Macdonald and Whigham did not do any design consulting at Merion and try to prove the opposite. You must think you have. I think you are a long way off.

« **Reply #291 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:36:43 AM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 20, 2005, 08:25:39 AM

Wrong, Tom. I made no attributions outside of Wilson and Pickering for the original Merion East course. There isn't enough evidence for that. You did, and without real proof. Yet you say my passive approach is mistaken more so than your own. Sorry, I find that hard to believe.
Who designed the course in your opinion?

Your version may make a good story, but that is all it is unless there is archival support. Saying that these holes are templates or concept holes from The Old Course, Prestwick or elsewhere of a sort used by Macdonald to imply that he provided on-site design consulting is far-fetched and fails to meet any standards of research method and analysis.
We've got Travis, Lesley, Tillinghast and Macdonald's contemporaneous description of these holes...don't we?

The fact is, these holes share some similar qualities but not enough to suggest active participation by Macdonald and Whigham and certainly not enough to suggest they must have required their participation in the design process. Wilson's approach was more refined. He didn't design according to polls nor did he use templates in the same manner as Macdonald and his followers. This much must be clear.
Are you saying Tilly, Lesley, Travis and Macdonald were mistaken in their descriptions?

Do you think in all instances in the 1910s where slopes lead up to a green implies that Macdonlad and/or Whigham were on-site consultants or that they are concept recreations of the Tom Morris hole? I know this is a charicature of your analysis, sorry for the diversion.
It was reported M&W were on site consulting...and you have to admit some of their features appeared...at least they were described in that way at the time. Is it out of line to conclude they had some minor part in the process? Whigham claimed they designed the course...I wouldn't go that far for sure, but based on the evidence it seems clear to me they did more than nod their heads.

« **Reply #292 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:46:19 AM »

Tom MacWood said To Wayne:

"Evidently you believe they were all mistaken in the way they described these holes, therefore you disregard their comments. It appears you have settled upon who did what architecturally and the two outsiders (Macdonald & Whigham), and features associated with them, don't really fit into the equation."

Uh, excuse me, Tom MacWood, but have you considered that Hugh Wilson spent six solid months in GB studying the architecture over there including many of the well-known holes and features and concepts over there? I'm not that sure why you keep insisting those holes and features and concepts were always associated with Macdonald or Whigam or Raynor.

There's still some direct references within and without Merion, the club, from Wilson and his Merion construction committee regarding the advice Macdonald offered to them---and those direct references explain they were definitely not hestitant to thank him for it and his assistance. They spent two days at NGLA before Wilson departed for Europe. According to Wilson they spent about a day discussing the basic principles of strategic golf architecture and they looked over NGLA for a day. Again, they were all quite excessive in their thanks to Macdonald before they began and after that there seems to be virtually nothing of it. Why do you suppose that is?

Then Wilson departed for GB and spent six solid months there studying GB architecture, sketching, drawing, notating architectral features, concepts etc on his own. He brought all that back to Philadelphia and he and his committee, and Flynn and Pickering proceeded to build Merion East in about six months as it was initially.

You, Tom MacWood, and that other character from the West Coast seem to excessively fixate on various things and various people as to the large extent of their influences on various architecture without much of anything to substantiate it other than about five pages of arguing over the meaning of a few golf architectural terms which probably meant a whole lot of different things to those people back then than they do to you today.

You might think in the future of assigning a bit more influence on those architectural features, concepts, holes et al to where they really do come from----and in the case of each one of them, Alps, Redan, Principle's Nose, Eden, Valley of Sin et al that happens to be Great Britain and Scotland and not Macdonald and Whigham and Raynor.

You seem to have a problem assigning to GB and particularly linksland Scottish golf architecture the influence it had on some early American architects and their architecture. Again, the rich and voluminous literature of the history and evolution of architecture assigns, and has assigned, the influences on American architecture where it primarily does belong.

You seem intent on finding some entirely different primary influences, and to me and I think some others on here it's become patently obvious why you're trying to do that. You seem to feel it might strengthen your reputation as one of the first truly in-depth researchers and writers.

In my opinion, and I hope and think in the opinions of an increasing amount of others on here, it's just not working. The historical record of golf course architecture is generally quite clear. For you to say at this point that no one has really scratched the surface of golf architecture and what influenced it is patently ridiculous. On any historical subject of interest there is always revisionism and revisionists for their own particular agendas, and it's for others who care about these subjects and the truth and accurate historical record of them to keep pointing out that revisionism and those revisionists. Exaggeration of the type and degree you use, to me, is just another form of revisionism.

« **Reply #293 on:** December 20, 2005, 09:56:19 AM »

"Who designed the course in your opinion?"

The course was changed over a period of more than twenty years. Which iteration do you refer to? I'd say the initial design was by Wilson and Pickering. There were some substanitive changes made before the 1916 Amateur and I think these were Wilson and Flynn. There were major changes made prior to the 1924 Amateur and I think these were mostly by Flynn. There were more changes for the 1930 Amateur and 1934 Open and I am certain these were Flynn. I know Joe Valentine helped considerably but doubtful in any architectural sense but rather aesthetics and construction.

Read the May 17, 1934 letter from Philip C. Staples to John Todd regarding the Rockefeller project in the manuscript I sent you. This should add a bit more weight to my conclusions.

"We've got Travis, Lesley, Tillinghast and Macdonald's contemporaneous description of these holes...don't we?"

Again, how is the third hole a Redan? What features of the 10th and 18th remind you of their supposed concept copies? You answer this and make your own mind up. I am not taking the skant words of these guys as gospel. I think if you do you are at risk for being wrong.

"Are you saying Tilly, Lesley, Travis and Macdonald were mistaken in their descriptions?"

By George, I think you've got it! At least as far as we define these concepts today. Back in their day, I have no idea how fast and rigid the definitions were. I think we can safely assume they were looser then than they are today.

"It was reported M&W were on site consulting...and you have to admit some of their features appeared...at least they were described in that way at the time. Is it out of line to conclude they had some minor part in the process? Whigham claimed they designed the course...I wouldn't go that far for sure, but based on the evidence it seems clear to me they did more than nod their heads."

The "their features" that you mention are those copied from originals in the UK. They are not original and therefore unique to Macdonald nor should they be identified with soley with their efforts. These hole concepts were on the ground before Macdonald knew how to piss on his own. And I don't even agree that these hole concepts in their entirety or substanitively exist/existed at Merion.

You keep referring to features at Merion that must have been due to the influence, and you go so far as to say on-site consulting, of Macdonald and Whigham. What features of hole number 3 are like the Redan? Any Redan?

I know that Whigham said that Macdonald designed Merion. That is rubbish and I suspect you know it. However, he was a great help but not so far as you ascribe.

« **Reply #294 on:** December 20, 2005, 10:08:17 AM »

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2005, 09:36:43 AM

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 20, 2005, 08:25:39 AM
Wrong, Tom. I made no attributions outside of Wilson and Pickering for the original Merion East course. There isn't enough evidence for that. You did, and without real proof. Yet you say my passive approach is mistaken more so than your own. Sorry, I find that hard to believe.
Who designed the course in your opinion?

Your version may make a good story, but that is all it is unless there is archival support. Saying that these holes are templates or concept holes from The Old Course, Prestwick or elsewhere of a sort used by Macdonald to imply that he provided on-site design consulting is far-fetched and fails to meet any standards of research method and analysis.
We've got Travis, Lesley, Tillinghast and Macdonald's contemporaneous description of these holes...don't we?

The fact is, these holes share some similar qualities but not enough to suggest active participation by Macdonald and Whigham and certainly not enough to suggest they must have required their participation in the design process. Wilson's approach was more refined. He didn't design according to polls nor did he use templates in the same manner as Macdonald and his followers. This much must be clear.
Are you saying Tilly, Lesley, Travis and Macdonald were mistaken in their descriptions?

Do you think in all instances in the 1910s where slopes lead up to a green implies that Macdonlad and/or Whigham were on-site consultants or that they are concept recreations of the Tom Morris hole? I know this is a charicature of your analysis, sorry for the diversion.
It was reported M&W were on site consulting...and you have to admit some of their features appeared...at least they were described in that way at the time. Is it out of line to conclude they had some minor part in the process? Whigham claimed they designed the course...I wouldn't go that far for sure, but based on the evidence it seems clear to me they did more than nod their heads.

Tom;
No, Wayne isn't. Wayne and others have pointed out previously that these terms were used by these men interchangeably.

One thing which I have not seen discussed here yet is "Alps" as in reference to a hole and "Alpinization". They appear to be two different animals. Tillie's use of "Alpinization" appears to be different from the "Alps" hole at NGLA and Prestwick.

You appear fixated on assigning an "Alps" designation to the original 10th at Merion using an obscure quote that may or may not be factually correct.

Since the pictures of the hole's green complex do not bear resemblance to the 3rd at NGLA (i.e. lacking the large, blind hill a player must carry on his approach) or the original hole at Prestwick which CB Macdonald modeled the "Alps" hole afterwards, what is the point in continuing further?

It may be correct, if photo evidence can be correctly identified, to say that Wilson used what Tillie referred to as "Alpinization" in defending the original 10th green complex.

If this is true, Wilson may have used "Alpinization" to defend the original 10th green complex, but this does not make it an Alps hole, which is what you are basing your argument on.

I'd listen to Wayne and Tom P. pretty closely. Merion is in their backyard. They have a most significant amount of club history (And I don't want to get invited to a diner for the wrong reasons

)

« **Reply #295 on:** December 20, 2005, 10:54:31 AM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 20, 2005, 05:20:23 AM

How many of the berms behind CBM Alps holes... served the purpose to protect players on a hole directly behind the green? This was THE reason for the berm behind the 10th green at Merion. The principle of that large unnatural berm is for safety at Merion and not for any strategic purpose. Look how far off the green the berm is and the obvious rough in between the green and the berm. Long shots would likely have never made it to the berm.

Wayne,
There are a number of things from this post that make me question whether the berm was a safety device. To wit:

If "long shots would likely have never made it to the berm," what good is it as a safety device?
Was there a berm between the old 12 green and 13 tee? If Wilson was concerned with safety that would seem to be a logical place for one, since that complex is more intimate than the on 10/1. Moreover, the 10th green backed up not into 1 green, but the rought alongside the first fairway. The first green was to the left of 10 green.
But all of this ignores the real question. If the approach to 10 was not blind, then why have the berm as a safey device, since the player playing up 10 would easily see when his shot is endangering golfers on 1. If what you say is true, the berm obscures would have been a clear view.

Moreover, that berm would be a pretty substantial and extraneous safety device similar to the overprotective earthwork you find at modern CCFADs. It was rare for early architects to be so concerned with safety as you suggest Wilson was.

« **Reply #296 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:16:49 AM »

Wayne:

I wouldn't bother even answering Tom MacWood's posts anymore unless all you're interested in is making him look more illogical than he already does.

He just keeps overlooking or avoiding the fact that even if some of the holes or features, or principles, or concepts at Merion East were described by Travis, Lesley, Tillinghast and Macdonald as Alps, Redan, Principles Nose, Eden or Valley of Sin, why in God's name is MacWood constantly making the leap in logic that it had to be Macdonald that helped Merion design and build them?

Does MacWood assume Macdonald/Whigam/Raynor held copyrights on those European holes of something where anyone who went to Europe and copied anything about them had to acknowledge Macdonald? What the f... does he think Wilson was doing in GB for six solid months? Those holes are in Europe, and they were famous long before Macdonald used some of their principles and features about 2-3 years before Wilson and Merion did.

Maybe Lesley, Travis, Macdonald and Tillinghast did describe some of those holes by their European names but where did any of them say Macdonald had to have a part in them as MacWood keeps illogically saying?

He asked you:

"Who designed the course in your opinion?"

Wayne, why in the world would he ask you a question like that? Didn't you send him some galleys of the book on Flynn? What does he want to argue with you about it on here? Tell him if he didn't get it the first time to wait and go buy the book that explains again who designed the golf course.

You've got this frustrated lawyer in California treating these subjects and those discussing them like the cross examination of a hostile witness in a courtroom and a guy in Ohio who is so intransigent all he can do is constantly keep rehashing his total "stretches" by asking the same questions over and over despite what anyone else who knows these courses and the details of them better than he does keeps telling him.

Don't bother, they're just a waste of time at this point. You've made your points and you've made them well. If they don't want to acknowledge that then just pay no attention to them.

« **Reply #297 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:18:02 AM »

Sean,

I think it is a safety feature on the reverse side of the berm. Hooked tee shots from the first tee would not go on the 10th green and keep golfers protected from both holes but more so shots from the first tee. This should answer your last question as to the need for a berm on a hole that was not blind.

As far as I know there was not a berm between the old 12th green and the 13th tee. There wasn't a need to have berms protect every tee. The berm on ten protected the players on ten more so than the players on one.

« **Reply #298 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:20:26 AM »

Tom,

I agree with you. Not only do I think the terms were loosley used and not very applicable. I think more importantly that there was no exclusivity of the use of these features by Macdonald. They were not original to Macdonald so why should their use necessitate attribution to him? It makes no sense to me but obviously does to him. So I will not belabor the point any further. Talk about sidetrack

« **Reply #299 on:** December 20, 2005, 11:54:25 AM »

Tom MacWood said;

"Whigham claimed they designed the course...I wouldn't go that far for sure, but based on the evidence it seems clear to me they did more than nod their heads."

I don't remember hearing that, not even from George Bahto. Once a few years ago George told us he felt that RAYNOR designed Merion West. When we asked him why he thought that he said because a few of the holes looked like Raynor to him and Whigam mentioned it in a Eulogy to Raynor. I don't know why Whigam said that or if he did. Maybe he misspoke but we have a five page account by the Wilsons of Merion that also talks about the creation of the West course in 1914 and Raynor's name does not appear at all. But Hugh Wilson, Flynn, Pickering and Joe Valentine do for the simple reason they're the ones who designed and built the golf course.

(People---whenever you hear anyone, even a professional architect say that since a hole "looks like" a particular architect therefore it is that architect, don't you EVER automatically take that as the truth. We've proven a few of them wrong by showing them the plan of another archtect who designed and built the hole or course).

Tom MacWood, maybe you take as gospel everything George says about Macdonald or Raynor but we don't, and George is a good friend of ours. I've told George a couple of times that it seems like if he finds out Seth was ever within a mile of some golf course he starts to assume Seth designed it.

News:

DMoriarty

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

SPDB

DMoriarty

wsmorrison

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

wsmorrison

T_MacWood

wsmorrison

T_MacWood

TEPaul

wsmorrison

Doug Braunsdorf

SPDB

TEPaul

wsmorrison

wsmorrison

TEPaul