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

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

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

Sully,

Are you sure?

I thought it said, "Hugh Wilson had problems laying out the East Course so he had his good buddy CB Macdonald do it for him instead while he sold insurance."  ?

[JESII]

I guess that makes the most sense. My reading comprehension is so bad you are surely correct, that was clearly implied. The hell with defining Redan or Alps, we just found the new and accurate definition of ADVISE.

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, Jim; you just have to know how to read between the lines to uncover the great conspiracy that's existed for the past 96 years to deny CB Macdonald his rightful place as the Father of Merion.

It has to do with those obstinate, territorial, know-it-all Philly guys and probably cheesesteaks and Yuengling on some level, as well.  

[JESII]

I did ask a serious question last night on here about a Redan's built by CBM that slope from back to front. This quote by George Bahto, on this site spurred the question:

What more accurate way to describe a 'Redan' than Macdonald's own words? '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 a Redan.' Bear in mind when Macdonald says 'tilt,' he means it. At National, hole #4 falls over five feet from front to rear. Redans are usually around 190 yards (a formidable distance in the early days of golf) with numerous strategic options depending on wind direction and course conditions: Fly it to the green if you are able, lay-up and chip on hoping to make three, hit a running shot at the banked area fronting the green or even play left of the Redan bunker hoping for a better approach angle (not recommended!). Behind the green are usually deep sand pits to catch aggressive play. To identify the best renditions, I would have to agree with this site's 'Discussion Group.' National's 4th and Piping Rock's 3rd are the most outstanding they built. Macdonald stated: 'the strategy of the Redan cannot be improved on.' The Redan strategy is used by nearly all architects - even as the green complex on par-4 holes. Redan traces its origin to the 15th at North Berwick where Davie Strath first built the hole while revising and formalizing the course. Sir David Baird, a former British Guards officer and a member at North Berwick, remarked that the escarpment Strath used at the 15th hole reminded him of the fortification he had stormed in Crimea 20 years before - the hole was immediately christened the 'Redan'.

My two hypotheses with regards to #3 are:
1) MacDonald misunderstood the historical significance of the term "REDAN" and labeled anything with similar appearances regardless of what the ground actually did as such. (which seems dangerous to me)

2) Sir David Baird was really only talking about the fronting defenses of the "REDAN" in Crimea when labeling #15 at NB and there is no reason to limit the iterations so long as that fronting bank and bunker are present. (This would include the sloping away green that I have always believed is a requirement)

Does anyone have more writing on the actual military installation used in Crimea? Once over the fronting defense, did the surface run away? What would be the military significance of that? Would it obscure the total force size defending that position? Is there more writing on Sir David Baird about what exactly may have reminded him of the site in Crimea?

[DMoriarty]

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?

He included Merion as a redan.  

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.

  I agree that these were not replicas.  In fact this is a large part of the point I am trying to make.   They weren't replicas and werent intended to be, which is why this whole insistence on looking for replicas of templates is misguided.  

As for the "anything goes" comment I think this is a bit of an overstatement.  The merion "reverse redan" is on a tabletop, I believe it tilts left to right, there is a large deep bunker right,  I dont know where the tee was, but I think there is a debate above about whether the approach was from an angle.   The green doesnt fall away, but with the left to right slope it is possible for a left-hander to run the ball across the green with a draw.  And if the tee was at a diagonal, then any shot moving right to left over or near the bunker would be quite daunting.    So while it certainly isnt a duplicate and certainly doesnt completely conform with either our modern notions of the hole or with the NB original, I just dont think that "anything goes" is accurate.

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.

  Maybe I am just still being obtuse, but isnt possible-- even with the diagonal approach-- for a green to tilt from side to side and back to front?   I am holding up a book as JES suggested and it seems quite possible to me.  And would not this hole still  share many of the playing characteristics of the original, but in a less extreme form?  Wouldnt left to right balls (on a reverse) still release?  Wouldnt the bunker still be ominous on right to left balls?  

Also Bryan, remember we are talking about an reverse here.  So many of the really neat aspects of the redan dont really apply for most golfers anyway, do they?  

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.

No I dont think it odd, not if you keep in mind what he purports to be doing in these articles.   He says he is trying to encourage good architecture in by providing examples of great holes and describing the strategic principles inherently therein.   He is not demanding duplicates or absolute adherence to the original or best.  While the Merion hole doesn't have the one feature that we all think is most important, it still has many similarities in principle with the redan concept, and it is a good golf hole in the links tradition (as opposed to the Victorian tradition of slightly earlier.)  So it seems that MacDonald was happy to include it as 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.

I doubt he ever thought of it in these terms . . . but if he had it seems he would have required a one shot hole with a tabletop green which sloped in a manner that would allow a running draw to run and high fade to stop;  and a deep large bunker on the inside of the table top; and a diagonal tee shot which brought into play the bunker and forced the golfer to turn his ball and control his spin and trajectory if he wanted the ball to bound the right distance.

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?

Bryan, I think the same way about the principles of a redan as you, and have roundly criticized new "redans" without the features you deem important.  But in MacDonald's day they apparently thought of it differently.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

 
(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. [/color]



Then by MacDonald's own definition he contradicts himself with his classifying the 3rd at Merion as a Redan[/color]

I think the second approach is the most likely.  It fits with MacDonald's definition (which talks of side slope but not front to back slope)

If it's tilted from right to left, but approached on the diagonal that equates to a front to back slope[/color]

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.

Again, this is something NOT found at # 3 at Merion.
It's clear that CBM has contradicted himself[/color]

CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan.  


And that tilt doesn't exist at # 3 at Merion.
If CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan then he's contradicted himself in classifying # 3 at Merion as a Redan.

You can't have it both ways[/color]


The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.[/color]

That's correct, and one of my points I've been trying to get across to you.  It's apparent that CBM has contradicted himself, something I indicated that he'd done on occassion.[/color]

The third is the approach that Mssrs. Morrison, Paul, Mucci, Childs, and Cirba have taken, and in my opinion it is unsupportable.  

As has been pointed out on here before (by Patrick, no less) these guys had a very solid handle on their use of language.  

That's correct Dave, however, we also know that MacDonald and others contradicted themselves on occassion.  When CBM states that the tiltled putting surface, canting away from the golfer, is the essential ingredient in a Redan, we all know that that feature is NOT found at # 3 at Merion, and as such, can't be classified as a Redan.[/color]

 (I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it).  He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline.  

What I said was that you can't take what was written in an article as The Gospel or irrefutable evidence of a fact.
One only has to see the absurdity in the alleged quote by Ross stating that Seminole was flat to understand the need to be cautious when reading articles, allegedly by, or about architects and golf courses

Bryan's produced two seperate quotes from CBM, yet, they conflct and contradict each other[/color]

And when multiple parties are using the same words to describe the same features, it would be absurd to simply assume they were all mistaken, at least without substantial proof.

Dave,  it's clearly not a Redan, however, it has some of the component features of a Redan, thus, I can see how it would be easier, in discussing the hole, to simply call it a Redan.

Afterall, who, in the intended readership, would know the difference ?  Or the distinctions that seperate it from being a Redan ?

To also call # 3 at Pine Valley a Redan is more than a stretch.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

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."

What, exactly, did he write in 1916 ?

Let's examine those writings and clear some of the issues up.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan Izatt,

You didn't answer a previous question.

What's the height of the Seminole Clubhouse ?

27 feet, 23 feet, 21 feet ?

How can it be below the level of some of the high points on the golf course if it's higher than 27, 23 or 21 feet. ?

Are you still insisting that the alleged Ross quote that Seminole is flat, is accurate ?

[Phil_the_Author]

Guys,

This may sound like a very stupid question, and certainly if it is it isn't my first, but WHY are you arguing over whether the 3rd green is a Redan when there is a wonderful photograph on p.25 of the September 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated of the 7th green.

Beneath it reads:

The finals on the seventh, the REDAN GREEN in the afternoon round...

What am I missing in this discussion? Why is the 7th green called the Redan in 1916 and yet the discussion here is arguing over the 3rd?

I REALLY am quite confused...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip,

I believe the old 7th is now the current 3rd.

[DMoriarty]

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?  

You are kidding right?  Mr. Morrison has been questioning and denying just about every aspect of MacDonald's influence for at least two years now (as long as I have been in this particular conversation.)  As far as  finding the definitive post on this thread, that is likely impossible, as many of Mr. Morrison's posts have mysteriously disappeared.   Either he deleted them himself out of embarassment about his own inaccuracies and rudeness, or they were deemed so obnoxious and inappropriate that they were deleted by the gca.com censors.  

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!!

 Again Mr. Morrison has denied and downplayed these events throughout, and insisted that no actual influence came from these contacts whatsoever.  Surely you recall the we don't know what they talked out . . . what advice about the trip?   MacDonald was uninvited to Merion . . . there is no proof he listened to a single thing MacDonald said . . . what's the proof they actually looked at NGLA during Wilson's visit?  type "inquiries" from Mr. Morrison and others.   This is his methodology for minimizing and ultimately dismissing the influence altogether.  He ignores the overwhelming evidence of contact and influence and instead insists on impossible proofs of actual conversations and specific on course copies of MacDonald's holes.    And this is the methodology that you and others have bought into.  

Just look at what he is doing now regarding the routing issue!

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!

Are we reading the same posts?    Throughout these conversations Paul and Morrison have downplayed these articles, implying that they are on par with some journalistic hack's misinformed account, suggesting that they aren't to be trusted, downplaying the fact that these are contemporary first-hand accounts by some of the foremost experts in the land.   And others have followed suit.  Patrick even denied that MacDonald said what is in a MacDonald bylined article!

Contemporary first-hand accounts are a historian's wet dream.  Rarely does evidence get any better.  Yet you guys treat this evidence like it all needs to be independently proven and like it is inherently untrustworthy.  And all you base this on is some amateur  psychoanalysis of MacDonald and others.  

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.

Mike, although I wish you had done it before you posted this, I encourage to go back and look at my posts.  This is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said.  My posts are still there.  Look at them and you will see that
-- I NEVER said it was very, very similar to the Alps.  
--I said that the the newspaper account described it similarly, which it did.  
--I also said that the overall elevation changes are similar, which they are, but readily acknowledged from the very beginning that the Alps hole was much more intimidating and felt like it played much more uphill.  
--I NEVER said anything that would even suggest that the length was similar.  In fact, I correctly pointed out that the drive on the 10th at Merion was about 20-40 yards shorter than you guys thought (depending on the tee.)  And was resoundly verbally attacked and defamed for so doing.  (Where was your sense of setting things straight then, by the way?)  My measure would make the old hole shorter than thought, not longer!  
-- I NEVER said it was an Alps in the way National or Preswick are.  All I did was to try and understand why the contemporary experts thought it was an alps and called it an alps.  That is what one does in historical research. But not what goes on here.

I find it amazing that the same people who will not draw even the most obvious conclusions on what Wilson learned from MacDonald are so willing to infer thoughts and motivations to me without any basis whatsoever.  

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?  

Again Mike, you are inferring motivations and agendas which never existed.   I've explained to you what I am trying to do numerous times so if you havent figured it out I guess I will stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and simply  infer that you have no interest in really understanding.  After all, if you cant beat them, join them.

NO ONE is denying that, unless you can show us otherwise.

Not true.  A large part of that Mr. Morrison and Paul are doing is trying to rewrite the history of MacDonald's influence.

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.

Are you joking?  This has never been stipulated, at least not in any meaningful and lasting form.    

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...

Dont patronize me Mike.

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.

MacDonald's was not intended to be a direct copying model, at least not by others besides MacDonald and Raynor.  By treating it as if it was, you have completely distorted the conversation.      

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

Thanks VERY much for clearing that up for me as I got lost among the volume of posts.

Since that is the case then, acn anyone look at that photograph (and perhapeven post it) and explain to me how a green that CLEARLY runs left to right and DOWN and away (this can be seen by comparing the two caddies standing one front right the other middle back right) from the player and has a bunker smack in front of the back right portion of the green not be considered at least Redan-like?

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

In my opinion, while there is little question that Macdonald and his revolutionary NGLA was very notable in America around 1910 when Wilson traveled to GB for six months (and again Wilson and his committee gave Macdonald ample credit for what he helped and advised them on during that two day stay in Southampton), I don't know that you should just conclude that it was Macdonald who made every budding American architect become aware of the Scottish linksland and English heathland architecture and travel to GB to look at it, play it and study it.

After-all, I think most of those early American architects such as Emmet, Travis, Leeds, Crump, Tillinghast, Hunter and perhaps even Fownes and Thomas were able to find their way to the linksland and the heathlands without the help and itinerary of Macdonald.

Your point is well taken and I agree with it.  I was somehwat oversimplying for clarity. But keep in mind that Wilson went to MacDonald, not to Leeds or any of the others.  He could have spoken with any number of people, but he went to MacDonald.  Also, keep in mind that Merion was relatively early on the evolution chain of non-Victorian courses, and some (but not all) of these guys followed.  

But I have yet to see any of them mention that they once looked at the Atlantic Ocean and wondered what was on the other side of it.

I know you are joking, but I am not sure we see the same joke.  To me this seems like a pretty accurate parody of the way you and Mr. Morrison are approaching the issue of MacDonald's influence at Merion.    

Like my Thomas parody above.

[JSlonis]

For the love of God!  

THE 3RD GREEN AT MERION GC in ARDMORE, PA DOES NOT RESEMBLE A REDAN.  IT SLOPES A BIT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT BUT NOT AT ALL FROM FRONT TO BACK.  It has some great internal contouring, none of which would you ever confuse for being a Redan.

Philip,

I don't know what photo you may be looking at to determine this alleged "front to back" slope, but it is simply not the case.  Perhaps you are looking at the photo that gives a view of this green from BEHIND.  

That is it, I can't make the point any clearer than this.  I'm done!  Finished!  Kaput!  

[T_MacWood]

The nature of the course boundaries dictated a lot of the routing.  It is so narrow on the north side of Ardmore Avenue that you couldn't route the course in any other way.  The hole lengths and the resulting use of features were the real routing brilliance on that side of the road.  The problem was on the other side of the road.

In Richard Francis's 1950 recollections the real routing problem was solved by some late night inspiration.  

"Except for may hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made buy one important contribution to the layout of the course.

The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion---with the help of a little ground on the northside of Ardmore Avenue--but the last five holes were another question.

I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea.  Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him.  The idea was this:  We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout.  Perhaps we could swap it for some land we could use?

Mr. Lloyd agreed.  the land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long--the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee.  Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so the green could be built as it is today."

Hmmm... no mention of Macdonald and Whigham helping them with routing problems at the East Course.  I feel confident that the help with routing problems was in a general sense before the design process was begun in earnest.

As to the timeline of Macdonald and Whigham "giving their blessing" on the land for golf, was that before the property was purchased?  Is it known if they disapproved of the property that the golf course would not have been built there anyway?  For Tom MacWood and Professor Moriarty to claim that was substanitive advice, it would be helpful if they answered these questions to see how much they knew before proclaiming the advice as significant and thus how much credibility is merited in their assertions.

Wayne
I don't believe Mr. Francis mentioned Wilson either...should we conclude Wilson was not involved in the routing of the course. When did the Francis epiphany take place?

It seems to me you're hell bent on trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives...yikes. You guys in Philly are tough.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

If your initial post was just to continue some internecine warfare with Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul you should have just addressed it to them.

Because, frankly, I've never understood what you're trying to prove here.   If you're coming at this with the mindset that those two guys are claiming Macdonald had absolutely no role in influencing Hugh Wilson, and then trying to prove otherwise, then it's no wonder that the rest of us are doing mental gymnastics trying to understand where you're coming from.

From reading this thread, I don't think that's their position.  I think both have acknowledged that Macdonald did play a role, particularly around Wilson's trip, etc., and also around spending time with WIlson to go over strategic hole concepts.  It's also clear he played some ongoing "advisory" role of indeterminate nature.

What I think they are both objecting to is the inference that any holes on the ground are somehow linked to specific Macdonald influences without some type of additional documentation beside the fact that Lesley said the front bunker on 10 "resembles the Alps", and that the 3rd hole was called a redan, when it clearly is quite different than anything Macdonald, et.al. built with the same nomenclature.

What are you looking for as an end result here?   Macdonald's role, as much as can be determined, has been acknowledged, and I don't think that's disputed by anyone.

What is being disputed is the inferred notion that Macdonald either routed significant portions of the course, that he had Wilson build specific holes modelled after the ones he favored, or that he had any hand in creating the original features on the course.

There is simply not a shred of evidence of any of that, in either the Merion archives, Macdonald's files, or contemporaneous literature of the time.  

To suggest otherwise is at best pure supposition and at worst simply revisionist history, without any supporting documentation.

I like and admire all of you guys, but if this was just part of a war between you all, then I wish you were just clear about this upfront and not wasted a lot of other people's time.
 

[JESII]

Pat,

Thanks VERY much for clearing that up for me as I got lost among the volume of posts.

Since that is the case then, acn anyone look at that photograph (and perhapeven post it) and explain to me how a green that CLEARLY runs left to right and DOWN and away (this can be seen by comparing the two caddies standing one front right the other middle back right) from the player and has a bunker smack in front of the back right portion of the green not be considered at least Redan-like?

Philip,

That is from the back of the green favoring the left side.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

Would you agree that CBM contradicted himself in describing what constitutes a Redan, especially in reference to the essential component, and his classifying # 3 as a Redan ?

[T_MacWood]

Let us review:

* The Redan at Merion was not a Redan

* The Alps at Merion was not an Alps

* The Eden at Merion was not an Eden

* CB Macdonald did not understand the defintion of a Redan

* CB Macdonald's review of the site was inconsequential

* CB Macdonald may have advised on the layout but he had nothing to do with the layout of the course

* CB Macdonald's mother wore army boots

I think that pretty much sums up where we are right now.

[JESII]

Let us review:

* The Redan at Merion was not a Redan

* The Alps at Merion was not an Alps

* The Eden at Merion was not an Eden

* CB Macdonald did not understand the defintion of a Redan

* CB Macdonald's review of the site was inconsequential

* CB Macdonald may have advised on the layout but he had nothing to do with the layout of the course

* CB Macdonald's mother wore army boots

* You forgot to mention that she could scratch the bottom of her feet with the second toe on that same foot...think about it.
I think that pretty much sums up where we are right now.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

The funny thing to me is that Philip, who I take it isn't familiar with the hole, thought the hole was a redan because he was looking at it completely backwards, thinking the back left of the green was the front right!!

C'mon Tom...you can admit that it's not a redan.  

Tom..remember me...I'm the guy who spent way too much time arguing with Patrick a few weeks back that MORE latitude should be given in what constitutes some of the named template holes, specifically the REDAN.  

We argued about the one at MidOcean, the one at Sleepy Hollow, the one at LACC, and so on.   I'm all for Macdonald's "infinite variations" WITHIN THE GUIDELINES AND DEFINITION he established, which includes the runaway tilted green!  

However, in my most liberal interpretation of what a redan is, there is no way that either you or I, with no prior knowledge that Macdonald referred to it as such, would come across that hole today, yesterday, or in 1916 and thought to ourselves, "Gee...what a nice redan".  

No way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let us review:

Let's properly rephrase your remarks.[/color]

* The Redan at Merion was not a Redan


The 3rd at Merion was/is NOT a Redan[/color]

* The Alps at Merion was not an Alps

The 10th at Merion was/is NOT an Alps hole.[/color]

* The Eden at Merion was not an Eden

The 15th hole at Merion is not an Eden hole[/color]

* CB Macdonald did not understand the defintion of a Redan


CB MacDonald's use of the term in descibing the 3rd at Merion and the 3rd at Pine Valley is in direct contradiction to CB MacDonald's own definition of a Redan[/color]

* CB Macdonald's review of the site was inconsequential


We have NO idea as to the detailed nature, scope and influence of CBM's review of the site[/color]

* CB Macdonald may have advised on the layout but he had nothing to do with the layout of the course

We have NO evidence with respect to any detailed or specific advice that CBM is alleged to have provided with respect to the layout of Merion[/color]

* CB Macdonald's mother wore army boots

  That's true, they were Size 5 EE[/color]

I think that pretty much sums up where we are right now.


I think I summed it up more accurately.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Hey, I just noticed something, but perhaps I've lost my mind from participation in this thread.

On page 16 of the September 1916 Golf Illustrated that Philip Young just cited, you can see Bob Jones approaching the 8th green.

BUT, more importantly, and more germane to this discussion, you can see what looks to be the 10th green in the background, with the high mounding behind it and the bunker embedded in that back wall.  

You can then look back down the 10th fairway and get a really, really good sense of what the approach must have looked like.

Look specifically at the total elevation change between the fairway bunkers (drive zone according to David Moriarty) and the green.   What do you see?

Except for the fact that the fronting bunker probably had a high front wall that limited visibility, does anyone want to still say that this hole has any resemblance at all to the Alps at Prestwick or the Alps at NGLA?

[Phil_the_Author]

Jes,

Thanks for helping me orient myself with regard to that photo. The reason I wrongly assumed orientation is the crowd of people watching the match in the photo would then be at the front of the green whereas no on is shown standing near where the photo was being taken (the back side).

It was the gallery that confused me. This also points to the importance of having "walked the ground" when attempting to understand a golf course design that one has never been to.

Sorry to confuse if I did....

[David Stamm]

   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.  


 
"IN 1920, THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO SEND HUGH WILSON TO ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND TO STUDY THEIR BEST COURSES AND DEVELOP IDEAS FOR THE NEW COURSE. BEFORE HE LEFT, HE VISITED THE SITE OF THE NGLA, AMERICA'S FIRST MODERN COURSE, THEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK. WHILE THER HE DISCUSSED AN INTINERARY WITH CBM, THE DESIGNER OF NGLA. MACDONALD HADE MADE A SIMILAR JOURNEY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE 8 YEARS EARLIER."- GOLF AT MERION, DESMOND TOLHURST, 2004.


WILSON WAS SENT BY THE CLUB, NOT BY MACDONALD. MACDONALD HELPED HIM WITH SUGGESTING WHERE TO GO. SO, YES, HE WOULD'VE CONSIDERED TO GO BECAUSE THAT'S THE TASK THE CLUB PLACED ON HIM.







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.  


WHAT, IN A NUTSHELL, SHOULD MACDONALD BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR AND PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF. EXAMPLE: CITE THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WAS TOLD BY CBM TO WILSON.

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,)

SO WOULD HE LEARN MORE FROM CBM IN A COUPLE OF DAYS OR FROM SPENDING 8 MONTHS IN BRITIAN.



  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?

HUGE IN REGARDS TO POINTING HIM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ABOUT AN INTINERARY, YES. BUT WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE? WE NEED SPECIFICS. IE TANGBILE IRREFUTABLE PROOF. DOCUMENTATION. NOT "THERE'S A REDAN, SEE", WHEN IT EXISTS ELSEWHERE WELL BEFORE MACDONALD WAS AROUND.

   
BTW, IF WILSON WAS NOT CAPABLE OF KNOWING WHAT TO LOOK FOR, SHOULD WE CREDIT MACDONALD FOR THE WICKER BASKET FLAGSTICKS?