News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Sweeney

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2006, 06:00:23 PM »
David,

You are one of the few guys here that has played the 10th hole with hickory clubs. Thus you might know best how the hole was originally played by Jones & Company. Where did your hickory drive end up, and how blind was your approach shot?

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2006, 08:23:09 PM »
Wayne:  What are those three bunkers across the road protecting ?  Could it be the old 10th ?

If so, the green is further to the left than projected.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #77 on: November 26, 2006, 08:39:40 PM »
Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys...

We're getting further and further from the point.

David, your picture with the red-dotted arrow is at least 20 yards left of the center of the old 10th green.   Take another look at the 1924 aerial, back up a bit, and you can see the big corner bunker on #1 that still exists today, and that you pointed your redpointed arrow right at.  

You'll see that it's a bit off....by 20 to 30 yards figuring the center of the old 10th.

It is so clear that what Lesley refers to as an Alps feature is the crossing bunker in front of the green.   Everyone please go back and re-read what he wrote.   He wasn't talking about the mound behind, he wasn't talking about the tee area, he was talking of the crossing bunker.   Read again, carefully;

The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick;  in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”

The Principle of the Alps hole is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green, according to Lesley.   Simple, folks...that's all there is here.

The artificial hillocks around the green emulating small dune mounding probably lent some degree of similarity, as well.   I still think the steep front face of the front bunker probably blinded most of the green, especially for those players who didn't drive the ball 300 yards like Bobby Jones.  However, it's all moot, because Lesley was talking about an Alps concept, not a direct imitation.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2006, 08:48:42 PM by Mike Cirba »

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #78 on: November 26, 2006, 10:19:31 PM »
I'm not sure why there is an arguement when you have multiple (contemporaneous) sources reporting the approach was blind...one source maybe, three or more sources, and aren't you're pissing into the wind.

Instead of trying to determine if the 10th is technically an Alps or comparable to the unworldly Alps at the NGLA, it might be a better idea to compare it to other similar holes (Alps, Punchbowls, Hill, Blind, etc.) at other Macdonald & Whigham courses of the same period...like Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, Chicago (circa 1912), St. Louis, Greenbriar-Old White and Lido.

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #79 on: November 27, 2006, 03:10:30 AM »
Mike S.
I believe I hit my drive (or was it my second?) into the fairway bunker left.  After a swing or so in the bunker I ended up right of the green, somewhere near where Jones' drive landed.  From there in I am sure I must have played very much like Jones, only left-handed.  He carried a jigger, didnt he?
 
Mike C.,

I do realize that the second segment is in the wrong place, but just haven’t posted an update until now.  As I said above, the elevation profile is based on the green being about 20-25 yards right, as seen below.   As I also said, I don’t think this clears much up, unless the line of play into the green was at an angle.

I don't know how David plays with hickory clubs but I doubt he has anything close to the ability of Jones that would give him an insight as to how Bob Jones played with hickories on this hole.

Wayne, since Mike S. has apparently heard about the quality of my ball striking that day, I think perhaps his comments were more than a little facetious.

Quote
Here's what Jones did in the 1930 Amateur from the current back tee.  Today the hole is measured as 310 yards, it was listed as 335 for the 1930 Amateur.  I guess it somewhat depends on where the measurement is made for the turn of the hole.  In any case, a straight 300 yard drive got him pin high.  The 1916 10th tee was a minimum of 30 yards shorter than the back tee Jones hit from in 1930.  An accomplished player would have been able to hit off the 1916 tee pretty darn close to the road.

Is it possible that you are overestimating just how far accomplished players could hit the ball in 1916, or even 1930?  In Scotland’s Gift, MacDonald documents a driving test conducted by some top players in 1919 on a variety of holes with varying slope and wind, and the average driving distance was only 228 yards.

The following is a revision of the aerial above (and the one that corresponds to the elevation portrait above.)  The distance between the first segment is 250 yards, and the two segments together measure just over 340 yards.  


« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 11:16:24 AM by DMoriarty »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #80 on: November 27, 2006, 08:33:05 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I agree with the accounts that the old 10th would have been blind, simply due to what seems like a significantly elevated face to the large front crossing bunker.  Also, poor drives left back on the hillside would have compounded the visibility issues.

In the examples you cited, I'm not as familiar with them as I probably should be (having only played Sleepy Hollow, among them), but I agree with Wayne and would like to hear your perspective on each as regards;

1) Does each have a large front crossing bunker?
2) Is each one blind from the approach?
3) If so, is it because of small permutations of the ground, a large elevated front bunker face, or similar to the Alps at NGLA, or 17th at Prestwick, because of a large hillside intervening between the approach area and the green?

Thanks!
Mike

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #81 on: November 27, 2006, 08:41:24 AM »
Tom,

We know you've been on a quest to try and find a greater influence at Merion East by Macdonald and Whigham due to some passages you've read and a eulogy by Whigham.  Please explain how the holes at PR, SH, CGC, SLCC, GOW and Lido compare to indicate they are conceptually linked.  Knowing you are more informed, I hope it comes out better than Lesley's analysis.

Wayne
Instead of arguing if the 10th was blind or not (with multiple reports of it being blind I'm not sure why its even being debated) the more interesting question - to me anyway - is what is the antecent of this hole.

Some say it was an Alps, and perhaps it was, there were several forms of Alps designed by Macdonald & Whigham during that period. There were also multiple versions of the punchbowl and other similar blind or semi-blind holes created by them as well.

If you are interested in unraveling the early history of Merion's architectural evolvtion, my guess is you will find clues regarding the source of the old tenth at one or more of the courses I listed.

My only interest is getting at the truth. It is a documented fact that Macdonald & Whigham acted as advisors at Merion...being the most influential and powerful figures in American design why wouldn't Merion want them as advisors, especially if they planned on replicating famous holes or features of famous holes, M&W's strong suit.

The truth is out there.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 08:42:53 AM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #82 on: November 27, 2006, 09:30:08 AM »
Mike
I'm no Alps expert (George Bahto is the one who would know), but from what I understand most did have crossbunker. Ironically Sleepy Hollow might have been an exception. Old maps I've seen indicate the green was down over the edge of a ravine with no sign of a bunker (the punchbowl hole was down in the same ravine). Sleepy Hollow illustrates how these holes differ based on the nature of the site.

Again from what I've seen they are all blind or semi-blind, although I'm not sure about the Greenbrier. And the scale of the mound and/or blindness seems to differ from course to course based on the nature of the ground, for example Chicago is more or less flat; Sleepy Hollw pretty severe; St. Louis somewhere in between.

« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 09:31:49 AM by Tom MacWood »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #83 on: November 27, 2006, 10:05:16 AM »
 It's too bad you guys don't have Wilson's notes/sketches from his trip overseas. This would undoubtedly help to clarify the "British" influences on Merion. I think it is more interesting that he chose to involve the road in the hole (which seems British to me) than whether it was an "Alps" or not. Do you at least know his itinerary?
AKA Mayday

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #84 on: November 27, 2006, 12:29:37 PM »
I don't know David.  You seemed a bit confused throughout.  You talk about Ben Hogan when others are talking about Bob Jones.   You place the old 10th green too far to the left of the proper location that is evident in photographs you yourself cite.  You make a graph that has absolutely no value at all with no scale for distance.  I will argue that your graph is not close to what it looks like in person.  The plateau is much longer than you indicate and begins just a bit past the fairway bunker on the left.  Finally, how confused can you be?  Jones hit the ball exactly as far as shown in the diagram.  You cite some contest where the long distance was 228 yards.  It isn't on the same hole, who knows how the wind was blowing and how firm and dry the fairways were?

Wayne,  I mispoke in writing above.  Thanks for pointing it out. I've changed it.  As far as the rest I dont really think you are addressing my posts.   Rather you are just repeating your conclusion.  

How confused can I be?  Well, in that Jones diagram the distance of those drives is around 260 yards, or a little less. Not a big stretch over the 228 average I cite considering it was Bobby Jones and that it was 1930. (The study I cite was 1919.)  So your fundamental assumption seems to be off by over 40 yards.  

The 228 yards figure wasnt some study I came up with, it is in MacDonald's book, along with many other statistics that make your distance assumptions suspect.  He doesnt give the slope and conditions for every number given but he does state that this particular study was on five holes with a variety of slopes and winds. I doubt that the drives would have been much longer on the uphill 10th.  

The elevation chart abovewas a relative comparison with National, so a horizontal scale would have added little or nothing to that.  But since you asked, here is a profile with some distance references.  

Point 1=2nd tee. Point 2=200yds. Point 3=250 yards, Point 4=old green (where placed immediately above.)

Quote
Take a step back and listen to Mike Cirba as the voice of reason.  There was precious little of the Alps concept in the old 10th.  Some like to pound a square peg into a round hole.  The sand fronting the green is the real common concept.

Maybe so, but there are very many assumptions being made about this hole that just dont check out.  You and others seem to have your mind made up about this hole and dont seem all that interested in hearing or addressing new or conflicting information.    

As for the other courses listed, I believe there were some construction photos posted in the last thread of the Lido's Alps hole which showed no evidence of an actual Alps.  
« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 01:02:22 PM by DMoriarty »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #85 on: November 27, 2006, 01:00:28 PM »

It is so clear that what Lesley refers to as an Alps feature is the crossing bunker in front of the green.  

That's not what Lesley was refering to.

Obviously, you're ignoring the skill and familiarity with the english language that early writers possessed.

Look up the definition of a Semicolon PRIOR to rereading Lesley's passage, and then tell me what you think.
[/color]

Everyone please go back and re-read what he wrote.   He wasn't talking about the mound behind, he wasn't talking about the tee area, he was talking of the crossing bunker.   Read again, carefully;

The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick[size=8x];[/color][/size] in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”

The Principle of the Alps hole is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green, according to Lesley.   Simple, folks...that's all there is here.

Not so fast my friend.
Lesley seperates two independent clauses through the use of the semicolon.

To declare that any two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green is an "Alps" hole is absurd.

As I stated to you earlier, the old 14th at GCGC had that feature, yet, NOONE ever refered to it as an "Alps" hole.

And, do you know why ?
Because a fronting cross bunker doesn't inherently make a hole an "ALPS" hole.
[/color]

The artificial hillocks around the green emulating small dune mounding probably lent some degree of similarity, as well.   I still think the steep front face of the front bunker probably blinded most of the green, especially for those players who didn't drive the ball 300 yards like Bobby Jones.  However, it's all moot, because Lesley was talking about an Alps concept, not a direct imitation.

Baloney.

Lesley was incompetent and incorrect in categorizing the 10th as an "Alps" hole.
[/color]

« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 01:02:10 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #86 on: November 27, 2006, 01:32:41 PM »
Patrick,

I'm confused as to your point.

First, you take great pains to educate me in the use of the semi-colon, claiming that due to punctuation fluency that the "early writers" possessed, Lesley was not referring to the large cross bunker in saying the hole resembles an "Alps".

Then, perhaps you can tell me exactly what he's referring to that makes the hole "resemble an Alps"?  Is it the "tee back in the woods"?   Is it the "green background with a high hill covered with grass" that you claimed was identical to the 17th at Prestwick" (which is what you stated before I posted the picture that showed absolutely NO such feature on the Alps at Prestwick)?  No, of course he's talking about the large fronting cross bunker in making his comparison!  

Then, you refer to the old 14th at Garden City, and ask why that hole wasn't considered an Alps hole if Lesley's definition is adequate.   First, Lesley never declared the old 10th at Merion an "Alps" hole.   He said the front bunker RESEMBLED the same on the Alps at Prestwick.  

Second, I'm not sure if Lesley ever wrote anything at all about Garden City, so I can't say whether he would have found any similarities between the front cross bunker at GCGC and the front cross bunker at Prestwick...maybe..maybe not.

Finally, you give up on Lesley altogether in trying to make your points, calling him not only incorrect, but incompetent, as well.  ;D

Patrick, I do get your point and agree with you that a true Alps hole, like the 3rd at NGLA, really does need a high hillock intervening between the approach area and the green, and it also needs the large cross bunker, which that one has, similar to 17 at Prestwick in both respects.   We AGREE!!  ;D

However, not everyone back in the early days, including Raynor, were quite so rigid in their definitions.   Many of the "Alps" holes that Raynor built not only didn't cross some large hillock, but weren't blind at all!!

That's why Mr. Lesley, rather than being a complete imbecile, chose to compare the old 10th at Merion with some features of the Alps hole at Prestwick.   By most accounts, it was a blind approach, and it featured a large crossing bunker that "resembled" the one at Prestwick... Simple.

From Ran's writeup of Yeaman's Hall;

5th hole, 420 yards, Alps; Yeamans Hall was built at the end of Raynor's career and indeed, Raynor died before the course opened for play. By 1925, though, Raynor had already heard the complaints from a number of memberships about the blind aspect of his Alps holes to the point where here at Yeamans, he merely put in the front Alps bunker (bold mine) and didn't bother with the blind aspect of a conventional Alps hole. Still, this central hazard between the tee and green helps create interest for this flat hole just as the Bottle bunker configuration originally did at the 4th.



Also, I think George Bahto makes the distinguishing features and their historical usage quite clear during his interview on this site;

Alps' was a term describing a blind shot throughout the British Isles - the original was the 17th at Prestwick. The 3rd at National is an awe-inspiring version. A 'mountain' must be carried on the approach shot to a green fronted by a deep cross bunker. National's Alps is considered an anachronism to some, but students of the classics consider it a wonderful tribute to days gone by. It was the end of the era of blind shots, but C.B could not resist when he found a natural Alps site when building his Ideal Golf Course. Seth Raynor built an Alps on most courses, but they were generally identified as having 'Alps bunkering' - meaning some cross-bunkering in front of the green. Instead of a blind approach over a 'mountain,' Raynor customarily positioned his Alps renditions just over the crest of a rising fairway - then cross-bunkering the green complex. Sadly, many clubs covered in the cross bunker because they did not understand the origin and concept. Alps greens usually had a spine of sorts running through the green to compound putting problems.

The bottom line, Patrick, is that any blind shot to a green fronted by a deep cross bunker was called an Alps back then.   It later morphed to sometimes mean even holes with just the fronting bunker, as total blindness fell out of fashion.


« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 01:55:04 PM by Mike Cirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #87 on: November 27, 2006, 02:15:27 PM »
Patrick, I must take issue with your application of the semi-colon and am in agrrement with the conclusion drawn by Mr. Cirba.

You suggested that he was, "ignoring the skill and familiarity with the english language that early writers possessed..." and that he should, "Look up the definition of a Semicolon PRIOR to rereading Lesley's passage, and then tell me what you think."

The American College Dictionary defines the word semi-colon as, "a mark of punctuation (;) used to indicate a more distinct separation between parts of a sentence than that indicated by a comma."

You go on to state how, "Lesley seperates two independent clauses through the use of the semicolon."

That is interpretaive and has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar on your part. The separation in a sentence by use of a semi-colon MAY allow for two "independent clauses" to be used together, but quite often they are similar clauses.

It is this (my interpretation of Lesley's words) that he is doing by using a semi-colon at this point of his sentence. All he is stating is that he sees this holes having some similarity to the "Alps" hole previously mentioned, and IN PRINCIPLE, or the specific similarity being that it the cross bunker [up by the green complex] of the two-shot hole that is found on many [not all] "Alps" holes.

You stated that Mike was declaring, "that any two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green is an "Alps" hole" and that doing such "is absurd..."

I can't find how he has done that anywhere in this thread and that he has made several efforts to deny doing so.

T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #88 on: November 27, 2006, 02:33:11 PM »
Pat
Robert Lesley was not incompetent. He was a well respected figure in golf and chairman of the Golf Committee at Merion (and long-time president of the Phila Golf Assoc & founder of the Lesley Cup). He also wasn't the only one to refer to the Alps at Merion; Tilly did as well in 1916. Was he an incompetent too?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 02:33:34 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #89 on: November 27, 2006, 02:35:44 PM »
Tom and/or Phil,

Would either of you happen to have Tillinghast's exact quote about the 10th at Merion handy?  I'm really curious to see how he viewed it.

Thanks

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #90 on: November 27, 2006, 02:52:14 PM »
If you think Jones's drives were "around 260 yards, or a little less," then I will not continue a conversation with you as you have a problem with analysing information presented to you.  There was a study done of every one of the 18 holes Jones played twice in qualifying for the 1930 Amateur and there are many examples of distance equal to the shots he hit on #10; a distance much greater than you consider.  I have no idea why your analysis is so flawed and I no longer care that it is.

That is your perogative, but I assure you that I am not making this stuff up.  

I layered the modern aerial over your Jones photo and matched up the road, all the bunkers and both the 9th and 10th greens (incredibly, for all the talking we do about changes at merion, everything still pretty much matches up, except for maybe the size of those two back bunkers on nine.  I used Google to measure the distance.  I have no reason to doubt Google's measuring tool.  Do you?  



If you or anyone else has information with a better foundation, then I'll be glad to accept it.  Likewise, if you or anyone else I have made some sort of mistake in interpretation or representation, I'll be glad to correct myself.  

TEPaul

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #91 on: November 27, 2006, 03:18:04 PM »
David Moriarty:

Didn't you know Jones hit a good number of drives 300 yards or more in his career? Don't forget none of us know how far a golf ball may've bounced and rolled in those days. Haven't you ever seen a golf ball bounce and roll 75-100 yds? I believe there was a diagram kept as to where Jones hit every shot in that 1930 tournament. I know I have that hole by hole diagram around here somewhere.

For the life of me I just can't understand what you think you're trying to prove or accomplish on this thread.

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #92 on: November 27, 2006, 03:19:47 PM »
Also, Wayne, I don't doubt that B Jones hit many drives of equal or greater distance to his drives at the 10th.  After all, the 10th plays substantially uphill, seemingly much more uphill than most people thought.  This is the likely reason that so many have miscalculated their own driving distances on this hole as well as the driving distances of others.  
___________________________

MODIFIED
Here, is Tillinghast from the American Golfer on the NGLA Alps hole . . .

Other holes present the characteris-
tics of the famous Redan and the Alps
of Prestwick.


Here is MacDonald from the 1914 Golf Illustrated (with my bolds added:)

When the player hits his second
shot across the summit of the saddle back hill called
the Alps he is completely in doubt about the result.
His ball may be on the green close to the hole, or it
may have fallen just short of the green into a serious
hazard, or it may have run over the green into thick
bent leaving a difficult down-hill approach. The
margin between the three results is so small that the
player is frequently pleasantly or unpleasantly disappointed
when he comes to the top of the hill and
surveys the result beneath him. The green lies in a
hollow with the bunker in front and a high bank
behind. If the ball carries far enough to get over the
bunker by only a foot it gets a running fall and may
go right past the hole into the bent beyond. Therefore
the difference between being in the bunker short
of the green or in the bent beyond the green is often
the difference of two or three feet in the carry.

__________________________

David Moriarty:

Didn't you know Jones hit a good number of drives 300 yards or more in his career? Don't forget none of us know how far a golf ball may've bounced and rolled in those days. Haven't you ever seen a golf ball bounce and roll 75-100 yds? I believe there was a diagram kept as to where Jones hit every shot in that 1930 tournament. I know I have that hole by hole diagram around here somewhere.

For the life of me I just can't understand what you think you're trying to prove or accomplish on this thread.

I've heard that Tom, yes, but he didnt hit a 300 yard drive here, because that would have put him over the road.  

What am I trying to accomplish?  Nothing, just interested in the evolution of golf architecture, so I am trying to peel back the layers to get to the truth.   I really dont understand how that could possibly be so offensive to so many.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 04:27:55 PM by DMoriarty »

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #93 on: November 27, 2006, 03:30:19 PM »
What am I trying to accomplish?  Nothing, just interested in the evolution of golf architecture, so I am trying to peel back the layers to get to the truth.  

David,

I have allowed myself to get sucked into this 5 pager, but I am still unclear. The truth about what?

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #94 on: November 27, 2006, 03:34:56 PM »
David,

Thanks for providing those quotes.   I'm assuming that the 1913 quote by Macdonald was specifically concerning Merion's 10th?  

Could you tell me what month that quote appeared?

Unfortunately, I'm at work and there is variance on my browser in terms of what images appear and which don't, so I haven't been able to see what you posted today, and therefore can't weigh in on your graphs, etc.  

I hope to check them out tonight.

It seems that we're still debating total yardage.   One thing that might help is if anyone knows how far or short the old 11th green was from the old 10 tee.   Since those holes were parallel, and we know that the old 11th tee was immediately adjacent to the old 10th green, finding the difference between their corresponding green & tee should go a long way towards answering that question.

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #95 on: November 27, 2006, 03:54:16 PM »
Mike,  I think there is some sort of disconnect between my brain and my posts lately . . .

The year is 1914 and MacDonald & Whigham are credited as authors.  June 1914, Volume 1, No. 3, pges 25-27.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2006, 04:15:51 PM »
Mike,  I think there is some sort of disconnect between my brain and my posts lately . . .

The year is 1914 and MacDonald & Whigham are credited as authors.  June 1914, Volume 1, No. 3, pges 25-27.


David,

Thanks.   In Macdonald's article that you quoted, he was talking about the characteristics of the Alps hole he created at NGLA.  In reading your post, I mistakenly thought that you meant he was referring to the 10th at Merion.

NGLA's Alps hole does have a bank behind the green.  From the picture I posted of the Alps at Prestwick earlier, this does not seem to be the case.  

In any case, I think the bank behind the green on #10 at Merion seems to be almost a "fence" to protect shots from #1, particularly based on the finding Tom Paul just reported.   It seems quite a bit different than the one at NGLA, seen below;



UPDATE Modification***

I've never been to Prestwick and the original picture I posted of the 17th green seemed to have no high bank behind the green.  




I just came across the following, but really can't determine with any authenticity how far behind the green that hillock really is.  

For those who have been there, could you confirm whether it's in play in the way Macdonald describes the hill on his Alps version at NGLA?

« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 04:26:14 PM by Mike Cirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #97 on: November 27, 2006, 04:43:14 PM »
David,

I don't think anyone should be getting sensitive here.  But I sense that some feel you have an agenda (I'm not sure if you do or not) to somehow prove that Macdonald and Whigham were the real designers of Merion, and I think that there is nowhere near enough evidence to support that conclusion and much evidence to the contrary.

For all I know, Wilson may have tried to build an Alps on the 10th, and he may have even done it at Macdonald's urging.   For one, Macdonald cited a study done in around 1908 that claimed the Alps hole at Prestwick was the finest par four in the game, so he was quite fond of the concept.  

However, even if these things were stipulated for purposes of further discussion (they certainly are nowhere near proven as fact), where are the rest of the Macdonald Raynor template holes at Merion?  

The "reverse redan" 3rd is a real stretch of the template, even for a guy like me who understands the historical evolution and sometimes really loose practical interpretations of the template holes.  

The 13th could possibly pass for a "Short", except for the fact that it's not the original 13th hole at all, but one built in the 20's by Wilson & Flynn.

Other than that, I don't see another hole on the entire property, either now or in 1916 that resembles one of the MacRaynor template holes in any way, shape, or form.   Do you?

Also, there is absolutely no evidence of the type of geometric style used by Macdonald and Raynor.   Lines are much more curved, even in the old photos going back to the inception of the course.

If Macdonald and Whigham were in fact the "consultants", or "advisers", in a role with any real meat to it, then Merion would have stood as their ONLY course ever built that had a predominance of original holes, as opposed to templates.

I personally love to do historical research, and thus enjoy this discussion greatly, but I also think that's why some folks are scratching their heads wondering how far you're looking to press your case, and what you're ultimately hoping to discover.

Fair enough?  ;D

« Last Edit: November 27, 2006, 04:51:02 PM by Mike Cirba »

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #98 on: November 27, 2006, 04:57:41 PM »
Mike I just tried to correct a type in my last message and deleted it.  I think I need a secretary for this stuff.  If you think I was being too sensitive, then it is probably for the best because I dont feel ike I am being sensitive at all.  I actually find it kind of funny that adults would refuse to converse with me because I disagreed with him and offered support for my disagreement . . . .

Mike S.  As you can guess I had a more elaborate answer to your question above, and I wont try to repeat it here.  Suffice it to say that I am just very curious about what Merion and its influences in its early years.  I find the course is absolutely fascinating, and thought the same even before I tried to play it with Hickories. (I lived in Havertown for a time after college and some looks at both Merion courses during that time period.)  

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #99 on: November 27, 2006, 05:01:43 PM »
David,

Straightforward questions..

Do you feel that Macdonald and Whigham had a much greater role in the specific design of the holes at Merion's original course than has been reported or understood?

If so, why are there almost no template holes (possibly one or two, but even they seem in some dispute) and no geometric construction?

I think it's an avenue worth exploring, but personally I keep running into those two dead ends.