[Mike_Cirba]

David Stamm,

The humorous thing is that earlier today Tommy Naccarato suggested that we were learning nothing new here and and that somebody should "put a gun to the head of this thread".  

Little did we know then that;

1) We all would learn, or at least confirm without a shadow of doubt that the urban legend that Hugh Wilson was the  designer of Merion East is completely true.

and

2) The gun that was put to the head was to the theory advanced in this thread that CB Macdonald had some major role in the design of Merion East.  That one should be laying dead in the gutter by this juncture.  

[David Stamm]

David Stamm,

The humorous thing is that earlier today Tommy Naccarato suggested that we were learning nothing new here and and that somebody should "put a gun to the head of this thread".  

Little did we know then that;

1) We all would learn, or at least confirm without a shadow of doubt that the urban legend that Hugh Wilson was the  designer of Merion East is completely true.

and

2) The gun that was put to the head was to the theory advanced in this thread that CB Macdonald had some major role in the design of Merion East.  That one should be laying dead in the gutter by this juncture.  

Mike, I completely concur. I should've remembered a rule in my relationship with my wife, who is Italian, "Listen to the Itlalian and I'll save myself alot of trouble." Paisan was right!!

[David Stamm]

"I always considered Hugh Wilson, of Merion, Pennsylvania, as one of our best architects, professional or amateur. He taught me many things at Merion and Philadelphia Municipal; and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them. He was a loyal friend and a fine golfer. Alas he did not live for his family, his friends and his golf."
George Thomas

That's funny, if Macdonald/Raynor designed Merion (according to Whigam ) I wonder why an original Philadelphian, George Thomas, who some consider one of the very best architects ever, said such things about Hugh Wilson and Wilson and Merion?  

OH, please note that Thomas himself said Wilson "advised" HIM on his first California courses. Does this mean to David Moriarty that Hugh Wilson was INVOLVED and perhaps needs a good deal of design credit for Riviera and some of Thomas's California courses? Thomas himself said Wilson ADVISED him on his first California courses so what do you think about that Moriarty and MacFudd?

Tom, didn't I bring this up a couple of pages ago?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Your kicking a dead corpse.  Have a read of page 22 and you'll see that Philip Young pretty much drove a stake through the heart of the Macdonald "puzzle".  

If it rises again, I suggest we get together for an exorcism.  

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul,

Your kicking a dead corpse.  Have a read of page 22 and you'll see that Philip Young pretty much drove a stake through the heart of the Macdonald "puzzle".  

If it rises again, I suggest we get together for an exorcism.  

Before you gentlemen start a Philadelphia earthquake with all this patting yourselves on the back, you may want to step back and consider just what it is that you have proven . . .

. . .That Wilson was the designer and should be credited as such?   No one here has claimed that anyone but Wilson deserves design credit for Merion East.  I have said this so many times I am thinking of making it the tagline under my name.  

. . . That Raynor and MacDonald do not deserve design credit for Merion East? Again this is not only conceded, it has never been a serious issue.  

In the end, this was yet another insertion of the issue of “design credit” back into the discussion.   But design credit is never been at issue.  Wilson designed the course.    

Nonetheless, I found the articles interesting,  Thank you Phillip for posting the articles, it is nice to delve back into evidence again, even if it is beside the point of contention.

Smoking guns?  Maybe, but you guys are again fighting the wrong war.  

[T_MacWood]

Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.

Tom,

I find that claim incredibly curious.   He didn't just say that he and Macdonald "advised", but goes so far as to claim it's a "Macdonald/Raynor course", and give it top billing, citing it ahead of Lido and Yale!

The courses were listed in chronological order.

And, this wasn't early in the process.   He makes this claim fully 27 years after the course was built; after the 1916 Amateur, the 1930 Am, the 34 US Open.   At the time Merion was certainly in the Top 5 or 10 courses in the country, and had been since almost its inception.

This is after the Wilson/Flynn redesign in the 20s, a fact that Whigham HAD to be aware of.

At what stage in the evolution of Merion did it become generally acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was the original designer of Merion East?   Why would Whigham have completely discounted Wilson's role at the time of Macdonald's death?  

Merion was certainly an important course in 1939, but it was also an important course in 1912. The great Lido was a shadow if its former self in 1939 too. Despite Merion's subsequent redesign and Lido's demise, his accomplishments were his accomplishments, the current state should have no bearing on recognizing his important deeds.

Perhaps I should ask the question a different way;

If Whigham clearly stated/believed that Merion East is a "Macdonald/Raynor course", why is it generally accepted knowledge that Hugh Wilson was the original architect?

You're reading too much into Macdonald-Raynor. That paragraphy is proceeded by severalf paragraphs explaining his design career, and in particular the National. And how his design talents were in such great demand all over the country, that he began passing everything along to Raynor. Whigham uses the term Macdonald/Raynor like we use the term on here, in a general sense. The courses Whigham listed above are all commonly associated with Macdonald.

What is the evidence that points to Wilson?

Is this Bethpage/Burbeck all over again, where years later, a relative comes forward to claim that their father/father-in-law was the actual creator?

I wouldn't compare Whigham to Burbeck's son. Whigham was Macdonald's design partner in those early years. He was an active contributer on many of the courses listed above. He was also one of the important figures in golf, as well as a respected journalist (long time editor-in-chief of Town & Country magazine). To my knowledge Whigham is pretty much unimpeachable. Although I'm certain - in no time - he'll be thrown under the bus with his old friend CB.

[T_MacWood]

"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..." ~~1915

"It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..." ~~1934

For anyone familar with the architectural history of Merion are these comments surprising? Can we point to these comments as proof Macdonald couldn't have been actively involved? I don't think so.

Hugh Wilson began remodeling the East course, pretty much on his own, from 1914 on. He designed the West course. I don't know if he was dictator or not, but obviously he had a fair amount of power, and had a lot in common with Leeds & CB.

And I don't think anyone in 1934 would dispute Wilson was the genius behind both courses (accept maybe Flynn and Wayne...and I'd tend to sympathize with them). The 1912 East had been given a complete face lift and the West was always imprinted with Wilson's name. Both quotes are consistent with what we already knew.

Which brings up an interesting question about Flynn. Has the Wilson mistique made it difficult for Macdonald and/or Flynn to get whatever credit they deserve?

[JESII]

Tom M and David M,

Is there some specific recognition either of you would like to bestow upon CBM for his involvement in Merion East? Acknowldeging his advisory and mentor type relationship with Wilson and his committee do not seem to be enough, what exactly would quench your thirst.....beyond Wayne and Tom stumbling into some demonstration of incompetence, that is...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process.  Is my understanding incorrect ?

I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939.  In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ?  From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint

With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that.  To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?

The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier.  To omit it is intellectually dishonest.

Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ?  That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?

[T_MacWood]

TELL ME, WHAT WAS THE STATE OF DESIGN OF NGLA IN 1910?  IF IT INFLUENCED WILSON (and I'm sure it did) WHAT WAS THE DESIGN ITERATION AT THE TIME OF INFLUENCE?

They had been playing over the course for a year. It had been the subject of at least two major articles. It was considered by some observers to be the finest course in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by design iteration at the time?

What does this has to do with the M&W's level of involvement at Merion.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WILSON REMODELED THE EAST COURSE PRETTY MUCH ON HIS OWN AFTER 1914?  HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DESIGNED THE WEST COURSE.  

There were magazine reports of his redesign activities on the East (Lesley was also involved...making sure the work was carried out). The only information I have on Wilson designing the West comes from the club history...that very well may be wrong.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process.  Is my understanding incorrect ?

In addition to Merion Whigham collaborated at NGLA, Chicago, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Lido.

I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939.  In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ?  From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint

Both.

With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that.  To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?

I wasn't trying to trick you. If you have the Evangelist of Golf you'll find it in there.

The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier.  To omit it is intellectually dishonest.

I'm surprised you haven't read Bahto's Macdonald biography.

Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ?  That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?

Are you thinking conspiracy theory or revisionism? I don't find odd that he would list Macdonald's accomplishments following his death, afterall Macdonald & Whigham's involvement at Merion was widely reported. Why do you find Whigham's mention odd?

[Phil_the_Author]

Why then would his contemporary and good friend, Tilly, state, and this is the quote we both have posted, "It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson..."

That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight.

Also, after requoting the two that I earlier identified, you correctly stated that, "For anyone familar with the architectural history of Merion are these comments surprising? Can we point to these comments as proof Macdonald couldn't have been actively involved? I don't think so..."

Unfoertunately, at least in my opinion, you totally ignore my next post where I quoted Robert White who, "In the December 1914 issue of Golf Illustrated, in the column titled "Our Green Committee Page" he wrote:

"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."

This quote is very important because there has been considerable suppositions as to how involved CBM was in the creation of Merion.

This quote allows that Wilson had "not been adverse to taking advice" and we know that CBM was an advisor. More importantly though, it quite clearly states that Wilson was a "dictator" who unilaterally made decisions and that his work was considered the equal of the best in the country, including CBM.

More importantly though, at the very time the course was designed and built, at least some people (if only White) considered him the EQUAL to CBM because he, just like CBM, had "studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."

It seems only reasonable that M&W's advice and influence was minimal because of this. To illustrate the situation, picture ANGC and a man named Roberts... Now picture Roberts as the man who was put in charge of the design of it... Who in their right mind would actually believe that a "committee" put Roberts in charge?

Likewise, knowing that Wilson was viewed in PRINT as being dictatorial over Merion, something that was a VERY bold statement in those days as laundry of any type, dirty or clean, was rarely aired in public, it is only reasonable to conclude that all final decisions were made by Wilson alone with the "committee" giving approval.

Wilson does not appear to be a man who would take much, if any, advice to heart where Merion was concerned...

[T_MacWood]

TELL ME, WHAT WAS THE STATE OF DESIGN OF NGLA IN 1910?  IF IT INFLUENCED WILSON (and I'm sure it did) WHAT WAS THE DESIGN ITERATION AT THE TIME OF INFLUENCE?

They had been playing over the course for a year. It had been the subject of at least two major articles. It was considered by some observers to be the finest course in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by design iteration at the time?

What does this has to do with the M&W's level of involvement at Merion.

It may have been considered the finest course in the world by some.  But what was it that was considered this finest course?  How close is it to the iteration we see today?  Is the version of today similarly different from the original as it is at Merion?  I'm just trying to get an idea of what exactly this inspiration looked like at the time.  If the original iteration that Macdonald built was the overriding influence on Wilson (you would have us believe that Wilson's 2-day visit and discussions with Macdonald subordinates his 7 month study), then it would be fair and necessary to know what the course was like during the inspiration phase.  Do you know the design iteration in 1910?

Are you asking about the sequence or the iteration?

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WILSON REMODELED THE EAST COURSE PRETTY MUCH ON HIS OWN AFTER 1914?  HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DESIGNED THE WEST COURSE.  

There were magazine reports of his redesign activities on the East (Lesley was also involved...making sure the work was carried out). The only information I have on Wilson designing the West comes from the club history...that very well may be wrong.

Oh, magazine reports.  You mean like magazine reports that attributed the design to Wilson but that you question?  Or different magazine reports?  Is it like the report by Whigham that Merion is a Macdonald/Raynor course (you go onto say that there are extenuating circumstances as to how Whigham made such a statement)  Frankly, you rely on magazine and periodical reports too much.  Your lack of site visits and additional archive information are relevant factors in some of the conflicts we have.

Thanks for the criticism and research advice. I agree archive information is important. Unfortunately in this case neither archival or periodical reports have answered the unanswered questions. Hopefully some bright researcher out there will uncover the info in the future.

Now you say the club history may be wrong, but you stated unequivocally earlier that you know Wilson designed the West course and that Wilson pretty much by himself did all the changes after 1914.  Are you back tracking or changing your mind?  It is hard to differentiate what you say and what you mean.  

I was wrong to rely on the club history. I don't think its that hard...I'm pretty consistent, what I say is what I mean, but I'm not infallible.

What about the Shinnecock Hills club histories that credited Wilson and he wasn't even the construction foreman?  Or the reports that Red Lawrence designed Indian Creek?  Or the 1990 Philadelphia Country Club history that has Harry Colt designing the course and Toomey and Flynn building it?  What do you make of these accounts?  Or Sewells Point being called a Ross when it is a Flynn, or Kittansett a Hood when it is a Flynn?  I'm sure you've seen enough errors in all your readings to be a little more skeptical to uncorroborated claims and vague phrases.  Please be careful that you do not selectively apply different standards depending upon whether or not they support preconceived notions.

Thanks.

[David Stamm]

   They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."

 

I don't, DM, see any mention there about design at all.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I would imagine that even a rudimentary study of "course construction" would also include course design. That is not even considering that his study of "course construction" was to an extent "as it was never studied before..."

And then there is Tilly who recognized that he, "possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture..." and also George Thomas who wrote of his design abilities as well.

It is a reasonable conclusion.

[T_MacWood]

Why then would his contemporary and good friend, Tilly, state, and this is the quote we both have posted, "It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson..."

That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight.

How much do you know about the architectural history of Merion (1911-1925)?

Also, after requoting the two that I earlier identified, you correctly stated that, "For anyone familar with the architectural history of Merion are these comments surprising? Can we point to these comments as proof Macdonald couldn't have been actively involved? I don't think so..."

Unfoertunately, at least in my opinion, you totally ignore my next post where I quoted Robert White who, "In the December 1914 issue of Golf Illustrated, in the column titled "Our Green Committee Page" he wrote:

"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."

First, your quote did not come from Robert White, it came from Max Behr. I'm not ignoring it. I think Wilson had a lot in common with both men, but it doesn't give us any insight into what Macdonald did or didn't do at Merion. Macdonald credited both Whigham and Emmet with assisting in the design of the NGLA. Does this quote clairify the early architectural evolution of the NGLA?

This quote is very important because there has been considerable suppositions as to how involved CBM was in the creation of Merion.

This quote allows that Wilson had "not been adverse to taking advice" and we know that CBM was an advisor. More importantly though, it quite clearly states that Wilson was a "dictator" who unilaterally made decisions and that his work was considered the equal of the best in the country, including CBM.

More importantly though, at the very time the course was designed and built, at least some people (if only White) considered him the EQUAL to CBM because he, just like CBM, had "studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."

It seems only reasonable that M&W's advice and influence was minimal because of this. To illustrate the situation, picture ANGC and a man named Roberts... Now picture Roberts as the man who was put in charge of the design of it... Who in their right mind would actually believe that a "committee" put Roberts in charge?

Likewise, knowing that Wilson was viewed in PRINT as being dictatorial over Merion, something that was a VERY bold statement in those days as laundry of any type, dirty or clean, was rarely aired in public, it is only reasonable to conclude that all final decisions were made by Wilson alone with the "committee" giving approval.

Wilson does not appear to be a man who would take much, if any, advice to heart where Merion was concerned...

Its a nice quote, but I don't see it being all that informative.

[Bryan Izatt]

David M,

Could you clearly answer JES's question?  Or, let me rephrase it.  You said, some pages ago:

"Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson".

Could you clearly lay out for us what, in your mind, constitutes "properly acknowledging".  Clearly you want more acknowledgement than has been given so far.  Could you propose a statement of proper acknowledgement?  It'd help to clarify how far apart the two camps are.  

[T_MacWood]

Bryan
For one thing the East course was completely redesigned by Wilson (and Flynn). Uncovering and crediting who did what on the early version would not alter what ultimately became of the course.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "How much do you know about the architectural history of Merion (1911-1925)?"

Honestly, not very much. Still, what does that possibly have to do with the conclusion that I draw from tillinghast's statemnt? "That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight."

You state, "First, your quote did not come from Robert White, it came from Max Behr..." Are you stating that where Robert White's name is at the end of the article it means he is not the wirter? OK, then Max wrote it...

You continued, "I'm not ignoring it. I think Wilson had a lot in common with both men, but it doesn't give us any insight into what Macdonald did or didn't do at Merion..." To the contrary, it does have a great deal to do with what he did or didn't do at Merion. It is quite obvious from this that Wilson was far more than a person "assigned" to go oversees and come back and report, but rather the man who wanted to go and come back and create on his own terms.

Again, the quote states that all three men mentioned would listen to advice, but it continues that they would sift it and  do as they then wished. This certainly doesn't sound like a man who invites someone to consult and does so with the idea that whatever the consultant says to do he does.

You followed this with, "Macdonald credited both Whigham and Emmet with assisting in the design of the NGLA. Does this quote clairify the early architectural evolution of the NGLA?" It may shed light on NGLA or not; either way, the design of NGLA was not of great importance to the design of Merion. It was the designs of the great courses across the pond that he based some of the design of Merion on.

You closed with, "Its a nice quote, but I don't see it being all that informative."

Oh well, we agree to disagree...

[David Stamm]

David,

I would imagine that even a rudimentary study of "course construction" would also include course design. That is not even considering that his study of "course construction" was to an extent "as it was never studied before..."

And then there is Tilly who recognized that he, "possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture..." and also George Thomas who wrote of his design abilities as well.

It is a reasonable conclusion.

What I meant Philip was that DM has maintained that he has never claimed that CBM should recieved design credit, and yet here it says greenskeeping and course construction, and construction can mean other things besides the design itself. That's all I meant by bringing that up.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Sorry for the misunderstanding...

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

I don't understand how your answer relates to my question.  Could you please clarify.

[T_MacWood]

Tom,

You asked, "How much do you know about the architectural history of Merion (1911-1925)?"

Honestly, not very much. Still, what does that possibly have to do with the conclusion that I draw from tillinghast's statemnt? "That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight."

If you don't know how the course evolved from 1911 until 1925 how can you conclude Tilly's comment in 1934 are illustrative of who did what in 1911? Thats like saying that praise for RTJ's monster at Oakland Hills  gives insight into the early history of that course.

You state, "First, your quote did not come from Robert White, it came from Max Behr..." Are you stating that where Robert White's name is at the end of the article it means he is not the wirter? OK, then Max wrote it...

Go back and re-read it. The first part is an editorial is writen by Behr. The second part on bunker construction is authored by White.

You continued, "I'm not ignoring it. I think Wilson had a lot in common with both men, but it doesn't give us any insight into what Macdonald did or didn't do at Merion..." To the contrary, it does have a great deal to do with what he did or didn't do at Merion. It is quite obvious from this that Wilson was far more than a person "assigned" to go oversees and come back and report, but rather the man who wanted to go and come back and create on his own terms.

Again, the quote states that all three men mentioned would listen to advice, but it continues that they would sift it and  do as they then wished. This certainly doesn't sound like a man who invites someone to consult and does so with the idea that whatever the consultant says to do he does.

You followed this with, "Macdonald credited both Whigham and Emmet with assisting in the design of the NGLA. Does this quote clairify the early architectural evolution of the NGLA?" It may shed light on NGLA or not; either way, the design of NGLA was not of great importance to the design of Merion. It was the designs of the great courses across the pond that he based some of the design of Merion on.

Knowing the architectrual history of the NGLA and Merion I can confidently say the quote does not shed any light on the early architectural history of the NGLA or Merion.

You closed with, "Its a nice quote, but I don't see it being all that informative."

Oh well, we agree to disagree...

[T_MacWood]

Tom,

I don't understand how your answer relates to my question.  Could you please clarify.

Wilson completely redesigned the early version of Merion-East. We are debating who did what on the early version of Merion-East. No matter who did what on the early version it will not change who ultimately redesigned the course.

[David Stamm]

To my knowledge Whigham is pretty much unimpeachable. Although I'm certain - in no time - he'll be thrown under the bus with his old friend CB.[/b]

Tom, please. I, for one, am not trying to throw CBM under the bus. I admire him greatly. It's just incredible to me how it doesn't seem possible to some that another man such as Wilson could not do what Macdonald had just done himself just a few years before. Look acroos the pond and seek ideas, and if he saw fit, incorporate the ideas into what he thought made a good course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()