Merion's flow is brilliant, is it unique?

« **Reply #75 on:** June 10, 2003, 06:58:44 AM »

Mike Cirba,

Quote

Are you contending that the original bunkers at Merion looked so great previously because they were somehow "neglected" by Flynn, Valentine(s), Kittleman, etc.?

No, that's not what I'm contending.

How many times can you get it wrong.

Do you think Merion's bunkers, immediately prior to the Fazio project looked, were configured and played exactly as they had in 1930 ? That the club, over a 70 year period, was able to preserve them in their original, mint condition ?

Are you and Tommy Naccarato also prepared to tell us that you know the bunker depth of every bunker as of 1930, 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 ?

If neither of you know the answer to the above question, how can you make a comparison, and form a conclusion with respect to your evaluations of the bunker depths today versus any one of those ten year periods ?

Mike, don't jump on the popular anti-Fazio bandwagon until you have all of the material facts at your disposal.

« **Reply #76 on:** June 10, 2003, 08:09:15 AM »

Quote

Mike Cirba,

No, that's not what I'm contending.

How many times can you get it wrong.

Do you think Merion's bunkers, immediately prior to the Fazio project looked, were configured and played exactly as they had in 1930 ? That the club, over a 70 year period, was able to preserve them in their original, mint condition ?

No, they looked much better and played with consistent inconsistency that drove good players like Jack Nicklaus nuts. How many courses are there in the world where Jack left his ball in the bunker on consecutive holes?

I loved Joe Logan's Philadelphia Inquirer description of them as having the facial characteristics of a "craggy old sea captain".

Now, they seem to have the facial characteristics of Jerry Lewis (with sympathy for his current medical conditions).

As far as bias against Fazio, Patrick...how many times can I tell you that I don't care who did them? I love Galloway National and World Wood Pine Barrens, think Hartefeld and Emerald Dunes are pretty with some good holes each, am mystified at the mundane course he built at Ridge at Back Brook, and will offer honest opinions on many other of his courses if you care to know.

On the other hand, I think Gil would sooner throw himself in front of a bus on Ardmore Ave. than to leave Merion's bunkers looking like that! Not to mention Riviera's.

« **Reply #77 on:** June 10, 2003, 12:20:42 PM »

Mike Cirba,

I'm glad that you feel that the evolved bunkers circa 2000 looked better then the bunkers circa 1930, even though none of us has ever seen the 1930 bunkers.

Is it possible that the current bunkers will likewise evolve into a look that is pleasing to you ?

Is it possible that those tops, without TLC and $ will begin to deteriorate and erode to look like the bunkers you like ?

I've indicated that I see the bunkers at Merion in a totally different light then you, Tommy Naccarato and others.
I think, if we had a personal discussion regarding them, that we would find common ground or agreement on many of the component issues related to them.

« **Reply #78 on:** June 10, 2003, 12:39:04 PM »

Quote

Mike Cirba,

I'm glad that you feel that the evolved bunkers circa 2000 looked better then the bunkers circa 1930, even though none of us has ever seen the 1930 bunkers.

Is it possible that the current bunkers will likewise evolve into a look that is pleasing to you ?

Is it possible that those tops, without TLC and $ will begin to deteriorate and erode to look like the bunkers you like ?

I've indicated that I see the bunkers at Merion in a totally different light then you, Tommy Naccarato and others.
I think, if we had a personal discussion regarding them, that we would find common ground or agreement on many of the component issues related to them.

Patrick;

I've seen numerous photos of the 1930 bunkers, both from ground level as well as aerials. The current bunkers capture their 1 dimensional shaping, but nothing else and therefore look nothing like the originals from ground level. I've already discussed the "depth" issue on the Aronimink/Merion thread, and the reason for that is described there.

Is it possible that the current bunkers will evolve into something I like? Frankly, I'd be pretty shocked because I saw what went into and under those bunkers during construction and short of a mortar shell, those suckers aren't going anywhere during my lifetime. I'm not sure how a wall of dead grass as a bunker face is any more appealing than a puffy. machine-shaped bluegrass one.

I'd love for the three of us to get together to discuss this. Just let me know when and where.

« **Reply #79 on:** June 10, 2003, 01:36:55 PM »

Mike Cirba,

Is the following possible ?

Bunker tops don't get TLC
Bunker top grass thins and dies
Roots which stabilize bunker tops are eliminated.
Bunker tops begin to destabilize and erode.
Bunkers begin to look like you like ?

I happen to think that's the natural progression, especially if you look at the cantilevered tops.
Gravity has to exert its influence and have its way.

But, I'd like to discuss this further in the actual LAB.

« **Reply #80 on:** June 10, 2003, 03:22:37 PM »

Quote

Patrick;

I've seen numerous photos of the 1930 bunkers, both from ground level as well as aerials. The current bunkers capture their 1 dimensional shaping, but nothing else and therefore look nothing like the originals from ground level. I've already discussed the "depth" issue on the Aronimink/Merion thread, and the reason for that is described there.

Quote

The difference is the starting point. I do not believe a bunker that is two-demensional can turn into a complex three demensional bunker - no matter how much the edges evolve. The 1930 bunkers were 3-D the new ones 2-D.

Guys, neither of you are making sense. Please stay in this dimension. Let's not start up a game of Tron here.

« **Reply #81 on:** June 10, 2003, 04:57:26 PM »

Sean,
What Tom is saying is correct in regards to the bunker's inner-beauty so to speak.

I don't have time to draw it out and scan it, but will do so later, and EMAIL it to you to show what he is talking about. It has everything to do with gravity, ying and yang, and mostly (as it was described to me some years ago) the x-y-z twisting and turning of the bunker and all of its features from bunker edges to capes and bays, to slopes, rises and depressions.) I know this because Billy Bell Sr. showed me it with his work at Riviera--and Josh Taylor reitereated it to me at Tom Fazio's Oak Creek.

Imagine that, me learning something at a Fazio course!:)

« **Reply #82 on:** June 10, 2003, 06:50:26 PM »

SPDB
Ever wonder why the bunkers of Thomas or MacKenzie or Thompson are so appealing? And why some modern day copies or restorations don't quite have the same flair? The oulines are similar with bold/irregular/interesting capes & bays, but there is something not quite right. What is missing is a 3-D quality. If you remove the irregular outline from the new Merion bunkers and cut imaginary horizantal plain though the capeless bunker - you are left with a regular shaped tub. If you remove the capes and bays from a MacKenzie or Thomas bunker and you are still left with an irregular land form that has varying height around its perimeter as well as its interior. If you created a mini topo of the bunker it would be a graceful but complex map. A bath tub created by Dali. These bunkers meld with irregular levels of the ground they shares. In fact they sometimes appear to run up and down hills.

« **Reply #83 on:** June 10, 2003, 07:01:29 PM »

Patrick;

I'm all for further LAB testing, but I have this thing against dead grass. Saying that the new bunkers of Merion, if left unmaintained, will somehow turn into their former glory is sort of like putting 100 monkeys into a room with typewriters and hoping for "The Scarlet Letter".

Sean;

It's late and I'm hopeful that Tommy's visual drawings will adequately explain what I'm trying to communicate. If not, just let me know and I'll do my best to try to be clearer tomorrow. Just as a starting point, if you were sitting in an airplane, the one-dimensional shaping you could see from there is similar to the 1930 course. But, does that mean that the bunkers look the same from the ground? There are two other dimensions to consider, as well as how well the bunkers integrate into their surrounds. Aye...there's the rub!

« **Reply #84 on:** June 10, 2003, 07:37:10 PM »

Tom MacWood,

If you want to preface your evaluation by saying that you interpret the "photos" in the following manner, I think that's legitimate, but to make an evaluation of bunkers that you've never seen in person, before and after Fazio, is more than a stretch, and just isn't credible.

To claim that they aren't three dimensional is bizarre.
Just ask anyone who's been in them.

Mike Cirba,

My amateur opinion, based on getting as close to those cantilevered, grassed bunker tops as I can is that they can't survive in their present form.

I never said that they will evolve into what they were, only that they would evolve with a look more satisfying to Tommy and yourself.

Time will tell who's correct.

« **Reply #85 on:** June 10, 2003, 08:01:54 PM »

Tom MacWood,

The fact is that you're talking about a picture, a picture taken from about 200 yards, and your conclusions about the bunkers, based on your interpretation of the picture.

This is ridiculous.

You can't believe that your interpretation is credible when compared to interpretations and conclusions drawn from actual on site experience.

Tom, you're in denial or fantasy land, or both on this issue.

« **Reply #86 on:** June 10, 2003, 08:32:09 PM »

Tom MacWood,

I don't need to.

You are totally unqualified to make a critical analysis of the pre and post Fazio bunkers at Merion.

YOU'VE NEVER SEEN A SINGLE ONE IN PERSON,
END OF STORY.

Stop fantasizing.

« **Reply #87 on:** June 10, 2003, 11:45:55 PM »

Pat

Hang in there. As the Chinese say:

"To the man who only looks at photographs, every bunker is in two dimensions."

They also say:

"The man who only visits a bunker once will not have a concept of its fourth dimension, time."

Finally:

"Those who play too little golf and/or smoke too much ganja lose their sense of perspective and eventually morph into cruel caricatures of Bob Marley or Marilyn McCoo of the Fifth Dimension and spend the rest of their life looking at pictures of bunkers and singing "No woman, no cry" and/or "Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon..." to themselves in front of their computers."

« **Reply #88 on:** June 11, 2003, 12:04:18 AM »

Rich, I'm glad someone is quoting that famous Chinaman. I just dug-up a quote from him, and he said, "the new bunkers at Merion suck......"

But, the wise and brilliant man that he is, I'm sure someone on this website will tear him a new one!

« **Reply #89 on:** June 11, 2003, 12:19:45 AM »

Tommy

I've just received an urgent carrier pigeon message from my chinese freind, and he wishes to remind you that the "sucks' comment was directed only at the esthetics of the bunkers. As you may reall, his typically pithy summary comment at the time was :

"Look ugly, play great."

Two years on, his view seems to be the consensus of competent observers.

He also informs me that since he hasn't been to Merion since his initial visit, he cannot comment on the 4th dimnension, and so will refrain from making any aditional comments until his return to the venue (as if he would ever be invited back....). He did note, in a PS, that some of the bunker surrounds did remind him (esthetically, of course) of Marilyn McCoo's partner Billy Davis' afro on a bad hair day.

« **Reply #90 on:** June 11, 2003, 02:54:40 AM »

Tom

Congratulations! You got 75% of the word "Abba" correct! I do regret to say, however, that since you repeated the mistake your grade drops to 56.25% (75% squared). Do not despair, however, as this is a substantial improvement on your various attempts to do an "architectural analysis" of places you have never seen. Keep up the good work, but if I were you I'd practice my 4-letter words before trying to deal with more complicated ones like "restoration." And, if you ever do venture into the third-dimension, remember the immortal words of Old Tom Morris--"Keep yer heid doon!"

« **Reply #91 on:** June 11, 2003, 03:09:54 AM »

Actually, Tom, "Looks ugly, plays great" is a perfect description of my golf game, except on those days when I look great but play ugly........

« **Reply #92 on:** June 11, 2003, 03:44:25 AM »

Rich:

What is the "third dimension" in golf architecture or more importantly in Max Behr's essays and architectural application? And what're the first two dimensions? And even more importantly than that which of those three dimensions generally involves the hazard feature in golf in both your mind and in Max's?

« **Reply #93 on:** June 11, 2003, 05:34:56 AM »

Tom

From my notes of Geometry 101--Length, width, height. Vis a vis bunkers, I vote for height (depth) much as your fellow duelling doyen has done in his recent thread on the subject. Was Max being contrary on this issue too?

« **Reply #94 on:** June 11, 2003, 07:40:37 AM »

Rich:

Congratulations Amigo, you got a 100% on that pop quiz and more importantly you seem to have backed into something you can actually agree with MaxB on. This stuff isn't so very obscure afterall, is it? You might be on your way to a whole new understanding in those sun-light uplands of golf course architecture. And I noticed you asked on your own thread what a classic course is. I'd like to know what a Rich Goodale is but in the meantime a classic course is anything you want it to be Rich. If you feel a course is a classic then let it be a classic to you. If you like I might even be able to get a license plate made up for you specifying it's a classic!

« **Reply #95 on:** June 11, 2003, 09:08:19 AM »

Tom MacWood,

During the Cuban missle crisis it took dozens upon dozens of skilled, professional photo analysts at the CIA, DIA and other agencies considerable time to correctly interpret their extensive number of photos before they finally determined that the missles pictured were not 30-45 foot anti-aircraft missles, but 65 foot SS-4s, intermediate range ballistic missles,
But, you, without any formal training or tutelage have declared yourself an expert at evaluating the current bunkers at Merion based on photos from 1930.

Could you tell me how the 1st left side fairway bunker on # 1 plays, and how it compares to the next leftside bunker ?

I realize that I'm not qualified to judge your answer because I have seen and examined them, but perhaps another on this site can evaluate your answer.

Tommy Naccarato,

I was thinking about our conversation and the picture of TEPaul in the front bunker on # 13. You had mentioned that it was formerly 4-5 feet deep. I know that my memory is fading, but I never remember that bunker as being that shallow. In fact, my first introduction to Merion, many years ago, was that bunker as you drive in. I recall that it was fairly deep 20-30-40 years ago, pitched, and filled with cicada wasp nests. Perhaps some more familiar with its depth could fill us in. Was this a shallow 4-5 foot bunker, or was it deeper?

Rich Goodale,

It's nice when people congratulate you for knowing what you've known for some time.

Let me

« **Reply #96 on:** August 10, 2003, 09:43:49 AM »

Why aren't the pictures showing up or is it just my computer?

« **Reply #97 on:** August 11, 2003, 04:19:40 PM »

Mark,

guessing.....probably because all photos posted for us here have to exist on the internet somewhere.

Considering Ian posted these a while back, and has posted other great stuff from time to time, I but he's pulled them down in favor of something else.

It's not your computer, mine is doing the same, but I do remember seeing these.

« **Reply #98 on:** August 11, 2003, 10:42:52 PM »

Pat Mucci and Emperor N:

The front bunker on #13 may have been about 5 feet deep when the green was first built in 1923. Pictures of the hole during the 1924 Amateur, when the green was table-top flat in front, appear to support this.

The intervening years of "sand splash" have noticeably raised the front levels of #'s 8, 13 and 15 - especially #13. As long ago as 1950 (U.S. Open pix), the increased "depth" of that bunker is noticeable. I'd guess 7-8 feet is about the depth of that bunker since WW II.

5 feet deep? Maybe in 1924. 4 feet deep? Only in the far right corner circa 1924 and perhaps not then, either.

« **Reply #99 on:** August 12, 2003, 12:31:14 PM »

Sorry Mark,

I remove any photos after a certain period of time has passed. Usually three to four pages into the archives. It is all dependent on how much I post.

I'll wipe out the current ones real soon to paste Highlands or Lehigh or Philly CC or Merion West when I have a chance. I only have a limited space on my web space.

Need any specifics, e-mail me at home, I'll send em' to you.

Ian

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

SPDB

Tommy_Naccarato

T_MacWood

Mike_Cirba

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

ForkaB

Tommy_Naccarato

ForkaB

ForkaB

ForkaB

TEPaul

ForkaB

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

Mark_Fine

Michael Dugger

ChipOat

ian

An Error Has Occurred!