[DMoriarty]

Sean,  you and I always come to the same sticking point on all these conversations about these old holes. My only concern is with an historical analysis of the holes, and I think that entails immersing myself in how THEY viewed the hole THEN.  How I might view the hole based on my modern notions really has little or nothing to do with it.  Likewise how you view the hole or how Jeff Brauer or Mike Cirba views the hole from the perspective of a century later is equally beside the point.

Maybe I am missing something, but it seems that whatever it is you are doing it sure isn't historical analysis.  Findlay, Lelsey, and others told us what they thought of the hole and what it meant to THEM.   It obviously means something different to you, and it may mean something different with me, but SO WHAT?  

Who are you to substitute your views for their views?   What does your disagreement tell us about how THEY viewed the hole?  Does it make them wrong?   Is that what historical analysis is about?   Telling those who were there that they weren't as smart or enlightened enough about the essence of HOLE X to properly build it as you think they should have?   Isn't proclaiming that you know better and/or that they must have looked at it as you do  rather arrogant and condescending on your part?   Isn't substituting your ideas for theirs the very essence of historical revisionism at it's worst?

Brauer claims it is a matter of believing your eyes or my words.   As usual he misses the point.  The  words you guys are discarding are the words of Lesley, Findlay, Wilson and others WHO WERE THERE.   But while your perspective may be interesting and even accurate in a modern context, it tis irrelevant to how THEY understood the hole.  

David,

Based on your third paragraph in that post I think we're safe in assuming Findlay was quoting Wilson fairly accurately...because no, I don't they they rebuilt the hole in those few months and no, I don't think Findlay's opinion would have changed so significantly in that same time...so we're back to a vital point in this conversation IMO.

Why was Wilson disappointed in his attempt at an Alps after seeing the original if CBM were the one that designed the hole and tutored Wilson and the committee through the process?

I think you should take another look at the rest of the quote.  According to Findlay, Wilson thought he had an alps hole but Findlay convinced him otherwise by instructing him to look more closely at the original, and according to Findlay Wilson was thus convinced the hole needed more work.    So Findlay had an issue with the hole, and thinks he convinced Wilson to agree with him.   Whatever the shortcoming, Findlay seems to think he and Wilson agree as to the nature of the nature of the shortcoming.  If Findlay was happy with the approach (and according to Findlay he was) then the approach could not have been the shortcoming to which Findlay was referring.

As importantly, look at the changes that were made, and the changes that weren't made.  The known changes we focused on the fairway, not the approach.  There are no reports of the green or surrounds having been changed.   If Wilson thought the green end needed a lot of work, then why didn't he fix it?  Given that the green lasted over a dozen years and until wholesale changes necessitated eliminating the road crossing, how can you or anyone assume that they did not get the green they wanted, one that they thought reproduced Prestick's Alps, in principle?  Likewise, if they told us they got the green they wanted, who are we do assume they did not?

As I understand it, the latest ridiculous theory of the usual suspects that Merion IMMEDIATELY started setting right the horrors wrought by CBM's involvement.  But so far as we know, this green survived for over a decade and was changed because of the road crossing.   Hardly sounds like a green that needed a lot of work!

It's not all that difficult for a fairly level shot to be somewhat blind...especially if the blindness were simply referring to the surface of the green. Do you think the entire green would have been in view from say 120 yards? It looks to me like there's a small berm there that even if it's only three or four feet high would obscure most, or all, of the green.

Jim, Keep in mind also that the tee then was substantially lower than now, and the drive played into the upslope.  As it was then, I am not sure many golfers would even have been able to get the ball up to the level of the current landing area.   Look at the location of the tee and the placement of the fairway bunkers to get an idea of just how short these guys hit the ball.   Also, I suspect that the green was dug out, so that it  was substantially below what we think of as ground level.  As I read the early reports, the ground sloped down six feet from the front of the bunker to the green.  It wouldn't have taken much if anything to make the hole completely blind if my reading is accurate.  And if they were hitting it from back on the upslope to s sunken green it sure wouldn't take much in terms of mounding to create a blind shot and a real obstacle for them to have to hit over.

As from Brauer's latest assessment more projection from someone who cannot seem to comprehend his perspective is irrelevant for many reasons.

[Sean_A]

David

I forgot, what is the point of the endless ranting about Merion? 

I am not substituting my view for anybody's.  I am offering an alternative opinion based on my knowledge of how the Alps hole at Prestwick looks and plays.  I know how vastly different opinions are on the idea of templates and how/what elements should be included to still consider these replicas as good versions of the original.  I happen to disagree that we can even call Merion's old version an Alps.  Same can be said about the 3rd being a Redan.  We may as well not have defintion for words if these versions are to be accepted as good copies of the originals.   

Historical revisonism?  When a guy can't even figure out he hasn't built or isn't looking an Alps then its hard not to want to look for different angles of what happened and why.  Time doesn't change the basic elements of a template.  They exist regardless of what happens to be in vogue or how someone thinks they can improve upon them or if there are mistakes in interpreting.  The elements are either there or they are not.  It doesn't matter if it was 1910 or 2010.

Ciao 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Hypothetically, if you were Wilson, and you had built the 10th as you understood an Alps hole should be, and you then went to Prestwick and saw the original, as in the pictures below, what would you notice?  What would Wilson, likely notice?  That the fairway heaves wildly?  That there is a huge dune to carry?  That the fronting bunker is cavernous?  That the green is wild?  Would you notice fairway bunkers?  Or the tee?

Perhaps the historical analysis reveals nothing more than that Wilson et al felt that the aerial approach over a fronting bunker was all that was required.  Maybe Findlay thought there should be more.  Maybe Wilson, afterward, thought there should be more, but couldn't do it on that piece of ground.

If they thought they built an Alps originally, then retrospectively I think it is OK for us to analyze that and call into question what their definition of templates was.  At least at NGLA CBM came much closer to matching the principles of the original.  But, perhaps he had the land forms to do so. 

Why do you suppose that they wanted to label the holes at Merion when they missed by so much in mirroring the principles of the originals?

Based on his body of work with Alps holes, do you think that CBM would have designed the 10th and called it an Alps?  Are any of his other Alps similarly far from the principles of the original?

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

For me, the point of what you derogatorily describe as the "endless ranting about Merion" is and has always been to better understand the creation of Merion IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE IN AMERICA, and that entails critically examining the evidence without substituting our modern views, modern legends, modern contexts, or modern agendas.

For me, this discussion is about under what THEY THOUGHT, and why THEY DID WHAT THEY DID.  And fortunately, there is ample evidence in this instance and in the instance of Merion's Alps and Redan, and what THEY THOUGHT, and WHY THEY DID WHAT THEY DID.  
-They tried to build an Alps hole, one conceptually similar to that at Prestwick.  
-Wilson had never been to Prestwick so he tried to built his Alps hole based on CBM's plans, descriptions, instructions, guidance, and examples, according to CBM's and HJW's layout plan.
- ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES OF THOSE WHO WERE THERE, the hole they built featured a difficult and blind approach over the ramparts and bunkers that surrounded the hole.  
- ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTIONS AND PERSPECTIVES OF THOSE WHO WERE THERE, this approach shot was very similar to the approach shot one would face at Prestwick. As AFindlay put it at the opening, the approach "requires a shot precisely like that to the Alps, or seventeenth, at Prestwick."

So tell me, how does your opinion on the hole, based on nothing but blurry aerials of the hole taken after the hole had already been modified out of existence, impact any of this?   Does your opinion have any impact whatsoever on what they were trying to accomplish or how they viewed the finished hole?

Take your oft cited opinion that we cannot call Merion's 3rd a Redan, or Merion's 10th an Alps . . .
1.  Does your opinion have anything to do with whether they set out to build and thought they were building a Redan and an Alps?
2.  Does your opinion have anything to do with whether they thought they succeeded in building a Redan and an Alps?
3.  Does your opinion have anything to do with their understanding of the underlying principles of these holes?
4.  If the answer is "no" to these above questions (and I believe the answer is necessarily "no") then what role does your opinion have in understanding what they set out to do, and thought they did?

From my perspective, while it may be an interesting discussion in another context, IN THIS CONTEXT I could not care less whether you think we can call the 10th an Alps, or whether we can call the 3rd a Redan, or for that matter whether we can call the 6th a Road Hole.   They obviously saw it differently, and in historical analysis, that is what matters.

Do you really disagree with me on this fundamental epistemological point?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

Like Sean, you seem to take these templates and supposed copies much more literal than I do. Much more importantly, I think you both take these templates much more literal than CBM did.  He was dealing with incorporating fundamental concepts and principles into the existing landscape, not the creation of exact replicas of identical physical features.   As he and Whigham wrote about the Redan in 1914, "The principle can be use with an infinite number of variations on any course."  The logic applies equally to the Alps.  


Why would you guys expect exact proportions of physical features when they tell us, explicitly, The principle can be use with an infinite number of variations on any course,"and give us examples - including the example of Merion's Redan - which would never qualify by your standards?  

The abrupt "Alps" mound in front of the green obviously did not exist on the site at Merion and was obviously not created to the same degree of magnitude as the one at Prestwick or NGLA, but many of the core principles, including the blindness of the green and large bunker, the green in a hollow, and the "high bank behind" were present.   As for the magnitude of the mounding, we don't know for sure why they didn't build it bigger, but we do know the combination of the sunken green and whatever mounding they did build created the requisite blindness.  Given that the vast majority of the members of MCC were novices, it doesn't surprise me they didn't go for an exact replica of Prestwick's fronting Alps.   Or as you suggest they did the best they could have with what they had to work.  

While Sean and Brauer can opine that the mound should have been put in front, those who have read CBM and HJW's descriptions of the playing characteristics know that CBM felt the large mound behind the hole was also an integral part of how the hole should play.  According to CBM, the green should be in a hollow (as was Merion's) so that a long approach shot just barely carrying the fronting bunker could hit the downslope and run through the green, leaving an awkward and difficult shot from the rough on the high sloping bank behind.  

Read the NYTimes description and tell me that the description does not sound like that of an Alps hole.  The description of the impact of the blindness has marked similarities to the description of Prestwick's Alps by CBM in 1914, in that CBM also described the anticipation of scaling the trouble, noting "the player is frequently pleasantly or unpleasantly dis-appointed when he comes to the top of the hill and surveys the result beneath him."

As for your hypotheticals asking what Wilson would think, aren't they little more than a convenient tool to fill in what you think?  Well I don't see the hole as you do, and I don't believe Wilson saw it as you do either.  I've never been to Prestwick, but I see many conceptual similarities between NGLA's Alps and Merion's.  As I have said, the dominant fronting mound is not there to the same magnitude, but the blindness is there nonetheless.   And the fairway and tee shot Merion were much further away from the "ideal" than the green.

To me, if the hole had a conceptual problem as an Alps hole, I suspect that it was possibly that it just wasn't long enough to require the type of shot an Alps hole was supposed to require.   I am not sure we can blame that one on CBM though.  As I have explained before, Merion had a strange way of measuring their golf holes, and as a result many of their measures were way off.  In this case I have trouble imagining how that would not have impacted the very concept of the hole.  This was supposed to be a 380+ yard hole, yet it looks to have been about 30-40 short of this, or more.   The hole makes a lot more sense as an alps with the approach is from well down on the bank of the upslope, instead of there being a flat, 120-140 yards shot to the the green.  

Perhaps the historical analysis reveals nothing more than that Wilson et al felt that the aerial approach over a fronting bunker was all that was required.

 

Well, reportedly there was also the blindness and the large bunker, and the green in a hollow surrounded by trouble, and the resulting anticipation, and the tall bank behind.   There is definitely more than just the shot over a bunker.

Maybe Findlay thought there should be more.  Maybe Wilson, afterward, thought there should be more, but couldn't do it on that piece of ground.

 Then why did Findlay praise the hole at the opening and compare it favorably to Prestwick?   Why did Wilson write that CBM's descriptions and suggestions had all been affirmed by what he saw in Europe?  And did Wilson not notice the giant hill right in front of NGLA's green?  

This sort of speculation seems yet another rhetorical tool to fill in your opinions for theirs.  If Wilson didn't like the green he had ample time and opportunity to change it before he did.  There is little justification for you to you to substitute what you think for what he might have thought, because we know what he did.

If they thought they built an Alps originally, then retrospectively I think it is OK for us to analyze that and call into question what their definition of templates was.  At least at NGLA CBM came much closer to matching the principles of the original.  But, perhaps he had the land forms to do so.

He did have the landforms to do so, at NGLA at least.  I think it is okay for you to analyze and criticize and call into question their understanding as well, But IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT.   Not when the goal is to figure out what they were thinking and why, and not to inform what you think they thought, as in "I don't think it a good hole, therefor they couldn't have thought it a good hole.  That is what Brauer pulls and what Sean seems to be doing at least some of the time.

Why do you suppose that they wanted to label the holes at Merion when they missed by so much in mirroring the principles of the originals?

Because, according to what they wrote, they did not think they "missed" at all.  They got the holes they wanted, as suggested as understood and planned by CBM.  They believed they had an Alps and a Redan, no matter what we might think today.  I think with these two particular holes, they felt the resemblance was so close that the could not avoid using the names, even though admitting to such holes fell out of fashion.   I think that is how differently they say it than we do today.  To them these were obvious and successful recreations of the concepts famously associated with the originals.    Yet you guys can't even see the similarities.  

Based on his body of work with Alps holes, do you think that CBM would have designed the 10th and called it an Alps?  Are any of his other Alps similarly far from the principles of the original?

I am no expert on his body of Alps holes, but from what I understand about the holes, there are a number which are no closer to your ideals of the Alps hole than Merion's (except perhaps the distance element, discussed above.)  I don't even think all the supposed Mac/Raynor Alps holes are blind, are they?   Whereas Merion was at least reportedly blind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Well put.  The key feature of an Alps is a mound in front of the green.  MCC 10 originally built a mound behind the green, so it doesn't have the key feature.  It may have been somewhat blind, it may have been a good hole, but it wasn't a good Alps template hole.  And I say that because CBM was the originator of the template holes and followed them fairly strictly.

But, who ya gonna believe - Moriarity and Mucci or your own eyes?

Jeff,

That's really a very dumb comment.

But, just to prove you wrong, take a close look at the photos.

In case you can't figure it out, I''ll explain it in detail for you in my reply to Mike Cirba.

Then, you can apologize and acknowledge that you were wrong and David and I were right.

Stay tuned.

What stirred the passion was my added opinion that CBM would never have built or designed this hole or feature, indicating to me that Merion did in fact do most of the feature designs on the course, using what they could of their March NGLA meeting, but not sticking all that close in many cases.  That of course is open to interpretation, even if I am fairly certain of my opinion. 
I am truly sorry for my part in turning this into another Merion thread.

My apologies for my role in turning this into another Merion train wreck.  I blame Mike C, for letting it drift to NGLA!  Of course, all roads eventually lead to Merion.......

[Sean_A]

David

Lets just say your way of looking at a puzzle is different to mine.  I am a big picture guy so your contextual argument (so as it exists) is not a restriction for me theorize.  Afterall, I am not even sure what context you are on about!  When my understanding of a hole differs so much to an ODG's understanding, it is directly related to what they were thinking and why.  History is as much about interpreting the facts as it is about facts.  So yes, I do find it interesting that these guys thought of Merions's old 10th as a good version of an Alps as an historical fact, but it is equally interesting as to how their interpretation of the hole could be so wildly different from the original and that they could think they got it right.  I understand the argument about topography, but that doesn't seem to be an issue when we consider a huge berm was built to the rear of the green.  Now it could be a context they are speaking in that we don't know about.  Perhaps it was understood that they were never going to create a properly blind hole such as can found at Prestwick and given that, they made a good job of it.  What I do know is it doesn't do much good to say Findlay thought the hole was a good Alps unless you are critiquing the quality of the course as it was then.  I am guessing that isn't the objective, so....what does that possibly mean in the big picture? 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Throw in the fact that those of us very familiar with the site just shake our heads in disbelief when we hear someone say a shot from the top of the hill on #10 to a pitch across Ardmore Avenue could in any way be blind,

Mike, are you out of your mind ?
The FACT is that neither you nor anyone else is familiar with that site circa 1910-1916.

unless someone erected a high wall in front of the green.

The FACT is that there was an elevated section of land that functioned to obstruct one's view from the DZ.

 By blind, I'm using the term as it's used on both the Alps at Prestwick and NGLA...where none of the green or flagstick is visible

That's pure B.S. on your part.
NO ONE ever stated that # 10 at Merion replicated the enormous hill which obstructs the golfers view as  represented at Prestwick and NGLA.


Similarly, the 3rd hole, supposedly a Redan, has a green and approach unlike any supposed Redan hole in that it doesn't allow a run-up shot, and the angle of the green is completely wrong.   However, as we'll see, it's because Wilson and crew took some basic principles of some of the great holes and didn't try to make replicas.

The contemporaneous universe refered to the 3rd hole as a Redan.  Didn't Tillinghast call it a redan ?
Stop trying to rewrite history, it's disengenuous

David again tells us that Findlay and Lesley both called it an Alps, and who are we to argue with them?

That's correct, who are you, with a brazen agenda, to argue with two seperate, independent, contemporaneous descriptions from individuals well versed in golf and golf architecture.  

Well, if we're looking for a shot exactly like Prestwick, as Findlay said in the same opening day article comparing Hugh Wilson with Herbert Leeds (not a mention of CBM), and the construction work of his oft-times associate Fred Pickering, it's clearly, visibly unlike the approach shot at either Prestwick or NGLA.

Mike, what I don't like is that you're being deliberately dishonest.
NO ONE, repeat, NO ONE ever stated that the shot into # 10 at Merion was exactly like the shot into # 17 at Preswick.
And, while you're at it, you should know that the shot into # 3 at NGLA isn't anything like the shot into # 17 at Prestwick,
So stop with the blatantly disengenuous attempt to create the impression that David or anyone else ever made that claim.

What did Lesley say....

Well, that's curiously omitted, because Lesley says they only copied the hole "in principle", which he defined as;


Mike, your own source is saying that they copied the hole, not identically, but, in principle.
Could the proof be any clearer ?

"A two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green."   Read for yourselves;


He couldn't be clearer, he says that the 10th hole resembles the Alps at Prestwick.
Do you ever proof read what you type.

By the way, are we certain that the accompanying photo is of the 7th green approach ?




David also tells us he has no clue what Wilson might have meant when he said he had a lot of making to do (to make it play like an Alps), and that it was probably the addition of fairway bunkering.  Of course, this is simple nonsense, as the fairway bunkers were not added until the toughening for the 1916 US Amateur.   It was almost certainly the creation of a deep front cross bunker and likely that monstrosity behind the green.

And why couldn't they have placed the large mound in front of the green?   Well, Ardmore Avenue was there!  

But they did have elevated earthen works fronting the green, between the green and Ardmore Avenue.

Recall that Richard Francis told us that "In those days, WE thought the road would make a good hazard".   Strangely, Francis didn't mention CBM designing the course either...he doesn't mention CBM at all.

Here is a drawing and description of the hole from the 1916 US Amateur preview.   Note that once one reaches the 250 yard mark on their drive, it is LEVEL to the green.

If you read the brief, or summary description, the use of the word "level" is in contrast to the upslope of the land from the base of the tee up to the DZ or 250 yard mark, but, it was not level in terms of being flat, it was relatively level incomparison to the substantive upslope.

And, there was a fronting earthen work between the green and Ardmore Ave that served to block the golfers view from back in the fairway.



The article mentions an "eight foot rise" from the bunker to the green", which is strange as one sees in the next picture.   Perhaps the bunker was eight foot deep, but unless one is going from the road to the top of the backing mound, it's hard to see how that is accurate,
as seen in this 1916 picture from the left side of the green.

Hey Mike and Jeff, what's that weird looking thing in the lower right section of the photo below ?

That's not a staircase is it ?
Those look like steps.
But, if the land is flat as Mike claimed, WHY would you need a staircase ?
Who builds staircases on flat land ?

And, what's that sharp elevation rise in the land that the staircase is imbedded in ?

Must be an elevated land form, ABOVE Ardmore Ave

So much for the claim that the land in front of the green was flat.
So much for the claim that the fairway and green were at the same elevation.
So much for the claim that there wasn't a fronting landform that would serve to obscure one's vision from the DZ.

Thanks for posting this photo, although, I don't think you understood the information it would provide when you posted it.



If anyone doubts my term "monstrosity" to describe the mound, this colored photograph shows it from the rear;

Mike, did it EVER dawn on you that the mound at the back of the green was constructed to protect golfers on the 10th green from errant tee shots off the 1st tee ?



Here's another description of the hole during the 1916 US Amateur;

Mike, please, it's a brief description of the holes in a newspaper article.
Were you expecting a chapter devoted to # 10 ?



Finally, it's no wonder these guys are seeking to discredit the truthfulness of AW Tillinghast, who conferred with CB Macdonald in person about his role at Merion and who saw the plans for the course prior to construction.   His Opening Day article about Merion East in American Cricketer doesn't mention CBM at all but says Hugh Wilson and his Construction Committee should be credited.   Of course, we were told in David's essay as well as from Tom MacWood and Patrick that the title "Construction Committee" referred only to building the course to someone else's plans.  

Mike, when last I looked in the dictionary, the word "Construction" was defined quite clearly, and nowhere in that definition do I find any reference to "design", "creation" or 'planning'

Now I'm sure that you'll attempt to rewrite the dictionary to suit your agenda, just like you've attempted to rewrite history to suit your aganda.
But, the word "Construction" today, means the same thing it meant in 1912.




However, as seen on the first page of this thread, George Crump and his Committee who were out there designing the course and beginning clearing and construction in the spring of 1913 were also known as the "Construction Committee".

Could you cite, where Colt and others were a part of the 'Construction Committee"
When you say that Crump and his committee were AKA the "Construction Committee" could you provide the sources for your claim.
I would expect a committee in charge of clearing and construction to be a "Construction Committee", but, I'm interested in the design of the golf course, moreso than the physical building of it.

A few other items.

First,  in the article you posted AWT merely congratulates Wilson and his Construction Committee, nothing more.

Second, please don't equate the process at Merion with the process at Pine Valley, it would be a substantive mistake on your part.

Third, What you're incapable of understanding is that before they cleared the corridors for golf they had to determine where to locate the holes, such that they knew where to clear the forest of Pines, Oaks and jungle like undergrowth.

Similarly, no one here has ever claimed Hugh Wilson didn't design Merion West, but note what Tillinghast wrote about them.
I can't recall seeing any contemporaneous records saying that Wilson designed Merion.
Even the Board minutes and club documents that have been produced to date don't reflect your contention

Sound familiar?

You call this your smoking gun ?
It's about as nebulous as an article can get.
It says nothing of note.



I think this is a fitting ending.

Patrick, much as you might be fascinated to learn more about Pine Valley's topos, you're going about it with the wrong group.

Mike, your ignorance knows no bounds.
You have no idea as to whom i've been speaking/emailing with regarding the subject of topos and the design of Pine Valley.
You have no idea as to the field trips I've taken.

Please, please don't pretend to know anything regarding my engagement in the discorvery process.

And in the immortal words of Paul Harvey, "Good Day!"

Forget Paul Harvey, Mike Sweeney hit the nail on the head.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I'm defining blindness as it exists at Prestwick and NGLA if that's what the approach is supposed to be like.

REALLY ?

Then you must NOT be aware that you can see almost the entire flagstick from the fairway on # 3 at NGLA.

There are plenty of holes around the world where the approach is partially blind, or where a fronting bunker hides all but the flagstick, especially to certain hole locations, but there are few like the original Alps on both shores where the entire approach...green, flagstick, bunkering, etc., is COMPLETELY obscured by a huge, almost mountainous obstruction.   Even Patrick concedes that much.

That's ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

At # 3 at NGLA you can see the green, bunkering and flagstick from the right side of the fairway.

Why do you make this crap up ?

Have you ever played # 17 at Prestwick ?

But, that's what Findlay compared the approach shot to and he's demonstrably incorrect.

How would you know ?
Did you ever see or play the hole Findlay was referencing ?

NO, you haven't, so how can you pretend to speak for him, let alone speak with feigned authority.

Why do you make this crap up ?  Just to suit your agenda ?
That's DISENGENUOUS.

From the looks of it, I'd agree that front hole locations one could only see the flag, but the back of the green would be visible.
Is that based on your first hand experience, or just wild, agenda driven guesses ?

As regards Wilson's statement about "a lot of making"...

The purpose of his trip abroad was to view those holes/courses in person so he could more accurately reproduce those man-made features at Merion.   One of the articles someone produced from an Irish newspaper made that clear.

He came back in May 1911....building/deepening some bunkers and creating some mounds would be part of that effort which happened after grow-in and prior to opening in Sept 1912.

Did he CHANGE THE 10TH HOLE UPON HIS RETURN ?

One thing we know for certain is that there were no natural features they could utilize on that hole that would have made it even barely resemble the Alps holes at either Prestwick or NGLA.

No kidding.
When did that revelation first strike you ?
NO ONE, other than YOU has maintained that the intent was to exactly replicate the "Alps" at Prestwick or NGLA.

Have you ever played the "Alps" at Piping Rock ?

Do you think that remotely resembles the 17th and 3rd at Prestwick and NGLA ?

Your distortion of history and historical intent in order to further your agenda is disgraceful.

Other than that, have a nice day.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Based on his body of work with Alps holes, do you think that CBM would have designed the 10th and called it an Alps?  Are any of his other Alps similarly far from the principles of the original?


Principles or physical properties.

We know that the 10th at Merion was described as being based on the "principles" of the "Alps"

Have you ever seen/played the Alps at Yale ?

Piping Rock ?

If you had, you'd know the answer to your question.

The basic principles exist, the physical properties however are a far cry from either # 17 at Prestwick or # 3 at NGLA.

And, I'm sure there are others with less similarity in their physical properties.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

The passengers left on the Titanic after all of the lifeboats had launched sounded nowhere near as desperate as you and your partners latest preposterous posts.

This ship has sunk.  You really should have tried alternative transportation.

At least finally it seems everyone else here now sees it too.

I'm so relieved and satisfied that this is over and I can finally get back to posts about fun and friivolity here.

Hope to see you on the course soon.

[Mike Cirba]

It's a template, yet it has infinite variety.

Yes, let's narrow it down a bit, shall we?  .

Lord, no wonder this travesty has gone on for about a decade.   

My faith in human nature is restored.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike, Mike, Mike….

In the spirit of civility, David’s approach is valid.  A friend just started a grad level course in critique of literature, and the first chapter in the text talks about analyzing in the context of the times, which is very similar to what David proposes.  I considered that in my response.  Thinking further, I actually tend to agree with David, and in many ways, as usual, the opposing positions aren’t that far apart.

While valid, a comparison or ranking of all the Alps holes would still put the Merion one near the bottom.  We often say we don’t care about the motivations, etc., just the results.

That said, I looked in George’s book and it appears the only non blind Alps CBM built was in 1924.  So his perspective would be 1) original, 2) his improved NGLA version (can see green with well placed tee shot) and experimental different one at MCC, a dozen or so more blind ones, with hills of varying heights depending on contour, and then another non blind one.  Since there is no pattern towards anything other than large mounds in front, I think we can determine his mindset.

For Hugh Wilson, we can conclude that he was an idiot who forgot what he saw at NGLA, or he was intent on designing to the specific site.  Since he moved a lot of dirt in to the green site, he either put it in front, later changing his mind, or intended all along to place it behind the green.  I suspect safety from hole 1 and/or a perceived need to provide a backstop for the forced carry over the bunkers would be possible reasons.  Who knows, maybe a supervisor was away for the day, and no one told the workers to stop piling dirt there, and he had to find a way to use it.  (Don't ask me how I know thats a possibility!)

So, IMHO, he was creating a site specific design, not making a big design mistake unknowingly.  Certainly one possibility is that he felt the big bunkers replicated the concept of the Alps, although I really don't believe it, thinking the fear of carrying a big mound was really part of the charm of the Alps.  But, as David says, maybe he didn't feel that way.  Maybe semi blind was better to him than fully blind.

Then, we must speculate that either the original name stuck if the hole changed, or that they tried to name holes because they liked that idea from NGLA, even if they were not quite replicas of CBM’s replicas.  So, they used the names he used as best they could.  Ditto IMHO the Redan.  They built it to take advantage of the barn basement, but it had more Redan characteristics than others, so they used that name, knowing full well it wasn’t really a prototype Redan.

That has always been my theory anyway.  What they built was more important to them than either names or CBM templates.  He got them started, and they branched out on their own.  It is a theory that explains traditional names on holes that don't really fit a template, at any rate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

How do you conveniently ignore that reputable contemporaneous accounts, including Tillinghast I believe, that refered to the 3rd hole as a Redan ?

How do you conveniently ignore the photo Mike Cirba posted showing the staircase leading from the area north of Ardmore Ave up to the area in front of the 10th green ?

Remember, you said words to the effect, "who are you going to believe, your eyes or what Moriarty and Mucci said ?"
But, now that it's been proven, with a photo that Mike posted, that what we said was correct, then  what your eyes reveal and what Moriarty and Mucci said are one in the same, then I guess we were right and you were wrong...... again.  .

Mike's own photo clearly shows the staircase leading from just north of Ardmore Ave up to the ground fronting the 10th green.
Do you always find staircases on land that's flat.
Mike Cirba told us it was level.  If it was level, why would they need a staircase ?

Even the most untrained eye can see the sharp embankment leading up  to the area fronting # 10 green.
An area so steep that it required a staircase.

A simple admission that you were wrong and that Moriarty and I were right will suffice.


Mike Cirba,

I look forward to seeing you in 10 days.
I will not bring up PV, NGLA or Merion within the first 30 minutes.
After that, I can't guarantee anything.

What's ironic about this is that you and I argued about the 11th at LACC North.
You claimed it was a "true" redan while I claimed it was a pretender to the throne.
Do you remember that debate ?

If # 11 at LACC North is a true redan, than # 3 at Merion can't be far behind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike, Mike, Mike….

In the spirit of civility, David’s approach is valid.  A friend just started a grad level course in critique of literature, and the first chapter in the text talks about analyzing in the context of the times, which is very similar to what David proposes.  I considered that in my response.  Thinking further, I actually tend to agree with David, and in many ways, as usual, the opposing positions aren’t that far apart.

While valid, a comparison or ranking of all the Alps holes would still put the Merion one near the bottom.  We often say we don’t care about the motivations, etc., just the results.

That said, I looked in George’s book and it appears the only non blind Alps CBM built was in 1924.  So his perspective would be 1) original, 2) his improved NGLA version (can see green with well placed tee shot) and experimental different one at MCC, a dozen or so more blind ones, with hills of varying heights depending on contour, and then another non blind one.  Since there is no pattern towards anything other than large mounds in front, I think we can determine his mindset.

Jeff,

George would seem to need to edit his book as the right side of the 3rd green is clearly visible from the right side of the fairway on # 3 at NGLA
When the flag is sitting up on that plateau, it's one of the most intimidating views in golf, as the golfer can see the green, the flag and the steep slope leading to the right side bunker.

For Hugh Wilson, we can conclude that he was an idiot who forgot what he saw at NGLA, or he was intent on designing to the specific site.  

Or perhaps, recognizing the difference in the terrain, he opted for "ALPS-LITE"

Since he moved a lot of dirt in to the green site, he either put it in front, later changing his mind, or intended all along to place it behind the green.  I suspect safety from hole 1 and/or a perceived need to provide a backstop for the forced carry over the bunkers would be possible reasons.  Who knows, maybe a supervisor was away for the day, and no one told the workers to stop piling dirt there, and he had to find a way to use it.  (Don't ask me how I know thats a possibility!)

So, IMHO, he was creating a site specific design, not making a big design mistake unknowingly. 

Agree, ALPS-LITE

Certainly one possibility is that he felt the big bunkers replicated the concept of the Alps, although I really don't believe it, thinking the fear of carrying a big mound was really part of the charm of the Alps.  But, as David says, maybe he didn't feel that way.  Maybe semi blind was better to him than fully blind.

But, it may have been blind.
Despite the elevated tee, the golfer was hitting into an upslope off the tee.
I doubt that the average drive was anywhere near the 250 mark in 1912-1916, leaving the golfer on the upslope, not yet at the crest of the hill and totally blind into the green.   When you factor in the additional elevation of the land North of Ardmore Ave, it contributes to making the hole totally blind.

Then, we must speculate that either the original name stuck if the hole changed, or that they tried to name holes because they liked that idea from NGLA, even if they were not quite replicas of CBM’s replicas.  So, they used the names he used as best they could.  

Or, more likely, that it played as a blind hole, remaining true to the principles of the "Alps"

Ditto IMHO the Redan.  They built it to take advantage of the barn basement, but it had more Redan characteristics than others, so they used that name, knowing full well it wasn’t really a prototype Redan.

Prototype Redan ?

We know that the Redan at North Berwick and the Redan at NGLA differ greatly, so which is the protoypical Redan ?

That has always been my theory anyway.  What they built was more important to them than either names or CBM templates.  
He got them started, and they branched out on their own.  It is a theory that explains traditional names on holes that don't really fit a template, at any rate.

How did they branch out on # 3 ?

[DMoriarty]

Sean, feel free to examine why your view is different from their view all you'd like, but I wish you'd do it in a thread where these yahoos won't misrepresent or misunderstand you. When Cirba reads that you think the hole isn't a good Alps, he automatically jumps to the conclusion that they didn't think it wasn't a good hole, despite their statements to the contrary.

What I do know is it doesn't do much good to say Findlay thought the hole was a good Alps unless you are critiquing the quality of the course as it was then.  I am guessing that isn't the objective, so....what does that possibly mean in the big picture?

Unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what is at issue. These guys are trying to use their (and your) modern perspective to argue that it must have been thought an abysmal failure THEN.  That is why I view your insertion of your opinion into THIS conversation as counterproductive.  These guys don't comprehend the distinction between your opinion as compared to the opinions of those who were there.
________________________________________________

Be careful Patrick, Cirba's last few posts are so unctuous that the grease may seep through your computer screen.

I am not sure which I find more despicable, the dishonesty and sleaziness in his handling of the facts and theories, or these recurring smarmy efforts to declare himself the winner and the conversation at its end.  As for your recent posts where you addressed his latest mass postings of the same old crap, I suggest we don't bother?  He has nothing to contribute and he certainly isn't worth the effort.  I hadn't even read the post until I read the portions you included in your response.  While the posts are are full of misrepresentations and the usual sleaziness,  fortunately I doubt anyone else has read them either.  

[Sean_A]

David

I thought you were trying to determine who designed Merion, not critique the quality of the course. 

Whether or not the hole was a good Alps has nothing to do with it being a good or bad hole.  For many people the Alps itself is a bad hole.  

Since the hole was changed, I must conclude that something was lacking with the design whether or not folks were happy wth it.  It seems to me that the old 10th was a victim of the road becoming too busy, but it would be interesting to know if the routing was always considered "in flux" and subject to alterations which were aimed to result in a better overall course given what must have been high ambitions for the club in terms of hosting championships.  

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Historical revisonism?  When a guy can't even figure out he hasn't built or isn't looking an Alps then its hard not to want to look for different angles of what happened and why.  Time doesn't change the basic elements of a template.  They exist regardless of what happens to be in vogue or how someone thinks they can improve upon them or if there are mistakes in interpreting.  The elements are either there or they are not.  It doesn't matter if it was 1910 or 2010.

Ciao  

In CBM's day, and in particular around the time of the creation of the NGLA, there was a misconception (especially in the UK) that CBM was trying to build 18 exact copies of famous golf holes. CBM realized it was impossible to recreate 18 famous holes when the conditions varied so drastically for the originals, so his idea was take the architectural concepts (in whole or partially) and adapt them to the given environment. Darwin and others cleared up with misconception, and made it clear these were CBM's versions, not copies, and in some cases his version were superior to the original hole (and in some cases they were not). It was also acknowledged by Darwin, and others, that some of CBM's completely original hole concepts, which were not inspired by historical predecessors , were among his best designs. Are you not aware of the history of CBM and his templates?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

There was no misinterpetation.

Whether he believed it or not, CBM announced to everyone for several years that he was going to reproduce 18 of the greatest holes abroad on his ideal course.

In CBM's eulogy, HJ Whigham wrote about how/when this goal changed if memory serves.   I don't have George's book in front of me...perhaps you or someone who does can copy that section here?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

There was no misinterpetation.

Whether he belived it or not, CBM announced to everyone for several years that he was going to reproduce 18 of the greatest holes abroad on his ideal course.


Mike, I think you're incorrect about that.

CBM wrote that his inspiration for the concept of formulating 18 ideal holes came from an article in the 1901 London, "Golf Illustrated" where the question of which were the most testing holes of any course in the UK, was put to the leading golfers in Great Britain[.  And from this came the concept of building a course in the U.S. which would compare favorably with the championship courses in the UK, which would also serve to elevate the game in the U.S.  In 1906 he states that most of those championship courses had four or five great holes. and that his concept was to craft a course with 18 great or ideal holes.  He stated that while Garden City, Myopia and Chicago were the best courses in America, there was nothing to compare to the best courses in GB&I.  In 1904 he declared that he desired to build 18 holes in the U.S. with each one modeld after the most famous holes abroad.

He further notes that his drawings from abroad weren't copies of particular holes, but rather, the outstanding features which he thought made the hole interesting, which might be adapted to a hole of differing length.

He goes on to describe the essential characteristics of a perfect golf course.
He describes features/values/distances and finally continues to generalize by listing and describing 18 holes which he felt were about right.

Some holes are similar to individual holes in the UK.  Others are composites rather than single holes, so, he's deviated from his 1904 position by the time he lists his 18 holes.

It's clear, in his list of 18 holes that he did NOT attempt to replcate all 18 holes from individual holes in the UK.

In CBM's eulogy, HJ Whigham wrote about how/when this goal changed if memory serves.   I don't have George's book in front of me...perhaps you or someone who does can copy that section here?

[Mike Cirba]

Speaking of fun and frivolity, I do have to admit there is some good humor in correcting Pat's repeated nonsense and unfounded statements, although I can't imagine why he'd want to fool people who have never been privileged to visit the courses in question...it seems sort of mean in a way.

For instance, he tells us that you can see the flag on the green at NGLA from the far right side of the fairway.   Technically, he's correct.

You see, if you can do a Bubba Watson and carry the cross bunker on the right side of the fairway at 320 yards from the back tee, which CBM located to threaten layup second shots, and let it run out to about 350 yards then yes, you can pass the mountain up the right side and see the green.   Anyone who did that back in 1910 was hitting their third or more shot.

This from a guy who just told us that most players couldn't reach 250 yards back then from the elevated tee of Merion's 10th.  

Earlier he told us that one could not see the land at Pine Valley from the train because of the undergrowth and tall trees.

In that regard, let's look at one of my favorite courses, Cobb's Creek, another course with dense undergrowth and tall trees.

In this video, Joe Bausch and I are interviewing the late Tilly DePalma, who was 97 years old at the time, looking into the summertime inpenetrable growth that used to be the uphill 6th fairway.   You'll note that none of the landforms are visible;


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi7EiHztA0c

From slightly further back to the original sixth tee across the creek, one can see in the following photo with even the early spring undergrowth already starting the landform is clearly visible through the trees.




Here's a video from the 17th tee, which unfortunately doesn't show the hole, but gives some sense of this wonderfully delightful man, who was US Publinks Champion Joe Coble's caddie back in the 1920s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LebGLPgdA8

From that same tee, here are a few shots from early spring, showing all the land forms clearly despite tall trees, simply because the undergrowth is largely dormant.








Of course, this is only common sense, but Pat argues these points so vociferously that I wonder if he isn't simply pulling all of our collective legs.


Back to the Merion discussion.

Yes, the mound behind the original 10th green served dual purposes, including acting as a hazard from the 1st tee as well as protecting folks on the 10th green.

I never knew that the 1st hole at Garden City was one of CBM's template holes!    



And finally, this 1923 article talks about the changing of the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th holes.   It would certainly suggest that Hugh Wilson was actively involved at the time Merion was looking to purchase property for the course in Ardmore.   It also speaks to the fact that their inability to get the parcel of land they wanted below the creek (which was part of a much larger estate) resulted in the less than ideal holes around the turn.

[DMoriarty]

David

I thought you were trying to determine who designed Merion, not critique the quality of the course. 

I am.  But when you and others start pontificating about the perceived quality, then the likes of Cirba and Brauer inevitably twist that into trying to make a statement about who designed the course.    Brauer actually argued that CBM would never had designed a hole that bad, therefore he couldn't have designed Merion.  Brauer called the hole a "smoking gun" refuting the theory that CBM called the shots.   That is how far these guys will stretch to try and make their case.

Whether or not the hole was a good Alps has nothing to do with it being a good or bad hole.  For many people the Alps itself is a bad hole.  

Since the hole was changed, I must conclude that something was lacking with the design whether or not folks were happy wth it.  It seems to me that the old 10th was a victim of the road becoming too busy, but it would be interesting to know if the routing was always considered "in flux" and subject to alterations which were aimed to result in a better overall course given what must have been high ambitions for the club in terms of hosting championships.  

Ciao

The routing was always in flux?    This is the kind of unsupported speculation that does little to advance the conversation. The hole was reportedly changed because Ardmore became too busy over the dozen years after the course was first built. Before the change they had hosted the Amateur, the most important championship in America at the time with the hole as is.  The replacement hole (then called a "Cape")  was described as a good hole for a cramped space. Hardly sounds like the they were waiting for a opportunity to build their ideal.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick and Tom MacWood,

It appears perhaps from this series of reports that CBM's idea of copying 18 holes from abroad modified to replicating 3 or 4 and only features of others during his 1906 spring trip abroad studying courses.

Original 1904 Founders Letter



July 10th 1905



March 24th, 1906



June 20th, 1906

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Speaking of purposeful misrepresentation meant to fool folks who have never been there, why would you knowingly misrepresent what those steps are there for?   You KNOW that even today Ardmore Avenue is a bit sunken from the adjacent terrain on BOTH sides, about 3.5 feet on the 10th fairway side and about 3 feet on the 1st fairway side.   In fact, it's almost a bit like a "Ha-Ha", or a sunken road not visible until you're right up on it from the 10th fairway side.

In fact, you also know that the 1st fairway side is actually a slight bit lower than the 10th fairway side.   Given that the original 10th green was elevated a bit you couldn't have missed it from anywhere beyond the bottom slope of the 10th fairway, perhaps 150 yards at most from the tee..

Yet, you portray those steps as coming up from the terrain on the 10th fairway side to the unknowing, instead of coming from the sunken roadway of Ardmore Avenune.   Why is that?

Besides, Robert Lesley already told us what principles of the Alps they wanted to reproduce there...not blindness, but a approach shot requiring a carry over a cross bunker.   Why don't you guys believe him?

Instead, you and David are trying to make a molehill into a mountain! 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

There was no misinterpetation.

Whether he belived it or not, CBM announced to everyone for several years that he was going to reproduce 18 of the greatest holes abroad on his ideal course.

In CBM's eulogy, HJ Whigham wrote about how/when this goal changed if memory serves.   I don't have George's book in front of me...perhaps you or someone who does can copy that section here?

Wrong again Buffalo breath. You left out the part about adapting those concepts to the environment, which was acknowledged by CBM, Whigham and Travis at the time. The holes were never meant to be slavish copies of the originals. They took the general concepts, and in particular the most important features of those concepts, and adapted them to the site. That was always the idea. In fact in CBM's famous Ideal Links article he prefaces the description of each hole with 'similar to' or 'suggested by' or 'resembling'.....and one or two of the holes were composites of two holes. You have the facts wrong....again.

And it is beside the point anyway. I was asking Sean if he was familiar with those historic discussions because what he is complaining about today was already discussed and explained one hundred years ago by Darwin and others. That is my point.

What happened PV....I thought this thread was about PV?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()