[Sean_A]

David

I think I have lost track of things.  Please, tell us the critical factors, which we KNOW to be true, that prove CBM routed Merion and was in the main responsible for the design of Merion.

Ciao

[Dan Herrmann]

DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer?  Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?

(Let me try again - what was their motivation?)

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Despite your incredulity, the Merion minutes re: the NGLA visit state precisely what was stated; the first evening was spent reviewing Mac's sketches of great holes and the next day was spent touring NGLA.

There is no mention of the Merion property or course plans.

I'm not sure why you find that so surprising?  Don't you think a discussion and drawings illustrating the principles of the great holes abroad would be broad enough topic to last an evening/  don't you also think a tour of NGLA discussing those principles would have taken the next day, with a proud CB Mac showing off his new baby?

Besides, Hugh Wilson already told you what they talked about in his 1916 recap.  I think you just read way too much into it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer?  Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?

(Let me try again - what was their motivation?)

Dan,

Why to you presume that it was a conscious effort ?

Do you believe, in 1911, that those involved knew exactly what would transpire, and therefore constructed a precise record of every activity ?

Or, is it more likely that the process was amorphous, flowing as it evolved.

Not everything that happens during the creation of a golf course is documented, leaving a clear paper trail.

It's difficult to impossible to determine motives when you're 10 to 100 years removed.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Then why did everyone in those days credit Hugh Wilson and not Macdonald, and through both their lives and beyond.

Yoir answer is evasive and denies the realities of what transpired.

Its not just that they didn't credit Macdonald...they credited Wilson instead.

That's the crux of Dan's repeated question.

[TEPaul]

"True, but you are also speculating.  Also, you have had access to far more documentation and in my opinion have failed to provide evidence that definitively refutes David's speculations."

HenryE:

Perhaps you and others think so but what I've tried to do here is provide the weight of evidence that surrounded Merion at that time that indicates in writing that Wilson's committee routed and designed "numerous different courses and plans" throughout the winter and spring of 1911. That was recorded in writing by MCC. Others in various reports, letters, events, dinner, newspapers and magazines tend to confirm that. A paper plan was selected and sent to the board in April 1911 approved and the course was apparently built to it. Nothing we've seen indicates otherwise.

Macdonald and Whigam did advise Wilson's committee over paper plans or a plan on April 5, 1911 and that too was recorded as well as a brief description of what their take was on one of the plan which was the one selected (equal to the best last seven holes on any inland course in the world).

All that was recorded and Merion went with that and still does as the written indication that Wilson and Committee routed and designed Merion East with advise and help from Macdonald and Whigam.

You can call that speculation if you want to but as we have always said on here the specific details of who did what and when at that time on the various holes of the course design-wise were never recorded (they never are on any project I'm aware of). Two people on here first asked for those details years ago and we told them then we don't know the answers to those things and that noone does or can or will because they were never recorded. What we and Merion have always gone with is essentially a term of "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses." For that he got and continues to get design attribution for Merion. We've never seen anything to seriously refute that and either has Merion, not in the past and not now. Certainly MacWood and Moriarty's speculative torturing of events and reports etc have not come close to seriously refuting that in our opinion and Merion, and I doubt it ever will no matter how long they go on unless some new and truly revelatory comes along which is hard to imagine at this point.

Then a long litany of threads and such began first from MacWood and then Moriarty on speculation that Macdonald/Whigam must have routed and designed the course essentially because at that time Wilson and his committee weren't capable of doing that. That was their assumption alone, noone else's, and it seems few believe or accept that logic given who Wilson was and what he did.

That was an assumption Moriarty produced and attempted to turn it into a conclusion. No one around here accepted that kind of reasoning and they still don't. We feel Moriarty is simply engaging in an excercise asking us and Merion to disprove something of a speculative negative---eg that since Wilson and Committee weren't capable of routing and designing Merion East in 1911, Macdonald and Whigam must have done it.

But there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere from any time that ever happened or that he was even asked by MCC to do something like that not to mention he didn't even have the opportunity or time to do something like that given the recorded timeline of events.

Moriarty and you or anyone else can continue to engage in that type of excercise on here if you want to and as long as you want to but we and Merion feel the weight of evidence, for what it is and what we have explained it is, is now and always has been very heavily weighted on the side of Wilson and his committee doing what they have always been given credit for doing.

I have always said on these threads that I support and Merion supports the very words of Alan Wilson on what happened back then. It is contained in one of the posts on this thread so there is no reason to repeat it. Nothing that we or Merion have ever seen to date credibly refutes his words and description that Wilson's committee to a man informed him "Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of Merion East and West courses."

Or to put all these Merion/Macdonald threads with Moriarty another way, HenryE, his entire excercise here is built on the premise questions; "Well is it possible?" or even "Prove to me how and why it isn't IMpossible?"

That to me and to Merion is merely an excercise constructed not to find the truth of who designed Merion but only to promote and continue argument for argument's sake alone. Unless and until something is found that is of real consequence to consider it will probably continue this way, but nothing of that consequential nature seems to be on our horizon with Merion's architectural history! Essentially it's just a massive waste of time and effort. I'm pretty sure he knows that too but apparently he just likes his moment in the sun too much to admit it.

BTW, in my opinion, Pat Mucci is basically the same way; he just likes to argue for argument's sake no matter how innane and inconsequential the issue may be. I think most all of us can see that with both of them from our experiences on here.

[Mike_Cirba]

Shouldn't it also be very obvious at this point that the reason they created so many different plans over a number of months is precisely because they were in fact doing this for their first time, and trying like heck to get it right?

[TEPaul]

Not really. Some architects, no matter how experienced they are, sometimes create numerous routing plans for all kinds of reasons. I know, I've seen them.

[DMoriarty]

DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer?  Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?

(Let me try again - what was their motivation?)

Dan, this is the third time you have asked me this exact same question in the past few days.   Is there something about my previous two answers that you did not understand?  Is that why you keep asking?  

______________________

David

I think I have lost track of things.  Please, tell us the critical factors, which we KNOW to be true, that prove CBM routed Merion and was in the main responsible for the design of Merion.

That which we KNOW to be true?   That is a little difficult given that we still don't KNOW what the MCC documents say and don't say.  Or what other documents in the MCC files exist and what they say.   And even the meaning of that which we have been told is shifting before our eyes.

[henrye]

.......but we and Merion feel the weight of evidence, for what it is and what we have explained it is, is now and always has been very heavily weighted on the side of Wilson and his committee doing what they have always been given credit for doing.

Fair enough.

I'm sure this has come up before, but I'm wondering if there is any documentation at Merion, which speaks to the discussion that must have taken place about how to go about developing the new golf course.  It seems to me that they put Hugh Wilson in charge, but what did they expect of him?  Did they expect him, as a relative novice, to design and build them a golf course based on his yet to be proved talents, or did they expect him to go out and hire the best he could possibly find to undertake this task?

[DMoriarty]

In fact, I'd be curious if there are any examples out there from roughly this timeframe of a course that was routed by one guy, A, but built and finished by another, B (without very much help at all from A) where A got public credit for routing the course at the time!

I doubt that course exists.  There may be courses where this happened, and there may even be courses where there are payments made or other records that prove up the scenario, but I'll bet in every case, at the time, B got the credit for the course.

 

Shivas,  I agree.  And there are examples of a guy getting briefly mentioned in the press for planning the course (sometimes not even by name, but as a Scottish professional or a golf expert) and then disappearing from all consideration.   In comparison M&W got much more credit than these guys!

____________________

Henry.  I disagree with TEPaul about the weight of the evidence.    Here is something to think about.  H.J. Whigham, a highly respected journalist who was there, credits CBM for planning the golf course.      I am unaware of anyone else with first-hand knowledge of what happened who ever wrote or said anything that necessarily contradicts this.   

[Mike_Cirba]

HJ Whigham, grieving the death of his father in law, wrote that in a string of other courses Macdonald was involved with 25 years after the event, mentioning it for the first time in his life, after the death of everyone else.

I'm sure he remembered Macdonald being involved with Merion's beginnings in some fashion, but this late-game testimony at that time with Wilson deceased is hardly compelling.

No one ever corroborated Whigham's single statement, not even Macdonald himself while alive, and Whigham never spoke to correct scores of other accounts giving Hugh Wilson credit, including Tillinghast's.

[Mike_Cirba]

If you think about it, if someone asked you tomorrow to build a course for a club, what would be your first concern as a novice?

It would be things like drainage, agronomy, construction, grasses and turf, ongoing maintenance, and all the little technical details none of us outside the industry know real well.

Yes, you would need a course in strategic principles, especially if the year was 1911 and these theories were new on these shores, but exactly how long would it take for someone to explain the principles of a redan, or an Alps, or a biarritz, or any of the other "ideal holes" before you would understand them conceptually?   I'm thinking in a couple of days you could get a pretty fair working grasp, especially with visual aids in the form of sketches and drawings.

On the other hand, it would certainly take a whole lot of time and study to grasp the other technical stuff.   Today, people go to school for years to become a superintendent, much less an architect or landscape engineer.

David expressed incredulity earlier when told there is no record of discussion of the proposed golf course at Merion during the Committe's visit to NGLA, only that they went over sketches of great holes abroad the first night and toured NGLA the second night.   

Yet, that is exactly what the MCC minutes express and it's also what Wilson expressed later in 1916. 

Keep that in mind and read again what Hugh Wilson wrote about what his group went to NGLA to do and learn.   It's very much common-sense.


[T]he experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member.  Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  

May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as NGLA and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.

. . . Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings.

[DMoriarty]

HJ Whigham, grieving the death of his father in law, wrote that in a string of other courses Macdonald was involved with 25 years after the event, mentioning it for the first time in his life, after the death of everyone else.

I'm sure he remembered Macdonald being involved with Merion's beginnings in some fashion, but this late-game testimony at that time with Wilson deceased is hardly compelling.

No one ever corroborated Whigham's single statement, not even Macdonald himself while alive, and Whigham never spoke to correct scores of other accounts giving Hugh Wilson credit, including Tillinghast's.

The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt.    These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version.  H.J. Whigham was a well-respected journalist, a war correspondent, an accomplished editor, a champion golfer, and was one of this nation's foremost authors and experts on golf courses in America.  Most importantly, HE WAS THERE.   He knew exactly what role CBM played at Merion.   Yet Mike completely discounts and dismisses his account because it came after his father-in-law died?  And because time had passed?   

Compare Mike's take on H.J. Whigham with Mike's treatment of then Alan Wilson letter, not written until many years after Merion was planned, after AW's younger brother Hugh had prematurely passed away.   Yet Mike and others nearly went apoplectic at the mere hint (real or imagined) that Hugh's untimely death might have influenced his older brother Alan's description of Hugh's involvement at Merion.  [Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to Alan Wilson or his letter.   To the contrary it is one of the most important documents we have, and  while much of it is not a first hand account of what happened, I did rely on it my essay and continue to do so today.  I just don't think it means what they think it means.  That I feel compelled to repeatedly include these little disclaimers to avoid another blowup says something about their approach to the material.]

The point isn't to rehash these issues, but rather to remind you all that there is a double standard at work here and there always has been.   Whatever is put in front of them, these guys only see what they want to see.   Why would it be different with the MCC records? 
_______________________________

If you think about it, if someone asked you tomorrow to build a course for a club, what would be your first concern as a novice?

Would Merion have trusted a novice to make it up as he went along?  Or would Merion and its appointee have sought and followed expert advice on every aspect of the creation of the course from questions from whether the land was suitable for golf, to whether they needed to add the three acres behind the clubhouse, to agronomy issues, to planning the course, to building and seeding it? 

David expressed incredulity earlier when told there is no record of discussion of the proposed golf course at Merion during the Committee's visit to NGLA, only that they went over sketches of great holes abroad the first night and toured NGLA the second night.   

Yet, that is exactly what the MCC minutes express and it's also what Wilson expressed later in 1916. 

That was mock incredulity in homage to a SNL Weekend Update bit.  But it is pretty incredible that you guys realllly want us to believe that they didn't discuss the routing or even bring a contour.  I mean - Come on - Really!

As for your interpretation of what Wilson's 1916 Chapter means, I disagree.   It does not say that they that all they did was look at CBM's sketches from his overseas trip (really?) one day then look at his course the next, and that this was all that happened. 

__________________________

TomPaul and Mike:  WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA VISIT?

[mike_malone]

 These gentlemen should have been more careful with the words they used when they wrote those letters/ minutes so many years ago. If they had been more clear and considerate we wouldn't be having these discussions today. Didn't they realize that "layout" was a loaded term subject to all sorts of interpretations?


     What I find fascinating is that each side in this argument just happens to find their interpretation fits their view.



    It would be more valuable if the burden of proof were increased so that it takes more than someone's tortured reading of a text to make a case.

[Mike_Cirba]

The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt.    These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version. 

David,

I would voice the exact same criticism of you.

It's clear we're never to agree on this and I don't have the time or inclination to argue further.

Take care.

[Patrick_Mucci]

ike Cirba,

Are you suggesting ..........  arbitration ?

It's clear that the Dan Aykroyd - Jane Curtin imitation needs a moderator, arbitrator, umpire to call the balls, strikes, fair and foul plays.

While some may dislike these threads, they seem highly informative.

I would doubt that anyone has put as much research efforts into these topics/subjects as those participating in these threads on GCA.com

[DMoriarty]

The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt.    These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version. 

David,

I would voice the exact same criticism of you.

It's clear we're never to agree on this and I don't have the time or inclination to argue further.

Take care.

The main difference is that I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything.  I reference what I am relying on on and people are free to see it differently if they like.   In contrast, you guys insist that we simply trust you and take your word for the critical documents mean, without documentation.   I am not asking anyone to trust me.  They can verify.  You guys want our trust without allowing us to verify, and not even Ronald Reagan would fall for that one!

One current example:    Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course.    If this is true, so be it, but let's see it.  What did the documents say?    You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.

___________________________________________________

TEPAUL and MIKE:   WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?

__________________________________________________________


Dave Schmidt,

I think Mike and I are very far apart.  There is an elemental difference between our two approaches.

My approach is to take all the first-hand accounts seriously and at their word, and to come up with an understanding which is consistent with what each and every one of them said.    I don't throw out reputable first-hand accounts just because I might disagree with them.   In fact I have taken all those statements very seriously;  and almost all of what I have figured out so far is based primarily on Hugh Wilson's 1916 Chapter.   Until I figured it out by really trying to take Wilson at his word,  this first-hand account had been misunderstood for years, not only on these boards, but also in every account of early Merion that I have ever read.

Mike's approach is different.  To Mike, Whigham's unambiguous, first-hand, statement must be considered false unless independently proven true.   Given that Whigham was the only one there who spoke directly and ambiguosly to the issue one way or another this is absolutely illogical.  We cannot summarily throw out our best evidence, a direct and unambiguous first-hand statement just because Mike and others don't want to believe it is accurate!  Mike has even dismissed and discounted portions of Hugh Wilson's own writing!  

This is a fundamentally flawed approach to historical research and analysis.

Don't get me wrong.   It would be different if the first hand accounts necessarily conflicted with Whigham's; for example if Hugh Wilson had written that he and his committee came up with the hole concepts and locations.   BUT WILSON NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM.    And no one else who was there did either.  And, while they do not specifically address whether he planned the holes and their locations, all those who were there acknowledge that CBM was involved, and nothing they wrote must be read to contradict what Whigham wrote.

Imagine if Mike could go back in time and talk to Whigham . . .


MC: "So you say you know what happened . . .?" 
HJW: "Yes, I was right there the entire time and I saw the whole thing. What happened is that CBM . . . ."
MC:   "Stop right there, buster.  Don't say another word.  I don't believe you.  CBM didn't do a thing.  Word on the street has always been that HW and the other King's of the Universe at Merion did it all."
HJW: "Really?  Did HW really claim that they planned the course themselves?   And that CBM had nothing to do with it?"
MC:   "Well . . . No.   Not exactly.   HW did go on about how CBM taught him to fit the correct principles of the great holes onto Merion's site.   But he didn't mean it.   He was just being humble and polite.  I figure all they did was sit through a boring slide show of drawings CBM's trip, then listen to him drone on about about his course."
HJW:  "But HW was telling the same thing I am telling you- "
MC:   "Hah.  I don't need your mumbo-jumbo.   I don't care if you were there, what you are saying is FALSE.  Unless someone else there said exactly the same thing in clear and unambiguous language, then your statement is FALSE. 
HJW:  But HW wrote . . .
MC:   Not the way I read it.
HJW: How about what AF wrote after talking to HW?
MC:   I read it differently.   Besides, neither HW or AF couldv't have meant that because it didn't happen that way.
HJW: But I was there.  It did happen that way.
MC:  (With hands over ears) Blahblahblah.Im.not.listening.blah.blah.blah. . . "

_______________________________

Patrick,

I was thinking of Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers, but it is sort of a contemporary take on the old Dan and Jane bit.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

This is funny, you have to admit. 

You're now creating imagined dialogue between me and a long-dead H. J. Whigham.   

Seriously...let's both give this a rest.   I'm quite sure it will improve both of our demeanors.   

Believe what you will, you've presented your case.   I've said all I can from my perspective.

Hope to see you on a less contentious issue on another day.

Take care,
Mike

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I think the dialogue between you and long dead HJW is pretty funny, if only because of its absurdity.   Imagine you telling one of the great figures of early American golf that his eye witness recollection of the planning of Merion is completely worthless!   On second thought it is too absurd to be funny.

I've said all I can from my perspective.

Really?   Because neither you nor TEPaul has let us in on what the MCC documents tell us about what happened at NGLA.  Why is that?  My guess is either the records tell us little or nothing or the records tell us something you guys do not want us to know.  Either way you guys haven't given us the full story.   
 
As for your suggested break, I've taken a break, and my demeanor is great.  You should go for it, as you are certainly overdue.  But before you go, how about you come clean about NGLA?

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Nice try goading me. 

Seriously, I do not have a copy of the MCC minutes.  Some time ago I told you that I had read them, and saw pertinent parts again recently, and I will tell you that from my perspective, everything relevant to this discussion has been fully and honestly portrayed here.

I've read the section prior about NGLA.   It truly only says that they spent the first night discussing the great holes abroad and going over Mac's sketches and spent the second day going over the golf course.

As I mentioned to you a few weeks or months back, continuing this discussion with you was going to be difficult because I had seen those minutes and you haven't and probably trust between some of us has gone out the window over time.

The bottom line to me though, David, is that it didn't have to be this way and I wish it wasn't.   However, I am not a member at either club, I do not have any transcribed records I could quote to you verbatim, nor do I wish to continue arguing with you while we're at this unfortunate juncture.  I consider myself extremely privileged to have viewed these private club records and I'm not mincing words, I'm not twisting facts, I've been telling you exactly what those minutes say.   

I'm also respectful enough of history that I wouldn't hide anything relevant, but I know you won't believe that statement so once again, there is no point continuing.   In many respects, I do wish they went into much more detail, but minutes from that time period seem to be very much written for the "insider" audience.   

I found much the same thing looking at the GAP Minutes when we were researching Cobb's Creek.   It had just enough info to validate some of what we were hoping for, such as George Crump's direct involvement, yet frustratingly included no discussion of who did what, much less offer anything in matters of routing, layout, hole drawings, etc.....I guess those things weren't considered important enough to be raised at the upper board levels, unfortunately.

I really do hope that we can find more productive and cooperative things to discuss soon, because I always believe things can improve, and despite our throwing bombs at each other over this issue, I do respect you and wish you well.


p.s.  The imaginary dialogue between me and Whigham is historically inaccurate, as well as hypothetically inaccurate.    I scanned the complete conversation and did not find the word "toady" in there one time!   Please at least give me credit for more consistency than that.. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Perhaps the best way to end this thread is to just post a picture of a hole that was the thrust of much of the Findlay article, and which is taken from the thread Bradley Anderson just started about the present 10th at Merion.

Although his article was from 1925, and talked about the new 10th hole created by Wilson and Flynn, what's interesting is that the original "Alps" 10th hole is still visible as it played for the first 12 years of the brand new course.

Alex Findlay expressed clear doubts originally, and Hugh WIlson agreed that "it would take a lot of making" to equal the original at Prestwick, and yet somehow Findlay's opening day article stated that the approach to the 10th was just like the original.  (Was Street Crack available then?  )

What is visible in the picture is the huge mound built behind the green, and one can see pretty well that the approach was not blind.   Anyone here who's ever played Prestwick, or the wonderful 3rd at NGLA have minimally got to say to themselves....WHAT?!?, per haps more accurately...WTF?!?!?!   

As much as I think Hugh Wilson was a wonderfully gifted natural architect, it seems from articles and pictures that every one of his attempts at creating something more contrived and based on other models came off very poorly.

It also seems to me that he learned the error of his ways very quickly...

Everyone of course can form their own opinions on this short-lived "Alps" hole and both its credibility as a replica as well as it's value as a golf hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

That's a great photo.

I've always wondered about the treatment of Ardmore Ave in terms of seperation from the golf course.

I don't believe concrete curbing was en vogue at the time, hence, it would make sense that a feature was used to seperate the road from the golf course.  It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a berm on the tee side of the hole may have created a sufficient visual barrier such that the putting surface could not be viewed from the DZ.

Originally, I disagreed with David Moriarty on this subject, but, as more has been revealed, I tend to agree with him, that # 10 was indeed intended to be an "Alps" hole.

Someone posted additional photos of # 10 and I recall that either an earthen berm or bunkering fronted the area between the green and DZ, creating that blindness, though nowhere near to the degree as found at # 17 at Prestwick or # 3 at NGLA.

If someone could retrieve those photos it would be helpful.

[Mike_Cirba]

For comparison purposes, here's a photo taken by AW Tillinghast when the course opened in 1912, showing the original Merion 10th "Alps".

Remember, the large mound protrusion in the background is "behind" the green, and largely meant to protect golfers from hooked drives on the original dogleg left 1st hole, which curled around the old 10th green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Here's a view from the opposite angle just before the course opening.

The photo was taken from the 14th fairway, looking towards the 18th green and clubhouse, but the back side of the protective mound of the old Alps 10th green is visible.

The original 1st hole started just behind the clubhouse in this picture, and then doglegged left around that protective mound to close to the site of today's green.   

This is truly an awesome picture once one considers the amazing history that has taken place across just these few pictured acres over the past century.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()