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

[Mike_Cirba]

I give up.  

So much for starting that second career as a marriage counselor.  

Have at it guys.   I'll try to ignore this thread, but I have a hunch that much like a car wreck, it'll be difficult not to check in on the blood and gore now and then.  

[DMoriarty]

I give up.  

So much for starting that second career as a marriage counselor.  

Have at it guys.   I'll try to ignore this thread, but I have a hunch that much like a car wreck, it'll be difficult not to check in on the blood and gore now and then.  

I dont get it, Mike . . . Was there something unfair or unreasonable in the questions I asked you or the way I asked them?  

Before you go, you might take a look at my last exchange with Patrick, because I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter on a number of levels.  

[TEPaul]

"Before you go, you might take a look at my last exchange with Patrick, because I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter on a number of levels."

Yup, his last exchange with Patrick really cuts to the heart of the matter on a number of levels, don't you think MikeyC?  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I understand and appreciate your discussion with Patrick and I've been trying to educate him in this area, as well.     I've been right there all along in agreement about the template holes and the "inspiration" factor.   I'd just go a HUGE step further and say that Wilson, much more than Macdonald, "American'ized" them, if that's a word.   By that, I mean he took the inspiration of what he learned from Macdonald and what he saw overseas to a completely new level for architecture in this country by using that inspiration to create completely new holes based on old concepts.  This doesn't make Merion superior to NGLA, just another step in the evolutionary chain.

Where we have no evidence frankly, is what Macdonald's role may have been in that landmark decision...to take the famous holes overseas and just utilize their strategies and very little of their look and feel.   Did Macdonald have anything to do with that distinctive and original concept?   Not from anything we can tell, and certainly not from his continued use of the template model on his subsequent courses.

I'd also leave you all with one question.   At the time it was built, Merion West was as highly regarded as Merion East, and it was only after a few evolutions and years later that the East became the clearly superior course.   And, that was by intent...at the time of it's opening the West was hailed as Merion's "Second Championship course".

If Wilson had been so beholden and influenced by Macdonald in building the East course, why did Wilson and the Merion committee not go to Macdonald again when they broke ground on the West course a year after the East opened?

Would they not want to benefit from the same level of advice with routing, with hole concepts, with features, with construction techniques, or any of the multitiude of things that we've speculated he may have helped Merion with on the East?   Why go it alone after the success of the East course?

[Mike_Cirba]

God...I'm incorrigible.  

I'm heading out now and going to find some rehab center to check into.   They don't have computers in those things, do they?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Speaking purely from a scientifically statistical standpoint, I'd say it looks like Johnson/Goldwater all over again.

[DMoriarty]

Where we have no evidence frankly, is what Macdonald's role may have been in that landmark decision...to take the famous holes overseas and just utilize their strategies and very little of their look and feel.   Did Macdonald have anything to do with that distinctive and original concept?   Not from anything we can tell, and certainly not from his continued use of the template model on his subsequent courses.

Well if he never used the template model at Merion East, I have no idea why you would expect to see it on subsequent courses.  

As for Merion West and the later courses, I am not aware of substantial evidence which suggests that MacDonald was involved and had an influence on Merion West.   Given that you agree that such evidence does exist with regard to Merion East, I am sure you can understand why I think that recognition is appropriate at one and not at the other.  

I'd also leave you all with one question.   At the time it was built, Merion West was as highly regarded as Merion East, and it was only after a few evolutions and years later that the East became the clearly superior course.   And, that was by intent...at the time of it's opening the West was hailed as Merion's "Second Championship course".

If you look at the coverage of the 1916 tournament, you will see that Merion West's inferiority (not my opinion, but that of the commentators of the time) was recognized by (or during) this tournament.  So it did not last long as an equal "Second Championship course."

If Wilson had been so beholden and influenced by Macdonald in building the East course, why did Wilson and the Merion committee not go to Macdonald again when they broke ground on the West course a year after the East opened?

So beholden?  I never said he was and dont think he was.  This doesnt change the evidence of MacDonald's influence and involvement with Merion East.

Would they not want to benefit from the same level of advice with routing, with hole concepts, with features, with construction techniques, or any of the multitiude of things that we've speculated he may have helped Merion with on the East?   Why go it alone after the success of the East course?

I have no idea on any of these questions. Maybe they thought they had learned enough.   Whyever they did it, this is no reason to discount the acknowledgements of MacDonald's involvement and influence with Merion East.  

Maybe if they had then Merion West would now be thought of as Merion East's equal or superior!  (I personally loved Merion West, it was the first truly good golf course I ever set foot on.  But it has been a number of years since I played it, and even then I never managed a complete round during daylight.)

You asked more than one question.  So you owe me a few, so please go back and answer my questions regarding Mr. Morrison's position in all of this.   After all you are the one that encouraged me to show you where he is discounting the influence and involvement, and I didnt even  have to leave the present page!

__________________

TEPaul and Mike,

With all due respect, this supposed balancing between the 8 month and the two days is preposterous.  First, it is not just the two days, but the other contacts as well that Merion and Wilson and Leslie and Whigham document.   Second and most importantly,  it is not a zero sum game.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

Have you ever seen any of The Academy Awards presentations ?

When an actor or actress gives their acceptance speech ?

Who DON"T they recognize for their involvement ?

Isn't it possible, or more likely, that the accolades directed to the others, including CBM, were akin to the rhetoric in acceptance speeches.

You have to remember that some of these fellows were interconnected, through blood, social or business ties.
And, that in that era, the proper ettiquette called for recognizing the efforts of others, irrespective of their scope.
These were gentlemen who traveled in a monied crowd, who were part of a small group of men in America who were "IN" the golf community, a very small community at the time.

Without specific identification, qualification and quantification I don't see how you can champion CBM's involvement with Merion.

As to the issue of a hole being an inspiration versus a template, that has been my point all along.

That is why I objected to the categorization of the 10th hole as an "Alps" hole and the 3rd as a Redan.

However, I can see how one would be inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick.

CBM was so inspired that he crafted two spectacular holes that could be classified as template driven.

If you want to state that Wilson was inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick, while we have no written evidence of his reaction to the two holes, you could make a case that these two holes inspired him to craft the 10th and 3rd holes at Merion, as long as you realize that to do so is to put forth a theory and not a fact.  But, it's a reasonable theory.

And, who knows, perhaps the two holes under discussion were mentioned as "Alps" and "Redan" holes because Wilson indicated to someone that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick inspired him, along with other holes when he visited the UK.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

My point about bringing up the West course and Macdonald's complete non-involvement there (started within a year of the opening of the East Course, whose construction took only six months), is simply that it points out to me that whatever Macdonald's involvement with Wilson and Merion, it was clearly one of diminishing returns.

There is no question that Macdonald helped Wilson and Merion get on the right track with the NGLA site visit, the advice on which courses to see during Wilson's lengthy voyage to Great Britain, at least one site visit once things got underway, and possibly some additional communications now and again which could have truly been anything from agronomic issues, to strategy, to routing, to "how's the wife and kids?".

But, once again, we have NO record from either Merion or Macdonald on what those things were.   We have no written articles or quotes from Charlie as Merion quickly rose into high prominence.   We have nothing to base any further elevation of Macdonald's role beyond that which has already been conceded and well-known previously.

Whatever the relationship was between the two men, within 18 months after the East course construction started, as the West course got started, Macdonald's involvement had dropped to zero.   Nada, nothing, zero, zilch.  

Does that lead one to conclude that he had a bigger role in the design of the East course than has been previously been reported, or does it suggest something else entirely;  that Macdonald helped Wilson get started, helped make sure that their direction was sound after construction started, possibly advised on some agronomic issues (which was Wilson's biggest interest overall, and a source of constant fascination to him), and then went about his own business and courses.

I think that's clearly the most likely scenario, David.  Don't you?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Your academy award hypothesis sounds fine, but there is absolutely no no proof whatsoever that it is accurate.   Like many others here, you are dabbling in rudimentary pop psychology conducted from a distance of 90 years later.

Why not just give these men the respect they deserve by believing that they meant what they said?  Unless there is compelling evidence that they did not did not mean what they said, I think we at least owe them that.  

Without specific identification, qualification and quantification I don't see how you can champion CBM's involvement with Merion.

Because I have absolutely no reason to believe that these men were being less than honest when they wrote about CBM's influence and involvement.  

As to the issue of a hole being an inspiration versus a template, that has been my point all along.

Then we've been in agreement on this all along.

That is why I objected to the categorization of the 10th hole as an "Alps" hole and the 3rd as a Redan.

I agree with you regarding our modern understandings of these holes.  But the usage back then strongly evidences that sometimes for them, inspiration and some similarity was enough.  

This corresponds with a broader theory of mine, which is that I dont think that CBM's work was ever intended to be directly copied (at least outside his design house.)  Rather, I think it was intended to teach and inspire.

I could be wrong about this, but I cant think of anything offhand that makes me think so.  I'll take another look at CBM's book and Bahto's when I get a chance.

CBM was so inspired that he crafted two spectacular holes that could be classified as template driven.

 
I agree that they are spectacular holes and also that they could be considered "template driven."   Where I stray is that I do not then assume that those influenced my MacDonald would also build "template driven" holes.   MacDonald had a lot more to offer than merely his predilection for copying great holes.   After all, as you said above, these weren't just copies, they were spectacular golf holes in their own right.    

If you want to state that Wilson was inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick, while we have no written evidence of his reaction to the two holes, you could make a case that these two holes inspired him to craft the 10th and 3rd holes at Merion, as long as you realize that to do so is to put forth a theory and not a fact.  But, it's a reasonable theory.

Thanks for this Patrick.  All I was trying to do in the hole discussions was put forth a similar theory and see how the theory held up to the evidence, including the contemporary first-hand accounts and the actual physical dimensions and playing characteristics of the holes.  

And, who knows, perhaps the two holes under discussion were mentioned as "Alps" and "Redan" holes because Wilson indicated to someone that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick inspired him, along with other holes when he visited the UK.

This seems likely to have been one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason.  Isnt Tolhurst confirming that "the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan.)"  If so, and if Tolhurst was accurately summarizing his source (I have do reason to doubt this) then the "theory" is correct at least with regard to The Redan, isnt it?

[T_MacWood]

Beholden? I don't believe anyone has claimed that.

If anything I think the contrast between the original East and the West is strong evidence of Macdonald's influence. The West had no holes inspired or copied from famous holes and it had a very different aesthetic. In some ways the West was the model for the redesigned East.

[DMoriarty]

Does anyone out there still believe that Morrison and Paul have any intention of properly acknowledging MacDonald for his influence and involvement in Merion East, as documented by Wilson, Merion, Tolhurst, Leslie, as well as other contemporary experts?  

If so, take a look at Mr. Morrison's post above, where he denies that ANY INFORMATION EXISTS about CMB's involvement beyond the initial NGLA trip.

Also, take a look at TEPaul's latest, where he states:

"The visit to Southampton aside, I just think it's patently perposterous to assign much credit to a couple of guys from New York who may've showed up down here for a few hours a couple of times compared to men who slaved away on that course for 10-15 and 20 years to make it what it is.
. . .
"Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped."

These guys completely dismiss the numerous comtemporary accounts of MacDonald's involvement in the original design of Merion East.  They don't want to give him any credit whatsoever.   They want to hord it all for their man, Wilson.

TEPaul:  

Your post above shows your true colors on this issue.   Like with Crump, you are intent on protecting and bolstering Wilson's reputation at any cost, regardless of the evidence.  

Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson, above.  Yet you are so greedy in your devotion to Wilson that you cannot even understand that this is not a zero sum game.  

But you aren't content with lifting Wilson up.  You guys are hell-bent on knocking CBM down in the process.   And the historical record be damned.
________________________
JES and Mr. Stamm, if you are still reading, this is what I meant when I said that their approach lacked "a generosity of spirit."

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

Isn't it possible that the differences between the West and East is mostly attributable to the two different men that built the two courses for the committee overseen by Wilson?  

[Willie_Dow]

Amen guys, go elsewhere !

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your academy award hypothesis sounds fine, but there is absolutely no no proof whatsoever that it is accurate.   Like many others here, you are dabbling in rudimentary pop psychology conducted from a distance of 90 years later.

But, David, that's exactly what you've done.

You've hypothesized, absent facts and indicated that since there are no facts discernable, that your hypothesis is valid.
That's not acceptable.   You have no proof of CBM's involvement, not one scintilla of concrete evidence, yet you conclude that he was involved to the degree that he deserves respect and credit.   I don't see it, absent any facts.[/color]

Why not just give these men the respect they deserve by believing that they meant what they said?  Unless there is compelling evidence that they did not did not mean what they said, I think we at least owe them that.  

Because, not only is there NO compelling evidence of their involvement, there's absolutely NO concrete, specific evidence of their involvement[/color]

Without specific identification, qualification and quantification I don't see how you can champion CBM's involvement with Merion.

Because I have absolutely no reason to believe that these men were being less than honest when they wrote about CBM's influence and involvement.  

But, there's nothing other than vague, nebulous references.
One would think, that if there were anything concrete, that they would have identified it and written about it.  Yet, no such documentations exists.[/color]

As to the issue of a hole being an inspiration versus a template, that has been my point all along.

Then we've been in agreement on this all along.

That is why I objected to the categorization of the 10th hole as an "Alps" hole and the 3rd as a Redan.

I agree with you regarding our modern understandings of these holes.  But the usage back then strongly evidences that sometimes for them, inspiration and some similarity was enough.  

Not really.
When CBM himself indicates that the ESSENTIAL ingredient in a Redan is the tableland tilt, diagonally away from the golfer, and that feature is missing from the 3rd at Merion, you can't homogenize the understanding to be a blend of inspiration and templates.[/color]

This corresponds with a broader theory of mine, which is that I dont think that CBM's work was ever intended to be directly copied (at least outside his design house.)  Rather, I think it was intended to teach and inspire.

I think .......... neither.
I think CBM's work was intended to be a Masterpiece from the get go, the benchmark or gold standard for Architecture in America.

His ego, his standing in American golf demanded that he create a golf course to be admired, if not worshiped by golfers near and far.[/color]

I could be wrong about this, but I cant think of anything offhand that makes me think so.  I'll take another look at CBM's book and Bahto's when I get a chance.

I don't know what  you're refering to.[/color]

CBM was so inspired that he crafted two spectacular holes that could be classified as template driven.

 
I agree that they are spectacular holes and also that they could be considered "template driven."   Where I stray is that I do not then assume that those influenced my MacDonald would also build "template driven" holes.  

I don't believe I ever evidenced a position on that subject.
Surely, CBM understood that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"  Certaninly Raynor and Banks, two men influenced by MacDonald built their share of template holes.[/color]

MacDonald had a lot more to offer than merely his predilection for copying great holes.   After all, as you said above, these weren't just copies, they were spectacular golf holes in their own right.    

Initially, I agreed with that statement.
And then I thought of Chris Craft, Prince and other artistes, who, in their time were at the cutting edge of their craft,
only to be left behind in subsequent years as the field or craft moved away from them.  So, perhaps CBM was both the beneficiary and the victim of a unique time warp, that of architecture's early days and evolution in America.

Perhaps CBM's genius was limited, and then again, perhaps it had no bounds.[/color]

If you want to state that Wilson was inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick, while we have no written evidence of his reaction to the two holes, you could make a case that these two holes inspired him to craft the 10th and 3rd holes at Merion, as long as you realize that to do so is to put forth a theory and not a fact.  But, it's a reasonable theory.

Thanks for this Patrick.  All I was trying to do in the hole discussions was put forth a similar theory and see how the theory held up to the evidence, including the contemporary first-hand accounts and the actual physical dimensions and playing characteristics of the holes.

That's not how I understood your early posts.
Perhaps that was due to my lack of understanding or your lack of explanation.  Either way, my read is that it would be hard for anyone to spend 7-8 months studying the great courses/holes of the UK and not be inspired or predisposed when it came to designing golf courses/holes in America.

A solid foundation grounded in two primary styles has to manifest itself in subsequent designs.[/color]  

And, who knows, perhaps the two holes under discussion were mentioned as "Alps" and "Redan" holes because Wilson indicated to someone that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick inspired him, along with other holes when he visited the UK.

This seems likely to have been one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason.  Isnt Tolhurst confirming that "the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan.)"  If so, and if Tolhurst was accurately summarizing his source (I have do reason to doubt this) then the "theory" is correct at least with regard to The Redan, isnt it?


This isn't what I gleened from your early theory/posts.

However, there's no doubt in my mind that calling the referenced holes inspirations for # 3 and # 10 at Merion s in harmony with everything that I've been stating.

It seemed to me, early on, that you and Tom MacWood were stating, unequivically, that the 3rd was a Redan and the 10th an Alps, classifications with which I vigorously disagreed with.

But, I'm certainlyl comfortable with stating that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick could have been inspirations for the 3rd and 10th at Merion[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

On page 68 of Geoff Shackeford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" a picture, circa 1924, of the old abandoned 10th green appears, as does the current green and the 1st green.

Some of the fairway bunkering on # 10 is also visible, but, we don't know if this bunkering is the original bunkering, or bunkering created in conjunction with the new green.

Geoff Shackleford may have incorrectly concluded that the first hole doglegged left in that picture.

The old, and apparently still in use when the picture was taken, 11th tee is clearly visible to the right of the old 10th green.

You can see the abandoned or uncared for fronting bunker complex and the bermed semi-circular feature surrounding the green.

On the next page is a picture of the 9th green, with the landform that forms the 10th, 11th and 12th fairways.
Golfers can be seen walking up the 10th fairway.

While the angle is from the tee at # 9, it would appear that the fairway bunkering on # 10 is introduced where the fairway flattens out.

If one views both photos and makes reasonable interpolations, I think you'll come to that conclusion.

One can also extrapolate some distances since the 9th hole is claimed to be measured at 190 yards.  Unfortunately, the 9th and 10th tees are not visible.

It also appears that the old 10th hole is somewhat of a dogleg, which might explain the references to drives that found the fairway bunkers.

Since the picture on page 68 is circa 1924, we can't tell if the location of the 10th tee, 10th fairway and 10th hole fairway bunkers were realigned to accomodate the new 10th green.

It is also possible that the bunker behind the greenside berm on the old 10th hole might have been intended for play on
# 1, and that the berm itself, may have been intended to protect golfers on the old 10th green from errant approaches to # 1 green.

A bridge like structure can also be seen leading from the right rear of the 9th green, probably to the tee for # 10.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts after they've reviewed these pictures.  

[DMoriarty]

In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.  
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.  
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.

All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it.  It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.

TEPaul,  You are only interested in the truth?   Then I suggest you start with what we know to be true, above.   We know that MacDonald was involved in a number of different aspects of the early design of Merion.   We may never be able to flesh out every aspect of his involvement, but one cannot honestly deny his involvement and influence in numerous areas, including Wilson's early education his trip itenerary, the site, the routing, and as an advisor.  Yours and Mr. Morrison's attempt to diminish and belittle his involvement based on a supposedly incomplete record are purely in bad faith.  
___________________________

Mr.  Morrison, you posted yet another false, misleading, and defamatory post, then deleted it, like so many other of your posts.  You know, if you ever publish your long awaited book, you just can't periodically gather whatever books you might have sold to rip out the chapters and passages where you have been foolish, rude, and/or mistaken.  

[DMoriarty]

You've hypothesized, absent facts and indicated that since there are no facts discernable, that your hypothesis is valid.  

Hypotheszed?   Is it a hypothesis that Wilson said CBM was involved?  That Leslie said CBM was involved?  That Merion said CBM was involved?  That Whigham said CBM was involved?  

It is not.  These are facts; first-hand contemporary accounts from those who were in a position to know best.  Facts do not get much better than that, especially for 95 year old events.

You have no proof of CBM's involvement, not one scintilla of concrete evidence, yet you conclude that he was involved to the degree that he deserves respect and credit.   I don't see it, absent any facts.

Patrick the FACT is that all those people said he was involved in various areas of Merion's early development. What more PROOF could you need than many of the main players telling you he was involved.  

Do you really deny that  FACT?  Do you really think it reasonable to dismiss the words of these men simply because they didnt provide a laundry list of specific influences?      

But, there's nothing other than vague, nebulous references.
One would think, that if there were anything concrete, that they would have identified it and written about it.  Yet, no such documentations exists.

They did write about it, but you dismiss their writings as "vague nebulous references."  

It seemed to me, early on, that you and Tom MacWood were stating, unequivically, that the 3rd was a Redan and the 10th an Alps, classifications with which I vigorously disagreed with.

Patrick, if you really doubt me on this go back and look at my posts.  They are all still there.  I just skimmed a little and found the following statements (with my bold added) . . .
I dont claim that the 10th was an Alps hole.  I merely thought that this blurb was worth posting, and that the description of the 10th green is consistent with the theory that Wilson might have designed the 10th green with the Alps hole (or at least the green of an Alps hole) in mind.
. . .
Patrick, I have never said the hole was an Alps Hole, nor do I have any interest in getting into a purely definitional debate.
. . .
NOTE:  I am NOT saying that No. 10 at Merion East was an Alps hole, or that it was meant to be an alps hole.
. . .
Where did I conclude [that it was an Alps hole]?  I dont recall concluding any such thing.

As you can see, while you and others thought I was saying that it was an Alps hole, this was not what I was saying at all.  Same goes for Merion's third.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, I understand the point your trying to make using Merion West.  I just dont agree with it.  Nor to I think it is germaine to this discussion.   Aren't we talking about CBM's involvement and influence in the initial creation of Merion East?  

and possibly some additional communications now and again which could have truly been anything from agronomic issues, to strategy, to routing, to "how's the wife and kids?".

Why do you downplay these communications like this?  Do you really think that these conversations were about the wife and kids?  If the participants thought them important enough to note, when why do you try to diminish them?

As for your two scenarios, I dont think either one is any more than continued pop-psychology.    I'd rather stick to what we know.  These guys all acknowledged CBM's influence in certain areas of the creation of the course.   Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, this by itself proves that he had influence in these areas.   One does not need a laundry list of specific influences to see the truth in this.  
_____________________

Mike, you have been ignoring my questions.  You asked me to show you a post where Morrison or TEPaul discounted and rejected MacDonald's involvement and influence (after the initial visit.)  I did.  If Mr. Morrison handnt  deleted his latest salvo, we'd have yet another example.

Do you still believe that these guys are NOT discarding the evidence of MacDonald's involvement and influence after the NGLA visit?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Sheesh, David...

Yes, Macdonald was involved and the account you cite are irrefutable.

Yet, they also point out to me exactly what his involvement was.   The fact that the accounts of the time are so vague, so thin, so vaporish, at a time when there was tons of press about the course, at a time when Macdonald and Whigham were writing regularly boasting about the holes and concepts and courses they brought to America.   I think the fact that such pale descriptions were brought forth is completely reflective of the reality of his involvement.

Which is...according to the records;

1) Showing Wilson around NGLA for two days, and discussing in detail with him the concepts of the best holes in the world at the time.
2) Helping Wilson with his itinerary for his forthcoming EIGHT month trip and suggesting the best courses to visit and best holes to see.
3) At least one documented site visit after Wilson's return
4) One written account, mentioned years later in the Merion history book, that Wilson was grateful to Macdonald for his help in overcoming problems in "laying out A golf course".

David...I'm sorry to say but that's about IT for concrete evidence of Macdonald's involvement.   We can speculate that this hole was inspired by an ALps or this hole was inspired by a redan, but the statistical odds are that this was simply due to Wilson's months of study abroad, and not due to direct influence from Macdonald, but only peripherally due to his suggestions of where to visit.

Does it really make sense on any level whatsoever that if Macdonald was fully and intimately involved in the creation of the East course, and that Macdonald had a key and critical role in the conception, design, and construction of that course that Wilson and company would completely excluse him a few months later when they started the West course?   That's totally ridiculous, on the face of it.  It's so far from reality as to be farcical.

I know you think I'm being demeaning to the ongoing communications between these two men when I suggested that it might be as simple as "how's the wife and kids?", but I'm totally serious.   Macdonald kept some pretty fastidious records on his involvement in course building, yet none of them exist for Merion.   He wrote extensively about his work in architecture, yet there isn't a single mention by him of anything he did for Merion.   He was the preeminent man in golf in America during this time, yet his role was recorded as "advisor", which is basically equivalent to me as similar to when someone like Jim Furyk is listed as "advisor" to the St. Annes course being built currently in Delaware.

That includes a few site visits, probably some general design input on a few holes, and a bit of PR.   Other than that, the real work is done by others.

Jeez guys...if the original course at Merion looked anything like Piping Rock, or Sleepy Hollow, or NGLA, or Chicago, or anything else by CB at the time, I can understand that you feel that perhaps Macdonald didn't get appropriate credit.   But, the lack of real template holes, the introduction of completely new hole concepts using the existing land, the construction techniques that largely eschewed the more geometric and formalized structures that Macdonald favored all seem to support my position that Macdonald's role was minimal, at best, once Wilson returned from his eight month visit to Great Britain.

Finally...I'm really not interested in the argument between you and Wayne, and I've tried to keep my discussion points between us.   Although it's obvious that there is some acrimony between the two of you, I don't think he's attempted to minimize any role of Macdonald's that can be clearly documented.  

I think...similar to me, that what he's questioning is some seeming exaggeration or speculative magnification and expansion of Macdonald's role without something beyond those clear facts that I detailed above.

[DMoriarty]

Sheesh Mike,

In 1914 Lesley authored what appears to be a carefully written article simply titled "The Merion Courses."  After a brief introduction about the state of American golf, he addresses what would become known as Merion East, and gives credit for the creation of the course to nature for the "land found suited for golf," to Wilson and his committee for laying out the course, and to MacDonald and Whigham for advising them regarding laying out the course:

The ground was found adapted for golf and a
course was laid out upon it about three years ago by
the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman,
R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr.
Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B.
Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

Wasn't Lesley the long time chairman of Merion's green committee?  Wasn't he also a very knowledgeable and influential member of Philadelphia's golfing community?  The president of the regional golfing  organization?  Intimately involved with all things Merion?

Wasn't Leslie in a better position than anyone to determine whether MacDonald contributed enough to deserve credit as an advisor, as Leslie says, in laying out the course?  

Yet we ought to ignore Lesley because he did not provide us with a laundry list of what specifically CBM advised and what, specificially, of that advice was followed?

The arrogance in this revisionist position is overwhelming.  

I don't think [Mr. Morrison has] attempted to minimize any role of Macdonald's that can be clearly documented.

He claims that no information exists other than the initial NGLA visit.  Hard to imagine how he could minimize CBMs role any more.  I guess he could deny that CBM ever existed.  

I think...similar to me, that what he's questioning is some seeming exaggeration or speculative magnification and expansion of Macdonald's role without something beyond those clear facts that I detailed above.

Show me where I have exaggerated or expanded CBM's role?  

There is ample evidence from the best sources imaginable that CBM was involved and had an inluence.   The lack of a laundry list of specific influence does not change or diminish this in any way.  One need not completely the laundry list to accept the involvement and influence.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sheesh Mike,

The ground was found adapted for golf and a
course was laid out upon it about three years ago by
the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman,
R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr.
Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B.
Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

David,

I think this paragraph says it all and is very, very illuminating.

Let's say me, you, Tom Macwood, Tom Paul, and Wayne Morrison were in a club together and none of us had ever laid out a golf course before.    However, our wacky members decided that they would throw the five of us to the task of building them a new course for the burgeoning membership.  

Let's also say that the year is 1912 and knowledge about golf in this country is pretty dismal.   However, there's this guy Charley Macdonald who has been a driving force in building the game here, and has recently completed a course that was hailed as not only the best in the United States, but comparable to the best in the Old Country, the home of golf.

And let's say our Membership is wealthy and influential and has some connections to old Charlie, so they appoint one David Moriarty, who has some free time and hasn't been all the healthy lately to go overseas for the next half year or so and learn everything that he can about what makes the great courses and great holes great.   Oh, and by the way, you should probably stop on your way and visit with this Macdonald guy who is the biggest name in golf in the country.

You return, we build the courses, etc., and now our Greens Chairman is writing an article for National consumption in the biggest golf publication in the country in honor of our course being selected to host the biggest tournament in the country and he's going to describe how our courses were built.   And let's see...he can spotlight what you, me, MacWood, Paul, and Morrison did, or he can attempt to illuminate it with the shining star of golf in the country at the time.   Which would be more impressive had Charles Macdonald played any type of major role whatsoever in the building of the course..hmmm

"With the expert advisement and ongoing counsel of the father of the National Links and former US Amateur champion, Charles Blair Macdonald (with his assistant HJ Whigham) the grounds at Merion were first approved by Macdonald as suitable land for golf, and a course was then laid out, assisted ably by the internal Merion committee of David Moriarty, Mike Cirba, Tom MacWood, Tom Paul, and Wayne Morrison.  

If Macdonald had played any type of ongoing role in the design or construction, he certainly would have gotten top billing David.   Why would the article focus top billing attention on a bunch of unknowns like us if Macdonald was what you and Tom say he was and deserves some type of credit that the whole golf world is conspiring to deny him some 90 years later?

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Isn't it possible that the differences between the West and East is mostly attributable to the two different men that built the two courses for the committee overseen by Wilson?  

It seems pretty clear to me that Flynn had an impact on the aesthetic of the West and the redesigned East. I'm not familar with Pickerings aesthetic. Macdonald's aesthetic is well documented.

As far as the use of famous holes or famous features, thats a Macdonald trademark and logically it makes sense to point to his advising at one course and not the other.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.  
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.  
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.


Define "Involved"

How is it that five seperate parties can't point to one single example of HOW he was involved ?

There's not one reference, not one description of anything specific that CBM is alleged to have helped with.  How can that be possible ?  Surely CBM's ego would have demanded credit and/or accolades for feature specific items he helped with.   Yet, noone can find a single example of a single item that CBM is credited with bringing to the table..

That would lead me to believe that his role might have been that of a cheerleader, or casual observer.[/color]

All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it.  

No, it doesn't.
Absent concrete, specific feature ideas that he brought to the table, his role remains distantly tangential or spectator like in natue.[/color]

It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.

No it's not.

Don't you think it's odd that all these people who say that CBM was involved, never define, identify, quantify and qualify his invovlement ?   How is it possible that from five seperate parties there's not one single reference to anything he might have done ?  There's not one single thank you for suggesting one idea, one concept or one feature.

How do you account for that when the written word was
THE method of communication and the method for diseminating the news in those days, and yet, there's NOT one written word identifying ANY possible imput he may have had

I believe that his involvement may have been ceremonial.
and NOT DIRECTLY related to the architecture of the golf course.

But, until someone produces FACTUAL EVIDENCE of his specific involvement, his roll would seem to be that of a cheerleader and/or ceremonial in nature

If there's no smoke, it's doubtful there's a fire.[/color]

[Doug Braunsdorf]

In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.  
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.  
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.

All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it.  It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.

 

David,

  Would you please come forward with exactly what MacDonald's level of involvement was once and for all, instead of hiding behind various quotes?