Thanks Brian. Good idea with the football field, but are you sure it isnt Canadian Football? Now if only someone could figure out how to measure the 10th at Merion . . . .
_____________________________________________
I am sure you will understand if I try to check Google’s accuracy by some other means, like Brian's above. It would be a really silly thing to have wrong, as it ought to be just a matter of scaling their ruler to the degree of magnification of the photograph.
Like you, I don’t trust Google’s altitude function, which is why I used a USGS application for those measures. If I cant trust the US government, who can I trust?
_________________________________
SPBD,
Don't be sorry. Posts about golf design are certainly welcome by me.
I agree with you that bad Victorian architecture was the norm all over America. I concentrate on Philadelphia, because the men in question were most familiar with Philadelphia design, yet they chose another direction. But I could and should have added that this was the prevailing design approach across America (I think I have said as much more than a few times above, but at this point that is probably all lost in the clutter.)
IMO most people underestimate just how widespread and common the dark ages stuff was because almost all of it has been wiped completely off the map, literally.
One thing I don’t understand, what do you mean when you say you don’t view Merion and NGLA as reactionary? At least in MacDonald’s case, his writings indicate a level of disgust with American design and an explicit attempt to replace it with something else. To my mind, that is not only reactionary, it is somewhat revolutionary. But perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by reactionary?
___________________________
I think I keep a very open mind when it comes to architectural research and attributions, and it's always interesting to hear new material as it comes to light here.
I think you do, too. And since we are in agreement about the importance of openly sharing and discussing our research, perhaps you will do me a favor: Go to google earth, pull up the 10th at Merion, and measure from the front of the middle tee to a point just left of the green, even with the greenside edge of the front greenside bunker. After all, part of quality research is peer review.
However, I'm not understanding the point of your exercise. Merion has always been known as one of the first of the really great American courses, and one of the first real attempts to create something superb; following in the model of NGLA and what Macdonald did there..what Travis was doing at Garden City...what Fownes was doing at Oakmont. This is indisputable, and hardly news. That these excellent courses were a clear attempt to model after the best in Britain is also well known and documented, . . .
Which exercise is that? Mike Sweeney asked me to clarify my thoughts on these issues and I did. I told him up front that my thoughts weren’t profound or groundbreaking or even all that original. But he asked so I told him. TEPaul’s repeated ridicule notwithstanding, I am making no grandiose claims.
That being said, I want to get something straight. However mundane and trivial the points on my list may seem now, they certainly weren’t viewed as such by the Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul when I suggested them, nor are the accepted by Wayne Morrison even now. For example, almost all of my “conversations” with Wayne Morrison have revolved precisely around the hypothesis that
Merion represented a substantial departure from the Victorian style design which dominated Philadelphia and America, and an attempt to return to the style of the great links courses and the recent (such as NGLA and the Heathland courses) which had done the same thing.Now this may sound trivial and mundane to you, but to Wayne Morrison it is some sort of blasphemy. Same goes for TomPaul, at least some of the time. He has switched directions so many times on these threads that I get dizzy just trying to read his posts.
So instead of asking me why I am bothering with such mundane and trivial and obvious points, perhaps you should ask Wayne Morrison the basis on which he rejects them.
. . . and I'd argue that it was less a reaction to the state of architecture in the country at that time than simply an earnest attempt to build an excellent course, giving the growing interest in the game, a burgeoning membership at Merion, and the luxury of building a brand new course while still playing daily at the old. It gave them the time to do things well and studiously; thus, Wilson's trip to visit Macdonald and his subsequent lengthy stay studying courses in the British Isles. Again, nothing new here.
You are correct, there is nothing new in what you are saying, here, as this is the conventional wisdom. But in my opinion, the facts don’t support the conventional wisdom. If they wanted to build something better, why not just improve upon the style which was all around them? Why not do what everyone else was doing, only better? And if they weren’t rejecting what was around them, then why go all the way to Europe to study? By this point there were hundreds of courses in America, so certainly they had a lot to learn if they were at all satisfied with what was going on around them. And why spend the money to train someone new? If they were at all satisfied with what was around them, then they simply could have hired one of the experienced Scottish professionals and simply pay them extra to do a really good job?
And why on earth go to MacDonald to plan the Euro Study Abroad trip and to learn about golf design? MacDonald wasn’t plodding along trying to gradually improve on what he saw around him. He was trying to replace it all, at one fell swoop. His writings indicate a level of contempt for most American design. He was actively encouraging other designers and clubs to trash what they had and to replace it features and ideas based on the great links courses.
Also, read what the writers said about Merion. They didn’t talk about gradual evolution in quality, they are talking about a leap in an entirely different direction.
But, I think where I really am missing your point is concerning the role of Macdonald and Whigham. When I asked you straight out a few days ago whether you believed that these two had much more to do with the design of the original course at Merion, you stated that you didn't. Yet, you seem to keep coming back to trying to prove some point that they did have heavy direct involvement. Which is it?
I think you might want to reread my answer. I just did and the answer is entirely consistent with what I am saying now. I acknowledged the contemporary evidence which suggests that MacDonald had an influence, then I said: “
as for MacDonald having a direct role in the specific design of holes at Merion, I have not seen evidence of this thus far, nor do I believe it to be the case.” Lots of evidence of MacDonald’s influence, but little or no evidence of MacDonald playing a
direct role in the specific design. In other words, whatever influence MacDonald may have had, I don’t think he designed the course.
As for the rest, it seems a bit of a stretch. First, there was plenty written about the connection between Merion and MacDonald and/or his design ideas. Why should MacDonald toot his own horn if everyone else was doing it for him? Second, if the description of the course and MacDonald’s influence on it were untrue and inaccurate, then wouldn’t Wilson or someone else have set the record straight?
But really, before we can answer your questions about specific holes and features, we have to understand what was there when the course opened. I think we are far from this understanding, but any efforts aimed at figuring this stuff out are, shall we say, less than well received.
Why wouldn't Macdonald take credit if he believed that he actually made a major, or even significant contribution to the ultimate design there?
Again, he got plenty of credit. And I seen little or no evidence that any of it was undeserved.