[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't recall right now....were there any accounts anywhere that described the approach as blind?


So what, the history or architecture at Merion isn't based on your recall of alleged or non-existant accounts.

I'd still love to hear someone explain why the bottom of the back bunker is visible in that picture from the hillside just above the valley of the 9th green, which is quite a bit lower than the 10th green. 

Perhaps because the bunker was elevated well above the putting surface, which can clearly be seen in the this photo, a photo YOU originally posted


Or,  I could ask, "Bottom of WHAT back bunker ?"

Here's another photo YOU posted.
Where's the back bunker ?


Where's the back bunker ?

Mike, Your question is irrelevant.

You'll notice in another photo that you posted, that the same bunker you reference ISN'T visible from the 10th tee.



The ONLY important view, the only view that is significant is the view from the DZ in the 10th fairway to the green.

If you carefully examine the schematic shown below, and the photos that have been presented to date, it's clear that the fronting bunker complex and its footpad obscured the view of the putting surface from the DZ in the 10th fairway, thus including all of the basic elements that comprise an "Alps" hole.



Why is there NO BACK BUNKER in that schematic ?  ?  ?

Flynn was known for his detail, yet, he drew the 10th WITHOUT a back bunker.

In addition, a drive of 250 yards, circa 1911, from an elevated tee, considering the uphill topography in the DZ and the trajectory of the tee shot, seems excessive, meaning that most drives would be shorter, which means that the uphill nature of the topography would serve to impede, if not obscure, some views.

The article that accompanies the schematic references the uphill slope, which it claims LEVELED out at the 250 yard mark, meaning that drives of less than 250 yards would be at a lower elevation.  Thus, the hillside itself, the topography of the hole and the slope of the hill would introduce the element of blindness.

It's clear, from the photos YOU PRODUCED, that a fronting bunker complex sits above the green, thus obstructing the view of the putting surface from the DZ in the 10th fairway.

It's also clear that the DZ, from less than 250 yards from the tee, falls off to lower elevations, thus introducing ANOTHER element of blindness in addition to the fronting bunker complex.

When you analyze ALL of the photos, written accounts, topography and schematics, it's clear that the hole contains the elements that typically comprise an "Alps" hole.

You'll continue to deny this, just as you did the proof that Wilson didn't visit the UK prior to 1912, but, in the end, if you adhere to Shakespeare's words in Hamlet, I, iii, you'll come around in time  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As to your last post and particularly the parts you mentioned about the back bunker on that berm----welcome to Moriarty's club. I'm afraid the details of the everlastingly important TIMELINE is going to get you on this one just like it got Moriarty's incomplete research and tortured logic in his essay.

This is all just another great example of people who try to claim they know what they're talking about with far less than complete material from the archives of Merion itself. Have you ever even looked in Merion's archives Pat? Has Moriarty? I don't think so and it sure does show.

They say you can't f... with Mother Nature and you just can't f... with THE TIMELINE either. But you will be unless or until you know it and understand it thoroughly which apparently you don't and Moriarty didn't when he wrote and published on here his wholly inaccurate essay. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

As to your last post and particularly the parts you mentioned about the back bunker on that berm----welcome to Moriarty's club. I'm afraid the details of the everlastingly important TIMELINE is going to get you on this one just like it got Moriarty's incomplete research and tortured logic in his essay.

I  have NO IDEA as to what you're talking about with respect to the above paragraph.

The physical evidence, photographic, written and illustrated confirms the configuration of the 10th hole and the element of blindness.
As to the exhibits I presented to support my position, they were exhibits presented by Mike Cirba.
You can't accept them in his posts and reject them in my posts.

This is all just another great example of people who try to claim they know what they're talking about with far less than complete material from the archives of Merion itself. Have you ever even looked in Merion's archives Pat? Has Moriarty? I don't think so and it sure does show.

On the issue of looking in Merion's archives, does the evidence differ from the photos Mike Cirba produced.
Were Cirba's photos doctored ?
Are they not of the 10th hole at Merion ?
Is Flynn's schematic a forgery ?
Is the accompanying article fabricated ?

How much evidence do you need before you admit that the 10th hole was Wilson's version of an "Alps" hole ?

They say you can't f... with Mother Nature and you just can't f... with THE TIMELINE either. But you will be unless or until you know it and understand it thoroughly which apparently you don't and Moriarty didn't when he wrote and published on here his wholly inaccurate essay. 

ESSAY ?
My challenge to Mike Cirba has NOTHING to do with an essay.
It's about the 10th hole at Merion being classified as an "Alps", even though it was a poor one at that.

[TEPaul]

"How much evidence do you need before you admit that the 10th hole was Wilson's version of an "Alps" hole ?"


Pat:

I've never denied that. Not on this website, not ever. While I have never had any detailed information of whose specific concept or whose specific idea or whose specfic creation the original 10th hole at Merion was, or any other particular hole at Merion (with the possible exception of Francis's story) I have always just maintained that what Alan Wilson wrote; "Each of the committee members who worked on the Wilson committee have told me that in the main, Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses," is the truth and fact of Merion and it does not need to be questioned more, not the least reason being those specific details were just never recorded.

And so, I see no point at all in these endless discussions and arguments that have been going on about the original 10th hole for at least three years on here and that were probably begun by the thread that Moriarty started in 2006 and which he hypelinked again above. I see no point in that discussion and I have no idea what Mike Cirba said to you that you disagree with now and are mentioning to me.

I think it is all pretty meaningless when it comes to the subject of what the Wilson committee did and what Macdonald/Whigam did.

On the other hand, if you want to know why something like that bunker on the rear berm appeared in some photos and not in others or not in Flynn's drawing but in the 1916 Amateur then you need to be really familiar with the TIMELINE of architectural changes on that golf course and not just get into some irrelevent argument about what Mike Cirba meant in some post. Obviously, you aren't aware of THE TIMELINE of some of those specific changes on that course. And I am also aware that just like Moriarty you will probably try to deny that somehow or slough it off or just divert the subject. If so, I will tell you right now, I won't be interested in even discussing it with you, and I certainly won't be interested in arguing with you over total trivialities and irrelevent issues about it.

But as you said, if you have an open mind and you want to learn something here you can certainly always ask some of us who know this course and the history of it a whole lot better than you do.

You don't have a problem with that do you, but if so, why would that be? You mentioned some "party line" at Merion. What is that Patrick? Can you explain that? If you are talking about the way Merion presents its history now, particularly with not just Wilson but now with Flynn, I think I can guarantee you that IS the accurate architectural history of Merion! 

[DMoriarty]

David,
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.

As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.

How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?

Thanks

Sorry Mike, but I am not at all interested in getting into this with you.  I am sure that our discussing the holes would be entirely pointless.   Hell, you've been discussing Merion's Alps hole for three years now and have plenty of documentation, but I doubt you are even willing to acknowledge that this was Wilson's attempt to build a CBM-type Alps hole.   

And you suggest we set aside Merion's attempt at a Redan?  Why would you want to set aside a hole with obvious CBM influences in a discussion about CBM influence?   If you cannot get your head around these two holes, then you are surely not ready to reasonably discuss the rest.     

[Mike_Cirba]

David,
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.

As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.

How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?

Thanks

Sorry Mike, but I am not at all interested in getting into this with you.  I am sure that our discussing the holes would be entirely pointless.   Hell, you've been discussing Merion's Alps hole for three years now and have plenty of documentation, but I doubt you are even willing to acknowledge that this was Wilson's attempt to build a CBM-type Alps hole.   

And you suggest we set aside Merion's attempt at a Redan?  Why would you want to set aside a hole with obvious CBM influences in a discussion about CBM influence?   If you cannot get your head around these two holes, then you are surely not ready to reasonably discuss the rest.     

Hmm...I thought so...   

I was waiting to see how you would answer a direct question after making the ludicrous general statement that you saw Macdonald ALL OVER THE PROPERTY during your single visit to the course some years ago, even though over half the holes on said course have markedly or wholly changed since it was originally designed, including a large piece of the original routing.

I wasn't asking for me so much...I just wanted to have others see just how deep you were willing to publicly dig into the compost heap to pull some other highly speculative and historically inaccurate theory of how some other hole at Merion somehow exemplifies Macdonald's principles.    That the only difference between Merion and courses Macdonald actually designed was a simple case of mistaken aethethics.     

Of course, you can't and won't answer the question, because no such evidence exists besides the fact that they are golf holes, and Macdonald did some of those.

As to your contention about the original Alps 10th and/or the redan 3rd, of course they're supposed to be attempts to model after great holes, an idea that Macdonald wholly promoted.   They just aren't anything like any of the Alps or redan holes that Macdonald himself designed, either aesthecially or completely functionally.

Dan Hermann,

Perhaps you should ask him the question?   

[Mike_Cirba]

Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?

David,

I think that's an accurate reading because there is certainly not an eight foot vertical rise or fall from that front bunker.

[Mike_Cirba]

Another question: 

Mike Cirba:  in your very first response to the "Another Piece" thread, before all the silliness started and you were thinking logically  , you said that you were pretty well convinced that the second shot to the original #10 was blind.

Serious question - So why are you fighting it now?

David,

That was asked and answered earlier, but the bottom line is that I've studied/seen Merion more since that time and also found additional photos.

I believe there may have been partial blindness of the front of the green or the lower part of the flagstick if it was placed just behind the bunker, but nothing at all like the blindness or daunting challenge of what one thinks in terms of an Alps like NGLA or Prestwick.

[DMoriarty]

Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?

David,

I think that's an accurate reading because there is certainly not an eight foot vertical rise or fall from that front bunker.

Then why on earth did you claim that there was an 8 foot rise?  Other than that Wayne told you that there was one?

While you are being reasonable, how about you acknowledge that you were exaggerating when you claimed that the 1916 program stated that the mound was built to protect golfer from players on the first hole?  You can speculate based on the location of the mound, but do not pretend the Program says something it does not.   I know this is another pet claim of Wayne's and since he is obviosly who gave you those pages from the program, he probably told you that the documents supported his protect the golfers theory as well.

Word of advice with Wayne's theories.  Check the supporting documents or you will likely end up making foolish and unsupportable claims, these two are perfect examples.  Unless you'd have us believe you came up with the ridiculous 8 ft rise reading all by yourself?

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I'm sorry to bother you again on this but would you mind telling me one more time what in the world is going on here now with this continued argument about what that old original 10th hole looked like?

All anyone has to do to tell what it looked like is to take the photographs of it that are part of the club's archives and just go out on that ground and look at it. That's all one needs to do and we've done that, a long time ago. Is someone on here who has not done that still trying to tell us we are wrong about somehow and if so why in the world is that?

Seems to me this entire topic was begun on here and continues on here because some on here who've never done this are still trying to maintain that we are wrong somehow about this. And why did they do that in the first place and continue to do it now? If you ask me the sole purpose is to try to establish on this website that we or the club were wrong somehow or made some mistakes in interpretation of this hole somehow or something to do with the club's architectural history and once they think they've established tht in the minds of some on here who don't know most of the other details of Merion's creation, that it is just another example of how to open the door to the real mission and goal of these people----to try to convince someone that Macdonald therefore must have been the router and designer of the East and the club has had their Wilson and committee attribution wrong all along.

If we have found any new information at all on Merion it is these long unseen MCC meeting minutes and Wilson report to them giving far more evidence that Wilson and committee really did route and design the course and many times before finally settling on one of their plans that was given to the board and approved.

That all just more strongly CONFIRMED the very thing that Merion as always said. I wonder why some people on here aren't understanding that and continue to argue over something truly irrelevent like just how blind the original 10th green once was. What is the point of continuing that argument now?

Sorry to have to ask again, but I just don't get this continuation about the old tenth hole.

[henrye]

Pat:

...But as you said, if you have an open mind and you want to learn something here you can certainly always ask some of us who know this course and the history of it a whole lot better than you do....

Tom, I'm wondering if there is any info in the minutes of the original club about making the move to the new course, which specifically talks to the forming of the various committees and their duties.  We are told there was a golf committee (the club was also a cricket club at the time) and a golf construction/design committee.  I would assume the golf committee oversaw everything to do with golf and the other committee was formed for the specific task of creating and managing the development of the new course.  In the early documents/minutes (prior to the formation of the construction committee) was there anything about how the club should go about planning and building the new course?  Perhaps, all they did was form the construction committee, but I'm wondering if there was anything more?

I ask, because we have been told that the club had many prominent members and a number of them were well schooled and traveled with regards to golf courses.  Would these members not want to hire the best golf minds/designers to plan and build their new course?  Did they ever explore hiring the likes of Colt, Park, Travis, Braid or even MacDonald.  Perhaps, they felt Wilson would be their man, but it strikes me as a bit of a gamble for some fairly knowledgeable members.

[TEPaul]

"I ask, because we have been told that the club had many prominent members and a number of them were well schooled and traveled with regards to golf courses.  Would these members not want to hire the best golf minds/designers to plan and build their new course?  Did they ever explore hiring the likes of Colt, Park, Travis, Braid or even MacDonald.  Perhaps, they felt Wilson would be their man, but it strikes me as a bit of a gamble for some fairly knowledgeable members."



henryE:

I'm glad you asked that. I've mentioned all that on these threads over the years a number of times but never in response to someone's question like yours above.

MCC (Merion) did not EVER hire anyone to produce routing and design work for them---not ever!

Of course one wonders why that was if they could just go out and hire the likes of Colt, Park, Ross, or perhaps even Findlay or Barker who were all paid golf course architects at that time.

At that time Travis was not paid for archiectural design work and either were Macdonald or Whigam. The reason is obvious and completely historically provable----eg they were all well recognized AMATEUR golfers and getting paid for anything they did in architecture at that time would've risked lossing their amateur playing status and they did not want to do that. That Rule would change and be relaxed for any architect around 1920 but in 1910 and 1911 it was becoming or had become a real risk.

So, the question is why did MCC form a group of five club members (the Wilson Committee) to do the routing and design work on their own with some help and advice from their friends and fellow "amateur/sportsmen" architects such as Macdonald/Whigam?

There is no question that all these men or certainly a significant some of them all knew each other anyway (and I can prove where and when and why that was) and since they could see, since they already knew him well enough, what Charlie was doing at NGLA with at first a committee of "amateur" designers (Whigam, Travis and then Emmet), and most all of them knew Herbert Leeds of Myopia and the Fownses of Oakmont, all "amateur" designers and architects they just felt like they could do the same thing themselves, and they did, without paying a single cent for design services.

Of course they all paid other people to actually do and oversee the MANUAL building to the routings and design plans THEY had done and they paid others to do the agronomic maintenance work but this was not the case at all on the routing and design side with those kinds of men back then who did some of those famous courses. That is what made that limited timespan era so truly fascinating, in my book.

I think there are a few other very documentable reasons some decided to go that route back then and I think there are also some other very documentable reasons why that kind of modus operandi amongst THOSE KINDS of men came to and end when it did.

There is another thing you should know about this interesting time and modus operandi of those famous so-called "amateur/sportsman" designers or architects and that is that almost without exception they were ALL very good golfers and recognized as such. Some clubs even referred to them as "the experts" and if you consider the way that early time was in England and America etc it is not hard to see why people called them that and thought of them that way----eg if they knew how to play golf that well, as well as some of them being the best experts in such things as The Rules of Golf, it seemed pretty logical that they would be the best choices to design golf courses too.

Good question HenryE and thank you for asking it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Shiv,

Yes, in entirety on a previous thread and with some very minor editing of irrelevant bits by me on this thread.

I'm on blackberry and can't find at present but it was likely somewhere around post 100.

[henrye]

So, the question is why did MCC form a group of five club members (the Wilson Committee) to do the routing and design work on their own with some help and advice from their friends and fellow "amateur/sportsmen" architects such as Macdonald/Whigam?

Thanks Tom, but my question was a bit different.  I was wondering if there was any actual information in the Merion documents which spoke to this issue, particularly when they might have had a debate about what course of action to take - professional Vs. amateur designer.

[Mike_Cirba]

These cities also competed against each other regularly;  I have to believe some friendly rivalry played into this on some level.

[TEPaul]

"Thanks Tom, but my question was a bit different.  I was wondering if there was any actual information in the Merion documents which spoke to this issue, particularly when they might have had a debate about what course of action to take - professional Vs. amateur designer."


henryE:

Not that I'm aware of. If they ever had that discussion or debate they never recorded it that I'm aware of. It looks to me pretty much like they were headed down the "amateur" designer route all along which would mean they never intended to pay anyone for routing and design (architecture) advice or input.

H.H. Barker was involved very early on (June 1910) before the club (Lloyd actually) purchased the land but MCC did record that he was hired "not on their account" but on the account of developer Connell who was not a member or part of MCC.

[Mike_Cirba]

As relates to the friendly competitive rivalries between the cities at that time, I find the following article fascinating;

It's an account of a 1903 match, which pitted the very best players in Philadelphia against the very best from New York City.   

It clearly shows that Hugh Wilson, AW Tillinghast, and Howard Perrin all knew and competed against CB Macdonald, Dev Emmett, and other top names in the game a full seven years before Macdonald came to Merion to check on the new property they were considering.

These matches between Philly and NYC were apparently held twice a year, which would have likely cemented both friendships as well as rivalries among the participants.





Also, per Shivas's request, the Alan Wilson letter, in entirety (emphasized caps courtesy of an original Tom Paul post );

Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.

Dear Mr. Philler:-

      You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
      I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.

                  With regards, I am,
                     Sincerely,
                        Alan D. Wilson



Merion’s East and West Golf Courses

   There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.
   The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
   Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.   

[DMoriarty]

Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?

Shivas, I thought I posted an answer to this, but apparently I deleted it instead.   I want to post because it provides another striking example of what is wrong with this process

To answer;  Yes, I had considered this and think you may have it right, which is why I haven't embraced the conclusion that Mike mistakenly attributes to me, that there was an 8 foot vertical drop.  The pictures don't show any such drop, although I guess it is possible that they could have measured from the front part of the bunker complex, which is out of view in the photos of the green.   Whether there was an 8 foot drop or not, the description leaves is no doubt that the ground sloped down from the front bunkers to the green.   It is the same slope extends left of the green and behind the green, where the ground slopes down to the green.  This green was sunken below the surrounding land on at least three sides.   

I have no idea how anyone could reasonably dispute this, and it is worth taking a moment to consider why Wayne (and then Mike) claim otherwise.   Wayne has long insisted that the ground rose 8 feet from the bunkers to the green.  While Wayne insisted that he had proof, he thought he controlled the source material and refused to back up his conclusion with the supporting document.    (I laughed out loud when I heard his conclusion, because I had the likely source, which Wayne refused to confirm.)

My point?   Either these guys are very bad at interpreting source material, or they have been intentionally misrepresenting it, or some combination of both.   But whether the incorrect interpretations result from innocent inability or intentional imposition, one thing is certain; When it comes to understanding and explaining the source material, they very seldom get it right.   We cannot trust them to accurately interpret it for us.   We need to see it for ourselves.
________________________________________

As for your question about Mike's change of heart, I am not sure I understand his answer, given that most of what we have learned since the last go-round confirms that the hole was meant to be a CBM-type Alps hole.  A crucial part of Mike's new analysis on this issue is that he now believes that everyone who described it as an Alps was smoking crack.  But as usual he hasn't offered any support for this conclusion.   And how could seeing the site have changed his mind when the green site is no longer there?

But a  more interesting question is Why did TEPaul change his mind?.   [Careful if you ask him, though.  When I did he flew into a hissy-fit, calling me a liar, stupid, stupid liar, whatever.  He even called me a "dickhead" on another thread, but they may have been as a result of an entirely different temper-tantrum.    Hard to keep track.] 

Anyway, a few years ago, TEPaul KNEW that the green was blind from the landing area.   Above, I quote him trying to convince Wayne of this.   But TEPaul not only knew it was blind, he was actually was a bit perturbed that we were even talking about whether the hole was blind, as if the issue shouldn't even be in dispute.

From TEPaul in the same thread:

Let me ask you something David. If the author of that article and the esteemed Robert Lesley said that green surface couldn't be seen from the approach area why in the world would anyone think they'd be lying? Do you think they wanted to be viewed as blind and nuts in their time by hundreds of people who saw that hole?

Of course the green surface was blinded by that berm in front from the fairway approach.

But why are we even discussing this?

Why, indeed?   
- And why is TEPaul now telling us that he knows for certain and has known for a long time that the hole was not blind?   
- And why is he again insisting that he knows better than us, and that we MUST take his word for it because he has been there more?   
- And why does he again launch into his usual personal attacks about my motivations and my research?  As if I was taking an absurd and untenable position??  The same position he himself took last time this came up??

Something has certainly made him change his mind, but it is nothing in the source material and nothing to do with any unique perspective he has gained from loitering his days away at Merion.   My guess is that his old understanding has become rhetorically inconvenient, so he threw it out, and now demands we do the same. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Other pictures have surfaced since that discussion as well as other descriptive material.

I wasn't there in 1912...were you?

So therefore we make the best judgements we can based on what we know and see at the time.

We are also entitled to use our eyes.

This is what I wrote to you back on post 448...obviously you've chosen to ignore it to try and make a useless, irrelevant political point;

David,

I did think that perhaps the hole was blind, especially for a drive not reaching the crest of the hill.

Then, when I saw the top photo I just posted and really studied it, I saw that the surface of the green was actually a bit raised from the land in the foreground of the picture...the natural surrounds.  It only appears sunken because of the huge mound behind, which extends on each side to encircle the rear sides of the green as well.  There is also mounding behind the bunker on the right.

THEN, when I saw the picture taken from the 9th green area, with the bottom of the back bunker very clearly evident, I realized that it was impossible for the approach to have been blind.

I was wrong prior, but will at least admit what my eyes plainly see.


So David, now I will ask you...again...

Why is the bottom line of the back bunker visible in the photo taken from the hillside down by the ninth green, which is well below the surface of the old 10th green?

If there was a fronting obstruction, this should NOT be the case, and you know it.

The rest is just a red herring, and has ZERO to do with who designed Merion.

There were "Alps" holes in the US back to the 1800s.   There were holes in the US called "redan" prior to NGLA.

It's existence is meaningless, either way.

Let's move on, besides perhaps answering my bolded question as to why you continue to argue at odds with what your own eyes can plainly see.

Let's move on and ask the question that's much more fundamental and meaningful to this discussion;

David,
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.

As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.

How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?

Thanks

Please, David...I want to learn how the Quarry Hole, or the 5th, or any of them are just like Macdonald holes somewhere else.

I can't wait for your answer.

[DMoriarty]

Remedial question:  is the Alan Wilson report reproduced anywhere, either on this site
or elsewhere?  

Glad you asked, because the snippet that TEPaul quotes is incredibly misleading:   "Each of the committee members who worked on the Wilson committee have told me that in the main, Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses."  This is all TEPaul needs.  It says it all.  Moreover, he again insists that we take his word for it, and just drop our inquiries.  The above statement "is the truth and fact of Merion and it does not need to be questioned more, not the least reason being those specific details were just never recorded."

Anyone else notice a trend here?   Again and again his reasoning is "Because I said so, and I don't want to hear another word about it.  Anyone who says differently is a liar and an idiot and should be run off the site."  (That last part is implied from experience.)

Anyway,  TEPaul conveniently ignored the context of this quote, and the context makes the meaning quite a bit more ambiguous that TEPaul insists:

1.  Alan Wilson not only acknowledged M&W's involvement, he praised them for their contributions.

2.  Alan Wilson only credited the Committee for that which M&W were not responsible.  After praising M&W for their contribution, AW wrote: "Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee . . ."

3.  From the context we can tell AW is comparing Hugh's contribution to the other committee members, not to M&W.  The complete sentence.  "On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."

4.  The quoted passage refers to work done by Hugh and the Committee after Hugh Wilson Scotland trip, which did not occur until long after M&W's involvement the  planning.  

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course."

I don't want to say anything about Alan Wilson's time-line.  These guys are pretty sensitive about Alan Wilson's description, and  I am not in the mood for yet another temper-tantrum.  

_______________

Mike,

I have never seen the original Alan Wilson letter, but I really doubt he typed certain words in ALL-CAPS for emphasis.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Don't you find it weird that Alan Wilson clearly stated that Macdonald and Whigham "DESIGNED" NGLA, yet does not use anything even remotely like that nomenclature in describing their role at Merion?

The rest of your post is more hot air, misleading verbiage, and obfuscation.


p.s.   I made clear that Tom Paul was responsible for the CAPS.   

[john_stiles]

Isn't the 16th,  the Quarry hole, really the Alps also ?  Don't you climb the hill waiting to see your approach shot.
I thought so.   It looks that way on TV.     Devilishy clever of them to hide this from these crack GCA guys for so long.

Anyway, all jokes aside, by an outsider's reading of the various arguments, it would seem there is no way to take the existing documents and say anything other than something, probably outlandish to even the Philly crowd,  like the  ' M&W fellows helped the Merion boys', and leave it at that based on newspaper accounts and Merion records.   

M&W didn't route the course, didn't design a golf hole, etc.  They helped and deserve such, a mention that they helped, visited Merion, and had the Merion commitee visit the young and yet to be opened, NGLA.    Doesn't everything in writing support that conclusion. 

Where is the explicit language supporting more credit to M&W ?

Giving more credit to M&W does require some reasoning that since it was not written otherwise, it could be so.

So my question is,  exploring from another angle previously discussed but now I have forgotten,   did Macdonald or Whigham ever take credit for anything at Merion ?  Did they (M or W) ever say the Merion lads built a great Alps hole, or the  Merion lads used our routing,  or the Merion boys should have used our routing, or anything  ?

Would have to believe that Macdonald, being such a headstrong individual, would have taken credit if he really thought that he deserved credit.   By the time he wrote 'Scotland's Gift - Golf' published in 1928,  wasn't it true that Wilson was credited with the architecture of Merion East ?

I just want to see the explicit writing or statements that M&W did more, or deserve more credit.     I don't want to read something, and since it might not say M&W did nothing,  try to interpret that M&W could have done more.

Anyway,  David Moriarty could pull it out, in theory, if the Philly boy forgets to sign his card.    Would love to jump in and help the underdog David,  but it just isn't there.    David is only working with a dozen lines (counting newspaper articles)  about  M&W, and then it only mentions their visits to help or some such.

David only has some chance when all the newspapers convert fiche and microfilm archives to digital.



Someone, anyone,

Please list every line, every sentence where M&W are mentioned with respect to Merion East.

[Mike_Cirba]

In fact, the beauty and value of the Alan Wilson letter is that he truly does know what the terms "design" and "architecture" mean and uses them again and again, and very precisely tells us repeatedly who designed Merion.  He only once uses the disputed term "laid out", but even there the meaning is crystalline.

Witness;

"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten.  First of all, they were both “Homemade”... and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect."

"On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912."

"The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other."

"The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor."

"We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten."

What does he tell us that M&W provided?

"Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans (bold mine). They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions(bold mine) were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."

So Macdonald and Whigham provided "Advice and suggestions" on mattters architectural AND construction, and we know they advised about "our plans" (almost certainly referring to the "five different plans" created by the Merion committee) and we know he suggested they talk to Baltusrol about inland soil and suggested they talk to Piper & Oakley about grasses, and also showed them sketches of famous holes abroad and toured NGLA.

Extremely valuable, certainly.  Of the highest value, indeed.

None of this is anywhere near as unclear or ambiguous as David would like us to believe.

Just trust your own eyes and not the smoke he tries to cloud them with.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Please nobody hate me for what I am going to write. In return I promise to hold back on some of my wilder theories

Here is again Findlay's controversial passage:

I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.  But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.

I note that he doesn't speak of an "Alps hole" in the sense of a certain type of hole or template. He uses "Alps Hole" as a proper name, the name that a very specific hole at Prestwick has. I submit that Findlay wouldn't assume his readers know what an "Alps template" or "Redan type of hole" is. Most of them would never have seen NGLA at that time. I am not aware of any early publication by CBM, where he explained his theory of template design. He certainly talked about it to anyone, who would listen - but one has to wonder how common such knowledge could have been among the general audience for which Findlay was writing.

So my reading of Findlay's statement is: "Watch the 17th at Prestwick (called the Alps hole). You can't replicate it on your property. But many of the others, as laid out by CBM, are really great."

In that sense Findlay can't mean "other Alps holes". Findlay is not referring to the Alps template, of which many incarnations may exist. He is referring to one very specific hole called "Alps hole" and that is the 17th at Prestwick and none other. Findlay can't even mean other template holes (such as the Redan), because he is not talking about templates at all and CBM's template design theory can't have been common knowledge. Although it might have been common knowledge that holes in Britain were way better and that some had suggested to replicate them in order to raise the standard in the US. But it is a far cry from that general thinking to the naming of actual templates. Findlay refers to the 17th hole at Prestwick and not to an Alps hole.

However, in my eyes the reading that "others" refers to other holes at Merion does not make sense either. Findlay is not talking about the holes at Merion, he says previously that it is much too early to talk about them. To me it appears that he simply wants to jump on the bus by describing his personal contribution to the design of a course likely to be great.

"Others" also can't refer to other courses that CBM recommended Wilson should visit. The reason for that is the "but". The passage would read like this: "Wilson (upon my suggestion) came to the conclusion that the Alps hole stinks, but some of the others that CBM laid out for his itinerary were really great - Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, ..." First of all it is slightly illogical to compare a single hole to complete courses (the hole stank, but the other courses were great). But even if we accept this, then it doesn't make sense at all that Prestwick - the course with the stinking Alps hole - is mentioned as the first example for the courses that were great. Prestwick can't be "the good" and "the bad" at the same time.

So what does Findlay mean? Well, that will have to wait until I see the minutes... ok, bad joke, I take that back

Findlay continues:

Wilson had no end of a good time, and is sorry at not having gone over years ago. It certainly broadens one's ideas.

I believe Findlay is again trying to board the bus here. How can Wilson dare to even start thinking about a new course before he has been over and got his ideas broadened? The job should have gone to an expert, whose fame spreads across two continents to begin with

Ulrich

[mike_malone]

 If David Moriarity can interpret Alan Wilson's letter as crediting more of the design of Merion to CBM then to Hugh Wilson then I believe you guys should just stop responding to him until he brings more facts to the table.

    His proving that Wilson went overseas later would be an example of some fine work. But, that still doesn't eliminate the Alan Wilson letter as definitive on the design credit for Merion.

   Alan Wilson's attribution of CBM's part in the creation of the course is specific and gracious.

   The letter makes me want to play Merion again and maybe even enjoy it!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()