Brad,
I'm not sure if your question was directed to me or Mike Young.
I'll offer what I know. Some time after the green resurfacing and bunker restoration work had started at Merion, first with one architect and then another, it was decided that the overall "theme" of the "restoration" was to return the course to the way it was during 1930. Golf Publication and newspaper articles were written touting Merion's "Moving into the future by returning to the past".
Photos from 1930 are fairly available, and showed a course with WIDE fairway lines, conjoined in some places, fairly rugged bunkers, though shallower in some cases, less trees, and basically the same routing and hazard placement since that time.
I have heard speculation about possibly widening some of the fairways, but that has not happened yet to my knowledge. Instead, what has happened recently is that a hay-like secondary non-cut of rough has been grown where one could lose a golf bag. Is this consistent with the 1930 restoration theme?
What has also happened is that various trees have been removed, most notably between 11-12, behind 14, and along the quarry on 16. Merion had managed it's trees quite well over the decades, but these notable changes are entirely consistent with both the 1930 theme as well as an improvement to the course and should be lauded.
Finally, the bunkers. I've played Merion pre and post bunker work, and to say I believe something unique has been lost to the world of golf is an understatement. Others might look at them and say they look fine and dandy, but I simply disagree. Merion bunkers never had thick bluegrass surrounds which were sodded and stapled in place during the construction effort. What they had were rough, irregular, sand-flashed to the lip edges that integrated beautifully and naturally into their surrounds, without steep vertical grass faces (which they have now) and precise lines of demarcation, broken up with machine built capes and bays that attempt to look classical but come off like George Thomas in grammar school.
The bunkers are deeper for one simple reason. The contractors found the original bunker floors and dug the new ones to that depth. However, the top end of the bunkers, particularly ones that fronted greens such as 8 & 13 had a great deal of sand buildup on the faces over the years, which thusly created new top ends. Because those top edges had become so integrated into their surrounds, even so far as becoming part and parcel of green contours, it was decided that there was too much risk involved in lowering them to their original 1930 heights. Thus, you have a lower floor, but the ceiling is still raised. Is this consistent with a 1930 restoration?
Supposedly, Tom Fazio's organization was provided with pictures of the bunkers and their marching orders were "build these". The bunkers are NOT deeper because someone decided to make the course tougher due to the onslaught of technology. The are deeper because of fear of what messing with the top ends of them might bring in terms of sweeping changes in playability in terms of today's green speeds.
Now, Mark Fine points out that the bunkers are having structural and agronomic problems, after all the time and money spent "restoring" them. A few weeks ago, Wayne Morrison spent some time there looking at bunkers that were on the verge of structurally collapsing. I find this very sad, and feel badly for the club. Anyone familiar with the complexities of those bunker shapes and contours should have realized that a machine-based approach, with over 100 bunkers being dug out and completely rebuilt in less than 9 months was probably not a good scenario for success. If any bunkers in the world cried out for fastidious hand-work to get the details right, it was the former "white faces" of Merion. I have a hunch the club was sold a bill of goods, accentuated by the club's wish to have the work done ASAP in light of the 2005 U.S. Amateur.
Mike Young points out that the course is setup so tough and penal with the new deep rough and deeper bunkers that it could have hosted a US Open the day he was there. Finally, I have to ask, is THAT consistent with a 1930 restoration?
Mike Young;
Thanks for clarifying your point, which I missed some of the finer details on. Would you agree, however, that each course is unique, and the more valid research and understanding of things like original design intent, architectural philosophy of the primary architect, reasons for change and evolution, as well as historical photos and overheads are invaluable to the process?
I agree that a "little" knowledge is a dangerous thing, particularly considering your original premise that revering the past without understanding it fully leads to similar error-prone results. I would no more want to tackle a restoration project based on old drawings alone than you would, I'm sure. How does anyone know that those weren't PLAN A, when inevitably PLAN W got implemented?
A good example of somewhat blind adherence to some dogmatic approach can be found at Merion, as well, on the wonderful 5th hole.
Early pictures from 1930 show no fairway bunkering on the left side near the creek. However, sometime probably right before the US Amateur, someone decided to add a nest of bunkers on the left side which effectively protect balls from going into the creek. By 1950, those bunkers were gone, and probably much before then. They were a bad idea, from an architectural, aesthetic, playability, and strategic standpoint.
Yet, those bunkers have now been "restored" as part of Fazio's work, in the form of two little "pots" sitting along the creek. If ever a better natural hole was built that needed none of that kind of fussy tinkering, it was the 5th. Hugh Wilson was dead at that point, so it sure wasn't him who installed those bunkers. Yet, there they sit, begging the questions that have so many of us very defensively screaming when we hear that another classic course is going to be "modernized" by a present day architect, even if they use the politically correct misnomer "restoration".