Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It makes it an "alps" feature.

Not really.
I'd calll it a faux, pseudo, hybrid or miniature alps feature.[/color]

The fact that you assume there must have been an important and specific distinction in the way they used this term back then is, frankly, laughable.

That's funny[/color]

And don't use Lesley to justify anything you've said about an Alps hole. You're the one who called him incorrect and incompetent in that context, not me!  

I stand by my evaluation[/color]

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

I wonder what in the world is going on with you. Your inaccuracies are getting really serious. If by saying most people play NGLA's "Alps" well to the right on their second shots and consequently to a lower elevation, I wonder what in the world this has to do with anything relevent to this thread, Merion and its old 10th green.

Except that I never said they play their second shot well to the right.  Rather, the play well to the right of the direct line off the tee.  How do you play the hole, Tom?  Straight at the hole from the tee, or to the right?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.  

I will take this as a moral victory.  
One last question - is this an Alps hole?

Mike Sweeney,

That's a good question for Mike Cirba, who claims that a large intervening cross bunker fronting a green qualifies a hole to be classified as an Alps hole, per his source, Lesley, an uninformed ex baseball writer who was assigned to golf when an outbreak of athletes foot hobbled the Phillies in mid-season.[/color]

[Paul_Turner]

No Mike that ain't no Alps!  You're right, it's the second shot obstacle that matters, not the tee shot.

For the original at Prestwick, the green drops down steeply beyond the dune, more so than at NGLA.  From memory my guess is that the tee and green are at roughly the same level.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

The photo, the 15th hole of Bethpage Black, is not an "Alps" hole and wasn't designed with that in mind.

First, there was never a cross bunker in front of the green. Second, there is a pronounced false front to the green. Third the green is multi-tiered and there is no hint of any mounding behind the green as it falls off rather steeply behind and drops down hill.

Rather, it is more similar to the 1st hole at Dellwood where Tilly perched a green on a plateau far above the fairway.

Green height does not an "Alps" make.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"It makes it an "alps" feature.

Not really.
I'd calll it a faux, pseudo, hybrid or miniature alps feature."

Patrick:

It seems like very few on here today give a damn what you call it. Do you really think any of those men back then who used the term "Alps" would've given a good God-damn what you'd call it? So the point is, it really doesn't matter much what you call it---all that matters is what they meant by it.  

YES.

How many times do I have to remind you of my interesting monthly conversations with Charles B MacDonald and Seth Raynor.

Both are highly interested in my thoughts and views.

And, both continue to inquire about the well being of Coorshaw.[/color]

[DMoriarty]

First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.  

That's absolutely untrue. . . .

Patrick you misunderstood what I said.  Let me put it this way,  the elevation difference between the tee and landing area helps determine how far and where your ball ends up on your drive, and this determines what you have left for your second.  

That is one of the issues here, what the old guys faced for a second shot.  On merion 10, the golfer who it it just at or past the traps had a much different second than one who drove it all the way to the plateau.

[Mike_Cirba]

"Patrick:

It seems like very few on here today give a damn what you call it. Do you really think any of those men back then who used the term "Alps" would've given a good God-damn what you'd call it? So the point is, it really doesn't matter much what you call it---all that matters is what they meant by it.  

Tom,

Don't you know that Patrick has taken it upon himself to unilaterally re-classify all of the template holes that Mr. Macdonald brought back to us from the old country?  He not only is the new sole arbiter if a hole is a redan, an Alps, a Biarritz, etc., but he also channels all of the writers of the past and knows specifically what they meant to say, or should have said, something like that, even if it flies in the face of 100 years of conventionally accepted golf understanding among all of those who've studied the game.  

If by chance what they said doesn't fit into his narrow, self-defined version of what those holes should be, they are cast out, yay,  verily defiled into the pit of fire, and called everything from pea-brains to infidels.  

After all, this discussion of historical interest doesn't concern itself with what those writers and early architects might have been trying to convey to us, but all of that is just so much wasted intellectual effort because if we'd only just gone to Patrick in the first place, we'd have our answer on everything!  

Now Patrick is saying the 15th at Bethpage would be an Alps hole by my definition when Mr. Young just mentioned that there is simply no crossing bunker in front of that green!

It doesn't seem to matter how many times I prove him wrong.  He just comes back again and again and has more reiterations of the same tired points than I have shanks, skulls, and scuffs with my sand wedge.  

[DMoriarty]

"Except that I never said they play their second shot well to the right.  Rather, the play well to the right of the direct line off the tee.  How do you play the hole, Tom?  Straight at the hole from the tee, or to the right?"

I play the tee shot directly at the hole and directly at the "alps" hill. I do that because I'm not even close to long. To go to the right needs to carry farther to clear the diagonal bunker, particularly into a stiff wind. The long ball player generally tries to hit the tee shot well down to the right because there's more fairway distance down that way and you will have less distance on the approach in from down to the right. I will guarantee you that playing the ball to the right off the tee is not a lower elevation than playing a tee shot directly at the green.

If you play the hole straight at the hole all the way to the hole, then my previous NGLA profile is for you.  Others who go right might have a different experience.  

If you try to give me or anyone else an argument about that because of something you've determined through USGS or some other extraneous crap, then like Wayne decided to do, I see no other reason to continue to discuss any of this subject with you for the simple reason you are both wrong and completely intransigent towards people who really do know these holes better than you, as well as completely unreceptive to people who know these holes pointing out the truth about them to you.  

Wayne refused to converse further with me because I informed him that the Google application measures the hole quite differently than his Jones shot chart.   Of the two measures, my measurement is seems more consistent with Flynn's drawing which shows the hole level past the 250 note, not the 300 yard marker.  

Would you guys really have me ignore the Google distance measure which seems more consistent with the Flynn sketch?  

If ignoring relevant information and taking your words for everyting makes me intransigent, then so be it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I understand.

Mike Cirba,

What do you call those white things in the photo ?
Perhaps you're confusing the 4th hole with the 15th.

And, you should know that I have in depth conversations with CBM, SR and CB on a regular monthly basis.

It is only after I receive confirmation from them that I post on these matters, with their blessings.

In fact, I don't know if you heard about it or not, but, several weeks ago, highly sensitive equipment, meant for earthquake assessment detected significant seismic activity in the Eastern end of Long Island.

At first it was thought to be a minor earthquake until the epicenter was pinpointed at the Southampton cemetary.

Seems that olde CBM and SR were spinning in their graves at about 50,000 rpm's.  It seems highly coincidental that this activity was detected immediately after you posted that the 11th at LACC was a Redan.

In my subsequent conversation with them, they asked that you refrain from making these quantum architectural leaps and stick to improving your chipping.

[T_MacWood]

I would strongly advise not arguing with TE or Pat on this subject. Based on their level of effort it is apparent neither has an interest in finding the truth.

[DMoriarty]

Again, even if you seem to ignore it on this thread I think someday you may find that your hypothesis was proven perhaps ninety years ago.

It may well have been proven 90 years ago, or at least documented by some of the biggest names of the period. This is one reason that I quite suprised by the strong negative reaction this hypothesis received when I first mentioned it almost a year ago.  Unfortunately, some on here think that these guys from 90 years ago were apparently talking out of school, and didnt know what they were talking about.  Go figure.  

No, David, that kind of trivial argument has no interest for me at all.

Trivial?  Merion 10's actual distance is not trivial in terms of this conversation.

What I do know is the way the hole was, the way the ground was back then and is today. I doubt any of you on here really are even aware that dogleg holes are measured distance-wise down the centerline of the hole that clearly turns dramatically. If it was the same back then obviously Jones's tee shot was not hit the actual distance that some may've thought by the distance of the hole on the card (which was probably down the centerline that turns dramatically).

You aren't telling me anything new here, Tom.  I know how holes are measured, and I know the hole was a dogleg.

Once again, though, you and Wayne are in disagreement.  In fact Wayne refuses to continue the conversation because I told hin what you just told me--  that Jones' drive on Merion 10 was not 300 yards.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

And, you should know that I have in depth conversations with CBM, SR and CB on a regular monthly basis.

It is only after I receive confirmation from them that I post on these matters, with their blessings.

In fact, I don't know if you heard about it or not, but, several weeks ago, highly sensitive equipment, meant for earthquake assessment detected significant seismic activity in the Eastern end of Long Island.

At first it was thought to be a minor earthquake until the epicenter was pinpointed at the Southampton cemetary.

Seems that olde CBM and SR were spinning in their graves at about 50,000 rpm's.  It seems highly coincidental that this activity was detected immediately after you posted that the 11th at LACC was a Redan.

In my subsequent conversation with them, they asked that you refrain from making these quantum architectural leaps and stick to improving your chipping.

Patrick,

Too funny!!!  

Thanks for starting my day off with a good chuckle!  

[Mike_Cirba]

p.s. Patrick...

That is the 15th at Bethpage, not the 4th.

What are those white things?   I'm not sure; perhaps Rees knows?  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Did Hugh Wilson incorporate any famous holes or features of famous holes at Merion-West, Seaview or any of the other designs he did right after Merion-East?

[DMoriarty]

"Wayne refused to converse further with me because I informed him that the Google application measures the hole quite differently than his Jones shot chart.  Of the two measures, my measurement is seems more consistent with Flynn's drawing which shows the hole level past the 250 note, not the 300 yard marker."

You got that wrong as well, David.  I refuse to converse with you because your arguments don't merit doing so.  Your measurements are wrong, you either don't know how to use the Google measuring tool or you fabricate the results.  I do know how to use it and I didn't do so with any agenda or bias in mind.  That's one of the most serious problems you have and others fall into at times.

Fabricate results?   That is a pretty serious allegation, Mr. Morrison.  Care to offer any proof?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Macwood,

I can't think of a single hole at Merion West, Seaview (although changed quite a bit by Tilly & Ross), or Cobbs Creek that I would call an incorporation of some famous design theme or variation of a standard template.

[TEPaul]

The only things I can see at even Merion East that supposedly mimic holes abroad even slightly are that some said the 3rd mimicked a redan, the old 10th mimiced an Alps, the 15th green mimicked an Eden and the 17th has a mimic of the Valley of Sin in front of it. Other than perhaps the last two I don't really recall Wilson or anyone from the original committee claiming something like that though.

Furthermore, some on here who seem intent on proving Macdonald's design contribution AT Merion East seem to choose to continue to overlook the fact that after a time even Hugh Wilson admitted that Macdonald was just not easy to approach about most anything.

[T_MacWood]

I agree with Tom and Mike that Wilson did not engage in template designs.  Did they incorporate any features?  Many of the UK courses have archetypal designs and of course had an influence on subsequent designs.  But were the influences as direct as they could be with Macdonald and Raynor?   I would say no.  

Yer, it seems clear that the definitions of templates can be very loosely applied.  Some see conceptual hole copies in strange places.   Inherently golf holes have commonalities, people differ in how they are viewed.

If people with an agenda look hard enough, maybe they will find, for example, a Maiden green on the 1st at Merion West.  I don't see a direct connection, but nothing surprises me from some on this board.  

Look, Wilson went to the UK to learn about golf designs.  He depended upon Macdonald and Whigham for a preliminary understanding of golf course architecture and to direct him to courses he should see.  That meeting and the itinerary of courses were surely an influence.  He learned a lot from the men and the courses.  But he applied that knowledge in a very different way from Macdonald and Raynor.  Thankfully in my opinion.

Wayne
I find it very interesting that Merion-East was the only course Wilson was involved with that reproduced famous holes or famous features. And it appears he removed them all in a matter of a few years:

Alps - redesigned
Eden green - redesigned
Principles Nose - redesigned
Valley of Sin - redesigned
Redan - ? (I suspect it was redesigned too)

In the club history claims that Wilson was having difficulty laying out the course [understandible considering he had never done it before] and Wilson later gave credit to the advice he received from Macdonald & Whigham. Perhaps on further reflection Wilson did not completely agree with the template idea that Macdonald & Whigham were famous for.

[TEPaul]

The 3rd, 15th and 17th at Merion redesigned???

Hmmm. I don't think so.  

[TEPaul]

I see. So would you call what took place on the 15th green a "redesign"?  

[DMoriarty]

You are going to post defamatory comments without offering any support whatsoever?  I can't say I am surprised.   You are a real gentleman, Mr. Morrison.  Your son should be very proud.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Too many on here get so fixated on the details of what those hole names really meant, in my opinion.

I've alluded to that for years.
And, I've asked the question, "who named the holes, the architect or the club ?"[/color]

For Pat Mucci to call Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent for calling the old 10th an Alps hole is preposterous.

It's just a matter of the fact that Pat Mucci doesn't understand what Lesley meant by that term.

And you do ?

My powers of observation, my reading and my reading comprehension skills remain keen and I've toured Prestwick from 1952 to 1992 and NGLA from the 1960's to current date and have a reasonable understanding of what an "Alps" hole is.

For Lesley to classify that hole as an "Alps" hole is a gross overstatement and reflects a lack of understanding with respect to the dimensions of the critical features and their relevance in the play of the hole.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Wayne Morrison,

One must be careful when it comes to the issue of template holes and with the identification of the component features that comprise a template hole.

Some would claim that the presence of a tee and a green would cause a hole to qualify as a template hole.

[SPDB]

Patrick -
I recall we had this same discussion a few months ago regarding the 18th at SLCC, which clearly is an Alps hole, despite your protestations to the contrary. It now seems you've changed your stripes.

Alps holes, in my opinion, do not have to resemble Prestwick or NGLA identically or be disqualified. These are interpretations of qualities, not replicae. An effective Alps hole can be laid over flat ground (see Camargo #7) or even land where the green is sits at a lower elevation than the DZ. I think the only key criteria is a sandy expanse fronting the green and some measure of blindness. It seems that Merion could have possessed some of these qualities, irrespective of all of these opinions about elevation change, etc.