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

[T_MacWood]

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.

You can add William Evans (Golfer Magazine), Hazard (aka Tilly) and Far & Sure (aka Travis) to the list of those who said CBM was involved.
 

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?  


No one knows precisely. No one knows precisely what Hugh Wilson did either. Why would you demand details on Macdonald's involvement when noone can give you details on Wilson's involvement?

[Mike_Cirba]

No, Tom, but we know clearly that less than a year after the opening of the East course, the club and membership thought enough of Wilson's experience and success in laying out the East course that they confidently asked him to go and lay out and build their next "championship course" the West, as well.

They did not ask Charlie back, despite the vast unknown contributions that you and David imply he made to the East.  

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?

Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for? No. No one can.

Wilson had experience, he had one course under his belt when he began designing the West and redesigning the East (and designing other courses). No need for M&W's experience.

Personally based on the fact that Wilson never incorporated templates again and significantly altered the East (including removal of the template features and softening the sharp edges) I don't think Wilson was all that crazy about the Macdonald model.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?

Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for?

Tom,

Unless Wilson and the committee were part of building the original course at Haverford, probably none, similar to Crump, Fownes, Leeds, et.al. when they built their first course.  At that point , how many courses had Macdonald layed out and built, 2 or 3?  They were all neophytes to the process and learning as they went.   I think it's fair to say that since Wilson was responsible and charged with leading the committee, he was ultimately responsible for holes 1-18, and ALL of the features that were built on the original Merion course, and there's no reason at all to suspect that wasn't the factual truth.  

Tom, if the members of Merion were not going to utilize Hugh Wilson to lay out the new course, why would they have sent him overseas for eight months in the first place?  Why did he create fastidious, detailed drawings of all the famous holes if he was just going to come back and rely on Macdonald anyway?  

Why wouldn't they just have asked Macdonald to come and lay out a course for them?   Why delay the much-needed project for almost a year while Wilson was going to golf school overseas for 8 months?

If Macdonald had some major, or even significantly relevant role in the success of the holes on the East course, why blow him off entirely when the West was built?  Why, if Wilson didn't design the East course, would the membership have the confidence in him to go and do the West course within the year?  It defies all logic and reason, Tom.

Or, were the mentions of Macdonald's involvement by the folks you mention just a courteous tip of the cap to the Father of American golf for helping them set the proper direction and for assisting Wilson with the tour of NGLA, help with the overseas itinerary, a site visit to inspect Wilson and the committee's progress, and probably some overall "advice" regarding construction techniques and agronomy?

Tom, the failure of Macdonald himself to claim any responsibility for the success of the East course or any of the architectural features there is rather telling, don't you think?   He was anything but a shrinking violet and was one of the biggest self-promoters in the history of the game.

Rather than imply Macdonald's direct involvement with your question, Tom, perhaps you should tell us what holes or features on the original Merion course that Macdonald was responsible for and should now be given just credit for lo these 90 years later?

[JESII]

Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?

Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for? No. No one can.

Wilson had experience, he had one course under his belt when he began designing the West and redesigning the East (and designing other courses). No need for M&W's experience.

Personally based on the fact that Wilson never incorporated templates again and significantly altered the East (including removal of the template features and softening the sharp edges) I don't think Wilson was all that crazy about the Macdonald model.

Sort of flies in the face of your running retort to the question asking for evidence as to CBM's fingerprints, don't you think?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

If you don't know what he did, in general or specifically, how do you KNOW that he did anything, specifically.

Let's not try to muddle the issue by asking what Wilson did or didn't do.

We could do that with C&C and Tom Doak on some of their projects and not know the answer unless they provided the answer.

So, let's stick to the subject.

If there is absolutely NO record of CBM doing anything at Merion, how can you say that he was involved in the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?

And, if there were discussions amongst the parties, absent detailed information, you can't assume that CBM gave specific, detailed advice prior to the routing, design and construction of the golf course.

For all we know, he may have merely provided his blessings on things already planned or completed.

But, you can't conclude that he did anything absent concrete evidence that reveals same.

P.S.  I love CBM, so it's not as if I'm trying to take a shot at
        him

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?

Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for?

Tom,

Unless Wilson and the committee were part of building the original course at Haverford, probably none, similar to Crump, Fownes, Leeds, et.al. when they built their first course. At that point , how many courses had Macdonald layed out and built, 2 or 3?  They were all neophytes to the process and learning as they went.   I think it's fair to say that since Wilson was responsible and charged with leading the committee, he was ultimately responsible for holes 1-18, and ALL of the features that were built on the original Merion course, and there's no reason at all to suspect that wasn't the factual truth.  

Crump hired Colt. It took years of design and redesign for Oakmont & Myopia Hunt to become great courses. The Merion course was praised the day it opened.

Macdonald had designed and built Belmont, Chicago, NGLA, Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow (and was working on St. Louis & Greenbrier). Neophyte? The NGLA project alone would have put him beyond the tag. I think it could be argued he was the premier golf architect in N.America at the time.

It seems like there is double standard of proof when it comes to Wilson and Macdonald.

Tom, if the members of Merion were not going to utilize Hugh Wilson to lay out the new course, why would they have sent him overseas for eight months in the first place?  Why did he create fastidious, detailed drawings of all the famous holes if he was just going to come back and rely on Macdonald anyway?

Who said that Wilson would not be involved in laying out the new course?  

Why wouldn't they just have asked Macdonald to come and lay out a course for them?   Why delay the much-needed project for almost a year while Wilson was going to golf school overseas for 8 months?

I have no idea if they did or didn't ask Macdonald. I do know Macdonald had a lot of irons in the fire at the time.

If Macdonald had some major, or even significantly relevant role in the success of the holes on the East course, why blow him off entirely when the West was built?  Why, if Wilson didn't design the East course, would the membership have the confidence in him to go and do the West course within the year?  It defies all logic and reason, Tom.

I answered that in my last post.

Or, were the mentions of Macdonald's involvement by the folks you mention just a courteous tip of the cap to the Father of American golf for helping them set the proper direction and for assisting Wilson with the tour of NGLA, help with the overseas itinerary, a site visit to inspect Wilson and the committee's progress, and probably some overall "advice" regarding construction techniques and agronomy?

This sounds a bit like the reasoning given at one time for Colt's hire at PV....all window dressing. Interesting theory: A committee made up of men who had never laid out or built a golf course bring in the finest golf architect in America so they can use his famous name, his construction and agronomy expertise, but not his design talent.

Tom, the failure of Macdonald himself to claim any responsibility for the success of the East course or any of the architectural features there is rather telling, don't you think?   He was anything but a shrinking violet and was one of the biggest self-promoters in the history of the game.

I don't think so. He never mentioned his advising at Greenwich or East Lake or Women's National or Shinnecock Hills. The fact that Merion had been completely redesigned may have also been factor. Whigham had no problem mentioning it however.

Rather than imply Macdonald's direct involvement with your question, Tom, perhaps you should tell us what holes or features on the original Merion course that Macdonald was responsible for and should now be given just credit for lo these 90 years later?

If one was to use the standard of proof you used to say Wilson was responsible for all the holes one could easily say M&W were at least responsible for the Alps, Eden, Redan and PN.

[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.

You can add William Evans (Golfer Magazine), Hazard (aka Tilly) and Far & Sure (aka Travis) to the list of those who said CBM was involved.
 

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?  


No one knows precisely. No one knows precisely what Hugh Wilson did either. Why would you demand details on Macdonald's involvement when noone can give you details on Wilson's involvement?

Tom MacWood,

I would not ask for details about Wilson's involvement because we're not talking about Wilson here, we're talking about C.B. MacDonald and his level of involvement.  Let's stick to the original subject and not side-track.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I love Macdonald & Raynor....NGLA is one of my very favorite 3 courses.   I love Fisher's Island, MidOcean, Yale..et.al.  Their stuff is cool and superb.

I really have no horse in this race, and if Macdonald had an active design hand in the origin of Merion that would be a great thing.   Why would anyone, or any club, shy from that fact if he deserved due credit?   That would be nothing short of stupid.

I also have great respect for your research skills and I often agree with your extrapolations in trying to connect the dots.  However, I truly do not see any validity in what you're asserting here.   The course at Merion...the original one, or the revised one..has so little in common with Macdonald's trademark templates, and stylistics as to be Venus and Mars.   Trying to stretch holes like the 3rd into anything Macdonald ever built as a redan is absurd, Tom.   What about the other completely original 16 holes?  

There is no way that CB Macdonald designed this golf course, or even a hole or two Tom.   Not a chance.

[T_MacWood]

IMO this thread has been plagued by over-reaching and overreaction. The suggestion that Macdonald & Whigham advised (which was widely reported at the time) seems to be enterpted as claiming Macdonald designed the course and Wilson did not. Understandibly there is a strong emotional attachement to both Wilson and Merion. Add to this the fact that the Wilson/Flynn perfected version of the course is really the antithesis of Macdonald, and it makes the suggestion he was involved incomprehensible.

[DMoriarty]

I agree.  This is not a zero sum game.  Noone is trying to take anything away from Wilson.   Noone is claiming that MacDonald deserves design credit.

In my opinion this over-reaching is an attempt to hold together a fundamentally flawed analysis.  Their "proof" is as follows:

Fact 1:           MacDonald built copies of templates at NGLA and his other courses.
Fact 2:           There is no evidence that any copies were built at Merion East.
Reasoning:  Had MacDonald designed Merion East, there would be copies at Merion East, like at CBM's other courses.
Conclusion: Therefore, MacDonald didn't design Merion East.

The problem is, no one has claimed that MacDonald designed Merion East.  But the proponents of this theory nonetheless repeatedly turn to this same analysis, inevitably substituting "designed Merion East" instead of sticking with the more accurate terms like "advised" and "influenced."  Moreover, when the propenents of the proof stick to the actual issue in question, their "proof" immediately implodes.

They substitute in "design" it is at least logical to conclude that the absence of copies at Merion proves MacDonald did not design Merion East.  More importantly, it is illogical to conclude that the absence of copies at Merion proves MacDonald was neither an advisor or an influence.

For example if we examine the issue of whether MacDonald was an advisor, the proof fails.  The Reasoning is illogical, so the conclusion is necessarily illogical as well.

Fact 1:        MacDonald built copies of templates at NGLA and his other courses.
Fact 2:        There is no evidence that any copies were built at Merion East.
Reasoning:  Had MacDonald acted as an advisor to those who designed Merion East, there would be copies at Merion East, like at CBM's other courses.
Conclusion: Therefore, MacDonald didn't act as an advisor to those who designed Merion East.

It just doesnt make sense.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom/David,

There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Macdonald advised Wilson.  

We know he advised him on the fundamentals of strategic design during the tour of NGLA prior to Wilson's trip abroad.

We know he advised him which courses to see and which holes to note while overseas.

We know he advised him in some way during a site visit, which could have been anything from a perfunctory overview to a thorough examination, but we don't know.

We know that Macdonald advised him on how to overcome problems in "the laying out of a golf course", but we're not sure exactly whether that related to Merion East, or in more hypothetical, philosophical terms.

It think it is very reasonable to assume that Macdonald also advised Wilson about agronomy, construction techniques, irrigation, and the unglamorous stuff beneath the skin.   We don't know whether he did this during the NGLA visit, or anytime thereafter.

Unfortunately, that's all we know.  There is no written record anywhere that details their relationship and whether it sort of dried up shortly after construction began or continued throughout the process.   My strong suspicion, which is based on the lack of template holes, the fact that Macdonald was long gone by the time design and construction of the West course began less than 18 months after the East got underway (built in 6 months) is that Macdonald's role was one of rapidly diminishing returns.  

It's unrealistic to say that Macdonald didn't have an influence on the original course at Merion East, but the question is really how big an influence.

I think it was a close relationship at first that dwindled after work began and Wilson and company got their feet wet.   I think that is consistent with the actions of all involved, as well as what's documented.

You two seem to be arguing for some greater degree of involvement and influence than what the historical record indicates, but that's precisely where you have no additional documented evidence to back your assertions.

Thus, we've spent a lot of this debate arguing precisely this point.   You say he had a great influence on the first course, while I say he had a great influence on getting them started, but then Merion largely went off on their own.

Until we find additional documentation from either of these two men, I think that's where we'll leave it.

[JESII]

Tom MacWood,

I don't think anyone on this side of the table thinks you or David are suggesting that CBM designed Merion and should get credit for it. The problem I have is that you want to assign an arbitrary amount of credit to him for work we don't know he did.

This is why David's GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT request got the reaction it did out of me. To be "generous" in this regard is to take something away from Wilson and his committee. In my view they (Merion committee) have been "generous" with recognition to CBM's role. Surely you are not suggesting that he did work and the Merion committee swept it under the rug?

Based on the apparent deterioration of the relationship between CBM and the Merion committee, why wouldn't CBM make every point to make his contributions known?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

The first problem is that our resident Merion "experts" still deny the validity of even the list you posted.  They deny any influence or involvement beyond Wilson's initial visit to NGLA, and they have even downplayed that involvement.  They also claim that almost every bit of credit needs to stay with the men who were in Philadelphia working in the course.  This is hardly an honest assessment of the historical record.

And with all due respect, even you have waffled back and forth between acknowledging CBM's continued involvement and influence, and downplaying this involvement.  For instance, in your post above you try to attach special influence to the order in which Lesley credits the committee and MacDonald & Whigham, stretching to try to make the point that if MacDonald had really been a significant advisor or influence he would have been given top billing!  But if we review your old posts, we see that you have also argued that Lesley only mentioned MacDonald to use a big name to hype his new course.   MacDonald was included to hype the course, but wasnt given high enough building to really have had much involvement or influence?  That sort of creative interpretation would put even the neocons to shame.

Even in acknowledging the record in your last thread,  you stretch to diminish its significance:  Do you really think you are being entirely genuine when you claim that "we don't know exactly whether that related to Merion East, or in more hypothetical, philosophical terms." ??

The second problem is that you keep misrepresenting Tom's position and my position.  We aren't arguing for some greater degree of influence that the historical record indicates.  Rather, we simply want to give the historical record its due.  

Men like Lesley were in a much better position to judge MacDonald's level of involvement than we are, and if he thought that MacDonald deserved credit for advising about the layout of the course, then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we should give it to him.  And you guys ought to quit stretching so hard and far to take that credit away from him.
__________________________

JES,  

I don't want to give MacDonald credit for any specific work without evidence that he did that work.   But I do want to acknowledge him at least to the extent that Lesley, Wilson, and the others did.  

As for my term "generousity of spirit,"  I don't quite understand why that rankles you and Mr. Stamm, but I hate to see it as a sticking point in what could be an otherwise productive discussion.  I was simply looking for a phrase which captured the essense of Geoffrey Shackelford's approach to George Thomas'sinfluences in Geoff's book, "The Captain."   My point was simply to contrast Geoff's approach to that of our resident Merion "experts"  which seems to be a much less genuine and productive approach.  But if you think it grossly twists my position to one of 'giving credit where no credit is due,' then I'd be glad to try and put it in other terms.  

Our resident Merion "experts" have come into this discussion with a strong home-course bias, and have been unreasonably reluctant to accept any facts which give any credit to anyone outside of a small circle of Merion men.  They have been unwilling to even consider (much less accept) even the most obvious and factual disagreement.  

An example of their parsimonious, grudging, avaricious, and petty approach to this matter?  Mr. Morrison's continued unwillingness to accept the fact that 1930 measurements (or estimates) of B. Jones drives on the 10th hole were wrong by 40 yards, (or 20 yards if the same source had the tees wrong.)  As recently as yesterday he denied the correct measure of the distances, deleting his thread shortly thereafter.  

Now except for the fact that his understanding of how far (in yards) drives flew on this hole was based on the Jones measures, I have no idea why such a minor issue is of such importance to him that he would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge overwhelming evidence.  But unfortunately, this is indicative of his approach to this entire matter.  
If someone is so set in their position that they will not even consider evidence as factual and objective as a straight line measurement of a golf shot, then how are they to genuinely consider general evidence of something they are completely predisposed to reject, like CBM's influence?

As far as I know, Leslie and the committee at the time were completely fair to MacDonald when the acknowledged his involvement in Merion East.  I will continue to believe this unless and until some concrete evidence to the contrary is unearthed.  
But I will not sweep these acknowledgements under the rug based on illogical analysis and pure speculation and pathologizing.   That is exactly what TEPaul, Mr. Morrison, and others (including even Mike Cirba,some of the time) are trying to do.  

I hope this helps clear up my position, and Wayne's to the extent that it agrees with mine.

[David Stamm]

 Mr. Stamm,  

David, it's David Stamm. Mr. Stamm is my father.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm not going to battle you to have the last word here.  Instead, let me just clarify a point and then you can have the floor unimpeded.  

I've never said that Macdonald wasn't an influence on Wilson; that would be preposterous when Wilson himself told of visiting Charlie prior to his trip overseas, and it's also recorded that Macdonald gave him a tour of NGLA, discussed architecture into the night, and advised on his trip overseas.

I also never said that Macdonald was brought on to "hype" the course.   Macdonald's role, and Merion's immediate acknowledgement of Macdonald's role, were helpful in getting the project off on the right track, and Merion gratefully acknowledged that influence in a number of ways, although always in very general terms (which I believe is rather telling).

However, once Wilson returned after his 8 months stay studying numerous courses and holes overseas, we know of a single documented site visit by Macdonald, the nature, duration, and purpose of which is unknown.  

We also know that in a history book years later, the author quoted WIlson as saying that Macdonald was helpful in "problems presented in laying out A course", which may have referred to construction, agronomy, strategy, routing, or any and/or all of the above.   We don't know what that means honestly, David, do we?

We also know that 2 of the 18 holes at Merion had nicknames familiar as famous holes.   We also know that Travis said the 15th green was copied after the Eden green.  But, do we know where Wilson would have been inspired to do his own spin on those features; the two days with Macdonald or the eight months overseas studying and sketching??

So, you have the floor, but I'd like for you to tell us specifically what you think Macdonald did for Merion after the time that Wilson returned from overseas.

If we are missing some huge piece of the "puzzle" that hasn't been properly acknowledged and documented by historians and accounts of the time, and Wilson's letters, and Merion's archives, and Charles Macdonalds files, and Macdonald and Whigham's articles, then please lay out specifically what we missed.

Let's hear it.   The floor is yours, you have the last word in this matter, and I'll only rebut if you ask me to.

What did Macdonald do specifically after Wilson's return from Great Britain, and what was the great unacknowledged contribution that he made to the design, layout, features, and construction of the Merion East golf course?

[JESII]

David Moriarty,

I appreciate your patient approach to this subject, and you really have been patient.

Here's the deal. Wayne and Tom have put alot of time and energy into the study of Merion. Rightfully so, they are passionate about the place. They have also discovered a great deal of information about William Flynn's involvement as the course(s) and club evolved over it's first 20 or so years. You start a thread that in essence throws mud in the face of the Merion membership. And you do so as speculation hoping to start a discussion. You may not see it this way, but when you speculate that CBM was more involved in the earliest years of Merion East than he is or was given credit for you are insulting Merion's membership. Merion, more than any club I am familiar with, embraces it's history and traditions (and justifiably so) to the fullest degree. You make these accusations because you have brief footnotes recognizing his advisory role and written snippets of hole characteristics that resemble some of what he (CBM) was doing. You need more than that.

I know you may view my position on this as opposite yours, but it really is not. I have nothing invested in Merion. I just don't think you can take the "evidence" you and TM have put forward to mean CBM deserves more credit than has been granted. When you take TEP's and Wayne's words about not giving credit to CBM for anything on the ground at Merion as "sweeping his influence under the rug" I can see why. I can confidently say that what they mean is that until something specific is produced how could you possibly assign anything to him. You must admit that the terms "advisor" and "approval of the grounds" are pretty vague to assign credit to.

I'll be honest with you, my last few posts are my honest objective (I hope, it feels objective) opinion on the likely scenario. CBM lent tremendous insight into the process of developing a golf course during the NGLA visit. He also made strong declarations as to the holes to study and implement. This made a strong impression on Wilson and helped him in his design process. CBM visited the site and admirably kept to himself (or at the very least did not overstep his bounds).

Truthfully, while it is speculation, it seems pretty safe and fitting each groups perspectives to a tee.

Possible?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I think that's a very accurate and objective assessment and summation.  Thanks for saying it much more concisely than my verbose attempts.

All,

I see this thread has the 2nd highest number of posts in the history of GCA.   However, it is not even in the Top 10 of the "most viewed" threads.

Is that how one defines a circle jerk?  

[JESII]

Mike,

In theory, everyone leaves a circle jerk satisfied...

[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.  

[JESII]

Pat,

Are you feeling slighted by that post not driving any conversation yesterday?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Are you feeling slighted by that post not driving any conversation yesterday?

JES II,

Not at all.

I am however, shocked that those who posted so ardently, chose to ignore vital pieces of factual evidence.

[JESII]

I think we've settled the template issues with the nuanced explanation that the 3rd and 10th were inspired by the originals (possibly due to CBM's influence) as opposed to copies of.

[ed_getka]

"In disputes we like to see the clash of opinions, but not at all to contemplate truth when found." Pascal

[T_MacWood]

For a course as famous as Merion its amazing that so little is known about its early development. Twenty pages later and we still have no idea what Wilson or Macdonald contributed. Hopefully some bright researchers will uncover the true story.