[ChipOat]

Kyle Harris,

I'm inclined to think that the mound in back of old #10 served a dual purpose.

First, Patrick is correct re: the importance of a "backstop" mound on the Alps at Prestwick and, later, (and especially) at NGLA.

However, don't underestimate the distance on the ground that a hooked tee shot with the 1.62" ball could travel in those pre-watering system days - especially since the prevailing breeze at Merion would be right-to-left off the old first tee box.  A big sweeping hook off #1 might not be going very fast when it got to the original 10th green, but I'll wager that many an errant drive of that description ended up on the back of that berm from 1912  to whenever they removed it after 1923.

[Mike_Cirba]

David and Patrick,

With all due respect, I'm not sure which of your posts and theories are more certifiably insane. 

Keep up the competition...I've had enough chuckles tonight to make my weekend! 

You guys don't have any UFO theories you'd like to share, do you? 

[ChipOat]

I have had a hard time following the exact trail of these threads - including this one.

However, if we could change the topic to discuss the precise minute details of the demise of Catherine the Great, I would be much more motivated to keep re-reading every last sentence until I thoroughly understood all the finer points of the dialogue.

Any interest?

[Phil_the_Author]

Is it at all possible that everyone up to this point has TOTALLY misunderstood what was meant in describing the 10th as an "Alps" hole? Is it possible that the hole was designed with a Mid-Surrey Alpinization scheme, similar to what Tilly did at Shawnee?

I ask this because in the photo above in Pat Mucci's post #414 it is quite obvious that there are a number of small mounds in the left rough between the front of the photo and where the spectators line up.

In line with this, Tilly would write just a year after Merion opened that HE had introduced the "Mid-Surrey" style of Alpinization (areas in rough that contained numbers of small mounds) to America at Shawnee. Could it be then, that the "Alps" that Wilson had initially tried to imitate was this style? He most certainly would have been over to see Shawnee and spoken to Tilly about what he was doing with his first course design.

Interestingly, several photographs (admittedly not very clear) found on the Royal prestwick site of the 17th green from 100 years ago, seem to show small moundings left of it. I may be seeing it wrong in these and am quite curious now about that aspect of its potential design.

It would certainly explain a great deal...

[TEPaul]

"Your time line asks us to believe that M&W were not responsible for the routing or hole concepts because they were only on site in June 1910 then again in April 1911.    Among the many problems with your time line is that it completely ignores the fact that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for two days in March 1911 for help.   You've tried to brush this meeting aside but your explanation defies common sense.  We aren't required to suspend common sense because you tell us to, are we?

Based on what we know, here is likely what happened arund the time of the  NGLA meeting . . ."




David Moriarty:

I've explained precisely what Wilson and his committee REPORTED they did while at NGLA. I'll leave it to you to speculate on things Wilson and his committee did at NGLA that were not mentioned in their report.

[TEPaul]

"But let's assume for argument that this is all they did; looked at sketches CBM had used for NGLA, and examined the course itself.   This still begs a crucial question.   Why?   

Why travel to NGLA at all?  Why learn how CBM understood the underlying principles of the great holes and how he incorporated these principles into the golf holes at NGLA?   Why have M&W travel all the way to Ardmore to check on the progress?  Why give him final say on the routing?   Why try to build a Redan like Macdonald had built?   Why try to built an Alps like Macdonald had built?  Why try to build a replica of the Eden green?   Why include a number of other features and principles straight out of the CBM handbook.  Why build a course where most of the holes were reportedly based on the great holes abroad (that Wilson had not yet seen?)

Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."




David Moriarty:

Let's assume for the sake of argument??

I don't see why we need to assume anything as the Wilson Committee report was specific in reporting what they did at NGLA and why and I certainly don't see why we need to assume something for the sake of argument about what they did there and why that was not reported by the Wilson Committee unless arguing and argument is all your interested in with these many Merion threads which your content indicates is all you are interested in.

None of this is about what really happened at MCC anyway; it's now merely about you continuing to just argue. Unfortunately you're continuing to argue a contention that has now been debunked.

There isn't even a thing in the year long MCC and committee reports that even hints that Merion even asked Macdonald/Whigam to route and design a golf course for them. That was what the Wilson committee was created to do, and charged by their club with doing.

You've speculated and rationalized that all Merion asked Wilson and his committee to do was BUILD the course to someone else's plan. It's really hard to believe that you're even incapable of understanding and accepting that men like Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin and Francis weren't the kind of men who BUILD golf courses themselves. That's what they hired the Johnson Co. and Pickering to do for them. If they weren't actually building a golf course and they hadn't routed and designed a golf course what do you think they actually were doing----just standing around watching people they hired BUILD a golf course to a plan they did not create?? Obviously to anyone with a shred of understanding about golf course architecture that makes no sense at all, David Moriarty. Therefore, your illogical years long contention that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East makes no sense whatsoever, as it would have Wilson and his committee basically doing nothing themselves. This alone is some basic stuff and it alone shows why your theory is entirely wanting and fallacious.

Did Macdonald/Whigam make some suggestions during that single day in April which was the only time available to them with plans of the course in front of them? They most certainly may've done that but nothing was ever specifically recorded in that vein about the architecture. But it most certainly would've been a complete impossibility for Macdonald/Whigam to just route and design the holes of Merion East in that single day and had they done something like that and a plan like that was sent to the board for approval I have no doubt at all the MCC meeting minutes would have clearly reflected such a thing. And I have no doubt at all such a thing would've been reflected in Alan Wilson's report to William Philler, a report I consider perhaps the best example of what really did happen at MCC in the beginning and who was in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses.

But they don't reflect what you contend at all, and the reason why is pretty obvious. The only way you can possibly contend that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were even the driving force behind it is to continue to contend that all those men back then who were part of all these things were somehow mistaken or telling some fabrication, and I really don't believe anyone on this website or anywhere else for that matter if they honestly consider this would agree with such a notion or even continue to pursue a discussion of it.

[Sean_A]

I don't think it makes a hill of a beans of difference, but deciding if the 10th was blind or not probably depends on if one believes seeing the pin constitutes a blind shot or not.  Given the uphill nature of the approach, not that much uphill for sure, but with a fronting bunking and what seems to me a bit of a sunken - bowl like green, I find it entirely plausible that only the pin was visible from the approach area.  One could have used the back bunker to gauge where on the green the pin was.  IMO, seeing the pin is not a blind shot.

As for the mounding creating the bowl like effect, I have to believe this is an integral pat of the Alps design as it was interpreted by Wilson.  Perhaps it also served as a safety buffer from the 1st, but I think this would be very much a secondary consideration.  Furthermore, the bank also houses the rear bunker which I also think is an integral part of the Alps design as interpreted by Wilson to help mitigate the blindness without making at least a significant portion of the green visible from the approach area. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Phil:

You're probably right in that back then there seems to have been a number of terms that may've been used interchangeably and by various people to indicate just about the same thing----ie "Alps", "Himalayas," "Mid-Surrey mounds," "dolomites" etc, etc, etc.

It really doesn't do us much good today to argue endlessly about the meaning of those words to some of those men back then who used them and it certainly does us no good today to listen to someone call Robert Lesley an idiot for using the term "Alps" for Merion's original tenth hole as Patrick Mucci once did on a thread on here. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Fellows,

Robert Lesley tells us exactly what the hole was designed to be.

It was not built to be an Alps in the way we think and as Macdonald built;  it was designed to be "in principle" an Alps hole and then goes on to describe exactly what they thought that meant.

Blindness was not a part of it.

[Mike_Cirba]

I should slightly qualify that statement...it would be blind if the drive didn't make it to the crest of the hill, but then so is today's 10th blind if one fails to drive it about 180 yards.

However, I aint never heard nobody calling today:a 10th at Merion no Alps.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You are right to remind the participants on this site what Robert Lesley actually did say and mean when he described Merion's #10 back then.

The reason I say that is because if you or someone doesn't constantly remind the participants on this site of that they tend to just skew out in semi-meaningless directions to try to make some other point which is essentially irrelevent to what Merion's original Alps hole once was.

I think Moriarty did this on here initially as one of a number of ways to open the door to insert this preconceived notion of his that Macdonald's part in Merion had been minimized somehow and that Wilson's had been inaccurately glorified somehow.

And of course, Patrick Mucci said on one of these threads that Lesley was an idiot to desrcribe the original 10th at Merion as an Alps the way he did. I'm quite sure Robert Lesley, the Golf Chairman of Merion, neither knew nor would've given one Good God-damn what Patrick Mucci's definition of an Alps hole at Merion or anywhere else was! I'm also quite sure Lesley's opinion of Mucci would've been about the same thing as Mucci's opinion of Lesley!

And I'm also quite sure, at this point, that Lesley's opinion of Moriarty would've been about the same thing as the opinions are of Moriarty of Lesley's present counterparts at Merion! 

[Sean_A]

Fellows,

Robert Lesley tells us exactly what the hole was designed to be.

It was not built to be an Alps in the way we think and as Macdonald built;  it was designed to be "in principle" an Alps hole and then goes on to describe exactly what they thought that meant.

Blindness was not a part of it.

Mike

Do we know how Leslie defined blindness?  I know many on this site consider a shot blind if the surface of the green, but the pin can be seen.  I disagree, but it drives home the point of having to know what people mean when they use certain words.  Often times we make assumptions based on our own use of words.  For instance, if someone states that the hole is an Alps to me, I assume blindness is a key aspect of the design.  I would also assume that one must carry a rather high obstacle which would make a ground game approach impossible.  In other words, the approach is all carry and there is no other option.  So to me, Leslie was mistaken in his use of the term "Alps" and this in and of itself throws doubt into what existed and what the intent of the design was.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

If you really want to know what Lesley meant by blindness or the degree of it in what he said about the original 10th, the Alps hole at Merion there is a very easy way to know what he meant and some of us who've been around Merion for years are able to understand exactly what he meant. In other words, despite what some on here say or have said about this and the realities of it those same people are just not as familiar as some of us are in comparing photographs of that hole with the land it was on. They can tell anyone otherwise but those things and one's own eyes right there on the ground analyzing these thing just don't lie.

But on the other hand, others on here can just continue to argue over the definition of his remark in a vacuum of not understanding that actual landform and those early photographs compared with it.

They can even try to use GOOGLE Earth and it's measuring or topographical tool but that will never be anywhere near as effective and accurate as being right there on that landform looking at it with those old photographs in hand! 

[TEPaul]

Adam Messix asked:


"It leads me to a question for all....Looking at that picture and of other pictures taken even closer to the opening of the course in 1912, stylistically what do those holes look like?  I'm asking in regards to bunker style as much as anything."


Adam:

This of course is a really great question and a pretty fundamental one for some of us who've been around Merion and studying its architecture for years.

It is made more pertinent, at least to me, in that for a number of years Ron Prichard has maintained that he believes the prototypic bunker style that became basically the generic American bunker type and style came out of Merion East.

Personally, I think this is true but the best or perhaps only way to even recognize this fact and to test it is to determine both if and to what degree that Merion East bunker type and style was different from anything that came before it on inland courses anywhere in the world, or even perhaps any other course anywhere in the world.

I think it was unique when first done at Merion but of course the process of trying to find something somewhere that preceded it that was done artificially is still an on-going process and search.

There actually are some bunker photos of NGLA very early on that do look a good deal like what Wilson and committee would use at Merion and seemingly make famous ("The White Faces of Merion). But I think the point is those bunkers and certainly the look and style of them in those early photos of NGLA (there are many of those photos contained in some photo albums at NGLA) would not remain that way or look that way at NGLA for long. Macdonald definitely evolved them and changed them and their look over time and seemingly very much on purpose.

But the point is, what did Wilson and committee see and study when they were at NGLA back then in that two day visit to NGLA in MARCH 1911?!? That was still very early for NGLA itself and before its own opening!

They saw some bunkers that show up in those early NGLA photos that were remarkably similar to what would become famous at Merion East and would in fact not last at NGLA in that look and style!

Matter of fact, there are a few photos of the 2nd hole at NGLA that clearly show exactly how Macdonald did change and evolve their style and look from what it once was shortly after construction and perhaps BEFORE he evolved them into what he wanted them to be and to look like ideally.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul, 

You haven't told me PRECISELY what Wilson and his Committee reported.  [I wasn't aware they reported anything.  Wasn't it Lesley who reported to the Board?]

What you have told me is what you think Lesley's report to the board meant, and then used that to conclude that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA.    Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense, given all else we know.

You still have not answered the crucial questions.   Why?   
- Why travel to NGLA at all? 
- Why learn how CBM understood the underlying principles of the great holes and how he incorporated these principles into the golf holes at NGLA?   
- Why have M&W travel all the way to Ardmore to check on the progress? 
- Why give him final say on the routing?   
- Why try to build a Redan like Macdonald had built?   
- Why try to build an Alps like Macdonald had built? 
- Why try to build a replica of the Eden green?   
- Why include a number of other features and principles straight out of the CBM handbook? 
- Why build a course where almost all of the holes were reportedly based on great holes abroad when Wilson had not even seen them?

Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be.


____________________

Mike,

Your rehash of the blindness debate is a waste of time.   Lesley's essay does not support your conclusion.  Others directly contradict it.   

________________________________

Phillip,

If Wilson was going for Alpinization like AWT's, it seems more likely to me that that this would have occurred after he returned from Europe in May 1912, and would have been an addition to his attempt at a CBM type Alps hole, perhaps to add to the blindness of the second shot.    I think Far and Sure (?) reported that after his trip he did add some nice mounding to the course, so perhaps this is to what he was referring. 

Even if we allow for some debate on what Findlay meant in his June 1912 article, I think you had it right when you noted that Findlay ties Macdonald's influence to that particular hole.   

____________________________

One thing that may be misleading about all these photos;  the original line of play looks to have been to the left of the current line of play,  approximately over the left fairway bunker or perhaps even left of this.    Flynn drew the original hole as playing as a slight dogleg right.  This would have brought the hill to the left of the green (and the mounds Phillip noticed) more into the direct line of play and would have increased dthe blindness.   

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul, 

You haven't told me PRECISELY what Wilson and his Committee reported.  [I wasn't aware they reported anything.  Wasn't it Lesley who reported to the Board?]

What you have told me is what you think Lesley's report to the board meant, and then used that to conclude that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA.    Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense, given all else we know."



David Moriarty:

That's right, and for about the thirteenth time I'm not going to transcribe the MCC meeting minutes or the Wilson Committee report that was given by Lesley to the board to you or on here. I've told you that about a dozen times already but apparently you seem to understand exactly what that means about as well and you understand the architectural history of Merion.

And I also realize you weren't aware they reported anything. That's just another good reason why you shouldn't have even attempted to write the essay you did about Merion's history when you did it with wholly incomplete material and research. I've also told you that about a dozen times but you don't seem to understand that either any better than you do Merion's history.

I also never concluded that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. The only person who thinks I concluded that is you. What I said was the Wilson Committee report given to Lesley to present to the board mentions nothing at all about Wilson and his committee discussing Merion's layout while at NGLA. But the report does mention what they DID discuss with Macdonald and Whigam during that visit to NGLA. I already told you about a dozen times that it says they discussed Macdonald's plans and drawings from abroard FOR NGLA the first night and they went out on NGLA the next day and analyzed THAT course and discussed the golf course NGLA and apparently the principles behind ITS design.

That's also what I've said to you about a dozen times already but you seem to understand that about as well as you understand the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all after all this time.

I wonder why that is? 

[TEPaul]

"Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."


Absolutely. I don't think anyone that knows anything about Merion has ever denied that, particularly as the basic idea was to study and analyze THE PRINCIPLES of well respected holes abroad and put those principles into effect over here.

You definitely didn't think that one up for Merion, that's for sure. Herbert Warren Wind explained how Wilson had copied European architectural principles at Merion East but a whole lot more subtely than Macdonald did at NGLA, but MacWood and apparently you discounted or ignored that too. That's pretty amazing that MacWood or you would so blithely discount or disagree with a golf writer of the stature of HWW just because it doesn't agree with your fanciful notions.

But using some well respected architectural principles from abroad over here as Wilson and Merion did is a long, long way from assuming or concluding that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were the driving force behind it.

But maybe you've never understood that either any better than you understand the history of Merion.

Frankly, when it came to analyzing the principles of well respected architecture abroad and putting it into effect over here Macdonald wasn't even the first over here to think of that or do it; it's just that he was the most public and vocal about it and what he did very publicly IDENTIFIED which holes and hole principles were being used over here.

We know Herbert Leeds did the same thing with Myopia but about half a decade at least BEFORE Macdonald did NGLA. Leeds doesn't get much attention on here for it though since he was so much quieter about what he was doing and had done with Myopia and he didn't try to actually name what he learned over there with the same names of some of those holes over there.

I don't think you understand any of this any better than you do the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all.

[Mike_Cirba]

David.

The shot was not blind.

At all.

Neither was the green sunken.

At all.

Look at the green surface in comparison to the surrounding land...if anything it's slightly elevated.

The large, 15 foot tall backing mound with the bunker embedded in it is vastly unlike any Mac Alps holes.

The cross bunker in front did have some earthen mounding built within it. But nothing tall enough to blind Mickey Rooney.

You say it must be the angle, yet you must not know the course very well because the photo taken from down in the valley by the 9th green is the EXACT angle one would approach the 10th green from if indeed it played as a slight dogleg right per Flynns drawing.

Yet that picture, taken from way below, clearly shows the BOTTOM of the rear bunker, which we know from the closeup photo is just above waisthigh of the average golfer standing on that green.

There were no blinding mounds front, left, or right, and you're contention that the photo taken from left of the green MUST have been taken by someone standing atop a giant mound has to take the cake as the most unintentionally humorous contention I've ever read on.GCA.

I do give you credit for attempting any angle possible to convince those who haven't been there or others with mere passing interest.

[Mike_Cirba]

Two things that are true is that the hole was designed to capture "the principle" of an Alps which Lesley states requires a carry over a large cross bunker on the approach.

Also, the large mound behind the green served dual purposes, three if you want to count just looking ghastly and unnatural.

[DMoriarty]

That's right, and for about the thirteenth time I'm not going to transcribe the MCC meeting minutes or the Wilson Committee report that was given by Lesley to the board to you or on here. I've told you that about a dozen times already but apparently you seem to understand exactly what that means about as well and you understand the architectural history of Merion.

And I also realize you weren't aware they reported anything. That's just another good reason why you shouldn't have even attempted to write the essay you did about Merion's history when you did it with wholly incomplete material and research. I've also told you that about a dozen times but you don't seem to understand that either any better than you do Merion's history.

I also never concluded that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. The only person who thinks I concluded that is you. What I said was the Wilson Committee report given to Lesley to present to the board mentions nothing at all about Wilson and his committee discussing Merion's layout while at NGLA. But the report does mention what they DID discuss with Macdonald and Whigam during that visit to NGLA. I already told you about a dozen times that it says they discussed Macdonald's plans and drawings from abroard FOR NGLA the first night and they went out on NGLA the next day and analyzed THAT course and discussed the golf course NGLA and apparently the principles behind ITS design.

That's also what I've said to you about a dozen times already but you seem to understand that about as well as you understand the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all after all this time.

1.   You will transcribe the minutes if you think it helps you, yet not this portion.  I wonder why that is?
2.   Scolding me for not obtaining information that you are hiding from me is a bit silly, even for you.
3.   Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley?   If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?

"Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."


Absolutely. I don't think anyone that knows anything about Merion has ever denied that, particularly as the basic idea was to study and analyze THE PRINCIPLES of well respected holes abroad and put those principles into effect over here.

You definitely didn't think that one up for Merion, that's for sure. Herbert Warren Wind explained how Wilson had copied European architectural principles at Merion East but a whole lot more subtely than Macdonald did at NGLA, but MacWood and apparently you discounted or ignored that too. That's pretty amazing that MacWood or you would so blithely discount or disagree with a golf writer of the stature of HWW just because it doesn't agree with your fanciful notions.

But using some well respected architectural principles from abroad over here as Wilson and Merion did is a long, long way from assuming or concluding that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were the driving force behind it.

But maybe you've never understood that either any better than you understand the history of Merion.

Frankly, when it came to analyzing the principles of well respected architecture abroad and putting it into effect over here Macdonald wasn't even the first over here to think of that or do it; it's just that he was the most public and vocal about it and what he did very publicly IDENTIFIED which holes and hole principles were being used over here.

We know Herbert Leeds did the same thing with Myopia but about half a decade at least BEFORE Macdonald did NGLA. Leeds doesn't get much attention on here for it though since he was so much quieter about what he was doing and had done with Myopia and he didn't try to actually name what he learned over there with the same names of some of those holes over there.

I don't think you understand any of this any better than you do the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all.

I'm glad you finally agree that Merion was a cbm course, in the sense that it was based on CBM'S UNDERSTANDING of the principles of the great holes, and how they should be applied at Merion.  

But all this you write about the great holes abroad is misleading. The great holes abroad were not even a direct source of information.    It was CBM's understanding and application.      

As for Mr. Wind's observations, I addressed them in my paper.  While a brilliant writer, Mr. Wind made the same mistake you, Wayne, Merion and everyone else made for years.  He didn't understand that CBM was the driving force behind the hole concepts (and their placement at Merion.)    The hole concepts were directly from CBM, not from Wilson's experiences abroad.      

________________________________

Mike,

Once again you ignore and misread the source material when it is inconvenient for you.   I'll stick with those who were there. 

[Sean_A]

David.

The shot was not blind.

At all.

Neither was the green sunken.

At all.

Look at the green surface in comparison to the surrounding land...if anything it's slightly elevated.

The large, 15 foot tall backing mound with the bunker embedded in it is vastly unlike any Mac Alps holes.

The cross bunker in front did have some earthen mounding built within it. But nothing tall enough to blind Mickey Rooney.

You say it must be the angle, yet you must not know the course very well because the photo taken from down in the valley by the 9th green is the EXACT angle one would approach the 10th green from if indeed it played as a slight dogleg right per Flynns drawing.

Yet that picture, taken from way below, clearly shows the BOTTOM of the rear bunker, which we know from the closeup photo is just above waisthigh of the average golfer standing on that green.

There were no blinding mounds front, left, or right, and you're contention that the photo taken from left of the green MUST have been taken by someone standing atop a giant mound has to take the cake as the most unintentionally humorous contention I've ever read on.GCA.

I do give you credit for attempting any angle possible to convince those who haven't been there or others with mere passing interest.

Mike

I don't know how you can say with absolute confidence that the approach to #10 wasn't blind - at the least for some of the hole locations.  I certainly don't know, but I think it entirely possible.  Look at the people in the pic below and tell me that green doesn't drop.  I can readily accept that the back raised part of the green was likely visible.  You haven't shown or said anything to prove your point. 


Ciao

[mike_malone]

   If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design.

[Sean_A]

   If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design.

I don't know what the intention was, but one thing is for sure, no matter what Lesley or CBM stated, an Alps that isn't blind isn't an Alps.  Its just a meaningless name for a hole.  Its preposterous to think that one of the key elements of a hole could be left out yet folks could think that the they have a good template of that original.  Besides, what does the road have to do with whether or not the blind shot is good or not?  Has anybody said traffic on the road couldn't be seen? 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

" If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design."

Mayday:

The entire green-end and flag of the original #10 hole couldn't possibly have been blind like most other template Alps holes from Macdonald's pallette. I don't care how endlessly some on here try to rationalize the point that it was really blind all one has to do is go out there on that landform and it is immediately obvious from all that ground out there on both sides of the road that that green-end was never blind like most all Alps holes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean,

That photo is take from just rightfront adjacent to the green and those people you see standing are on the rear mound, which also came around the left and right back edges slightly.

Check out this picture from short left of the same green.   Look at the people left of the green, and then look at the land behind them in your foreground.   The green is at the same level.



Follow that land of the green out to the road.   The green is actually elevated, before dropping a couple of steps to the road.

Check out the bottom line of the back bunker and it's relation to the players in both photos.   Now see it again from well down in the valley across from the 9th green.



The fairway is going up from the bottom right of the photo, between the gallery ropes.

You can clearly see the bottom line of the back bunker, all the way from down in the valley.

It was not a blind hole, at all.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()