Arts & Crafts sidetrack

[ForkaB]

Dave

What you and Patrick (and maybe even me) have is a failure to communicate.  I attribute this to the fact that CB Macdonald built golf holes which had some but not all of the characteristics of famous holes in Scotland and elsewhere, and then appropriated the names of those holes so effectively that people like Tillinghast, Lesley, etc. spoke of the ersatz hole as if it were the real one.

So, in the "golden" age, we soon had all sorts of "Road" holes without a road, "Eden" holes without a framing estuary, "Biarritz" holes without any chasm, "Alps" holes with hillocks and not alps, etc. ad almost infinitum.

To Patrick (and me) an "Alps" hole is one which actually has alps and is at least visually and effectively reminiscent of the 17th at Prestwick (e.g. the one at NGLA).  To you (and apparently Lesley, Tillinghast, etc.) it is just a hole which shares certain characteristics of Macdonald's generic interpretation of the Alps hole at Prestwick.  To tertiary researchers, just the fact that Lesley (or whomever) wrote that a hole was an "alps" is enough evidence.

Well, to me if you rely on the impressions of dead people who have mostly only viewed another dead person's interpretation of some sort of fact, you are like the people in Plato's parable who look at the fleeting shadows of activity from the fires inside caves and think you are viewing the reality of life inside those caves.  At the best it is an ontological fallacy.  At the worst it is a fantasy.

Can we not just all get along and agree that there is a significant difference between reality and the second or third hand interpretations of reality?  Some people are interested in the latter, and want to scour old pictures and descriptions of golf holes to find influences of one kind or another.  Others only care about how the hole looks and plays, as a golf hole, regardless of whatever may or may not have influenced the architect.

Both sides can exist in Tom Paul's big wonderful world of golf--no?  If not, why not?

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

Hmmm . . . Those who listen the words of Wilson's contemporaries are the one's shackled in the cave?  And those who ignore the words of Wilson's contemporaries and thereby break the shackles and leave the cave, what do they find in the light of day?   The Form of a True Alps Hole?  Interesting.  

I always prefer the historical Socrates in Plato's early works to the Socrates in Plato's later works, where he becomes a bit of a shill for Plato's big ideas.   The historical Socrates knew the dangers of confusing mere definitions with the truth.  

[TEPaul]

"I just drove by Merion ; #3 definitely looks like a redan."

Mayday:

One of the primary characteristics of a redan hole is the green is generally on a diagonal to the tee shot, and I agree from Ardmore Ave at about 45mph and about 200 yards to the right of the tee it does appear to be on quite a redanish diagonal.

[ForkaB]

Rich,

Hmmm . . . Those who listen the words of Wilson's contemporaries are the one's shackled in the cave?  And those who ignore the words of Wilson's contemporaries and thereby break the shackles and leave the cave, what do they find in the light of day?   The Form of a True Alps Hole?  Interesting.  

I always prefer the historical Socrates in Plato's early works to the Socrates in Plato's later works, where he becomes a bit of a shill for Plato's big ideas.   The historical Socrates knew the dangers of confusing mere definitions with the truth.  

No, Dave, it's much easier than that.  You and Tom MacWood need to get out of that cave you are stumbling around in and see the real golf holes rather than Macdonald's imperfect templates (shadows).  Trust me!

[TEPaul]

Since there has been such so much itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny, nitty-gritty arguing over the definition of terms and even what someone said or meant ten pages ago over what some of the holes of Merion East were or were modeled after, let me offer up the descriptions in that vein from the Merion history book by Desmond Tolhurst and you all can tear that apart and claim you all know the course and what it really was better than he did or does, as well as what Macdonald and Whgam's contribution was.

Wayne and I have seen the extent and content of the Merion East archives (relatively voluminous although sans H. Wilson's GB drawings and sketches or much detailed architectural description of the course on his part) from which Desmond Tolhurst worked to write his Merion East history book. Wayne (with perhaps some help from Merion historian John Capers) has pretty much analyzed most everything that resides in Merion's recently organized archives by the Ex-USGA Museum/Library Dept Director Andy Mutch who by the way has just finished a three year doctorate at St Andrews University.

But of course why should anyone believe that Tolhurst, Morrison, Capers or Mutch could possibly know as much about the details of the architecture of Merion East as you two birds from Ohia and Califonia who've never even been to Merion?  

From Tolhurst:

“A Golf Pilgimage:
In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course. Before he left he visited the site of the National Golf Links of America, America’s first modern golf course, then under construction in Southampton, NY. While there he discussed an itinerary with Charles Blair Macdonald, the designer of the National and the winner of the first US Amateur in 1895. Macdonald made a similar journey for the same purpose some eight years earlier.”

“Wilson spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably. When he returned, he carried a pile of notes as well as sheaves and sketches and surveyor’s maps of outstanding holes and features. All of these were avidly studied by the Committee.”

“When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and his son-in-law H.J. Whigam (and Oxford University player and 1896 and 1897 US Amateur Champion) freely gave him their advice. So the club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the committee.”

"While Wilson admitted that the concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England---the third was inspired by North Berwick's fifteenth hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole--none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command."

“It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design and conveyed them in his work better than Charles Blair Macdonald did. However, to compare Merion to the National Golf Links is somewhat of an “apples and oranges” proposition. Macdonald set out to “model each of the 18 holes (at the National) after the most famous holes abroad,” (I wonder where Tolhurst got this quote?—TEP) that is, to duplicate these holes. Wilson never intended to design Merion under such constraints. His objective was to build a course that would rival the finest British parkland course in beauty and shot values. He succeeded admirably.”

Tolhurst wrote this Merion history book in 1989. Regarding significant architectural input at Merion East, particularly from app. 1916 to 1934, in 1989 Tolhurst and Merion did not have the benefit of many of the architectural hole-by-hole drawings of Merion East by William Flynn. Those drawings were rediscovered around 2001 in a barn in Bucks Co. Pennsylvania by Wayne Morrison where they’d apparently been since Mrs Flynn gave them to long-time Flynn foreman William Gordon when Flynn died in 1945. And today the contributions made to the architecture of Merion East by William Flynn are far better known and understood and willingly recognized now by Merion G.C.

It’s sort of fruitless to analyze the architecture of Merion East at any time by fixating over the preciseness of the imitation of various holes from Europe or NGLA or anywhere else by the descriptions by Lesley, Macdonald, Tillinghast or Travis in the teens, particularly when many of them used descriptiive qualifiers of those holes such as “similar to”, or “reminiscent of” or "inspired by or “in principle”. To understand the meaning of those qualifiers there is plenty to refer to on that note by Macdonald and other observant critics of that time such as Darwin and Hutchinson.

And finally to deserve any credibility regarding competent architectural analysis of a course like Merion East one pretty much needs to at least go to Merion East and both analyze its historical archives as well as the course itself on the ground. For some to simply claim they are extremely competent at photographic or aerial analysis without also seeing the golf course in person doesn’t really cut it, in my opinion. However proficient they think they may be I can pretty much guarantee they won’t be able to hold a candle to a guy like Craig Disher who understands how to do that kind of thing in a way that one might call professionally and who has also followed up his photographic and aerial analysis on the ground and with the benefit of being able to consult the available physical historic record of Merion.

Some may want to break new ground with the history of Merion’s architecture or revise what’s been written about it and what is known about it to date but on this thread I haven’t seen a single bona fide example of that.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
What have you added to this debate other than to snipe at some of the parties? That is why these threads go on and on...the personal instults. This website is not contest about who can be the most clever. Put your needle away and add something of substance.

Certainly Macdonald, Travis and Tillinghast knew the original Alps, I'm not sure about Lesley, but even said the hole resembled an Alps, not that it was a carbon copy.

To ignore the fact that there were numerous versions of the Alps built before and after Merion by Macdonald and his associates (some close to the original, others not so close) may result in an incorrect reading of what actually happened when Merion was created.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Who said that Wilson grasped the principles better than Macdonald? Is that Tollhurst's opinion and would you agree?

I've read the Tollhurst book and the other history book, and neither explains or discusses in detail what Macdonald and Whigham were doing on site.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Who said that Wilson grasped the principles better than Macdonald? Is that Tollhurst's opinion and would you agree?"

Tom MacW:

I believe that would be Desmond Tolhurst who said that and that would be his own opinion as the writer of that history book on Merion. My own opinion is that Tolhurst probably did not mean to say that Wilson grasped the "principles" of those holes or of architecture better (in the sense of understanding the essence or concept of them better) than Macdonald did but that Wilson built holes at Merion that actually looked less like their European models (or the NGLA template holes) but were merely "similar to", inspired by", "reminiscent of" the basic strategic makeup or strategic concept of those European models. This distinction has been fairly obvious in so much of the writing of many of those early architects---and I just can't understand why some today have such a difficult time understanding what they meant. It's not that complicated, unless one just chooses to make it so.

"I've read the Tollhurst book and the other history book, and neither explains or discusses in detail what Macdonald and Whigham were doing on site."

No they do not. No one I'm aware of, including contemporaneous newspaper and magazine articles by reporters or even architects of that time has explained or discussed in detail what Macdonald and Whigam were doing on the Merion East site. And as has been quite evident on this thread and others some of us see no reason for anyone today to try to speculate with any kind of assurance what they were doing.

Perhaps you and others would like to try to speculate what they were doing in far more detail but I think it's pretty evident that neither you nor anyone else can do that with any real assurance or credibilty.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

If you want to make an historical contribution to the arcitectural evolution of Merion (and it is clear you wish to and in general make blockbuster findings in golf architecture), I suggest you do it in a manner that does not call into question your methods that seem to enable your desires.  It is apparent that you think Macdonald and Whigham were on-site consultants to the design of Merion's course.  Rather than let that mind-set dictate your research method (such as it is).  You'd be better off doing this:

Start with your Null Hypothesis that Macdonald and Whigham did not have anything to do with the design of Merion East.  Then you prove this wrong by demonstrating that there is proof that they did have something to do with the design of Merion East.  These descriptions of holes as Redan, Alps, Valley of Sin and Principal's Nose do not meet the proper standard of proof from this perspective.  But rather a different perspective that you constantly choose to use.  The articles that quote gentlemen like Lesley, Whigham, Findlay and Tillinghast are important but not to be automatically taken literally and as defining proof.  If you are not on site and do all your research on this matter that is all you have to consider and it is not enough.  You can't always believe what you read especially when what you read includes all sorts of conditional phrases such as in principle, similar to, in the fashion of and the like.

Instead you start with the Hypothesis that Macdonald and Whigham did have a role in the design of Merion East and you fit all the "facts, real or imagined, into that hypothesis.  This is where you are constantly prone to errors in analysis and judgement where insufficient evidence is available.

The mere presence of similarities to UK holes does not imply an active consulting role by Macdonald or Whigham.  This is speculation on your part.  If some of us do not accept this, it is not because we're trying to protect Philadelphia icons or any such bias.  It is because we choose a different approach to our research method.  One that is widely recognized as correct.

[Mike_Cirba]

This may be the first 16 page thread that did not include Rees Jones.  

So, how bout those Rees Jones courses??  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Now that would mean I would have to go on a diatribe, and I don't do that anymore......

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
I'm not sure what my Null Hypothesis is...but this what we do know from reports at the time.

In 1910 it was reported that the 300 acres had been purchased, that Macdonald and Whigham were on site and they pronounced the land admirably suited.

In May 1911 it was reported the course was nearing the completion of planning stage and that Macdonald and Whigham had be on site during the month aiding the committee.

In 1913 Travis reported two years prior Chas Macdonald, who has been a great assistance in advisory way, told him the course would be one of the inland courses he had ever seen.

In 1914 Lesley reported the course was laid out three years prior by a committee: Wilson (chairman), Francis, Llloyd, Grimson, and Toumlin, who had adivisers Macdonald and Whigham.

You can speculate who did what and who didn't do what...but it is clear that Macdonald & Whigham aided, assisted and advised the committee. Which is what I have been saying all along.

[Mike_Cirba]

Now that would mean I would have to go on a diatribe, and I don't do that anymore......

Tommy,

No?

Me either.

In fact, I think we're both getting old and boring.  

By the way, do you think that the original 10th would have served as an alps hole with the uphill approach and the green tucked down on the other side of the road?

[wsmorrison]

"In May 1911 it was reported the course was nearing the completion of planning stage and that Macdonald and Whigham had be on site during the month aiding the committee."

Tom,

Please provide the source for your statement that "Macdonald and Whigham had been on site during the month aiding the committee."

I am sure that you read the same May 1911 report by Hazard in the American Golfer that said,

"The new course of the Merion Cricket Club is nearing completion in the planning.  During the month Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald and Mr. H. J. Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects.  Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as our first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."

Now, nobody doubts that Macdonald and Whigham contributed greatly to the creative process that would result in the East Course.  The visit in Southampton and the 1910 visit to see the land is well-recognized.  The 1911 visit is also well known.  You seem to read more into the paragraph than I do.  I read the above passage as Macdonald and Whigham were at Merion at some point during the month the article was written.  Not that they were there the entire month but made at least one but perhaps more visits.  It is unknown how long they stayed or what design input, if any, they made.  We do know the course was laid out and built very quickly.  With nothing else to go on, it seems like they visited and expressed pleasure at the ongoing results.

No matter what their input, it is apparent that the proclamation by the first national champion was recognized as important to gaining credibility for the design.  

What more can be learned from this passage?  That they were of some service.  As to how much?  We don't know.  You seem to be attributing more than is known.  When you say something like Macdonald and Whigham had been on site during the month aiding the commitee you come across to me as stretching the truth.  

[T_MacWood]

"The new course of the Merion Cricket Club is nearing completion of the planning. During the month Mr. CB Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects."

~~ May 1911 American Golfer.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
It is clear that Macdonald & Whigham aided, assisted and advised the committee. It was reported by numerous sources....they all can't be wrong.

Add to those reports, the fact that a number of Macdonald's pet holes were present (according to the reports at the time, ie Alps, Redan, etc) and the fact that Whigham claimed more than just advice later on...and a reasonable person would conclude that they, at the very least, advised, assisted and aided the committee. Which is what I have been saying all along.

[TEPaul]

"You can speculate who did what and who didn't do what...but it is clear that Macdonald & Whigham aided, assisted and advised the committee. Which is what I have been saying all along."

Tom MacWood:

I don't think anyone on here or at Merion at any time denied those reports of Macdonald and Whigam aiding, assisting or advising the committee but what does that mean? You just keeping mentioning the same thing that those reports said that. I can guarantee you that the club and this area has been aware of those reports since probably before your father was born.

They could've come down and spent a week sketching and overseeing the construction (highly unlikely without that fact actually being reported or mentioned by Wilson and committee or anyone else), they could've just made some recommendations and left or they could've said what they are reported to have said that the course looked good and was likely to be one of the best in the country (something that so many architects or even visiting architects and reporters said about a number of courses under construction back then) and went home.

The point is noone knows what they actually did or contributed, including you. That's what we've been saying all along.

Perhaps you don't realize it but you didn't discover those reports from others in newspapers and magazines. Those things have been in the archives of Merion for 90+ years and they are mentioned in Tolhurst's history book as I quoted above.

But the point has been made and legitimately that does not mean that any kind of architectural attribution is deserved by Macdonald/Whigam regarding holes referred to as redan, alps, Valley or sin, Eden or anything else.

If you think you can prove some detail or even something general that they contributed to the course then let's see you produce it. In about fifteen pages of this thread and about five years on this website mentioning this you've never been able to produce a single bit of proof of an iota or detail.

It could have been something or practically nothing and that's all we'e been saying---eg no one knows, and most certainly including you!

If you're trying to imply that there's proof it was something significant then I think a lot of contributors are getting sick and tired of you constantly exagerating or stretching generalizations into specifics to make and maintain some preconceived point of yours.

[T_MacWood]

I don't think anyone on here or at Merion at any time denied those reports of Macdonald and Whigam aiding, assisting or advising the committee but what does that mean?

It means they advised the committee. Just because you don't know precisely what they advised them to do, is no reason to ignore them completely. Just as it would be wrong to ignore the committee and the members of the committee even though no one knows precisely who did what.

From what I understand Wayne limits Macdonald's involvement to advising Wilson prior to his trip abroad...not bringing up that it was reported Macdonald & Whigham aided the committee (by more than one source).  And it was also reported that the committee laid out the course, with M&W advising.

And apparently he does not seem to think it is important to write that those two were on site during at least two key stages of the project.  

Or that there were a number of holes said to have had the attributes of famous holes like the Redan, Alps, etc. Why ignore that? For all we know they were Wilson's or another committee member's interpretations.

Why not include that information in the account?

[wsmorrison]

I did write about the 1910 visit in a subsequent version which is the current draft.  I did not report about the 1911 visit.  I will add that but it surely does not have the meaning to me that it does to you.  Your distortions and leaping conclusions fall hard.

As for the attributes of famous holes, I don't see it the same way you do and others do.  Why don't you wait till our book comes out and stun the world with your revision and its wealth of proof.  Well, the revision in any case since the proof does not exist.  

"From what I understand Wayne limits Macdonald's involvement to advising Wilson prior to his trip abroad...not bringing up that it was reported Macdonald & Whigham aided the committee (by more than one source).  And it was also reported that the committee laid out the course, with M&W advising. "

It is precisely your understanding that troubles me.

You are being disingenous when you say that all I recognize is the advisement during the trip to Southampton before Wilson went overseas.  Why is that, Tom?  Do you really believe that I feel that way?  If you look back through this thread, an admittedly daunting and boring task, you will find you are in error once again.  I am sick of bickering with you.  I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me.  Let us please just leave it at that.  This is my last post on this thread.  I hope the thread ends right here.

[T_MacWood]

My conclusion that Macdonald and Whigham advised the committee falls hard? How do you figure?

Why not present all the known information (including the reports that there was an Alps, Redan etc.) and let the reader make his own judgment? By ignoring parts of the story (for whatever reason)...you give an incomplete picture of what occured.

Do you write that Macdonald and Whigham advised the committee?

[DMoriarty]

No, Dave, it's much easier than that.  You and Tom MacWood need to get out of that cave you are stumbling around in and see the real golf holes rather than Macdonald's imperfect templates (shadows).  Trust me!

What a novel way to overcome our communication barrier.  Lump me and TomM together, ignore each of our respective (and different) takes on this whole issue, caricature us, then tell us we ought to get out more.   You should do this sort of stuff for a living-- you'd be well paid, by one side at least.

Let me take a shot . . .

You and the Mooch think that golf holes need an alp to be called an "Alps Hole."   It can't be an Alps if it doesnt have an Alps.   Fair enough, and certainly a sound way to define an Alps Hole.  But don't get confused into thinking you've discovered some sort of Platonic Form of The True Alps.  It's just a definition-- I'd be a fool to treat it otherwise, as would you.  

You'd like to think that I have a conflicting definition of an Alps Hole--  A hole which shares some of the characteristics of the Alps holes at Prestwick or NGLA, but not necessarily an actual alp(s.)  You'd like to think I got this definition from some references to Merion 10 in old magazines-- 'if the old guys call it an Alps Hole, then it must have been, whether or not it had an alp(s).'  

But you and Patrick have no need to interpret the vague shadows of dead men.  You've left their cave and seen the Truth.  Unless definitive proof exists that Merion 10 had an alp(s), then to call it an alps hole is absurd, by definition.  [Even if new photos show up showing an alps, you'd still claim you were correct, likely claiming 'see . . . that is why the called it the Alps, how foolish the rest of you must feel for thinking it was for any other reason than the presence of an alp(s.)]

That is my understanding of your understanding.   How'd I do?

However I did, this is where I think we have failed to communicate . . . For you see I dont care how Alps Hole is defined.  

I do care that when the writers of the time analized the hole, they used concepts from the links courses.   I also care that Wilson consulted with MacDonald, who was a big advocate for such concepts.  I also care that Wilson carefully studied the great courses overseas before designing Merion East.  I also care that Merion East was a substantial departure from what had come before in Philly.  

Dont believe me?  Well look back at how this entire Merion aside started.  I suggested that Merion had a strong Links influence and was a substantial departure from what came before.  Then a number of posters flipped their lids.  

Look at my concerns, Rich.  I dont need to define an Alps Hole for any of this.  I dont need to agree or disagree with you and Patrick.  I dont need to agree or disagree with MacWood or the old dead guys.  I dont need a definition and I dont have one.  

How can I get this through to you guys??

I do not, did not define "Alps Hole."  
Not with a berm, green in a bowl.  
Not with a bank.  Not with a roll.
Not with a bunker, hump or  Knoll.  

Over a Ditch? I dont care.
Require a pitch? Not hear nor there.
"Dont need an alps." --Not me, I swear!

Didnt define it, don't have the will.
Not from MacWood, or dead men's quill.
Not with a rise, saddle, or hill.  
When you insist I did, it makes me ILL.
Read what I wrote, or at least just chill.  
   

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tommy,

No?

Me either.

In fact, I think we're both getting old and boring.  

By the way, do you think that the original 10th would have served as an alps hole with the uphill approach and the green tucked down on the other side of the road?

Mike,
Rees doesn't like it when I pick on Sandpines. It's the Xmas season, so why not give the gift that keeps on giving and just drop an "F" bomb post on SANDPINES?

Nah!!!!!!!!! That would be like picking a fight with my sister!

[ForkaB]

Dave

Hope your daughter is enjoying "Green Eggs and Ham" as much as your are!

Sorry for any offence to you and/or Tom Macwood.  I did add smiley faces.....

Personally I think that spending hours "debating" as to whether or not the old 10th at Merion was an "Alps" or not, or exactly what Macdonald or Whigam did or didn't do in their visit to Merion in 1911 doesn't really add to our collective wisdom, but I do understand that others feel otherwise, and that is their/your right.  My participation on the latest sidetrack on this thread was just to point out (as an outside observer who has virtually no interest in the answers to the questions mentioned above) was that you, Pat, Tom, Tom and Wayne were at a complete impasse and very unlikely to make any progress.  It was meant to be helpful.  Sorry if Tom interpreted it as "sniping."  I was really just firing warning shots, and not aiming for the kill.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne said that when he re-wrote his book he included a passage about Whigham & Macdonald on site. If I was to ever write a book on A&C I would adjust my characterization of Hutchinson. I'm sure something on GCA found its way into your Dornoch book...perhaps not.

IMO if you feel strongly about a subject your time is better served articulating your case on a heated thread, percieved stalemate or not, than on one of little consequence. If you think these threads are a waste of time, you're free not to waste your time.

[ForkaB]

Hiya Tom

Disagree with your last paragraph.  "Heated" threads usually indicate hot air and detract from the enjoyment of this site by those of us who are more into learning than pontificating.  They also use up Ran's precious bandwidth.

As for the first paragraph, a very few things I first learned from GCA found their way into the Dornoch book, but one of them was the influence of Grant and McCulloch on holes 6-11, which you referred me to.  After some primary research, I found out that it was probably true.  Thanks.  Buy the book and maybe you might learn something too!

Merry Christmas to you and all.