[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Mac,

I am not saying that CBM began his design carerr in 1907, but that Tillinghast did.

My point is that as in all large enterprises, and the creation of Merion was a large enterprise, there are quite a number of hidden dynamics and politics involved.

Without judging as to the veracity of any of it, I am asking a question BASED upon what tilly wrote in 1939.

It is a simple question - is it possible that some, including Tilly, may have been advising their friends such as wilson, that the ideas and suggestions they were receiving from CBM should not be listened to and maybe that is the or a reason as to why his influence was either less than it should have been or not recognized for what it was worth?

And to answer your statement, "I'm not sure how you can analyze the history of golden age golf architecture without having a solid understanding of Macdonald's career." You are incorrect as I  have a pretty good understanding of his career.

You then make a judgement, one that is QUITE INCORRECT that I haven't read "Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's..." when you state, "I would think everyone interested in the subject (much less a historian) would have at least read Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's."

I have.

[TEPaul]

"Phil
Macdonald became interested in building and planning golf courses in 1907?

I'm not sure how you can analyze the history of golden age golf architecture without having a solid understanding of Macdonald's career. I would think everyone interested in the subject (much less a historian) would have at least read Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's."

Tom MacWood:

You're right but forget about just George and Gib's book. The best source is Macdonald himself and his own book. Maybe Tillinghast thought Macdonald first became interested in building the consummate golf course over here in 1907 but the fact is Macdonald himself said he became interested in doing just that in 1901;

"Little did I dream I should live in New York and carry out  this prophecy (NGLA). Coming to New York in 1900 this idea assumed tangible form in 1901."

Of course Macdonald did not write his book until the mid 1920s.

[Mike_Cirba]

I went back and read David's post where he quotes CB Macdonald telling Travis and Tilly that Merion will be the greatest thing since sliced bread and I'm beginning to wonder if he didn't come in there sort of overstepping his bounds and then got booted, nicely of course.

That would certainly explain why neither Macdonald or Whigham every mentioned Merion again while both were alive, and why Merion and Wilson made a great deal about Macdonald's involvement prior to his trip to GB, but none after, and why guys like Tillinghast felt compelled to set the record straight in later years.  

Perhaps, as Philip suggests, with local guys like Tillinghast whispering in his ear about the differences between more artificially constructed template holes versus his own ideas on natural, original holes Wilson was persuaded that Macdonald's value had reached the level of diminishing returns?

The funny thing is this would also explain why Behr called Wilson "dictatorial" as early as 1914.   If he had listened to Macdonald up to a point, and then asserted his own role and independence, sending M&W packing so to speak, he certainly would have developed a very quick reputation as a firm, decisive leader who followed his own course!  

If Wilson had told Macdonald "thank you very much but don't let the wicker basket hit you in the ass on the way out", I'm sure he would have downplayed it considerably as a fellow gentleman, even going so far as to be sure he gave Macdonald consistent credit for his "advice", and specific help with strategic golf knowledge and for his golf trip abroad.

Further, however, it would certainly explain why Macdonald was not asked to come back for the West course in 1914, why he was never asked to advise again at Merion even though work continued on the course for at least the next dozen years, and why it quickly became asserted in the press that Wilson was the real guy who "laid out both courses at Merion".  

It would also explain why Whigham may have tried to set the record straight (in his mind) on the occasion of Macdonald's death, when he stated out of the blue that Merion was a "Macdonald/Raynor" course.

[T_MacWood]

We really don't have enough information to determine who did what on the original course. We've got huge group of people involved: Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Macdonald, Whigham and Pickering. There is no mention of who is responsbile for the routing. There is no mention of who came up with hole concepts. And we know the course was subsequently remodeled...in fact given a dramatic facelift....and we know who is responsible for those changes...changes which transformed the course into the historically recongized design...the course - more or less - we see today.

Tom, has anyone, anywhere ever suggested that Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, or Toulmin laid out any course anywhere, ever?   That's smoke and mirrors, Tom.

I see....so the reports that these men were members of the golf course committee charged with buidling the golf course were wrong? Or are you saying you have a special intuition or sixth sense that allows you understand who did what on the committee. The fact is no one knows who laid out the golf course.

Also, I think your terminology of "facelift" if very misleading.   Yes, a number of holes that crossed Ardmore Ave changed, and some very few unnatural features were taken out, but 70% of the routing is the same today, and probably 60% of the entire course.

Thats a major face lift in my book...especially when you consider the overall aesthetic transformation from more linear to more natural.

You try to make it sound that the original course looked like NGLA Part Deux, and then Wilson and Flynn naturalized it.   That's not true in the least.

There is no doubt the course in 1912 was much more angular and the remodeled version was much more naturalistic.

To make matters worse you have some conflicting information, which I believe you need to analyze based upon when it was said, due to the fact that the course really had two different architectural states: the old (more linear, containing more famous overseas allusions); the new (more naturalistic, more flowing lines, five completely new holes, the elimination of many of those famous allusions...this transformation is documented as the work of Wilson or Wilson & Flynn). We are trying to determine who did what on the old, so the closer you get to 1912 the better IMO.

Again, this idea that the original course looked like Macdonald is preposterous, as was the original post on this thread that suggested that the old 10th hole was an Alps like #3 at NGLA.   It's silly speculation trying to maximize the role of Macdonald when the course never looked ANYTHING like what Macdonald ever built.  

Who said the course looked like Macdonald? It is a fact the course has much different look 1912...I would question the motives of anyone who denies that or tries to minimize that.

Just about ever reference between 1910 and 1916 has the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W (Lesley, Tilly, Travis, Evans...Wilson's own brief report in 1916 seems to support this as well). One exception is Behr's article (1915) on greencommittees and the  best attributes for green chairmen. In the article there is no mention of who designed Merion, he does state Wilson has all the attributes of a good greenchairman (along with Macdonald & Leeds). Some would say this proves he designed the course...I think that is very generous interpretation.

Of course they reported it was by committee because there was a committee created within Merion charged with building a new golf course, and yes, Macdonald and Whigham did consult.  

However, you once again OMIT the CRUCIAL point of Behr's quote when you neglect to tell us that Behr stated that Macdonald, Leeds, and Wilson were all ideally suited for the role because they studied what it took to "construct" a course like no one before them."   In 1914 parlance, we're talking design, feature creation, lay out, grow in.   THAT is what was meant by Behr, and you seemingly omit it because it doesn't fit in with your theory.

I'm not minimizing that. I've said before Behr clearly believed a knowledge of golf architecture is an important attribute for a green chairman. Does that translate into Wilson designed the East course?

The other conflicting report is by Alex Findlay in 1912. "Fred Pickering made Wollaaston, Woodland and Belmont, Mass; Lake Placid, NY and Atlanta, Ga., and other courses, too numerous to mention, but this his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements. He has had much his of his own way in the planting of the right seed, and in the general make-up of the course, and to him we owe thans for on the prettiest courses in America."

You are almost certainly correct that Pickering had more to do with the initial course than anyone but Wilson, including Macdonald and Whigham.   Pickering had experience building courses prior, he was onsite full time, he evidently had WIlson's confidence in his abilities (if not his drinking) and I would not be surprised if more is uncovered here that points to his involvement in the layout.

Interesting speculation...based on the Findlay article Pickering had more to do with course than anyone other than Wilson in 1912? This is an example of when legend (and speculation) trumps known fact. Clearly Pickering built the course but I'm not sure how you convert that into what Pickering or Wilson or M&W or the rest of the committee contributed specifically to the design.

If you are going to give this quote as proof Pickering had more to do with design of the course (especially in comparison to M&W), how do you rationlize Wilson's absense from the quote?

Once you get into the 20s and 30s Wilson's name become more prominent....for good reason IMO. As an example Tilly who reported on the committee and M&W work in 1910-1912 says in 1934 Merion is a monument to the late Hugh Wilson. Other reports at this time are similar, the one exception is Whigham in 1939, who lists the course among Macdonald's other great designs. What gets my attention with his comments, he was not a bistander, observer or reporter, he was actively involved in the project

Tillinghast was onsite often during the early years and beyond and he knew Macdonald, Whigham, and all the others.  They were also all still alive at the time he wrote that Wilson was the designer of Merion.  

In 1934 IMO Tilly was accurate whenn he said the course was Wilson's. Tilly was also accurate in 1910-1912 when he reported the committees work and the involvement of M&W. Old vs New.

In the historical context that's been outlined, and had been reported over and over at the time he said it, my only logical conclusion is that Whigham was smoking crack in 1939.

He may have been smoking opium...I don't think crack was around yet. Whatever he was smoking his comments should not be dismissed out of hand based on the fact he was one of the few who wrote about the project who was involved in the project (Wilson and Lesley being the other two.)  

Hopefully more information will be uncovered in the future and we will be able to substitute the speculation and conjecture with some facts.

This thread is plagued by conjecture, speculation, reading between lines, tortured parsing of words and an absense of important facts.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

If Tillinghast said in the 1930s that Macdonald first became interested in the planning and building of golf courses in 1907 then all that means is Tillinghast was not very familiar at the time he wrote that of the date and details of Macdonald becoming interested in the planning and building of golf courses. Macdonald said he began to think about NGLA in 1901 and we all know about Chicago G.C. before that. Maybe Tillie didn't, though, or maybe he forgot.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

My point wasn't whether Tilly was correct, accurate or neither; we all know of CBM's work back in the late 1800's as well as his exploits as a golfer. In fact Tilly played against him often in the early years as well and obviously knew "Charley" quite well and fondly.

My point was that Tilly, and maybe others, didn't view CBM as many do today, and that their private views may have influenced how his "advice" was received by the committee. The social dynamics and politics of the situation then that has caused the suppositions thrown around on this bit of a discussion. That is all.

[T_MacWood]

Could someone please call shivas so he might tell us again who 'we' and 'our' is. Let speculation continue reign supreme!

Macdonald did not write about his involvement with a number of projects: Women's National, Greenwich, East Lake, Shinnecock, East Islip  not to mention he & Whigham's remodeling of Chicago a decade prior to Raynor's redesign.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Some good points, as well, but unless you can prove to me that the Merion course changed dramatically between 1912 and 1916, I fail to see the angular, linear description you're applying to the old course.  

The "facelift" as you call it took place because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue and the need for a new entranceway to the clubhouse.  The only affected holes were 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and most of that was just building new tees and greens (after some property was bought on the other side of Cobbs Creek) so that the road crossings became unnecessary.

Tom Paul,

Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?

[Mike_Cirba]

Could someone please call shivas so he might tell us again who 'we' and 'our' is. Let speculation continue reign supreme!

Tom...then I take it you aren't buying my Macdonald being told thanks, but no thanks in terms of further involvement?

I think it would certainly explain a lot, and given Macdonald's temperament, personality, boisterous style, and self-aggrandizing nature, I'm really not sure how well that would have mixed with the genteel Main Lineans.  

It's certainly at least as reasonable a theory as calling the old 10th hole "the Alps".  

In fact, it explains SO much throughout those years and after that I'm about 70% sure I'm right with my idle speculation!  

Macdonald did not write about his involvement with a number of projects: Women's National, Greenwich, East Lake, Shinnecock, East Islip  not to mention he & Whigham's remodeling of Chicago a decade prior to Raynor's redesign.

Tom,

Did any of those courses host several major tournaments during the time that Charley thought it was his design?   Perhaps East Lake? or had that been Rossified already?

It would be tough to ignore the 1916 Amateur and the 1930 Amateur, and the 1934 US Open, etc., if you thought you had designed it and were unfairly wiped from the record, don't you think?

[T_MacWood]

The Merion history of 1976 said "Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved from Macdonald and Whigham." That they way I read Wilson's comments as well, which supports the general consensus (of the committee designing the course, advised by M&W) at the time.

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Some good points, as well, but unless you can prove to me that the Merion course changed dramatically between 1912 and 1916, I fail to see the angular, linear description you're applying to the old course.

Why between 1912 and 1916 and not the change between 1912 and 1925? The change in 9th hole between in 1912 and 1916 was dramatic.  

The "facelift" as you call it took place because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue and the need for a new entranceway to the clubhouse.  The only affected holes were 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and most of that was just building new tees and greens (after some property was bought on the other side of Cobbs Creek) so that the road crossings became unnecessary.

Tom Paul,

Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,

Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?"

Mike:

No I would not agree with that. There were perhaps a couple of holes or features that were pretty different than the way the course turned out in the late teens and 1920s but I'm not aware of any massive difference in look.

I think we certainly know what the old #10 green looked like and that certainly was very different from the look of most of the rest of the design and we do know about those "Mid-Surrey" mounds that initially appeared around #9 green that were rather quickly removed in favor of the bunkering that is there now.

Other holes were changed, though, or parts of them were, as we know including the green on #1, the green on #2, the green on #8, the greens on #11, #12 and #13. There was some minor alteration done to #14 green much later and a slight addition to the back of the #15 green.

The changes to #10, 11, 12, 13 seem to have been done for routing reasons, or perhaps also agronomic reasons (according to Wilson), although that original #10 green was very different from most of the rest of the style of the course even back in the beginning.

We don't have photos of the original green on 8, 11, 12 though, or at least that I'm aware of, although we do have drawings of all of them. As for the old #13 green, basically it's still there. It's where the caddies hangout.

Frankly, if I were you, Mike, I wouldn't even bother to discuss any of this with Tom MacWood. All you two seem to be into right now is just mincing words over trivialities. Frankly Moriarty seems to be much more on point today even though he's just repeating stuff that's been discussed endlessly for about 20 pages.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Some good points, as well, but unless you can prove to me that the Merion course changed dramatically between 1912 and 1916, I fail to see the angular, linear description you're applying to the old course.

Why between 1912 and 1916 and not the change between 1912 and 1925? The change in 9th hole between in 1912 and 1916 was dramatic.  

The "facelift" as you call it took place because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue and the need for a new entranceway to the clubhouse.  The only affected holes were 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and most of that was just building new tees and greens (after some property was bought on the other side of Cobbs Creek) so that the road crossings became unnecessary.

Tom Paul,

Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?

Tom,

Because I've seen any number of pictures of the course in 1916 and am always struck by exactly how much it looks like today's course.   I'm thinking holes like today's 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18 green.  

The only linear feature I've ever noticed is the big berm behind #10, obviously to protect players from balls on the 1st hole.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

To that list you can basically add holes #2 (green moved farther back), 3, 5, 14, and 15

[T_MacWood]

Mike
Certainly the course began loosing the angluar look before 1916....the change in the 9th green and 10th fairway bunkering from 1913 to 1916 as examples. But the Principle's Nose was still around in 1916 and the Redan still had a straight line grass face & bunker in 1916. Not to mention the 'Alps' in 1916 and the large fairway bunker nearest the tee on the old par-5 8th (4th).  

[T_MacWood]

Could anyone point me to any photo of any feature or hole from 1913 or before that does not look more linear?

[Dan Kelly]

This ultra opinionating combined with this endless 20 question routine from Tom MacWood on courses he's never laid eyes on definitely has to stop here and now!

Not when you're only nine posts away from four-digit immortality!

Make that eight!

[T_MacWood]

I guess the answer to my question would be no.
 
I don't put much weight in the Holiday Inn Express style of reasearch and  speculation:

very few facts + loads of conjecture + osmosis = documented history

I prefer confirmed facts, a good understanding of all the historic figures (who they were, where they were, what they did), a good understanding of the period (culturely, economically, socially, politically, etc) when trying to determine the architectural history of a golf course or golf course architect.

[Dan Kelly]

Dan:

When this thread hits 1,000 which of course it's gonna do and today, what do you think----does David Moriarty (who started it) deserve a medal or a punch in the puss?

Tom I --

Ask the Fruitcake Lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggMGHjfxEFs

[DMoriarty]

I dont think we are going to have any trouble reaching 1000,  even with Mr. Morrison's distracting retracted defamatory detractions.

Sorry guys, but I tried to thoroughly set out the way I see it, and I just dont have time to completely address every disagreement, especially since almost all the ground has been covered repeatedly.  I will try to touch on the high points as time permits.  

I am somewhat disappointed that we've fallen right back into a piecemeal discussion going in a million different directions, although I guess i am not surprised.  

I don't see anyone minimizing or discounting those reports that Macdonald and Whigam visited Merion East. It's simply that they are not only vague, they are reports that are most minimal.

1.  TEPaul, with all due respect you minimize the reports even in these two sentences.   They weren't just reports that M&W visited, they are reports that they visited, pronounced the site fit, aided the committee, and were of great assistance to the committee.  You also dismiss them as vague and minimal even though these may well very be the only contemporaneous accounts we have.  

2.  You also speculate that Wilson would have credited MacDonald had CBM done anything specific in the design.  I understand your reasoning, but think you may be reading far too much into what you see as an omission.  After all, ou have pointed out in the past that this report does not go into a description of the initial design of Merion at all, so I think it unreasonable to expect Wilson to have covered CBM's role in the design.  Don't you even have an example of him editing out something because it was veering too far away from the topic?

Plus, by attaching special significance to the absence of a Wilson statement, you ignore the affirmative statements of Tillinghast, Travis, and Lesley.  

As this thread demonstrates, it always precarious to place special significance on the absence of information.  For example, Wilson apparently doesn't cover anything about what he specifically learned in Europe either, but I am sure you would be uncomfortable if I cited this omission to support a conclusion that Wilson learned nothing in Europe.

As for the significance you place on the use of the "our" in this 1915 report, I think you are stretching more than a bit.  First, I am not sure he is referring to.  Second, it was the committee's problem no matter who helped with the design.
_____

As far as I can tell, these two points (the "our problem" point, and the 'Wilson didnt specifically mention it' point) are the only evidence you have that CBM was NOT significantly involved in the design.

I don't think these two points even come close to invalidating the information I posted above.  
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Shameless attempt to get the 1000th post.  

What is that Sherlock Holmesian thing about once you exhaust all of the possibilities, what you're left with no matter how preposterous, is the truth.

It seems to me that either;

A) The Merion Committee terminated its relationship with Macdonald pretty early on.

or

B) Macdonald got pissed at the soup or something and stormed off the grounds.

[Mike_Cirba]

Darnit...I missed.  

[Mike_Cirba]

or did I?  

[PThomas]

my fingers hurt just thinking of all the typing you guys have done on this thread!

[Mike_Cirba]

I dont think we are going to have any trouble reaching 1000,  even with Mr. Morrison's distracting retracted defamatory detractions.

Damnit, David...I'm one freaking sentence into your reply and already I have no idea what you're talking about!  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()