News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #25 on: December 13, 2004, 06:08:52 AM »
"Does an observation of PN feature translate into an unsupportable guess?"
If you aren't paranoid why would do you continue to misrepresent and exagerate my views?"

Tom MacWood:

Aren't you forgetting a pretty elemental fact? Do you realize that Hugh Wilson spent over six months in Europe studying and sketching architecture? If you understand what that logically means are you trying to say that anyone in this country who might have used those architectural concepts from European golf were advised by and collaborated with Macdonald and Whigam? :) I didn't actually know that Macdonald and Whigam patented those concepts but maybe you read in some esoteric early magazine article that they did.

Did you know the large dip in the front of #17 Merion East is supposedly Wilson's version of the "Valley of Sin" feature? Are we then to assume from you that Old Tom Morris advised and collaborated with Wilson/Flynn/Pickering and commitee at Merion East?

Wayne and I aren't misrepresenting anything but at this point it may be safe to say that we think it's you that's doing some pretty comical exaggerating!   ;)

Does a PN feature on #4 translate into an unsupportable guess? Frankly, I'd say yes, unless golf architecture analysts can accurately say a large carry bunker or a scheme of a set of carry bunkers that spans a wide fairway is a PN bunker. Go look at the bunker about 330 yards out on the Bottle hole at NGLA---that's a copy of the PN bunker---and it looks nothing like the carry bunker on the second shot at Merion East's #4, way back when or today!  ;)

Is it possible for you to learn anything on here or are you just going to continue to mindlessly defend every wacko assumption and guess you come up with---eg PN bunker on #4, Tillinghast sold out his architectural principles, Crump sat around PVGC for five solid years watching his crews construct everything to Colt's designs and watching the grass grow.  ;)

Believe me, if we, or you, or anyone else uncovers anything, anything at all that really does indicate that Macdonald and Whigam advised Merion and those desigining and building the course how they should route it, design some or any hole or even any feature, we'll do everything we can to make that fact widely known. I can't imagine why you keep saying we're trying to defend local legends. You have no idea how much respect I have for C.B. Macdonald, and even Whigam seeing as all I've read that Macdonald himself said about Whigam. If we can prove that Macdonald or Whigam or Raynor had something specific to do with Merion East I can't imagine anything more interesting than that.

How do you know that the stories and reports of Macdonald/Whigam visiting and advising Merion wasn't to do with agronomy? God knows, seeing as the practically 2000 letters we have on agronomy from those early days that certainly was a massive concern of Wilson's, Flynn's, Macdonald before them and Crump just after them.

But you never really think of things like that do you?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 06:32:43 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2004, 06:54:45 AM »
"Did I state Macdonald added the feature at Merion? Did I say Wilson shouldn't be credited? I simply pointed out that Macdonald and Whigham advised the committee. Who did Wilson seek advice from before traveling overseas?"

Tom, I'm not real sure what it is with you and something like this Merion East thing with Macdonald. You may think you pointed something out to us about Macdonald visiting and advising Merion but you didn't. We live here, we go over to Merion on this stuff all the time, we produced many additional Flynn drawings for them and we've been through Merion's archives that've been beautifully arranged recently by the former USGA museum guy Andy Mutch. We know what Macdonald did for Merion and its commitee, it's in Merion's history books, its in all the accounts we have of that early time, including those agronomy files that recently reappeared. We've seen the articles that Macdonald/Whigam, Alison, Maxwell and numerous others visited and perhaps advised Merion. You aren't pointing anything out to us or to Merion that they don't know and haven't known for decades. We just don't know specifically what happened in that very early phase but we aren't going to attribute anything specifically to anyone unless we have some evidence to specifically prove it. Logically, without some specific evidence to the contrary we sort of go with the people who worked on that course everyday for years on end---not just someone who came and visited and was reported to have advised. Doesn't that sound like a logical thing to do? If we find anything at all, from any source that indicates who may have been specifically responsible for something, anything, whether it's Macdonald/Whigam we'll definitely help make that known. We're not being paranoid about anything, and we're not trying to defend some local legend. We're just trying to find out the truth and the facts of what happened.

Again, you didn't point out anything new to do with Macdonald and Whigam and Merion, everything you've said on here about the reports of their visits and advising has been known for years. Are you under the impression you're the only one who ever read those magazine and newspaper reports. If you are I doubt those magazines and newspapers would've lasted a month!   ;)

TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #27 on: December 13, 2004, 07:04:34 AM »
Tom, look, if you have anything specific to add about Macdonald/Whigam or anyone else why don't you just do it? Otherwise this line of guessing, questioning and implications about us or Merion on here is a real waste of time!
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 09:07:42 AM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #28 on: December 13, 2004, 07:32:24 AM »
"TE
I'm aware the Macdonald/Whigham connection has been known for years at Merion...which makes yours and Wayne's reaction all the more bizarre."

The connection that you refer to is so ill-defined as to be anectdotal; far from substanitive.  While it may seem to you that our response to your position is a method to protect local legends and golf lore, I think it rather an example of our approach.

We do know that Wilson went to visit Macdonald and Whigham and sought advise as to what courses to see and what design principals to look for.  We do know, and it has been known around here for a long time, that Macdonald visited the site and gave some advise.  What this means is unclear.  

It certainly would have been a good marketing strategy to tie the efforts at the new course in Ardmore to some design principals that were being internationally recognized at NGLA.  There are no specifics and no need to speculate.  It should open one's eyes to look for more but it should not lead one to make too much of it, not yet at any rate.  To date, there is nothing in the record to give substance to what that advise was.  

The advise could have been architectural, it could have been something altogether different.  Until we find something or one of our terrific network of researchers come up with something, it doesn't make any sense to us to attribute speculative credit to anyone without a higher degree of support....far more than a newspaper's description of some holes (right or wrong) or a simple statement that they were present to offer advise.  Maybe all they said was "Boys, you have it right...keep at it."  We just don't know.  Until something specific is detailed, it remains an interesting point that bears consideration.

You imply that we have an agenda that skews our results.  This is a specious claim and the most bizarre reaction of all.  

All we are doing is looking for the truth whatever it might be.  We've debunked a number of myths, some of which demonstrated Flynn's work previously attributed to another but some has been to attribute work to the correct architect rather than Flynn.  We do not try to hide or bend the truth for an agenda to glorify Flynn, Wilson, or any other Philadelphian.  

I think your response is more an artifact that the research standards we use are higher than yours and that it appears we analyse the same information in a more sophisticated fashion.  Now, you probably think this an over reaction.  I am willing to let it be and move on.  It is becoming a waste of time.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #29 on: December 13, 2004, 10:07:40 AM »
 While my eyes may fool me in my reading of this routing, I have some questions.

  #3(old#7?)-Was the old angle of the tee more appropriate for the green ? It is changed?

  #9-Was the old angle better for this green angle also? It is changed?

   #10-Was the old hole stronger than the exisiting one?

  #13-Was the old hole more fun with a creek(?) by the green?

      #15-Would you prefer the old tee angle?
AKA Mayday

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #30 on: December 13, 2004, 10:22:37 AM »
The first thing that amazes me everytime I see the original routing,is just how good a golf course this is.
To me it is up there with PV as a piece of pure architecture magic..those holes that have not changed are as great now as they must have been back when...

the routing of the front side actually I prefer to the one that now exists, TE any knowledge of why it changed?

Also TE, is the alternate green that currently exists on # 13 the site of the old 13th green, os is this more like where the old 12th green was?
It is amazing how the last 4 holes basically remain unchanged, and how they are still as good as any finishing 4 holes anywhere.
Does anybody know if ardmore av changed in routing at all?
Or is any course change purely related to road business?

Great thread  long live The Philly Age!!!!!

ForkaB

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #31 on: December 13, 2004, 10:53:38 AM »
Tom P and Wayne M

As an ignorant but interested outsider, methinks you doth protest too much.  Tom MacW asks some very pertinent and informed questions, and you both seem to dismiss them not on their merits, but on their source.  From the (superb) initial post it seems obvious that Merion is and has been a work in proress.  It is obvious from comparing the 1916 routing to what exists today that Flynn (or whoever) made some very significant changes to Wilson's Merion, but the two of you seem unwilling to step up to the plate and acknowlege that.  Tom MacW seems to state (properly, I think) that Merion, (like many courses of similar quality) represents an organic design, responsible of many hands.  You seem to have a problem with this.  Why?

Constructively

Rich

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #32 on: December 13, 2004, 12:26:19 PM »
Rich,

I don't have a problem with Merion being a work in progress.  In fact it is undeniable.  Tom and I probably have as good an idea about the architectural history of Merion as anyone.  The fact is, there is no smoking gun that tells us who did what.

We know that the origin of Merion was the work of a committee, headed by Wilson and constructed by Fred Pickering (Flynn's brother-in-law) who had a lot to do with the features of the initial course.  We also know that Flynn came upon the scene very early and took over Pickering's responsibilities due to his excessive drinking.  Wilson, Flynn and Valentine had a hand in the significant changes that ocurred between 1912 and Wilson's death in Jan. 1925.  After Wilson's death, more changes were made and highly likely directed by Flynn who long before had established himself as one the great architects of his day.  

It is my feeling, like Mike Cirba and others, that Flynn had a tremendous amount to do with the creative design changes and the version of the course we know today.  My hunch is that Flynn had the most to do with design work after the opening of the course but was collaborative with Wilson and also worked closely with Wilson on agronomic issues.  

Wilson had an insurance business to run and seemed to devote himself to agronomic issues at Merion, Sunnybrook, Seaview, Pine Valley and other places.  I don't think he had the time to spend doing intimate design work.  I'm sure he and Flynn had a lot of common ground and design philosophy.  Wilson may have been the general manager of the work in progress while Flynn dealt in the specifics.  But this is an educated guess and I present it as that.

I don't know what makes you think I(we) have a problem with this.  I do have a problem when "advise" is extrapolated.  We don't know what the advise is, we are seeking the answers if it is possible to determine, but we don't attribute anything substanitive without more information.  Wouldn't you agree that this is proper?  I don't think I dismiss the source, I have a great deal of respect for the research ability of Tom MacWood.  In this instance I have a difference with his interpretations.

Am I the only one that thought Tom's reference to a Principal's Nose in context with a previous statement was evidence that indicated Macdonald's involvement?  

I know the original 5th at Merion had a complex of three bunkers in the fairway.  I have copies of the 1916 drawings in my office (courtesy of the Merion historian).  Are all bunkers in the fairway a Principal's Nose feature?  I don't think so.  My interpretation is the PN was used at TOC as a hazard that came into play on the tee shot.  The complex at Merion was a carry bunker complex.  Why label the bunkers as PN?  They are what they are.  

There are other bunker complexes that come into play in the fairways of TOC (5,6,9,10,12,13,14,and 15).  These aren't Principal Nose bunkers yet they too are bunker complexes in the fairways.  We know Wilson went to St. Andrews (How could he not?) and could easily have picked up this design theme on his own.  However, he was fortunate to have visited Macdonald and sought his advise about where to go and what to see.  

What credit shall we give for the appearance of these bunkers on the original design?  In this regard, I feel none is indicated at this point.  If we find Wilson's drawings or letters that indicate Macdonald, Whigham gave specific advice, we'd be sure to give credit where it is due.  Why wouldn't we?

It is one think to post suppositions on a website, but they must be labeled as that.  In my opinion, Tom MacWood doesn't always do this.  He draws specific conclusions from less than specific information.  For a book, the bar of proof must be raised.

TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #33 on: December 13, 2004, 01:53:56 PM »
"It is obvious from comparing the 1916 routing to what exists today that Flynn (or whoever) made some very significant changes to Wilson's Merion, but the two of you seem unwilling to step up to the plate and acknowlege that.  Tom MacW seems to state (properly, I think) that Merion, (like many courses of similar quality) represents an organic design, responsible of many hands.  You seem to have a problem with this.  Why?"

Rich:

I don't understand why you say that. Are you aware what we're talking about here? If you aren't it sure doesn't surprise me!

We're talking about the initial phase of the architetural construction of Merion East. That would basically be that period when the course first went into construction in the Spring of 1911 until it opened for play in Sept 1912. That diagram you see above (appparently drawn by Flynn) is that golf course---eg the way Merion East was back then. That drawing is the course during the Open of 1916. After that we know full well what went on at Merion East to get it's architecture and the course to the way it was in the early 1930s. That was Wilson and Flynn because we have all of Flynn's drawings which show all the minute detail of that next phase of the course's architectural evolution.

But the phase from the Spring of 1911 until the course opened in sept of 1912 and the way it appeared on that drawing above (1916) is what there's very little left to go on! That's the phase very little is left to draw from. There're no Flynn drawings from that early time, no construction plans of any kind, nothing left of the sketches Hugh Wilson brought back from Europe.

All that remains is about is a ten page account written by Hugh Wilson with some addenda by Alan Wilson of the evolution of the course that Piper and Oakley asked him to write in 1915-16. About one paragraph even refers to the actual construction of the architecture from 1911 to 1912. The rest discusses agronomy, green construction, weeds, rolling, greenkeeping, grubs and worms and everything else it took to run and maintain a course in those days. That report of Wilson's was effusive in praise of Macdonald and Whigam for that weekend at NGLA before they began but it mentions nothing more about them. Wilson wrote that report in Feb 1916.

So what do we know about that early first phase of construction? What does anyone know about it at this point?

We know that Hugh WIlson was charged by the club to go to Europe and to study and draw architecture. We know Wilson was part of the Merion committee that was charged with the building of the course. We know that entire committee went to NGLA and spent and entire weekend with Macdonald getting what they all described as a crash course in golf architecture. The Merion record is replete with that committee's appreciation for what Macdonald did for them during that weekend at NGLA--particularly Wilson is appreciative---I'm reading right now here in front of me what Wilson himself wrote about that time with Macdonald in 1910 before he traveled to Europe for six months to study and draw! I'm reading the first of Wilson's letters to Charles Piper of the US Dept. of Agriculture in Feb of 1911 when he first wrote Piper and Oakley (the beginning of 14 years of correspondence in over 2000 letters). Right in that first letter Wilson says;

“Mr Macdonald spoke of you and said you could help us out if anyone could”----this was about three months before Merion East went into construction.

He then went to Europe and studied and played and drew. What were some of the courses and holes Macdonald probably told him to study? Well, probably those same famous holes and courses that were the raw material of the template holes of NGLA and others. Where did Macdonald come up with those template holes? He came up with them from a solicitation just after the turn of the century and a poll of the best and most knowledgeable players and architectural people in Europe at that time of what the best and most respected holes in Europe were.

Did Wilson see those holes in Europe? Obviously he did. Did he or anyone else build them or close approximations of them at Merion East? We can see he didn't or no one did. Only a few little conceptual ideas were used that really aren't recognizable. Merion East is a conglomeration of architectural principles not necessarily architectural copies or even "concept copies';

"Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the famous holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day, we spent going over the course (NGLA) and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland, confirmed Mr Macdonald's teachings. May I offer the suggestion to any commitee building a new golf course or altering their old one, to spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine valley, where they may see the finest holes and while they cannot hope to reproduce them entirely, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their courses."
Hugh Wilson, February, 1916

We know who that committee was that created the Merion East course (Messers. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson). We know the foreman of Merion East’s construction was a man named Pickering and might’ve been Flynn’s brother in law. Toomey might have been the engineer picked up by the railroad magnates who apparently funded the project. We know Flynn was the greenkeeper and perhaps much more at that time but there is not record, except brief mention in letter and such.

This is the initial phase we’re talking about and concerned with. We have absolutely no bias for or against anyone being responsible for the architecture of Merion East---zero. We just want to find out how it happened and who was responsible for it. Isn’t it odd that with-all we do have we have no real mention from any of these men about the architectural input of anyone other than obviously those who just quietly went about constructing that course in perhaps six months!! One would certainly think that after what the committee said about Macdonald’s tremendous help to them before Wilson went to Europe if he or Whigam had come down there and really done something significant for them during construction with advice or whatever, they certainly would’ve said so.

That leads one to conclude that in that first phase they just did it themselves! But in the next phase of the architectural evolution of Merion, primarily beginning in the early 1920s and lasting until about 1934 we basically have everything we need to know in detail.

It is true that before we got involved with Merion with this Flynn material we have that Merion was not that aware of just what or how much Flynn did for that course. Now they are and they are more than happy to both know it and admit it.

As for Macdonald and Whigam or anyone else we have no hesitation at all to include anyone in this Merion evolution if we can just prove it they way we can with what we have from Flynn later.

This constant talk from Tom MacWood that we’re protecting some Philadelphia local legends or we or Merion is paranoid about something is just plain silly on his part. I’ve said many, many times on here that I have great respect for Tom MacWood’s ability to come up with raw research material but not much respect for how he analyzes it. I really do mean that and this is just another example.

I’m more than happy to be able to help add Macdonald to Merion’s architectural evolution when the courses was first being built but to do that we need more than just a newspaper article saying he ‘visited and advised”. Advised on what? Architecture, agronomy, what? And I do know what a PN looks like. MacWood sees some three bunker carry set on #4 and proclaims that to be an indication of Macdonald’s input???? That’s just bullshit---that bunker is nothing like a PN and never was---it’s a massive carry bunker set across about a 45 yard wide fairway.

As for C.B. Macdonald, I told that group in NYC last week and particularly George Bahto that I really felt he should research and write more about Macdonald not just from the perspective of architecture but from other aspects of golf he was and had been involved in. I believe that far earlier than any of us now realize that Macdonald basically just dropped out and returned to NGLA in semi-seclusion sort of a depressed and perhaps beaten man. In that I feel is a tremendous story of early golf waiting to be told.

Early on in those Wilson/Piper/Oakley agronomy letters Piper told Wilson that Macdonald wasn’t answering his letter and Wilson told Piper not to worry about it that he’d just call him and see if he could get through to him and that he wasn’t easy to approach. And this from the formation of the USGA Green Section Committee that they’d all worked so hard on through the teens;

“Charlie Macdonald has refused to serve, putting his refusal on the grounds that he has practically dropped out of active golf. If you think it wise, I am sure that I can persuade him to serve in the formation of the committee whether or not he resigns afterward.”
Wynant Vanderpool of the Morris Co G.C., NJ
In a letter to Hugh Wilson, 1920

Again, if Tom MacWood has something specific to add to all this regarding Macdonald/Whigam or anyone else I wish he would do it instead of telling us we’re over-reacting or that were paranoid about something, I can assure you we’re not.



ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #34 on: December 13, 2004, 05:41:29 PM »
Mike Malone:

The original #13 was in use (as was the original 12th green)as a sort-of practice hole when I was a kid up until June, 1971 when the only 2 corporate tents at the U.S. Open(!!!!) were put on that property.

I "played" it often and you are correct that the shot over the creek was interesting.  The green was not as contoured as the "new" 13th (1923) although it was sharply pitched from back-to-front.

I would liken the shot to a slightly longer version of the approach to #7 on Merion's West Course - if you know it.

Steve Sayers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #35 on: December 13, 2004, 05:51:08 PM »
But the phase from the Spring of 1911 until the course opened in sept of 1912 and the way it appeared on that drawing above (1916) is what there's very little left to go on! That's the phase very little is left to draw from. There're no Flynn drawings from that early time, no construction plans of any kind, nothing left of the sketches Hugh Wilson brought back from Europe.

TEP:

Merion hosted the 1904 and 1909 Women’s Amateur.  What course were these events held on -- East, West or some course lost to the ages?  Who was responsible for this course and could remnants of that course have been incorporated into the work in 1911 / 1912?

Steve

Mike_Cirba

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #36 on: December 13, 2004, 06:03:13 PM »
Steve;

I know the original Merion course was at a different location than the present East and West courses.  I have the info somewhere if you are looking for specifics, but that course (architect unknown...likely the original members) was not incorporated into the new ones.

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #37 on: December 13, 2004, 06:15:54 PM »
Steve,

The Women's Amateurs you refer to took place on their course in Haverford north of the main rail line before the move to the current East (1912) and West (1913).  The site of the course preceding the East was bordered by Fishers Road, Rose Lane and Old Gulph Road.  The original 9 holes measured 2833 yards.  The 18-hole competition record over 2 rounds of the 9-hole course for men was 91 and for women the record was 123.  

Additional land was acquired so that in 1900 there were 18-holes.  This land was loaned to the club by Clement A. Griscom who with Rodman Griscom were enthusiastic early supporters of golf at Merion.  The Frances Biddle Griscom Cup (mixed family members of Phila players) and the Clement A. Griscom Cup (inter-city matches between NYC, Boston and Phila) were donated by the family.

The popularity of golf among the members led to overcrowding on the Haverford course.  There was also a desire to move to grounds that were not leased as was the Haverford site.  This prompted the membership to seek new grounds for golf (East Course) and a short while later the need for a second 18-holes (West Course).
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 06:23:55 PM by Wayne Morrison »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #38 on: December 13, 2004, 06:59:16 PM »
Wayne - I wasn't going to wade into this, but since you asked (re your interpretation of Tom's PN allusion)

I have a couple of thoughts which hopefully will be viewed as constructive, I assure you they are not intended in any other manner.

We know that the origin of Merion was the work of a committee, headed by Wilson and constructed by Fred Pickering (Flynn's brother-in-law) who had a lot to do with the features of the initial course.  \It is my feeling, like Mike Cirba and others, that Flynn had a tremendous amount to do with the creative design changes and the version of the course we know today.  My hunch is that Flynn had the most to do with design work after the opening of the course but was collaborative with Wilson and also worked closely with Wilson on agronomic issues....  

This is an example of where I think a double standard is at work. You have hunches about Flynn's contributions. Tom MacWood has hunches about MacDonald's advice. In truth, they are both likely theories, and both have some evidence (factual or anecdotal...or hunches) to back them up. Both seem to be advanced in their true light, so what is the grave problem?

Quote
Wilson had an insurance business to run and seemed to devote himself to agronomic issues at Merion, Sunnybrook, Seaview, Pine Valley and other places.  I don't think he had the time to spend doing intimate design work.  I'm sure he and Flynn had a lot of common ground and design philosophy.  Wilson may have been the general manager of the work in progress while Flynn dealt in the specifics.  But this is an educated guess and I present it as that....

Again, I think the same thing is present here. How you're educated guess is any different than Tom's, though, is a mystery.

Quote
I do have a problem when "advise" is extrapolated....

Here is the real grist. The only extrapolation of "advise" that I can tell is by you and TomP. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe this whole issue came up on this thread when Tom Paul claimed that Tom MacWood asserts that Macdonald designed the course. Attributing to Tom Mac the claim that Macdonald designed Merion is a strawman in order to cut down his theory that MacDonald advised, an otherwise reasonable claim, to which even you concede. You seem to be extrapolating the substance of his claim, and then faulting him for extrapolating it.


Quote
Am I the only one that thought Tom's reference to a Principal's Nose in context with a previous statement was evidence that indicated Macdonald's involvement?  

This is what I was going to post on yesterday. It's a classic counterfactual conditional. The inference is drawn out of a supposed reality. TomM - "Looks like a PN" Response: "Charles B. MacDonald did not design Merion." I didn't understand it, but you responsibly apologized for misinterpreting it, and so I didn't post. But I sometimes chafe at seeing things like that b/c other posters often attribute a position to others based on an innocent set of facts.

Quote
I don't think so.  My interpretation is the PN was used at TOC as a hazard that came into play on the tee shot.  The complex at Merion was a carry bunker complex.  Why label the bunkers as PN?  They are what they are.  

If the PN bunker at Merion is claimed as being influenced by CBM, then it would seem that we should compare it to CBM's uses. As Tom noted, CBM rarely used the PN to influence a tee shot. In addition to Tom's examples, I'd offer Piping Rock #1 and Creek #15, both approach bunkers.  

I, however, don't have any view on whether it evidences CBM's influence. In fact, on the contrary, I think it doesn't really resemble a PN, and CBM used it more often on Par 4s

Quote
It is one think to post suppositions on a website, but they must be labeled as that.  In my opinion, Tom MacWood doesn't always do this.  He draws specific conclusions from less than specific information.  For a book, the bar of proof must be raised.

Again, we are on a website, so I believe theories which are not fanciful, should be explored. You have yours and Tom has his, I don't see why one should be given any more deference than the other.

I hope I'm not sounding too critical. My hope was to be constructive. I appreciate your endless Flynn education; I imagine my increased fondness for his architecture owes, in part, to your efforts.

P.S. One more thing. About this quotation from you:
Quote
We've debunked a number of myths, some of which demonstrated Flynn's work previously attributed to another but some has been to attribute work to the correct architect rather than Flynn.

What work have you discovered for which Flynn has incorrectly received credit (or the greater credit)?
« Last Edit: December 13, 2004, 07:01:33 PM by SPDB »

TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #39 on: December 13, 2004, 08:17:36 PM »
SPDB:

Jeeesus Christ, in that last post you sound like a whole team of lawyers practicing for an appearance in front of the Supreme Court!

If I said what MacWood speculated on about Merion East was tantamount to him speculating Macdonald designing the golf course then I completely retract that remark. We're just trying to figure out what happened in that first phase from 1911 to 1912. Tom MacWood can have any opinion about the course he wants to--I sure don't hold that against him but I sure as hell don't have to agree with it. But it seems Wayne and I and Tom MacWood are on the same page on what Macdonald and Wihigam did down there. Some newspapers reported they visited and advised. I'm sure they did. But on what? And the fact is in about six months in the first phase somebody built that golf course. Frankly, my supposition is the guys who were there every day designed and built the golf course. If someone proves differently I'll be the first to embrace that, and I'm quite sure Wayne Morrison and Merion Golf club will too, despite how paranoid people like Tom MacWood who's never even been there thinks all of us are.

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #40 on: December 13, 2004, 09:40:30 PM »
"I simply pointed out that Macdonald and Whigham advised the folks at Merion when the course was being laid out and constructed."

When there is no understanding at all as to what that advise was, there isn't much to consider except that we should be on the look out for what it might be.  Anything else is a supposition.  I don't have a problem except Tom went on to point out that the advise was given as the course was being laid out and constructed.  What else are we to assume his inference is except that he advised on the lay out and construction?

"It seems to me Merion East was a group effort, designed by a number of people over a number of years. I personally believe Flynn (and have stated this often) should be given more credit for the perfected version of the golf course than he is currently given, but I also believe when studying the early version of the course one should not ignore the contribution of Macdonald."

As far as we know, Macdonald gave insights into design and helped direct Wilson to the courses he should see and what to study.  We also know he came to visit and that it was reported he gave advise.  What that is, nobody knows.  Not Tom MacWood nor Tom Paul.  So what contribution are we not to ignore?  Again, the inference is that there was some substanitive contribution on site.  If I err in making this inference, I take responsibility.  By the way, I do agree with Tom that Flynn's work at Merion is significant.  I don't agree with him that he is not given enough credit.  For the members at the club who care about these things, he is well understood and highly regarded.

"The feature that stood out to me is what appears to be a Principal's Nose."

Of all the features at Merion, this one stands out?  Why?  To me it is evidence to Tom MacWood that Macdonald's influence is greater than he is given credit for.  To me, it is evidence of nothing.  If of all the design work at Merion is subordinate to those three bunkers that never made it to 1924, then I think Tom needs to reconsider the rest of the course.

Tom MacWood talks about protecting Philadelphians and local history.  There is no merit to this statement at all.  We look at the same information and see things differently.  Each is comfotable with his own interpretation and I for one wish to move on.

You decide for yourself.  I appreciate your comments, but don't really agree with the majority of them.

"What work have you discovered for which Flynn has incorrectly received credit (or the greater credit)?"

Some examples include that Flynn was credited by some to have designed or significantly redesigned the course for Hercules Powder Company, a gunpowder company in Delaware.   It is nearly all Tull with some Cornish and no Flynn.

East Potomac Park is sometimes credited to Flynn.  We know that he worked on the DC municipal course at Rock Creek Park but there is no evidence that Flynn was involved with EPP.

Flynn was thought to have redesigned Springhaven Club in Delaware County, PA.  We determined that he designed a course on land the club was considering but the move never ocurred.  He may have done some bunker work there, but nothing significant as was thought.

The truth is, there are many more examples where Flynn's work was ignored or credited to another.  We are documenting this at length and there will be interesting revelations.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #41 on: December 13, 2004, 10:18:20 PM »
Wayne - A quick response with more when i have a free(r) moment. You above many others are intimately familiar with how well preserved the features at Merion are (i'm speaking of course about continuity of design features, not consistency of quality). Looking at this map, it is clear to all familiar with Merion that 1,10,11,12,13 are all entirely different holes. But the rest remains largely unchanged (save for the hole ordering).

Among that consistency, one feature is conspicuous by its absence, the Principal's Nose bunker. Nothing substantive would be advanced by noting the ingenious placement of the approach bunker on 6(curr. 5), since it exists there today. It seems only reasonable in that context to make note of a feature that has disappeared or altered, apparently without note or at least none that I can recall... without need to refer to presumptive subtext.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #42 on: December 14, 2004, 06:25:24 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I can just see it now.

80 years from now your descendants will claim that Fazio advised on the design and building of Friar's Head.

They'll cite some reference to Fazio's early meetings with Ken Bakst and conclude that he advised on the design of the golf course as we know it today.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth.

Did Fazio visit the site ?  Yes
Did he talk to Ken Bakst   Yes
Did he present a plan ?  Yes

Can you conclude from that that he advised on Friar's Head ?

I guess it depends on how much of the truth needs to be told.

With respect to your clippings, those are nice general references, not unlike public relations pieces that CBM himself might dole out to the press.

But, what specific advice did MacDonald and Whigham provide ?

Could you tell us on a hole and/or feature specific basis ?

Absent that information we don't know whether CBM nodded approvingly, disagreed or actually got into detailed specifics on features and holes.

This is reminiscent of your insistance that Emmett and/or Travis assisted with the design of NGLA, without any substantive supporting documentation on hole and feature specifics.

CBM was a man of great importance..... in his eyes.
Could it be that he advised on every course being built in his time ...... in his eyes ?

Until the specifics of his contributions are known how can you make any claim regarding the extent of his involvement ?  

While you raise a valid question ?  I don't think you can draw any solid conclusions. Nobody, as yet, has any information that indicates the specifics and the extent of his advice, or, that he gave any specific advice, or that anybody listened to anything he said.  

As you know, it was rumored that he did have an ego.

So, did Fazio advise Ken Bakst at Friar's Head ?

The answer is YES and NO.

It's the context in which the advise was given that is critical to the issue, and so it is at Merion and NGLA.

And, until you know that, you can't draw any finite conclusions.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #43 on: December 14, 2004, 06:50:31 AM »
Tom MacWood,

YES, it is.

And, I didn't posture that he gave specific advice, you did !

Again, you GUESS at the intent and extent of CBM's involvement.

You continue to draw unsupported conclusions.

At least I know the facts regarding the oblique dunes and have personally observed them.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #44 on: December 14, 2004, 06:59:20 AM »
Tom MacWood,

This is a typical ploy of yours.

When cornered, when pressed for an answer, when asked for supporting documentation, you attempt to divert the issue by raising other points, hoping that the original issues will be swept under the rug.

Just stick to the topic, let's address it fully, then we can move on to your collateral questions.

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #45 on: December 14, 2004, 07:31:09 AM »
By Robert W. Lesley (Merion member):

"The seventh, or the Redan Hole, is a one shotter situated on a side hill with a deep gulley and severe bunkering in front of it, and requires the most delicate placing to hold the green…the tenth hole its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick."

The original 10th at Merion and the 17th at Prestwick are about the same length but there is little else in common.  Although the 10th at Merion had a "Sahara" style bunker (but with grassy mounds), the high hill was behind the green and protected the 1st fairway.  The Alps "Sahara" comes into play about 50 yards short of the green at Prestwick while the bunker at Merion was just in front of the green.    Merion had fairway bunkers and Prestwick does not.  Merion was a dogleg right and Prestwick is straight.  I wouldn't say that the hole resembles the Alps, not even conceptually.

As for the current 3rd former 7th at Merion being a reverse Redan, I never did understand that.  At first glance it looks a little like an uphill reverse Redan but the green plays nothing like a Redan.  The original tee on this hole was left of the current tee and would have had less of a Redan look than it does today.  Again, the playability of the green is not and likely never was Redan-like.

It would seem that an untrained eye compared these two  holes holes at Merion with classics abroad.  Yet, Lesley's commentary was probably influenced by statements made by Alex Findlay.  An Aug 23, 1912 Philadelphia Ledger article by Findlay describing the course (and indicating that the course at that time played today's routing progression) mentions that the 3rd hole "will remind golfers who have played abroad of one of the nicest holes in existence."  It would seem as though he was referencing the Redan.  As to the 10th, Findlay writes "the second thereto requires a strike precisely like that to the Alps, or seventeenth at Prestwick, Scotland.

Whigham's comment is most curious.  I'd very much like to know what he meant by considering Merion a Macdonald/Raynor course.  More than likely 27 years later and in grief, he was simply mistaken.  However, early golf architecture history is filled with misattributions, some deliberate others by innocent errors.

Pat Mucci strikes at the heart of my issue with Tom MacWood's conclusions (which he sometimes seems to make and other times shies away from).  There is no evidence as yet that specifies what advice during course construction Macdonald gave.  We know that the advice he gave prior to Wilson's departure was instrumental in fast tracking his understanding of design principles while the itinerary provided was of value as well.  Beyond that, we know nothing except for a general acknowledgement of gratitude to Macdonald for "advice" and should be wary of speculating too much.

I further think that a recognition that Merion was aided by Macdonald (and again, I believe they were but in an unknown manner) was beneficial to the club even though the membership was growing incredibly fast.  An association with Macdonald, the most famous and talented man in golf at that time was both proper and judicious.  They may have had an established membership but it was a new course and any validation would have been essential.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2004, 07:49:52 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #46 on: December 14, 2004, 08:44:15 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Thanks for all those articles and quotations. All of them are part of the present Merion archives and most of them are referenced in the existing Merion history books.

Once again, what we are trying to do here is to determine who it was who was responsible for conceiving of and designing that first phase of Merion East---that phase that began in the spring of 1911 and opened for play in Sep of 1912. The actual architectural construction of the course in that early phase took apparently about six months of so, meaning it was done and grassed in the fall of 1911. (The actual course conceived, designed and constructed in that 6-7 months is basically the course that’s shown in that Flynn drawing above in 1916).

If one looks at those quotes you produced carefully, one can see the mention a number of times of Macdonald and Whigam “advising” Wilson and the Merion committee. But advising them on what? If you read carefully my post #41 I think you’ll see what they were advising them on and these quotes you produced seem to corroborate that. Primarily they were being advised on how to build a golf course by Macdonald and Whigam at NGLA during those two days BEFORE Hugh Wilson sailed for seven months of study and sketching in Europe and from this direct report from Hugh Wilson himself we can get an indication of what the Committee and Wilson learned and how appreciative they were towards Macdonald and Whigam. The session at NGLA prior to Wilson going to Europe and prior to the course being built seems to be most of what these reports of “advice” emanated from!  This was before the course entered construction obviously;

"Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the famous holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day, we spent going over the course (NGLA) and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland, confirmed Mr Macdonald's teachings. May I offer the suggestion to any commitee building a new golf course or altering their old one, to spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine valley, where they may see the finest holes and while they cannot hope to reproduce them entirely, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their courses."
Hugh Wilson, February, 1916

Today we have little more to go on than those back in the teens did as to who it was who actually conceived of and designed the golf course from Spring 1911 to Fall of 1911, but thank God for Tillinghast, his articles and writing seem to have given us the most specific information to refer to today whether it was the early creation of PVGC or Merion East. Tillinghast wrote’

“It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh L. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, search for ideas, many of which have been used. For example the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made on the fifteenth and, in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures….Many imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced. On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of somethingwhich looked suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet. However, I thin that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious. The seventh, twelfth and sixteenth are gems.”

Do you notice what Tillinghast said there? He said “conceived by the ccnstruction committee..”  The Merion history book itself mentions that MacDonald and Whigam came to Philadelphia again after Wilson returned from Europe and again advised the committee. It looks from those quotes above that the most specific that “advice” may’ve been was  Macdonald and Whigam approving of the raw site of the course and then approving later of what was created.

This from the Merion history book is probably the most indicative of specific advice but there’re no details at all;

‘When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and his son-in-law H.J. Whigam freely gave their advice. So the club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the committee.’

The nearest thing we have to the specifics of who did what in that early phase of construction is from Hugh Wilson himself;

‘”Our problem was to lay our the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways. Three fairways were old pasture turf…..we collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and we started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farmland…..After completing construction of the greens…..We opened the course September 14, 1912….”

This from Francis (member of the committee;

“Except for many hours over the drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking….”

So it seems logical to us to assume that as Tillinghast mentioned above those that “conceived” of the course and its first phase of its design was that committee that included Wilson and also included those employed by the committee and Meion---Flynn and Pickering and Toomey. What we do know beyond a question of a doubt is they were the ones right there doing the design and construction work every day in the Spring and summer and into the fall of 1911.

Hopefully there will be more to know in the future or the details of it. If we could ever find those European drawings of Wilson’s obviously that could really tell a story of how Merion East came to be.

« Last Edit: December 14, 2004, 08:49:26 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #47 on: December 14, 2004, 08:52:11 AM »
Wayne:

According to George Bahto it seems what Whigam was referring to in his eulogy of Raynor was the West course of Merion.

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #48 on: December 14, 2004, 09:33:16 AM »
Tom Paul,

I realize that George thinks he is referring to Merion West. But I remember having seen the transcript of the eulogy, or part of it, and there wasn't anything to lead to that conclusion either.

wsmorrison

Re:1916 Amateur @ Merion
« Reply #49 on: December 14, 2004, 10:16:01 AM »
Frankly, Tom, I am getting rather tired of this.  You seem to want to discover something and stretch the evidence to create a blockbuster where there is none, as yet.  I don't have the time you seem to to devote to this, so here is my last response to this issue.

"Have you seen any photos of the old 10th? I believe you are mistaken about the 10th being a dog-leg hole. Were all the prototype holes built in America (including the Alps) exact replicas holes? It appears Macdonald (and Raynor) adapted these prototypes to the site, and often mixed and matched famous features. Why should we preclude the folks at Merion from similar adaptability?"

I have seen photos of the old 10th prior to, during and immediately after construction of the new 10th.  This and the Flynn drawing below is why I think the 10th was a dogleg:



What do you think?  In addition, I am not at all certain that the drawing that Steve Sayers posted is by Flynn.  I know the drawing was in the Ledger newspaper article but the reference to a Flynn drawing was elsewhere in the article.  It may have referred to the Flynn drawings for the Brooklyn Eagle (of which this is a copy) that were published in the 1916 US Open guide and perhaps elsewhere in the article.  The Flynn drawings are different in their details compared to the routing drawing posted.  If this was by Flynn, he didn't draw to the same detail and there are differences on just about every hole.

Now, I am well aware that Macdonald did not do exact duplicates of his template holes and there are differences.  But please tell me how you think this hole is conceptually linked to the 17th at Prestwick.

"You are entitled to your opinion…but your opinion is in conflict with Macdonald, Whigham and Leslie."

His name is Lesley as in Lesley Cup.

"Golf Illustrated ‘The Redan Hole’ by CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham (7/1914): There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher."

Unless the green was remodeled, they are wrong in characterizing it as a Redan.  Yes, I know that Macdonald was an expert and Whigham an accomplished assistant to Tweedie and the Foulis brothers and CBM at National, but they seem to be in error.  Do you think the green plays like a reverse Redan?  It would help if you've seen it up close.


"I doubt Macdonald and Whigham would be influenced by Findlay’s description."

Why would they?  I'm not saying he influenced Macdonald or Whigham.  My supposition is that he influenced Lesley (please note the spelling).  Just how do you think oral traditions right or wrong perpetuate?  Just because something is said over and over doesn't make it RIGHT!  You really do have to see this one for yourself.  Just because it is called a Redan doesn't mean it plays like one.  The 11th at Phila Country looks like a Redan but doesn't play like one.  Maybe the green was remodeled, I have not seen any information to indicate that it was.

"I think it is reasonable to conclude that they gave advice on every aspect having to do with designing and building a new golf course..."

I'm sure they gave a tremendous amount of advise to Wilson and the entire Merion community about building a new course.  I am certain that they helped a great deal, however at this point what can you say beyond general help?  The distinction you miss is what advise did they give about building that particular golf course?  Nobody knows and you don't seem to get it.

"Based upon the evidence, I do not subscribe to the theory Macdonald was brought in as a publicity scheme. The club was well established and completely viable. If that was their motivation why not just pronounce Macdonald as the designer?"

I never characterized the reference to Macdonald as a publicity scheme.  I merely pointed out that it was advantageous to mention that Macdonald advised and proclaimed the course a very good one.  Nowhere in the credit and gratitude shown is it mentioned what help and advise was given.  Do you or do you not imply that such advise dealt in specific designs and routing at the course?  If you do, I don't think there is any evidence of that to date.  Again, we consider much the same information (although we have much more on site experience,where you have none, and much more archival information available to us that you do not have) and draw different conclusions.  So be it.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2004, 10:23:41 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back