[Willie_Dow]

Wayne

Back to the location of the tee box.  Can you reference the angle of the dogleg, in as much as it is a dogleg right, not left, as it now exists ?

[D_Malley]

in the pics of the old 10th green, the hill and bunker behind the green is very interesting to me.  i realize that it was probably necessary as protection from the 1st hole.  Is this feature used on any other courses by any of the GCA's involved with merion?  i am sure that he would of encountered a similar safety issue somewhere else?  The bunker which is raised above the level of the green looks very un-natural to me.  

also would it be safe to assume at that time the 11th tee was also on the other side of ardmore ave.  same side as 10th green

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

I would guess Pickering was involved with The Capital City Club at Brookhaven. The dates would fit. But that's a guess. I'll check. Bobby Jones won a state am there in '16, I think.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Patrick,

The built-up backdrop behind the original #10 green at Merion that provided protection to/from the first fairway has as much in common with the Alps hole at Prestwick as I do with Natalie Gulbis.

Mike, just the other day I was playing golf in the Philadelphia area and overheard some golfers commenting about how good your legs looked in Bermuda shorts.  One commented that they'd look a lot better in high heeled spikes, so, I'm not so sure about your statement.

The back of the 17th at Prestwick has a steep incline with a bunker imbedded at its foot, not disimilar in concept to the incline with the imbeded bunker on the old 10th at Merion.

While the scale and configuration may differ, the concept is similar.[/color]

Lesley was clearly talking about the front crossing bunker, with the steep rampart face.  

From Lesley's quote, I don't think you can state that, to the exclusion of all other features[/color]

Don't you read anything by George Bahto?    

By the way, a very Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.   I trust we'll pick up this discussion over the weekend.  What should we call it...Jaws II?  

Sounds good to me.[/color]

One should also note that Ardmore Avenue, at that location, is a dead flat road

[BCrosby]

Wayne -

No other top 50 US course has to deal with as many external constraints as Merion. Limited land and a big bad road running through the middle of things. To ask the obvious, would Merion be a better course if Ardmore Avenue  didn't exist? It looks as if the earlier versions of Merion were designed as if the road was of little significance. They just routed the course right across it. At some point liability issues arose (I assume) and a work-around was necessitated.  

As I count there are five holes impacted by Ardmore. The solutions they worked out were obviously quite good. (The old USGA Green Committee Bulletins rave about the new 10th, for example. A simple, elegant, great hole. More interesting than the original 10th.) But would the 12th, for example, be a better hole if the same green was on or beyond where the road is now?

The road was a constraint that, optimally, you wouldn't elect to have if you had the choice. The Wilson/Flynn work-around was brilliant. But as brilliant as it is, might the original routing (or some version of it) have made for a better course, assuming the removal of Ardmore Rd.?

Or did the work-arounds necessitated by Ardmore Road result in a better course than the one originally designed? I have no opinions on this. (I don't know much about the original routing.) But I would like to hear your view. Apologies if this has been covered before.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne Morrisson,

That's what I'd call doing your homework.

Thanks for your efforts.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

Flynn's sketch, along with your photos and the early photos help to provide some context to the debate.

I agree with you, all too often some accept an article as The Gospel.

100 years from now, if someone should find the most recent edition of the MGA Golfer, and read the article about Trump National, should they accept everything The Donald says about the golf course, all his golf courses and golf in general, as The Gospel.

Remember, someone quoted Ross as stating that Seminole was flat.

Golf was so new to America in the early part of the 20th century that I think many writers took liberties with the terminology, phrases and understanding of golf course architecture.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

The built-up backdrop behind the original #10 green at Merion that provided protection to/from the first fairway has as much in common with the Alps hole at Prestwick as I do with Natalie Gulbis.

The back of the 17th at Prestwick has a steep incline with a bunker imbedded at its foot, not disimilar in concept to the incline with the imbeded bunker on the old 10th at Merion.

While the scale and configuration may differ, the concept is similar.[/color]

Patrick,

Can you show me where the 17th at Alps has the 15 foot tall wall of turf with an embedded bunker behind the green as the 10th at Merion evidently had?



No, instead Leslie was clearly referring to the large crossing bunker just short of the putting surface.   I think Wayne's pictures are really good for this discussion, and I'd ask you both to imagine the 3rd picture, and now a 4-5 foot high embankment just short of the putting surface, at the far end of the crossing bunker.   I don't believe the islands of turf in the bunker mattered, as the far end wall was considerably higher than any of them.    

With the 15 foot back end wall of turf, the effect would have been of a green down in a hollow, even if the green was at the level of today's fairway.   I still believe that it would have been effectively blind from most of the approach areas, with perhaps only the top part of the flagstick visible over the steep wall of the fronting bunker.

Wayne; how tall is your son these days?   Thanks to both of you for getting out on this beautiful day to help along this discussion.  

Unfortunately, there's no way to prove it unless someone has a picture straight on of that approach shot.   The following is from the far left of the green, but does show the man-made hill behind with the bunker in it, and also shows the fronting bunker with a steep embankment with people laying on it.



The other picture, from just just off the front right of the green, does convey a bit of what I imagine was almost a punchbowl quality to the green.   Very visible is the hillock behind, and in the front, you can just begin to detect the upsweep of the back end of the front bunker feature.



By the way, my comment about a "punchbowl" is to discuss the feature generally, and should not be construed as meaning anything particularly derivative from Macdonald.   It's just that it seems to me that the built up features around the green would have hidden much, if not all of the green from view on the approach shot.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

If Flynn's drawing is at all representative of the larger features of the hole, there was no berm fronting the green.  I think what those folks are laying on are the mounds in the sand area and they might be 3-4 feet high.  It looks like there was room between the mounds to see much of the green.  I could be wrong, but that's my best determination as of now.  I do think the photographs clearly show that the area before the road and after was pretty darn flat.

Wayne,

That could be.  One thing interesting that Flynn's drawing shows is that the sandy expanse of the front bunker seems to extend right to Ardmore Avenue all the way to the green.

Using those steps as a marker of where the road starts and extending it rightwards in your minds eye, it does seem as though those people are lying on what is probably the far end of the bunker, closest to the green.   I'm not sure if those are the turf islands Flynn drew or not, or whether those might be sitting back somewhere in the middle of the bunker closer to the road?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought that old 10th was maybe 20-30 yards over to our right from where David is standing. I think that house in the background of the shot from the right of the old green is the same one you can see behind David.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm not exactly sure where David is standing, but it seems in looking at some aerials that the old 10th green was well to the right of the current end of the fairway, and probably close to a line of where the big, corner bunker is on #1.

It seems the old 11 tee would have almost been a straight back line to today's 11 tee, and it was just a few steps off the right hand side of the old 10th green.  There's a good pic of what i'm talking about on page 68 of Geoff Shack's "Golden Age of Golf Design", which also seems to show the location of the islands of turf in the fronting bunker.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

The old 10th green was in line with the current 11th tee.  The mounds behind the tee and trees on the other side prevented me from photographing there.  David stood at the closest spot where i had a clear shot to him.  Even still, it wasn't open.  However, the ground between the original spot and David's location is the same level.  I'm sure the green was built up above the natural grade so that the mounding wasn't hiding all that much anyway.

The old 11th tee was to the right of the current 11th tee as you'd expect with the old 10th green location.

In any case, it is clear that there was precious little in common with the old 10th iteration and the Alps at NGLA and far less in common with the original Alps at Prestwick.  You are very right in noting that there was a lot of latitude in definitions and poor to mediocre critical analysis.

Wayne,

I think this stuff is fascinating.  Thanks for providing all of the supporting documentation that you have.   I'm still thinking that the 10th green was probably blind to players on the approach (probably one could only see the top half of the flagstick), and it's also very clear to me (despite Patrick's protestations to the contrary ) as well that what Lesley and others were talking about when they called the hole an "Alps", was simply the broad, crossing, "Sahara" type feature just short of the green; a feature coincidentally shared with both the orginal Alps hole at Prestwick, as well as the 3rd at NGLA.

That's what Lesley was referring to, and it makes perfect sense.   A largely blind shot over a large crossing hazard...voila!  An Alps hole!!  

I think the exact location of the old 10th green, which would have placed it about exactly where the 1st fairway today bends to the right (almost exactly in line with the corner bunker on 1) also makes complete sense of Flynn's drawing, where the hole appears to be a slight dogleg right, instead of a swinging dogleg left as it is today.  

What's more, this educational discussion has cinched for me the fact that these holes were not meant to be imitative, as most of the Macdonald/Raynor template holes were, but simply original holes based on inspiration from what Wilson learned overseas.

At Merion, even as early as 1916, you find none of the abrupt geometric features found at NGLA, etc., nor do you find holes where the great "template holes" are meant to be imitated or reproduced in anything but very, very loose conceptual form.   I think it makes very clear that this was a home-grown effort, and that Macdonald's influence, important as it may have been, ended largely with those two days Wilson spent at NGLA.   I'm thinking that anything beyond that would have involved largely agronomic issues, not architectural ones.

So, I think this thread has been very good for a number of reasons;

1) I think we've all learned more about the architectural evolution of the Merion golf course.
2) I think we've all finally disabused the idea that Macdonald had much if anything to do with the finished product, even if at that early juncture it was still important in American golf to put a name on things, however much of a stretch it might be.
3) Once again, I've proved Patrick wrong on his understanding of template holes and their history.  

So, I would also like to thank David Moriarty for starting this thread, and for bringing forward all the historical news accounts of the time.   That engendered some very good questions, and I think they've been answered here very well, as well.  
 
All in all, not bad for some GCA dweebs.  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike Cirba,

Only one with a lilliputian brain and perspective could call the old 10th at Merion an "Alps" hole.

When you view the old green site from 5 to 6 feet above the DZ, I don't care how wide or deep the fronting bunker, the presentation is nothing like an "Alps" configuration, in concept or reality.

And herein lies the problem, extrapolating and interpolating holes that are more a figment of the imagination than an architectural presentation.

But, I'm not surprised by your pattern of claiming bogus "Redan" and "Alps" holes as the real thing.

Perhaps the method by which you process information is similar to your methods of chipping, mostly illusory and wishful thinking

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

In reading your response, in which you completely avoided the subject of my proving you wrong about the 17th (Alps) hole at Prestwick, I'm reminded of the line from the movie "Dodgeball", in which the crazed old coach stated, "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."  

Completely true, and completely absurd all at the same time!  

Nowhere here, nor anywhere else, will you find that I claimed the old 10th hole at Merion was an "Alps hole".  Instead, I stated that what Lesley and others were referring to was the fact that the approach was likely blind, but much more pertinently, had to carry a huge crossing bunker, exactly like the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA.  

I agree with you that this in and of itself does NOT make the old 10th at Merion an Alps hole in the way we normally think of it.   In those above examples, the approach also needed to carry a large, hillside that accounted for the blindness.   I believe a true Alps hole needs this feature to be considered an Alps.

However, Seth Raynor didn't seem to think that was the case.   He built a number of "Alps holes" where not only did the approach not need to carry some hillside, but also wasn't blind in any way.   I cited the "Alps" at Yeaman's Hall as an example, and if memory serves, the "Alps" at Yale isn't blind either.

Instead, as George Bahto points out, what became the distinguishing feature for Alps holes was simply the need to carry a large, "Sahara" type, cross-bunker just short of the putting surface.  While neither you or I agree that such a hole is a classic "Alps", that's how the terminology evolved back in those days, and it's why a fellow like our Mr. Lesley felt comfortable comparing the 10th at Merion in 1916 to an Alps hole.

This is really pretty simple stuff, Patrick, unlike my chipping game.   I'm not sure why both of us respectively find both of those concepts so darn complex.  

[DMoriarty]

Wayne, thanks for posting the pictures and especially the Flynn sketch.   Your son must really be a good sport.  
I realize that the sketch is not to scale, but still it got still got me wondering about a few things.  If you or anyone else can explain I would be greatly appreciative.  

To start, where was the original fairway?   Flynn has the hole dogleg right and I think you have mentioned that the hole doglegged right.  But with the existing line of play off the tee, this is pretty hard to figure . . . if there was fairway to the left of the current fairway, then drives would be whizzing past the heads of the golfers putting on the 9th . . . if the current line off the tee was in use, then the second shot have to be at an angle across the road, and this in inconsistent with the photos I have seen.   Here is a photo with a pretty straight line from approximately where I believe you said the old tee was located to what I gather from the posts was the approximate location of the old green (I may still have the tee too far back):

 I am having trouble reconciling this photo with your descriptions and Flynn’s sketch.  I can see that the sketch isn’t meant to be in scale, but using the road as a reference, his driving line is completely different from the current driving line, and would seem to be over the 9th green.  What’s more,  his angles seem to make more sense, unless the second shot was an angled carry over the road to a green sitting quite crooked to the road.  

Also, how on earth could have they gotten the distance so wrong?   First, they have the 11th at something like 330 yards, and the holes run somewhat parallel to each other, and the 11th right next to the 10th green.  Second, assuming the correct placement of the features, this yardage was way off . . . 60 or 70 yards off.   With all of golf and design knowledge around that place, it is hard for me to believe they could have been that far off.   Third, those who hit 250 yard drives to get to the level area would likely only have 70 or 80 yards to the green, as opposed to 135 yards.  Even I can tell that there is a difference between a 75 yard shot and a 135 yard shot.

I am not trying to make any affirmative points here, but rather just trying to figure this out.  Given that you have an overlay of the old and new, hopefully answering will not be much of a burden.  Thanks in advance for any responses.

[D_Malley]

That's a good question.  Certainly the current 11th is a much better hole than the original 11th form.  The original 11th green was very long and fairly wide in a flat area to the right of the current line of play.  In every way the current hole is superior.  The original 10th was about even, though the current one is much more natural and I really like the way the current green extends along the dogleg, it is a great offset.  The current 12th is also about even, though the current green is much better than the original given the slope and bunkering.  Today's 13th is not as good as the original but it isn't too far off.  The original had the stream running in front of the green much the same way that the current 11th does.  Given that the 11th is a heck of a lot better, the trade-off of stream locations is for the better.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Really good questions, but in re-looking at Geoff Shack's book this morning, I may see the problem.   I had originally stated that the green would probably be at a direct line to the big corner bunker on #1, but the aerial on page 68 of "The Golden Age..." shows what looks like the turning bunker that's still there today, only the center of the old 10th green looks to be a good 20-30 paces to the right of it.

If you move the line on your picture about that distance, I think with some changed mowing patterns, this should resolve your question about how it played as a slight dogleg right.

I can't resolve your distance question, however, because I  don't know the exact location of the old 11th green in relation to the old 10th tee.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I think I added to David's confusion with my contention sometime earlier in this thread that the line was probably right at the turning bunker on #1.   That was based on my not understanding that the big bunker on 1 on page 68 of the Shack book is the exact same turning bunker that exists today.   I had thought that virtually all of the original bunkering on 1 had changed (i.e. blown up) when Wilson/Flynn changed it into a dogleg right.  

This morning, after looking at it again in light of David's questions/aerial, I saw where I was wrong.

Unlike someone else on this thread, who contended that the 17th at Prestwick has a big earthen wall behind it with an embedded bunker, I will admit when I'm wrong.    

[TEPaul]

Mike:

The old 10th green was at least 30 yards from that bunker on #1. The old green was probably just about where a good tee shot would be on #1 today. And don't forget, the driveway back then was not where it is today. It came in directly across the 14th from Golf Club Rd.

To me the more interesting aspect of David Moriarty's initial post is not if the old 10th was 320 or 385 yards or if the hole was really an "Alps" or a slight dogleg right but whether or not Merion East was one of the first indications of a rejection of the old rudimentary architecture seen in America and also in inland England before that time or before say 1900 or 1905?

Of course it was, but the question is why and from where did that change evolve? But I think we need to make a strong distinction between the linksland model and that INLAND model from the Heathlands that took some of the characteristics of the more natural linksland course. We need to talk more about the evolution of the INLAND golf course and its architecture. I think that was the key back then. Basically the old linksmen all said it could not really be golf if it was inland and not links. This had to have created a helluva dynamic after a while.

Merion East is very representative of the early evolution of golf architecture in America, in my opinion, because it was one of the first of the INLAND courses that departed from the look and style of that old INLAND course and architecture that was often known as "steeplechase" golf.

Just look at the bunkering, the placement and shapes of the bunkering on Merion East. Where was there bunkering on an inland golf course in America like that at that time?

The intereting thing about Merion East is it did have some of that rudimentary style on it in its earliest days and that old 10th green and the obnoxious looking "Mid Surrey" mounding ("Alpinization) around #9 green were examples. To me this meant Merion East is an excellent example of an important transition time in INLAND golf architecture. So obviously was Pine Valley that followed Merion East by about two years.

But it didn't take Wilson and Flynn, and Valentine that long to get rid of that rudimentary unnatural looking stuff and get a lot more natural looking with what they were making, particularly bunker placements and shapes. It didn't take Pine Valley long to get rid of that rudimentary stuff either. Doesn't this mean things were changing fast? It does to me. Golf architecture, particularly INLAND architecture was becoming pretty sophisticated pretty fast. It was beginning to be referred to as "modern" or even "scientific".

I think Ron Prichard is probably right that the original Merion bunker style, shape and look was the prototype for the generic American bunker to come.

So where did Hugh Wilson come up with it? That to me is the most interesting question. I think we probably know where he saw some examples of INLAND architecture like this. I think it was probably the same place Crump saw it.

Was it inland? Was it INLAND---eg the world's first really good inland golf architecture?

Where was it? Was it Myopia Hunt? Was it the English heathlands? Or was it the linksland or maybe all of them?

[DMoriarty]

The old 10th green was in line with the current 11th tee.  I posted that previously.  I couldn't photograph there because of the mounding constructed behind the 11th tee.  I mentioned this previously as well.  Your answers are close at hand, but you seem to skip some of the information provided.

I did see that and that that was were I put the line, but looking at it now I see that my dot could be very slightly to the right of where it is.  

Unfortunately, that doesnt really clear things up and actually makes things a bit more confused, at least for me . . .

Here is a pic from 1924, i think, showing the green complex (with interesting modifications from 1916) . . .



It looks to me that the green sits pretty square to the road, but placing the green where I think you are placing it (and making the hole a dogleg right) would mean that the line of play was from an angle somewhere by the front left corner of the picture, over what appears to be a bunker just south of the road.   Is this correct?  

[DMoriarty]

This just isn't complicated stuff unless one is trying to figure it out never having seen Merion East.

I've seen Merion East.

[Mike_Sweeney]

This just isn't complicated stuff unless one is trying to figure it out never having seen Merion East.

I've seen Merion East.

Since your host smokes more than Tom Paul, I am not sure that seeing Merion through a cloud of smoke counts, and those hickories might be good for The West but ...............

I happen to have bumped into him yesterday, and he was happy that I brought my brother-in-law who is a cardiac surgeon.  

[DMoriarty]

Mike, You notice I said I "saw" Merion?   My host knows that it would be a stretch to say that I "golfed" Merion, as it was a rough day with the hickories.  He and the rest of our group were very good sports to put up with me.  It was an amazing experience despite my golfing ineptitude.

____________________________________

Out of curiosity I took another look at the elevations and found what should be a much more reliable source, namely a USGS application capable of generating elevation profiles.  I created an elevation profile of the Alps from the front of the tee to the middle of the green in a straight line.  I then did the same thing for Merion’s 10th, only I started at the same ‘old tee’ point as above and went straight to the same first dot, then doglegged to a point further right than the point above.  I converted this profile to the Alps Elevation scale, then superimposed it on the Alps profile with Merion’s tee matching the elevation of NGLA’s.  (I did not scale for hole length . . . If I had, the Merion line would have been shorter and  a bit more compressed, but the elevations would remain unchanged.)

Again, the results were very surprising, at least to me. . . .
The small line represents NGLA’s Alps hole, the large line represents the 10th's relative elevation profile as described above.
 

[Mike_Sweeney]

(I did not scale for hole length . . . If I had, the Merion line would have been shorter and  a bit more compressed, but the elevations would remain unchanged.)

 

David,

Honestly, I am not trying to tag team you, but this chart is not relevant. Even as a kid, I hit George Izett (http://www.izettgolf.com/) persimmon driver over most of that hill to a landing area on the hill between the bunkers but way way up the more gradual hill of the 10th. Yes it would be partially blind to the old 10th green, but not blind. On Friday, playing the same white tee markers of 30 years, I was 55 yards short of the front pin in the left second cut. It had almost no elevation change to the green and would have very little if playing to the old 10th.

The Alps at National has always been blind. Even if the longest drivers today (not me) find the right hand fairway slot on the Alps, it is still going to be almost completely blind, but they will be able to see the pin rather than just the pole marker.

[DMoriarty]

David,

Honestly, I am not trying to tag team you, but this chart is not relevant.

Anything that leads to a greater understanding of the hole is relevant.  That being said, I didnt post the chart to make a specific point about blindness or whatever, but rather just found it interesting that the elevation changes on the two  holes are as close as they are.   Given the reaction I received when I first suggested this, I'd have thought a few others would have found this interesting as well.  

TEPaul said:

Well, that's nice but I certainly doubt you went out on #10 and looked at the landscape with these questions in mind. If you had done, I very much doubt you'd have any confusion at all about the way the old 10th hole used to be including the position of the old green, the angle of play and the question of blindness on the approach.

Not claiming any great knowledge, Tom, just setting the record straight.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()