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

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  

I said their definitions were not as strict as yours.  Your response?

They should have been more strict.

Sigh . . . this is why I try to avoid purely definitional arguments.  Take it up with MacDonald if you dont like the way he applied his concepts.

We don't disagree.  To disagree we first have to be talking about the same thing.  

I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee.  In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors

I agree, which is why I have been trying to figure these things out.  Apparently, we who think accurate measures actually matter are in the minority in this conversation.

However, I think you have to go far beyond the fairway lines to get a sense of the topography of the area, to see what was left, right and behind the hole.  And, if you view the larger area, inclusive of the hole, I think your views would be tempered.

Which views of mine would be tempered if I was more familiar with the site?

What does the current topography tell you about the upslope left of the green in the Flynn sketch?

What is it about the ground left and right of the 10th hole that gives you the impression that 10 doesnt play up a significant incline?  The only way to avoid the incline is to drive past it, and (assuming the tee was where Mr. Morrison claims) I have my doubts as to whether this was regularly done in 1916.  

You think the dirt obviously came from (and was returned to) the quarry on 16?  Is this so "obvious" that ]  

Let me guess . . . this is so obvious that will treat it as true even absent any evidence?  It isn't obvious to me without some evidence.  
______________

Despite the elevation of the tee, the second shot played uphill for me.  If you dont believe me drop a ball in the left fairway bunker and hit the shot.
___________

Do you have any factual basis for doubting the accuracy of the elevations from the USGS application?
______________
 

[DMoriarty]

I know very little of the history of Merion and don't for a second pretend to make this argument from any factual source BUT why does the current hole look and play nothing like a redan when any village idiot could have made it look and play like a world class redan?  I'd have to conclude based on common sense that unless there is real solid evidence that #3 at Merion was drastically altered at the greensite then it was never a redan of any sort.

Good move leaving the facts out of this, you fit right in.

You disregard the opinions of a number of well-respected experts who witnessed and experienced the original hole first-hand and instead you substitute your own understanding of what is and is not a redan.  And you call this "common sense?"  

[DMoriarty]

  But, why do I get the feeling that this thread is really about whether MacDonald 's templates were used at Merion or not.

I thought this thread was about whether Wilson incorporated features from the same great holes as MacDonald . . .

. . . when I think of MacDonald I think of more manufacturing to achieve the template goal.

With all due respect, I always assumed that MacDonald's main influence was not the look of his features, but rather the fact that he brought to America the strategic concepts present in his "templates."  His discussions of his ideal holes barely touch on aesthetics.  They are devoted to discussions of strategy and descriptions of how the holes played.    

Is it possible that you are attributing Raynor's engineered style to MacDonald?  In early pictures of NGLA, the features do not appear nearly as manufactured as they do now.  

   

I usually assume the most obvious answer to be the correct one unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary. Because Wilson went overseas and spent some serious time studying the courses I assume that had a more significant impact on his thinking than the short time he spent with MacDonald.

I an confused as to which answer is "most obvious."  Shouldn't we assume that those who were there have provided us with the most obvious answer?   Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who are trying to rewrite the historical record?  

 If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.

Didn't MacDonald advise Wilson on his itinerary?  If so, and if Wilson followed that advice, then doesnt MacDonald deserve at least some credit for shaping Wilson's European vacation?

[Bryan Izatt]

I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee.  In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors

My guess is the hole felt like it played around 385, otherwise I would think they would have fixed the distance mistake.  Same thing for the 1930 "300 yard" Jones drives.  They must have seemed like 300 yard drives compared to how everyone else usually played the hole.

I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with firm & fast fairways.  I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with moderate fairways, and with the topography of the land falling back toward the tee, surface drainage would seem to favor dryer fairways

Vis-a-vis the location of the tee, has anyone checked the local land registry to see where the property line was behind the tenth tee?  Was Golfview Rd in existance in 1916?  Were there any house lots up there?  That would limit how far back the tee could possibly have been.

I don't buy that the hole might have "felt like it played around 385".  GI's description of the course conditions were "Just right it was so far as the surface of turf was concerned, but underneath it was more or less adamantine and par values of holes, while not wholly destroyed, were appreciably affected, owing to the extra distance obtained from the run of the ball on the hard-baked fairway. But the putting-greens, carefully watered, were sufficiently soft to hold a properly pitched shot. And what greens they were!"  Now, that sounds like optimal conditions for long driving.  So, it's hard to credit the concept that the course felt like it was playing long.

With respect to how much elevation change there was and what the surrounding topography was, here's a picture of the ninth green with the tenth fairway in the background.



From the picture it looks like the rise is relatively gentle and couldn't be more than 25 feet (using the people out there as a reference point)  over 175 to 200 yards, and would certainly not be even that much from an elevated tee to the likely land zone between or beyond the bunkers.  It also looks like the clubhouse in the background, and there doesn't appear to be any significant intervening hills or elevations.  If you look closely at the bunker left of the white building, there appear to be a couple of people sitting on top of a hillock.  Could that be the one behind the  green?

[Bryan Izatt]

That may be, but I am  not sure that the commentators of the time defined alps holes as strictly as you.  

They should have been more strict.
How many "Alps" holes existed at the time ?
Very few, and all knew that the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA were the accepted templates in the UK and US.[/color]

Patrick,

Do you consider the UK template and the US template Alps holes to be similar or the same?  Are there two templates, or just one for Alps holes?

How strict must the adherance to the template be for another hole to be called an Alps hole?  How close do they need to be to be called Alps-like?  Or to have Alps features?

In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?

For fun, here's a picture of one commentators observation of an "alpinization" of a hole.  Certainly looks Alps-like in a mountain sense.  Doesn't bear much resemblance to either Prestwick or NGLA (in their current configurations).  Perhaps different commentators from MacDonald on down had, and have more liberal standards for use of template names.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
As I spelled out in my previous post M&W advised in four important ways:

1. Wilson spent 2 days at the NGLA with Macdonald presumably going over the course and Macd's versions of famous holes (Wilson is the source)
2. He prepared Wilson for his trip abroad (Wilson)
3. He was brought in prior to construction and gave his blessing to the site (American Golf)
4. Wilson wrote laying out a golf course proved to be difficult and M&W's expertise was invaluable (Wilson)

I'm not sure how you define fluff or taking liberities. If you want to dig further into the history of Merion, Wilson and M&W I would suggest you carry out some independent research on your own.

[T_MacWood]

 

If you look closely you can make out the Principles Nose feature in the background...the second bunker complex in the fairway to the right.

[T_MacWood]

You cleverly say that Macdonald was brought in prior to construction as if to say he was asked to come by.  How do you know this is the case and that Macdonald didn't visit on his own?

The report said M&W were the guests of RE Griscom (one of the committee members) and both men pronounced the land admirably suited. Usually advisers are invited and based upon my reading of 'guests' that seems to be the case here as well, although I really don't think it makes a difference one way or the other.

 You then say he gave his blessing to the site.  Did the committee members have to kiss his ring before he gave his blessing?  

There is no mention of a ring kissing...there was something about the committee lying prostrate...

He agreed that the site was suitable for golf.  Do you think the Club was awaiting his "blessing" of the property before they bought the property?

I have no idea.

 What was the timing of this blessing in relation to the purchase of the property? Nobody doubts that Macdonald and Whigham's advice was invaluable.  

What you fail to prove, as it is your assertion the burden lies on you, is that specific advice and expertise resulted in specific hole designs at Merion.

Does the same burden fall upon you...are you able to determine which members of the committee did what and what influence Pickering had on the design? Who did what that resulted in specific hole designs at Merion?

Wilson was an able golfer and an intelligent man, I think he was capable of learning a few things on his own.  Surely he was aided in his and the committees efforts, including that of Fred Pickering who was involved in a number of courses exceeding the experience of Macdonald and Whigham.  So, I present to you the task of demonstrating what at Merion East is directly attributable to Macdonald.  I think it would be fascinating if there is something there.  I just don't believe it until a higher standard of proof is met.  Until then, it remains an interesting speculation.

In any case, like others that were able to do so, the course changed over time--some of it routing, some of it aesthetics and some of it strategic.  In any case, the direct influence at Merion that we see on the ground today are clearly that of Wilson and Flynn.  Come by and see for yourself, only then does your study have a chance to be as complete as is possible.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

What you point to is not the Principal's Nose feature.  There were 2 left fairway bunkers preceding the PN.  I think you are looking at the second fairway bunker.  The PN was 350 yards off the tee.  If you were familiar with the ground, you'd know that such an area of the hole is further down the line of play than you can see and is just before the downslope, where the large cross bunker exists today.  It would be on the ridge you see just above the bunker you cite as the PN.

The PN existed until 1922 or so.  The trend towards naturalism was an ongoing process at Merion from the start.  It is a design principle that Flynn was exceptional at utilizing.  This was the movement that resulted in the loss of manufactured features.  What's the mystery in that?  This trend moved well beyond Macdonald and particularly the work of Raynor and Banks; one they rarely, if ever, accepted.

I disagree....that is clearly a PN in the photo. The map of the course in the Philadelphia Ledger prior to the 1916 championship shows the precise position of the PN well down the farway from the bunker (or bunkers) in the foreground left of the driving zone. The PN was the only feature in the middle of the fairway of the old 5th (current 4th) in 1916...as is clearly seen in the photo.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph, however there were many 'old fashion' or 'manufactured' features on the early verison. What I don't understand is why the effort to brush the early years under the rug.

[T_MacWood]

I don't think we are looking at the same feature. I'm talking about the bunker well down the fairway, just below the horizon...not the bunker in the foreground (with the pronounced grass face) cut into the hillside.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
The first fairway bunker (not seen in the photo) was a large free-form affair...very distinctive with no grass facing. There are a couple of good photos of it in the September 1916 Golf Illustrated. One taken from the edge of the Redan green (its a good picture of the Redan too) and one taken from the old 5th tee.

The bunker with grass facing seen in the foreground is the second bunker and the bunker well down the middle of the fairway is the PN.

[JESII]

That bunker you guys are looking at seems awfully close to the big crossing bunker out there today. Just another opinion that may or may not mean anything.


Tom M,

Re: that "redan" bunker you showed the photo of...it goes along with my belief that #3 at Merion would look exactly like a redan from 1000 feet above. The grren and redan bunker match very well. Unfortunately, on the ground it just doesn't play that way. The bunker serves a very similar function to the couple of redan bunkers I have played, but that's where it ends. The approach options and green play nothing like a redan.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom M,

Re: that "redan" bunker you showed the photo of...it goes along with my belief that #3 at Merion would look exactly like a redan from 1000 feet above. The grren and redan bunker match very well. Unfortunately, on the ground it just doesn't play that way. The bunker serves a very similar function to the couple of redan bunkers I have played, but that's where it ends. The approach options and green play nothing like a redan.

Tom MacWood,

Jim really spells out the problem I think all of us have with calling it a "redan".

I spent several days recently debating with Patrick about redans, with me arguing for a much looser interpretation than his rigid mindset which seems to stop the nomenclature at the gates of NGLA.  

But, in the cases I argued, every single one of them had the green that was oriented away from the front edge, and which ran front to back, as well.   In every case it was a green where a player could attempt to use those slopes for a running shot back to a back-corner pin.   Whether at SLeepy Hollow, Mid Ocean, LACC, or Maryland National, those holes have the fundamental option of either trying to carry the bunker with the heroic shot to a pin tucked behind it, or trying to conceive of the perfect running shot that utilizes the landforms and green orientation.

I can't say that anyone would even remotely think of running a ball on the 3rd at Merion, even in the days of dust fairways and no irrigation.  You'd either try to carry it to the left side, avoiding the bunker, or get more daring if the hole was cut right, but in either case, you'd never try to use the landforms to finesse the ball to the hole.

I think that's why most of us in the Philly area are rejecting the analogy, and nomenclature, even if it was known as one in the early days by some pretty famous guys.

If it is, and to my earlier point, then it's the loosest interpretation I'm familiar with, and supports the fact that while I believe Wilson learned from Macdonald, he also was much more inclined to just use what the existing land offered than trying to force certain template styles onto the land by changing slopes, etc.

It seems to me that the fundamental thing he learned in GB is the use of daring a hazard to create strategy and interesting angles, and the use of whatever natural landforms existed on any particular property to create interesting, challenging, and ultimately, unique golf holes.

[Bryan Izatt]

Wayne,

Below is the picture from the 1916 GI.  Very similar perspective to the one you posted.  What date is yours from?  The bunker in the foreground seems much larger in the 1916 photo.  And the tree in the foreground looks much larger and older than the one in the 1916 photo.  In this photo the tilt of the green looks decidedly from front to back with what looks like a ridge across the green near where the golfers are walking on the green.  It certainly looks nothing like the Redan green at North Berwick.

The line down the fairway to bunkers in the distance is clearer implying that the photographer was at a higher elevation than was the one in your photo.  Does the land behind the back corner of the green arise abruptly into a hillock?  The two pictures appear to be taken from very close to each other.



 

[Tom_Doak]

This thread is a great indication of why it is so hard to restore a golf course correctly.  The same evidence leads to many different interpretations.

[TEPaul]

"This thread is a great indication of why it is so hard to restore a golf course correctly.  The same evidence leads to many different interpretations."

TomD:

I couldn't agree with you more on that. And frankly, that is why this thread should probably just cease as it's become an excerise in futilty, circular reasoning and non-productive argumentation, not to mention the fact that Merion East really doesn't need any restoring at this point.  

The thing I can't understand is why these people contributing on here haven't all realized about 10 pages ago that people back then obviously used names of holes and such for different reasons and with different definitions than we do today.

I also think it would be a great help and a time saver and huge boon to understanding if some of these people who contribute on here with all kinds of little detailed opinions of Merion East would just come here and take the time to really look at the golf course. I have no doubt that alone would significantly shorten a thread like this one.

I don't think some on here who've never seen the course should weigh in with some of the opinions they do either. I know I sure never do or never would do that with a golf course I've never even laid eyes on. The worst that way is Tom MacWood although David Moriarty seems intent on catching him.  

[wsmorrison]

Either that or put our energies into something more productive.  By the way, I am missing the first 4 pages of Alan Wilson's  Oct 27, 1926 letter account of Merion where he cites Alison talking about liking the West Course better.  Could you make copies for me when I see you on Sunday?

[DMoriarty]

Vis-a-vis the location of the tee, has anyone checked the local land registry to see where the property line was behind the tenth tee?  Was Golfview Rd in existance in 1916?  Were there any house lots up there?  That would limit how far back the tee could possibly have been.

At some point Mr. Morrison described the 1916 tee as having been located just behind the current front tee.  At the time I assumed he had some factual basis for so saying, and have kept this assumption since.   He also said at some point that the current back tee was not part of Merion's property in 1916.  He didnt identify his basis for so saying.  He also said that the 1916 tee was 30 yards in front of the tee Jones played 1930.  But he claims that Jones played the current back tee, a claim that the evidence (of which I am aware) does not support.  Thus far he has not only refrained from backing any of this up with actual sources or facts, he has also ridiculed and rejected any facts or sources with which he disagrees.   So I dont quite know how to treat is earlier claims.    

I don't buy that the hole might have "felt like it played around 385".

Bryan, I wasnt referring specifically to how the hole played in 1916, but rather to how the hole was meant to play when it was conceived and designed, and how it generally played.   Judging by the write-ups before, during and after the Am, Merion was in desperate need of rain and the conditions were not really normal.  I still think the location of the bunkers give us some idea of how far these guys were hitting the ball, or at least how far they were carrying it.

But regardless, you may be correct.  I am just trying to reconcile how so many could have been so wrong about this hole for so long.  If the hole played anything close its real distance (330 to 350?) then it should have been quite obvious that the 385 was well off.  Also, even now there seems to have been a real misunderstanding of how far tee shots flew on this hole.  
If you don't believe me, go back and look at the comments I received when I first suggested that Jones' drive was only 260 or less from the middle tee.  All these guys that who have been hitting this same drive for years all believed that the Jones drive was 300 yards, and measured there drives off of his, so they thought there drives were traveling 20 to 40 yards further than they were, depending on from where they thought Jones hit is 300 yard drives.  

From the picture it looks like the rise is relatively gentle and couldn't be more than 25 feet (using the people out there as a reference point)  over 175 to 200 yards, and would certainly not be even that much from an elevated tee to the likely land zone between or beyond the bunkers.

The USGS profile shows about 25 feet elevation change from the suggested location of the tee to the suggested site of the old green.  The elevation change from the low spot (near the creek) to the suggested site of the old green was around 40 ft., according to the same source.  

I think the more relevant issue isnt the elevation change on the drive, but rather the elevation change on the second shot.  Specifically, was it large enough to make the shot blind.  To determine that we need to properly located the landing area (I agree with you that it was likely between the bunkers) and whether there were any intervening features in between the landing area and the green.

I think that is the hillock you locate is behind the green, the one that Mr. Morrison claims was only 10 feet tall.  

[JSlonis]

After seeing the above photos with the "Redan" captioning, what were these early writers looking at or using as a basis for calling that green a Redan?  

I've played the original at North Berwick, and other Redan type holes at Somerset Hills and Piping Rock.  The current 3rd green at Merion is so far different from these others it's ridiculous to debate.  I've played the 3rd at Merion many times, and never once did it ever occur to me that this green would be considered as "Redanish".  I honestly don't see where the hole has any of the qualities to qualify it as such.  The green itself is world class, it should stand on its own, without being classified as something it's not.

[Tom_Doak]

When I first saw the third hole at Merion, I thought of it as a Redan, and in fact I believe I had read somewhere that it was ... perhaps in The World Atlas of Golf?

Anyway, I was 19 then and I had not seen the real thing.  I wouldn't call it a Redan today.  It has some similarities ... it may have even more similarities with MacKenzie's Gibraltar hole ... but it is also markedly different than either of those.

[Bryan Izatt]

Wayne,

Of course, I defer to you on what the green looks like in real life.  And, it makes sense to see a course before drawing conclusions on it.  Based only on the pictorial evidence, I'd agree that in 1916 it didn't look like the original North Berwick Redan.  And, I accept that it doesn't look or play like the Redan today.   Clearly, the commentators of the day back then, including MacDonald, played more fast and loose with naming holes after templates, than Mucci would have us do today.

[JESII]

Let's be clear, Pat will free wheel the template terminology when it suits his position unabashedly...and likely in the near future.

[T_MacWood]

Everyone and his brother called the old 7th the Redan...including Macdonald & Whigham, the inventor of the modern day Redan. Trying to question their use of the term is like telling Calder what he created is not a mobile.

The hole may not play like a Redan today, but as far as I know no one on this thread has any idea how it played in 1916. This Redan debate also misses the general point of this thread, that the original Merion possessed a number of template features: including a Redan, Alps, Eden, PN, Valley of Sin and Mid-Surrey mounding.

Here is better photo of the Redan...I think it is page 432:

http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9900&querytext=merion+and+seventh

Wayne
You think those are the same fairway bunkers in those two photos? Wow!

[DMoriarty]

Interesting that Professor Moriarty and Tom MacWood would not comment on the 1916 photo of the current 3rd green . . .

I didn't know you posted the photo for my comment . . . I thought you weren't communicating with me ever again.  Again.  

Thanks for the photo. Here are my comments . . .   As far as I can tell, it looks alot like the current green as I recall it.  There appears to be a left to right slope, and according to Tom MacWood's photo there was a big deep bunker right.

But I dont understand your point, if you have one.  By modern understangs of the term, you dont think this is a Redan, but you acknowledge that commentators at the relevant time viewed this hole as a Redan.  So when you are trying to figure out where this hole fits in the evolution of golf course design, which context do you think is more relevant?  Theirs or yours?  Don't you think you ought to try to understand this hole how they understood it?  

I think you are right that the mound and bunker complex is behind the 10th green and is easily seen from such a distance.

 
I am not sure that Bryan said that the bunker complex was behind the 10th green, nor did he say that it was easily seen from the 1916 tee.  In fact he said he didn't know where the 1916 tee was.  

To me, it looks like that bunker is in well in front of the mound behind, but I guess it is possible that the large bunker is the one in the backing berm (the one you think is there only to protect the 1st hole)  But it sure doesnt look that way to me.  And a second bunker is partly visible as well.  Do you think this one is also behind the green.  By the way, if these bunkers are behind the green, then why cant we see the green?  

The 1916 tee, to the right in the photo you posted, would have been higher than the location the photograph was taken.  I maintain that a portion of the green, and possibly a majority of it, would have been visible from typical landing areas by accomplished players.  

On what basis to you set the height of this tee as higher than from where the photo was taken??  It sure doesnt seem like it would be to me.   This photo is from substantially above the 9th green and the 9th green is obviously above the level of the creek.  So I dont think your assumption is supportable, or at least has not been supported.  
_______________________

TEPaul said:

The thing I can't understand is why these people contributing on here haven't all realized about 10 pages ago that people back then obviously used names of holes and such for different reasons and with different definitions than we do today.

If you are trying to say that the likes of MacDonald, Leslie, and Tillinghast had a much different understanding and usage of these terms, then I couldn't agree more.  And this cuts to the main misunderstanding in this tread:

The likes of Morrison, Mucci, Cirba, Childs, and Paul claim to be trying to understand the evolution of golf design at the time and, more specifically, MacDonald's influence on Wilson regarding Merion.   Yet they insist on ignoring the contemporary understanding of the words used to describe and define golf design, and instead substitute in their own modern definitions and usage.

Here is an example.  Above, partially in jest, I stated that the new Merion 10 was a reverse cape hole.  If we apply the modern understanding and usage of the term "cape" as it is used in golf design today, then my statement was absolutely absurd.  But if we look at the old understanding of the term cape, then conceptually, my statement makes more sense.  

If we are truly trying to understand their motivations, influences, and understandings, we cant just substitute our understanding and usage for theirs!

[DMoriarty]

One thing we ought to consider here is that this was a "reverse" redan.   If the hole lacked a run-up area, this would be of very little consequence to the vast majority of golfers, who would have the sense to not try and run in a fade.    

Geoffrey and Mike Cirba can attest to how hard it is for a lefty to run a fade into the best of Redans.  Maybe all these guys (including Wilson)  realized that the run-in option was largely superfluous.  

Maybe they also realized that a right-hander's draw would have very little chance of holding the green if a reverse redan sloped away like a normal redan.