Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

[T_MacWood]

David,

Tom MacWood is trying to prove CB's involvement with the East course by contending that this is the only one of Hugh Wilson's courses that had either Template holes or Features from the Old Country, and used the "template" comments by a few of the old guys to bolster his contention.

I'm not trying to prove his involvement...he was involved. I'm trying to preserve is involvement.

My counter to that is simply that if the other Wilson courses had the same press scrutiny that the East did early on, by virtue of being selected for the biggest tournament in the country, they those folks might have found other "template" examples on his other courses, particularly given the very fast and loose standards (by our estimation) that they seemed to apply to their definitions.

The East and West were both selected together to host the biggest tournament in the country. Both designs recieved a great deal of attention. On the lead up to the tourney both courses were described in detail. The East course had templates; the West did not. Seaview was another course that recieved a good amount of publicity...no templates.

And speaking of templates I recently discovered Sleepy Hollow (1912) had an Eden that was also a par-4. The 17th - Eden.

There is no doubt that CB had a big important role in American golf and there is no doubt that he helped Wilson get started at Merion.

However, I still think that any copies of holes, or features of holes, had way more to do with the EIGHT MONTHS that Wilson spent overseas STUDYING and SKETCHING courses and great holes than it did with the 2-4 days?  he spent with Macdonald.

That's all.

[T_MacWood]

I might add the purists who complain that the Alps at Merion was not an Alps would not be pleased with the Alps at Sleepy Hollow. It featured a series of chocolate drop mounds down the left side that loop right across the fairway to other side (this feature must be 150 yards long and must have at least twenty mounds in succession). The green is further down over the edge of a ravine...with a large bank built up behind the green.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I'm sure you know I both understand and respect your position.   We tend to agree more often than not.

However, isn't it entirely plausible that Wilson learned just as much and probably more about the great holes during his 8 month visit to GB than from Macdonald directly?

As a fellow who knows a redan from an eden, I'm not sure you would wander upon the 3rd hole at Merion today, without any knowledge that some called it a redan back then, but in full knowledge of Macdonald and Raynor's redans, and then honestly recognize the hole as one of that breed?  Similarly, what was called the Alps at the time, the 10th hole, was far different from both the Alps at Prestwick, as well as it's namesake at NGLA in overall look, style, length, and likely playability.   Even Lesley only directly compared the front bunker on 10 to an Alps like feature...not the entire hole.

Finally, you know that Macdonald was very much a gregarious, self-promoting extrovert.   What do you make of the fact that he didn't mention Merion or his involvement there at all, in any of his records, in any of his articles, or any of his correspondence that has been found to date?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you can't define "involvement", and you can't qualify and quantify the nature and scope of his alleged involvement, and you can't cite a single specific reference detailing his involvement, how can you conclude that he was ever involved ?

With all that CBM wrote, and with CBM's ego, why is there absolutely NO evidence of his specific involvement at Merion ?

He certainly wouldn't be bashful or modest when it came to detailing his efforts at any golf course.

There's not one specific mention, from anyone, of a feature or hole he routed, designed, suggested or constructed.

That void would tend to suggest that his "involvement" might have been akin to that of a cheerleaders.

[T_MacWood]

Mike
After looking at old photos of the Alps and Redan (a reverse) at Sleepy Hollow I suspect you'd be questioning if Macdonald had any involvement there too. You can not compare Raynor's work in the 20s to the courses Macdonald & Whigham built in 1912-1914.

I don't know why he didn't mention Merion. He was involved at Greenwich and East Lake and didn't mention those courses either.

There could be a couple of reasons. First he did not take credit for courses he advised on...like Womens National. And Merion-East was completely remodeled.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I've played Sleepy Hollow and the reverse redan there is terrific and very much in the spirt, look, and playability of other redans I've seen, even if Patrick objects that it's downhill.

I believe the original Alps hole there no longer exists, so unfortunately I can't compare that one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Who are you saying "alleged" that he called it a Redan.   The article is titled:

"REDAN HOLE AT THE NATIONAL GOLF LINKS
By C. B. MACDONALD and H. J. WHIGHAM"

In the article it says

"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.

A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland.

Are you saying someone else alleged that CBM said this and then wrote it under CBM's byline?  Or are you saying that CBM wrote it, but didn't mean it because he was being self-contradictory?  Are you a conspiracy theorist?

It's clear that CBM was contradicting himself, again.

A redan has to have a front portion of the green higher than the rest of the green, with a kick or deflection feature that would redirect balls down to the putting surface.  It's the angled, diagonal tilted tableland that CBM references.

CBM was aware of the requirement to have that feature and the others in a redan.

Yet, the 3rd at Merion doesn't contain them.  It's just the opposite.

The front of the green is the LOW point on the green, and in no way can serve to kick or deflect incoming shots toward the rest of the putting surface.

In addition, the putting surface at the 3rd hole at Merion is visible from the tee, another non-redan feature.

As to the 3rd hole at Pine Valley, have you ever seen it.

If so, what about the hole has a redan quality ?
CBM is describing a hole that doesn't yet exist, and yet, he describes it as a redan hole.  That's a stretch by anyone's standards.[/color]

You'll find that CBM not only contradicted others, but that he contradicted himself in his writings.

Each statement has to be examined in order to assess its validity.[/b]

So, where are you landing on this (if anywhere)?  Did he write it and he's contradicted himself?  Or, someone else wrote it and used his byline and that he was misquoted?  What merits do you see when you assess this article?

It's obvious that he's contradicted himself.
The article could also have been edited.
My assessment of the article is that it's inaccurate.
[/color]


Huh?  
Is that how you measure elevation change?  By throwing a basketball in the air?  [/color]

Sometimes I use a baseball or a golf ball[/color]

How do you know how high you throw a ball?  How do you measure that? [/color]

It's fairly simple, I use Euclidian Geometry.
I stand next to a tall building.
I measure a finite distance away from the building.
I go back, next to the building and throw a ball up in the air that comes very close to hitting the building.  I then identify that point when the ball is at its highest and shoot the angle from the end of the finite distance I measured to the point where the ball reached its highest point..
Then, through simple Euclidian Geometry, knowing two angles and the length of a side, I calculate the other angle and length of the other two sides of the triangle.

For example, if the angle shot is 45 degrees and the measured distance from the building to that angle is 50 feet, I know that the ball reached a height of 50 feet.  I also know that the distance from the measured distance on the ground to the spot on the building wall where the ball reached it's highest point is 70.71067811 feet [/color]


Measuring elevation change is very hard to do accurately.  If you're doing it by reference to other things, consider that 50 feet would be about the height of a 5 story building.  [/color]

It's probably closer to 4 stories[/color]

Have you used any kind of measuring device?  [/color]
YES[/color]

The USGS application says they're between 25 and 30 feet above sea level - not 50.[/color]

What does the USGS say is the height of the clubhouse ?
[/color]


So, Ross was just being absurd in calling it flat.  [/color]

IF Ross said that, YES.

But, it's doubtful that Ross ever said that.
ANYONE who has ever seen the property knows that it's FAR from FLAT, having some of the highest elevations in Palm Beach County, if not the highest elevations in Palm Beach County.[/color]


What definition of flat do you know that Ross knew.  
[/color]
The same one that I do.[/color]

How do you know he knew it.  Why was he so absurd as to say Seminole was flat? [/color]

Because it's incredibly hilly, with steep elevation changes.[/color]

Or is this another conspiracyto misquote the golden age architects?

I see that in spite of your being completely wrong, completely off base, that you've doubled your efforts.

You've NEVER seen Seminole, but, you're going to defend a reference, allegedly made by Ross, stating that Seminole is FLAT.  Only an IDIOT could make that assertion.

But, the more you insist that the alleged quote was correct, the more you detract from the total sum of human knowledge on the subject of golf course architecture.

Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Seminole and that you're wrong on this issue.

Thanks[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

We've been down that road before and you still haven't gotten a bigger boat

[DMoriarty]

DM, Allow me to cite some examples of advisement and whether or not this warrants design credit.

Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit?   I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.   If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again:  I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.  Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East.  

That being said, with the exception of your underlying premise about design credit, I found your post quite interesting.  In particular, I found your discussion of George Thomas to very pertinent to today's conversation.

When discussing Thomas, you cite one of Geoffrey Shackelford's book.  I am sure you know that Geoff also wrote a book called "The Captain" which is devoted to the life and work of Thomas, and another called "The Riviera Country Club: A Definitive History."  

I wish I did, but I dont own a copy of the Riviera book.  I do own a copy of the Captain and find it interesting how Goeff treats Thomas' influences.  His coverage is quite generous in both tone and volume, for as Geoff bluntly acknowledges in the first sentence of the chapter: Virtually every golf architect has a mentor in the design field.  According to Geoff, Thomas had many, including Leeds, Wilson, Flynn, Ross, Tillinghast, Crump, Colt, and Bell, all of whom are discussed in the book not only for their influence but also for their own work.  

Moreover, Geoff was able to find at least one example of an area of influence from each of these men in Thomas' work and/or approach to design.  At the risk of trivializing their influence, here is a very partial list.  Leeds for bunker placement; Wilson for bunker visibility, among other things; Flynn for naturalness of appearance; Ross for strategic style; Tillinghast as a kindred design spirit and for the thrill of nature; Crump for most of what he did at Pine Valley; Colt for much of his design philosophy, and Bell for design ideas and beautiful bunkers.  

Geoff not only documented these influences, he wrote a compelling and convincing account of them.  The amazing thing is, he didn't have to find one "template hole" to do it.  No Wilson Template.  No Crump Template.  No Colt Template.  No templates at all.  
_____________

As for MacKenzie at Riviera, I believe I read somewhere that MacKenzie was hoping to be involved, but that Thomas gave him the high hat to that, and that an annoyed MacKenzie later dissed Thomas' par three course as a result.  Any EVIDENCE that something similar happened with Wilson and MacDonald?  
________________

As for us not knowing what MacDonald said to Wilson, I reiterate:  

There is a difference between knowing that there was influence, on the one hand, and specifically identifying every way that influence manifested, on the other.   Mr. Morrison, et al, confuse these two concepts and treat verifiable proof of every specific influence as a prerequisite for crediting any significant influence whatsoever.

WE DON"T KNOW WHAT LEEDS-WILSON-FLYNN-ROSS-TILLINGHAST-CRUMP-COLT-BELL SAID TO THOMAS, either-- at least not what they specifically said to influence any of Thomas' designs.  So would you conclude that Geoffrey Shackelford should have omitted his discussion of Thomas' influences?  

Had Geoffrey Shackelford taken that approach, his Thomas book would have been much shorter, much less interesting, and much less important in the Canon of books on golf course design.  

But even though Geoffrey obviously loves Riviera and admires Thomas, he was able to create enough critical distance to give credit where credit is due.  I've seen no EVIDENCE that our resident Merion/Wilson experts are able to do the same, and ample EVIDENCE that they are not.

[DMoriarty]

What if Geoffrey Shackelford had taken our resident Merion/Wilson "Experts'" approach when writing about Thomas?

Here are some possible snippets from the book . . .

. . . Some ill-informed armchair historians might think that Thomas was influenced by some of the designers in Philadelphia long before he built is California masterpieces.  However, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that this was the case.  
. . . Thomas and the Philadelphia designers did say nice things about each other in publications and books, but this isn't EVIDENCE.  You cant believe everything you read!  
. . . You've all heard stories of Philadelphia lawyers?  That's because all Philadelphians are dishonest people and too arrogant for their own good, so these guys were undoubtedly lying and just trying to bolster their reputation by latching onto Thomas' success.  
. . . Thomas, a true gentleman, was obviously just being polite.  
. . . There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that anything in these publications is true.  Unless these contemporary first-hand accounts by those involved can be proven accurate beyond any reasonable doubt we should discount them all together.  
. . . Look at the holes in the ground.  Not a single exact replica among them.  Without exact replicas, there is NO EVIDENCE of much influence at all.  
. . . Moreover, unless there is substantial evidence that these guys actually  designed Thomas' holes for him, they shouldn't be given any credit whatsoever.  
. . .  The burden of proof is on those who think that Thomas had an influence.  Unless they meet their burden by proving a cause and effect relationship between these guys and specific features on Thomas' courses, then the burden has not been met.  And never mind using the historical record, because they have the burden of proving that accurate as well. . .

I for one am glad that Geoff wrote the book on Thomas and not our resident Merionomaniacs.  

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,  as usual a thoughtful and insightful analysis, but one with which I dont entirely agree.  

I think you are putting too much weight on the notion of there having been a formal definition, probably because I used the word.   I should have been more clear and said "understanding" or "definition and usage."  I think I usually have said the latter, but will try the former.  

The reason I distinguish this from your  (It's not my definition, it's CBM's.  I'm happy to call it an understanding or description.  In essence he leads the article describing what a Redan is)  formal definition is that, when it comes to understanding what is meant by words, looking at how the words are used is really 'where the rubber hits the road,' as our friend Matt Ward would say.  This is especially true when we have the examples of usage from the person who set forth the supposed definition, and more true still when such usage occurs contemporaneously (in the same article) with the supposed definition.  

Can we agree on some terminology?  The template for Redan holes is the North Berwick hole of that name.  The NGLA Redan is a replica of it.  When CBM "described" the Redan concept/principles as the lead in to the article, I think he intended to have it describe the original NB Redan as the template for all the rest.

........................................................
 

CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
 "TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland."

You call this a definition, JES thinks it is a construction manual, and I think it is simply descriptive.  OK, let's call it descriptive.  Perhaps he didn't mean it to be prescriptive.  Although that raises the question (that no one here can answer) as to whether CBM had a minimum bar before he'd call a hole a Redan.  Based on the Merion example, perhaps he set the bar pretty low.  I see no reason to believe that MacDonald meant to limit himself so specifically, especially given the examples he cites and also his continued description.  For example, he says the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course.  It is hard for me to reconcile this with trying to apply an extremely formal definition.Or it could mean he was just blathering and talked himself around from a particular description to almost anything goes.  There is nothing in the article that limits the variations, or describes a threshold, or for that matter describes the so-called "principle".  The only thing he describes as essential is the tilt.  

But setting all this aside and assuming he meant this introduction to his article as a specific definition,  your this  old 'definiton' is different from the modern understanding in that it does not mention the front to back slope, and after a quick reread of the article I dont think the article does either.

I think this is where you seem to wilfully continue to miss the point.  Do you nor think that his description/definition was written within the context of the North Berwick template, i.e. the original?  The NB original template slopes neither right to left or front to back.  You approach the front left corner of what is essentially a rectangular green.  Consequently, from the tee perspective, the green tilts away and to the left at a 45* angle.  Not right to left or front to back.  That's why CBM said "approach it diagonally", as I've highlighted in red above.  CBM knew what NB looked like and how it played, and that context lies behind how you must interpret his definition/description.  Have you seen the NB redan?  Does that knowledge inform your interpretation of CBM's description?

4.  Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.

I'd definitely place this under my third scenario.  One problem with this theory is that MacDonald was far from the only one to compare the Merion holes to holes which MacDonald also used for inspiration.  What was in it for them?  Filthy Lucre?  

How many of those who called it a Redan were persuaded because that's what CBM called it.  Like lemmings off the cliff.  How many do you suppose had gone to North Berwick and studied the original?  How many would have cared about this pssing comment about the Merion reverse Redan.  They certainly didn't have the Internet, discussion groups, or probably the time to debate these minutia

Also, your theory is way too speculative.  Where is your proof??  It is beyond pop-psychology to simply attribute a lie to the guy because he was arrogant and we dont like what he was saying.  And as far as I know there is no evidence that anyone ever disagreed with him or called him on this.   And people were certainly not afraid to take an MacDonald-- there are some extremely critical reviews of NGLA.  One would think that they would have jumped at the chance to prove him an idiot using one of his own holes to do it.  

You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back.  The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play.  The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.

I am surprised you make a point of posting what you call the definition, and then you almost immediately move beyond that definition.  He doesnt say the tilt from the tee, he says a tilt a benchland right-to-left.  If we buy JES's theory of taking these things in order, then the right to left reference has nothing to do with the tee, which hasnt even been located yet.

You're being a little (maybe even a lot) obtuse on this point.  CBM knew the original template and he knew the angle of the tilt relative to the tee.  And it sure wasn't just right to left.  I'm not expanding it.  I'm reading it in the context that CBM would have written it.  The angle of the green (and hence the tilt) to the tee is a fundamental part of the NB Redan.  Go see it, if you haven't already.  If CBM talked his way around at the end of the article to you can do infinite variations and still call it a Redan, so be it.  That completely destroys the whole concept of templates and replicas.  

It sure should be a fun debate when Doak et al do Old MacDonald.  What happens if the only way we know that a certain hole is a Redan  or an Alps replica or was inspired by them, is if they tell us that's the name of the hole.[/color]      

My point is that you guys are obviously twisting (literally?) to try to get what MacDonald said to fit into your definition.   If the definition is unclear to you, look at the usage.  I'd prefer to go back to the original Redan for context.[/color]  Which contradicts what you guys are saying. Which supports what I'm saying.[/color]

..............................................

Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.

Bryan, in other contexts you have asked me to support my claims with facts.  So with all due respect, let me ask you . . . WHAT EVIDENCE?  

I did put evidence in quotes.  Use "balance of probabilities" if you wish.  There has been a dearth of real evidence in this whole thread.[/color]

[Bryan Izatt]

In the spirit in this thread of acknowledging influences on our work where it's appropriate to do so,  I hereby recognize David's influence in getting me to find and utilize the USGS elevation profile software.  It's neat the number of tools available on the Internet to help discuss and debate almost any subject.

Now, for the Luddites out there who will dispute the efficacy of such modern tools vs on the ground study, I can only say that the technology helps when you can't get out on the ground.  And, in some cases it sure beats throwing basketballs in the air

Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci.  Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so.  

Where do you think it's 50 feet?  

From the 11th tee to the 11th fairway is one spot..

I assume you meant the 11th green, not the fairway.  Using the USGS application it appears to rise 27'.
 
6th green to 7th fairway.

I presume this is not actually in play, but in any event, it's a fall of 23'.

4th green to 1st fairway.

Again, it's not in play, but it is a drop of 21'.

None are anywhere near 50 feet.  

If a basketball rim is at 10 feet, and I'm 6'3" I couldn't throw the ball from the fairways to the tee heights, but, I can throw a ball 25 feet into the air.

[David Stamm]

DM, Allow me to cite some examples of advisement and whether or not this warrants design credit.

Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit?   I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.   If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again:  I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East.  Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East.  

 

I'll concede that that was an erroneous presumption, Nevertheless, then what has this whole thread been about? That a few here won't acknowledge Macdonald's influence? Because Wilson incorporated "Redan" features, "Principle Nose" bunkers, as I mentioned, etc. real or percieved? These features were not Macdonald's "brain child". He got them from Britain. Are we to then discredit Macdonald for "ripping off" other's work? They were "interpretations" of those holes and features. There is no doubt about Macdonalds role in growing golf in America. And there is no doubt the man had definite ideas on things in reagrds to golf and things in general for that matter. All the things that Macdonald loved about British links golf he wanted to emulate at NGLA and other designs. But that doesn't mean they were his ideas. If Wilson replicated any of Macdonalds suggestions, that doesn't mean they were his ideas in regards to the previously mentioned design philosophies. (Redans, Alps, Eden, etc.) He got them from someplace else! Britain! And so did Wilson!


Let's suppose for a moment that I was an architect (god help us), and you were just getting started in the business. You had a project, your first and I paid you a visit. I suggested to you that a certain hole needed small mounds, chocalate drops if you like, and told you to go visit Somerset Hills so you could study what I was talking about. You decide to use the idea. Be honest, would it be reasonable to think that the chocalate drops were my creation for the hole? I suggested something, but pointed you in the direction of where to find them. It was Tillingahast's creation that you studied and copied (exact or otherwise). Not mine. I don't think anyone is disputing (I think) that Macdonald possibly suggested some things to Wilson, but the features in question were never Macdonalds original ideas to begin with. Wilson went there, also, probably at Macdonalds urging, and spent 8 months looking at the great courses there. Whether Wislon used the features at Macdonald's urging or because of what he saw in Britain, IT DOES NOT MATTER. They both originated from the same place.

[DMoriarty]

We're both plainly speculating here based on very, very thin evidence.

See Mike, I just dont think that is the case.  Perhaps if you told me exactly what it was I am speculating about, I'll agree but I just dont see it.  Sure I have speculated about some things, like whether they might have been looser with the defn. for reverse redans because the strategic concerns are so different, but on the main point I dont think I am speculating.  

You've said so yourself,  I am just setting out what has been known for years.   It is your dismissal of this historical record that is speculative and unsubstantiated.  

We know that Wilson was grateful but not for anything beyond the initial push in the right direction and an account of being available for consultation afterwards.   We also know that some of the leading golf people of the day called one hole a redan, one an Alps, and Travis evidently said the 15th green was based on the Eden green.

Dont forget Leslie, who was by no means a distant observer.

That's all well and good, but that's all there is to hang your hat on.

 

That's all there is???  The guy taught Wilson about architecture, helped him plan his itinerary, advised on the appropriateness of the site, gave assistance with a routing problem, and acted as an advisor during design and construction.  He also trail-blazed (in America) the design movement of turning back to the links principles, and even built a course at least in part so others could learn about architecture.  Your response to this is:  "that's all there is."  

Just what more should there be?  Really, absent designing his course for him, what else could you possibly expect??  Unless proof exists that MacDonald actually designed the course, you guys will continue to discount his contribution and influence.  Why?  I have absolutely no idea.

Any of those things could have been learned by Wilson from his extended (8 months is a long, long time to look at golf courses every day) stay in Great Britain than from anything Macdonald may have imparted.  

Wow.  Are you really saying that MacDonald shouldn't be credited because Wilson might have been able to learn on his own what MacDonald taught him?  And on a trip that he likely would never have taken were it not for MacDonald's influence?  Wow.  

He also built features that I've never seen from Macdonald such as Valley of Sin features, but that existed in Scotland.  Where do you think that idea may have come from?

So if Wilson had a single independent thought in his head, or if he learned more from MacDonald that what was at NGLA, then MacDonald deserves no credit.  Now that is an exaggerated burden of proof.  

Again, speculation, but in lieu of any formalized records or documentation, that's all we have.

 Except that we have plenty of documentation.  You just choose to ignore and dismiss on more speculation.  

The rest of your post is again blind shots in the dark about why someone might have done or said something.  Again, completely unsupported and unsupportable.  

If I said, I think that MacDonald designed No. 10 and it is definitely an Alps, you guys would blow your tops demanding proof.  I couldnt prove it (probably because it isnt true) but at least I'd have the skeleton of an argument to 'hang my hat on.'   In contrast, you guys just throw out these theories and explanations and you don't even pretend to support them.  

Yet it is your burden. You are the one trying to rewrite history.  
_____________________

Bryan,

This might hurt to hear, but you are doing the exact same thing Patrick is doing.  You are ignoring what MacDonald himself said about the concept because his understanding doesnt fit with your understanding.  

I dont think I am being 'intentionally obtuse' at all.  Rather I am merely trying to understand the term as he used it.  That means reconciling his description with his examples.  Your understanding does not allow for this.  Mine does.

Sure the description was of NB's Redan.  And of NGLA's redan.   But he also includes Merion's Redan and some other Redans.  This may be why he doesnt emphasize the 'tilt-away' aspect of the hole and instead emphasizes the sideways tilt of the hole.

Or maybe I was being unintentionally obtuse and he really meant that the ideal Redan tilts away as well as sideways. [I was very surprised that he did not mention the tilt-away nature in the article.] If so, it really makes no difference, because MacDonald immediately includes holes which were less than ideal.  Like Merion.  

If MacDonald thought the Merion hole was a Redan, then either the hole used to tilt away, or while it may have made the hole less than ideal, a tilt-away green was not a prerequisite for a Redan.

Unfortunately, I havent seen NB's redan in person.  But I do understand that it tilts away.
__________

Near the end of your post you say that MacDonald's broad use of the term "completely destroys the whole concept of templates and replicas."  I agree 100%.  But then I dont think that MacDonald meant for others to treat his holes (or the originals) as templates or replicas.   I think he was teaching about concepts and strategies, not looking for copies.  

That is what is so strange about this entire conversation.  Every thinks it is about whether there were exact replicas of templates at Merion and I dont think that was ever intended by either side.  

[DMoriarty]

David Stamm,

While there is quite a bit more evidence of MacDonald's influence than just supposed Redan, Alps, etc. features, I do agree (and have said repeatedly) that if those features do exist at Merion, then then may well have been Wilson's take on the originals rather than on MacDonald's version.  Nonetheless, based on the evidence so far, I see MacDonald as a major influence on Wilson, especially at Merion East.

This is where the context of the time comes into play.  For the most part, American golf design was truly dismal at the time.  And the concepts we are talking about were non-existant.   MacDonald changed that.  He brought this stuff to America, and that was huge.   Without MacDonald, Wilson likely doesnt know where to go or what to look for, and he probably never even would have considered going in the first place.  

So to make your hypothetical more accurate, we'd have to assume that you were a truly revolutionary designer who had set out to change the landscape (pun intended) of american golf, and that you had introduced notions that, while not original, were entirely groundbreaking and earth shattering to those of us who weren't familiar with the originals.  In that circumstance, if I came to you and you taught me what you knew, helped be plan a trip to learn more, helped me pick my site, helped me with a routing issue and otherwise advised me during the design and construction, then yes, I think you would deserve a heck of a lot of credit.  

Think of it in terms of art.  If MacDonald had revolutionized art in America, had taken Wilson under his his wing to teach him a new way to create art (even if only for a couple of days,)  helped Wilson plan a trip to the great museums of the world and gave him instructions on what to see and look for, advised him on his subject matter, and continued to advise him throughout the creative process, and while the final result was certainly not a copy, what if some influence could be seen or inferred, if only conceptually?  Would you deny that MacDonald was a huge influence in that situation?  

I don't think anyone is disputing (I think) that Macdonald possibly suggested some things to Wilson, but the features in question were never Macdonalds original ideas to begin with.

 
You'd be surprised what has been disputed here.  Some on here dont think that MacDonald deserves any credit at all.  Or at least that is what they used to think.  They are starting to come around a little, but they will never admit it.  
___________________________

In the spirit in this thread of acknowledging influences on our work where it's appropriate to do so,  I hereby recognize David's influence in getting me to find and utilize the USGS elevation profile software.  It's neat the number of tools available on the Internet to help discuss and debate almost any subject.

I take full credit for all your posts from here on.  

Isnt that the coolest thing?   Mine keeps crashing, but still it is freaking amazing.  

[Bryan Izatt]

___________________________

In the spirit in this thread of acknowledging influences on our work where it's appropriate to do so,  I hereby recognize David's influence in getting me to find and utilize the USGS elevation profile software.  It's neat the number of tools available on the Internet to help discuss and debate almost any subject.

I take full credit for all your posts from here on.  

Isn't that nice.  I try to acknowledge you in a positive way, and now you want design credit.  I'm only prepared to admit to a minor one-time influence

Isnt that the coolest thing?   Mine keeps crashing, but still it is freaking amazing.

Yeah, it seems to crash frequently, but just the access and availability is cool.

[Bryan Izatt]

 
_____________________

Bryan,

This might hurt to hear, but you are doing the exact same thing Patrick is doing.  You are ignoring what MacDonald himself said about the concept because his understanding doesnt fit with your understanding. How so?  

I dont think I am being 'intentionally obtuse' at all.  Rather I am merely trying to understand the term as he used it.  That means reconciling his description with his examples.  Your understanding does not allow for this.  Mine does.

Sure the description was of NB's Redan.  And of NGLA's redan.   But he also includes Merion's Redan and some other Redans.  But he doesn't say the Merion's et al are replicas; it's in the context of the many variations thought.  I guess we'll disagree on what the minimum requirement for a Redan is.  Apparently almost anything goes for CBM.  To me that's not very useful.  This may be why he doesnt emphasize the 'tilt-away' aspect of the hole and instead emphasizes the sideways tilt of the hole.  I think you are adding that emphasis in your reading.  You can't ignore the angled approach.  That's clear to anyone (including CBM) who has (or had) seen the original template.

Or maybe I was being unintentionally obtuse and he really meant that the ideal Redan tilts away as well as sideways. [I was very surprised that he did not mention the tilt-away nature in the article.]  An understanding of the original template and the comment about the angled approach I think makes it clear enough.  Just concede the point.   If so, it really makes no difference, because MacDonald immediately includes holes which were less than ideal.  Like Merion. Don't you think it odd that he leads off with a description of the Redan features/principles and then ends by essentially saying they don't matter because variations are good as long as you stick to the "principle" that he doesn't describe. And then uses Merion as an example, even though it apparently has the wrong tilt to it.

If MacDonald thought the Merion hole was a Redan, then either the hole used to tilt away, or while it may have made the hole less than ideal, a tilt-away green was not a prerequisite for a Redan.

The people on the ground there say it never tilted away.  So, what do you suppose was the prerequisite for a hole to be a Redan in CBM's mind?  An angled green?  A deep fronting bunker?  Surely those were common to many many holes.

Unfortunately, I havent seen NB's redan in person.  But I do understand that it tilts away.
__________

Near the end of your post you say that MacDonald's broad use of the term "completely destroys the whole concept of templates and replicas."  I agree 100%.  But then I dont think that MacDonald meant for others to treat his holes (or the originals) as templates or replicas.   I think he was teaching about concepts and strategies, not looking for copies.  Then what are the concepts and strategies inherent in a Redan?  Which features would be a minimum for those concepts and strategies to be brought out in a new hole by that name?

That is what is so strange about this entire conversation.  Every thinks it is about whether there were exact replicas of templates at Merion and I dont think that was ever intended by either side.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Lord...I'm at a loss here.   This thread has become much too unintentially humorous.

David,

WHO is saying that Macdonald didn't have any influence on Wilson?   That's preposterous, and I haven't heard it from anyone on this thread.   Could you please point me to the definitive post?  

WHO is denying the historical record of Wilson's 2-day visit to Macdonald, his tour of NGLA, Macdonald suggesting an itinerary?   Tell me, and I'll hunt them down and correct them for starting this train wreck!!  

Who is denying that Macdonald was known to have had some advisory capacity of an indeterminate nature during the construction process?   Who said he didn't help with a routing problem?   I'll get some ammo together and go after them pronto...just show me where they said it!

Who is denying that some of the authorities of them time; Macdonald, Lesley, Whigham, and perhaps Travis, called today's 3rd hole a Redan (however loosely, as has been proven and stipulated), the front bunker on 10 an "Alps like feature", and I believe someone quoted Travis talking about the 15th green being like an "Eden"?   How could anyone possibly deny the written documented words those men used?  If they did, point me in their direction and prepare to plug your ears as protection for my forthcoming verbal blast!  

No, I don't think that's what happened here.  I think instead you came forward and speculated that the old 10th hole was very, very similar to the Alps at NGLA, in elevation change, length, and shot values.    Some of us said, no, that's not really possible.   I went so far as to defend the fact that I understood why Lesley would call it an Alps due to the fronting bunker, and the likely blindness of the approach, but it ain't an Alps in the way Prestwick is and NGLA is.

I think what also happened is that the fact that the 3rd was called a redan was questioned, because it is frankly not a redan that anyone with a objective reasoning would state.  Yes, Macdonald called it a redan, and the name stuck, but it bears almost no playability relationship to any redan hole overseas, or any that Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, or anyone else ever built.

Why would you have forwarded this hypothesis about the 10th hole if not to try to prove that Macdonald had some actual design input to Merion?   I'm not understanding what you're trying to assert?  

We know that Macdonald did have an influence, and he certainly pointed WIlson in the right direction and probably helped him with questions of indeterminate nature along the way.   NO ONE is denying that, unless you can show us otherwise.

However, David...when all is said and done, we know that Macdonald had at least 72 hours of influence over Wilson.  It may have been more but there is NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IN EITHER THE MERION ARCHIVES OR MACDONALD'S PAPERS, FILES, ARTICLES, QUOTES, etc.  

I'm sure that his advice was invaluable.   We all are.  Without Macdonald's advice and early direction, Merion may have gone on a far different course.  That's stipulated.  

However, after Wilson left Macdonald and NGLA he went to study overseas for EIGHT months.   I don't know the exact days, but let's think about it...

March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October

What did Wilson learn during all that time?   Perhaps he saw the ALps hole...the redan...the Valley of Sin...Principal's Nose...the Eden?   Of course he did, David, and when he returned to the states he built a course that were less direct copies of those templates, straying from Macdonald's more direct copying model, and instead utilized their strategic aspects on the unique piece of ground that was located inland at Merion.  

Now, if he had come back and built a course similar to  NGLA INLAND, I'd have to believe Macdonald's input was far greater than what has been recorded.  However, he didn't, and instead continued the forward evolution of American architecture using old world principles in a new and different way.

That's all I can say on this topic.   You've exhausted me.  

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
To my knowledge no one knows who routed Merion-East, but I did find this in the Merion history: "Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice he recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne
To my knowledge no one knows who routed Merion-East, but I did find this in the Merion history: "Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice he recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."

Tom,

Doesn't that quote answer your question of who routed the course?

Who had the problems laying out the golf course?

Who received advice of some form from M&W in how to do so?

Who credited M&W for their advice that helped who lay out the golf course?

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Thats how I would read it...but I lack ballanced, prepared and cogent ideas.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I believe we've come to opposite conclusions.

Wilson was the one who had trouble laying out the course, but he was the one who laid out the course and who was charged with same.   It's self-evident in the quote you mentioned.

He did credit Macdonald with helping advise him in the task, but we don't know if that was in general terms of routing principles or some specifics around particulars of hole configurations at Merion.

[JESII]

Wayne,

Are you so dense? Can you see the only good (I mean real great and effective) way for Wilson to "unstuck" himself (from a routing perspective) out on the property line by the creek near the ninth green was to build a MacDonald conceptualized ALPS hole straight up through the center and across Ardmore Ave? Were you drinking some of TEP's red out at Happydale this morning?

[Mike_Cirba]

Laying out "a" golf course can be far different than laying out "the" golf course in this case.  

Wilson could have been talking very hypothetically, very much as an intellectual exercise, considering the property constraints, construction techniques, actual routing, agronomic issues, maximizing strategic values, etc., of any golf course in Macro terms, given that he had never done it before and now was tasked with the chore.

That's very very different than "he had trouble laying out Merion East", as a work in progress.

[JESII]

Mike,

It specifically says "Hugh Wilson had problems laying out the East Course".