News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Phil_the_Author

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #850 on: December 22, 2006, 06:18:35 AM »
On another matter, and since it has been mentioned on this thread, if Tom Macwood was kicked off the site I hope that decision will be reconsidered and if he left of his own accord, I hope that he will reconsider that decision as well.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #851 on: December 22, 2006, 10:07:43 AM »
Tom Paul,

Thanks for posting the Alan Wilson letter.   I think it is wholly conclusive and should put this debate to rest.

I think several sentences and phrases are key to doing so;

"First of all, they were both "Homemade". When it was known that we must give up the old course, a "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds...chose the sites; and a "Special Construction Committee" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect."

"Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam...--twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans."

"They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Commitee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E.Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr, Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."

The thing that is amazing to me is simply how aware this group seemed to be about making their course appear "natural", which to me is the real unique genius of Merion.

Without wanting to contrast this with the more highly-engineered look of Macdonald/Raynor, a style I love as well, it does appear that some of our speculations were correct in that the whole idea of naturalness and laying the course lightly on the land seems to be something the Committee and certainly Wilson seemed to strive for in their work.   There is no doubt whatsoever that they succeeded, and there is little doubt that this is really where they broke from the Macdonald model and went their own way, creating a new direction for American architecture.

David,

I too am saddened that Tom MacWood seems to have chosen to leave us.   I certainly hope he reconsiders as I always found him to be bright, thought-provoking, and a stalwart for the preservation of great classic courses.  
 

 
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 10:11:44 AM by Mike Cirba »

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #852 on: December 22, 2006, 10:51:46 AM »
I hate to see Tom MacWood leave the discussion group. He is clearly a very intelligent articulate man, and seems to be quite an interesting character as well. I can sympathize with his frustrations, however. I  find myself fighting the temptation to delete my profile almost daily any more, but I guess I have just made too many friends and I can't pull the trigger and leave it all behind. I hope Tom comes back. I think he overwhelmingly won the unofficial poll on the best thread ever with his photographs of Ross' various bunkers. He stumped everybody on that one. He's a hell of alot more valuable to this website than a smartass guy like me.

All that said, its up to him now, but I hope he checks in to read this and realizes that he reaches alot of different type of people with his thoughts, and he earned a hell of alot of respect from so many people who use this website. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this.

I also hope that somebody saves this thread before it gets deleted, which I believe will soon be its fate. There is a wealth of good information on this one, and it would be interesting to see it summarized. I just don't have the time or energy to wade through it all.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #853 on: December 22, 2006, 10:58:16 AM »
I hate to see Tom MacWood leave the discussion group. He is clearly a very intelligent articulate man, and seems to be quite an interesting character as well. I can sympathize with his frustrations, however. I  find myself fighting the temptation to delete my profile almost daily any more, but I guess I have just made too many friends and I can't pull the trigger and leave it all behind. I hope Tom comes back. I think he overwhelmingly won the unofficial poll on the best thread ever with his photographs of Ross' various bunkers. He stumped everybody on that one. He's a hell of alot more valuable to this website than a smartass guy like me.

All that said, its up to him now, but I hope he checks in to read this and realizes that he reaches alot of different type of people with his thoughts, and he earned a hell of alot of respect from so many people who use this website. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this.

I also hope that somebody saves this thread before it gets deleted, which I believe will soon be its fate. There is a wealth of good information on this one, and it would be interesting to see it summarized. I just don't have the time or energy to wade through it all.

John Cullum,

I agree with you wholeheartedly about Tom MacWood.

As far as this thread, I think it's much too easily criticized by folks without the time or inclination or interest to read it because of its ridiculous length, but you're very correct in assuming that there is a LOT of good information in here.

In fact, I just got off the phone with someone and we think that the most important parts of this thread should be summarized in a new thread, as you suggest.

I think there are some real keen hints in what's here that describe some very important evolutions in American design that are still being felt and discussed and debated with the architecture of our present times.

I hope it comes out as worthwhile and educational and interesting as is hoped, and I also hope that Tom MacWood contributes.  

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #854 on: December 22, 2006, 12:01:05 PM »
You know, I hate to be the one to take this to 32 pages, and confess I have only read page 31 to see Wilsons letter, thanks to TePaul.

My question is to Mike Cirba and Phillip Young -

If you think some ignored the words,

" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect "

were ignored, how can you ignore the words,

"their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."?

It seems like 31 pages of semantics argument doesn't it? Yes, Wilson and a few other designed the course, and gave it a distinctly anti McDonald/natural and not straight edge appearance.  But they themselves acknowledged that CBM gave valuble advice. I will speculate that it was in general routing, or hazard placement, if not style.

Phillip says, "Once again, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..." and "Without" is as absolute a word as can be used..."

How can it be absolute when they admit they solicited advice from him?  The course was built by the committtee, with two days of free advice from CBM and Whigam is the only Absolute I can take from those statements.  It was probably free, and they had their own ideas, granted.  Did anyone on Page 31 or elsewhere in history say anything about CBM's involvement other than he was glad to spend a few days giving guidance to some amateur architects?  

Do you suppose the only CBM suggestion was that Wilson go to Scotland to study holes, just as he did?  If so, did that have an effect on the design that should be partially credited? (actually, if that was it, I would say no, but I think he reviewed routing and strategy plans - what would you do if asked to go to a site in the design phase? And he probably had them over a day to show them his ideas of strategic feature design)

Another topic, but how did CBM come up with such a geometric style from what he saw in GBI?  Probably had something to do with his rigid personality.......

Nuff on that.  I have disagreed with Tom Macs argumentative style from time to time, but love his historical accuracy. I hope he cools off and comes back.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #855 on: December 22, 2006, 12:34:54 PM »
David Moriarty:

Regarding your odd and needless post above, no, I did not discuss private emails with Tom MacWood and I did not send him any. So your analysis which is unnecessary on this DG and completely uncalled for too just falls apart right there. It serves no purpose on this DG for you to speculate on or even mention any of this. You should remove that post, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion or who designed it, and furthermore none of it is any business of yours anyway.

TEPaul,

I'd rather like to keep this thread on Topic, since it appears the conversation is not quite finished yet.  After all, I do think your brother Wilson letter is important and I thank  you for posting it.   I'd hate to see it get lost in the shuffle of these unseemingly matters.

So I will respond to you over in the other thread.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #856 on: December 22, 2006, 12:50:10 PM »

David Moriarty:

Regarding your odd and needless post above, no, I did not discuss private emails with Tom MacWood and I did not send him any. So your analysis which is unnecessary on this DG and completely uncalled for too just falls apart right there. It serves no purpose on this DG for you to speculate on or even mention any of this. You should remove that post, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion or who designed it, and furthermore none of it is any business of yours anyway.

Right, then it was just my imagination you calling two times in a panic the other night, wanting Tom MacWood's post removed. I really regret doing this, but I forewarned you, I told you that this was going to have an impact.

Of course I now fully regret this.

John Cullum,
The thread will not be removed. Not at least by me.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #857 on: December 22, 2006, 01:06:02 PM »
My question is to Mike Cirba and Phillip Young -

If you think some ignored the words,

" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect "

were ignored, how can you ignore the words,

"their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."?

It seems like 31 pages of semantics argument doesn't it? Yes, Wilson and a few other designed the course, and gave it a distinctly anti McDonald/natural and not straight edge appearance.  But they themselves acknowledged that CBM gave valuble advice. I will speculate that it was in general routing, or hazard placement, if not style.

Jeff,

I don't think I'm ignoring those words at all.   In fact, they are among those quoted in my post.

There is no question whatsoever that Macdonald advised the committee, and that it was valuable advice.   You speculate that "it was in general routing, or hazard placement, if not style", and that may be correct.   It could also have been related to irrigation, agronomy, and a host of other construction matters, or any and all of the above.

However, I'm always impressed by the way these guys wrote back then.   They are very, very precise in their descriptions.

It seems to me that Alan Wilson wanted to make two things very clear in this section.  First, he seems to want to acknowledge the role of Macdonald and Whigham, and states that they were very helpful and valuable to the process.   Certainly this is true related to the time Wilson spent studying with Macdonald and CB's advice on his overseas trip.   I'm sure (and Hugh's own writings point this out) that the major contribution of Macdonald was teaching the concepts of the great strategic holes of the game.  That he was kind enough to help out, and then come for a site visit or two during construction to aid the process was certainly welcomed and appreciated, and I think Alan Wilson's letter reflects that.

However, he seems to be also pointing out, multiple times in multiple ways, the fact that the actual final design and construction was totally "homegrown", "without the help of a golf architect."

I don't think Alan Wilson would have said this if it wasn't true, especially given Merion's prominence in the game, and the fact that CB Macdonald was alive for another 15 years.

He also is very clear that Macdonald reviewed "our plans"...not Macdonald's.   Once again, I think he is being very precise in the way he describes things.

and finally, the coup de grace where you'll notice that he mentions that all of the excellent suggestions and good advice in the final product came from the internal committee;

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."

I think it's obvious that Alan Wilson was being very...um..what we'd refer to today as Politically Correct.   He both acknowledges and thanks Macdonald and Whigham for getting the process off on sure footing, while also making crystal clear that the final product was entirely "homegrown".


Phillip says, "Once again, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..." and "Without" is as absolute a word as can be used..."

How can it be absolute when they admit they solicited advice from him?  The course was built by the committtee, with two days of free advice from CBM and Whigam is the only Absolute I can take from those statements.  It was probably free, and they had their own ideas, granted.  Did anyone on Page 31 or elsewhere in history say anything about CBM's involvement other than he was glad to spend a few days giving guidance to some amateur architects?  

Jeff, I think you've answered your own question.    The only way that both statements can be completely true is if they didn't use Macdonald's advice in the final product, whatever it may have been.   While his "advice" may have been "valuable" and "helpful" to spur discussion and debate, or to consider other possible alternatives, it is extremely clear here that Alan Wilson didn't think the final result warranted any actual design and/or construction credit be given to Macdonald and Whigham.  


Do you suppose the only CBM suggestion was that Wilson go to Scotland to study holes, just as he did?  If so, did that have an effect on the design that should be partially credited? (actually, if that was it, I would say no, but I think he reviewed routing and strategy plans - what would you do if asked to go to a site in the design phase? And he probably had them over a day to show them his ideas of strategic feature design)

That's quite possible, and I'm also sure that Macdonald reviewed routing and strategy plans and gave his opinion.   However, it's also clear that Alan Wilson, and seemingly the other members of the Merion Committee, didn't feel that Macdonald's role and input was significant enough to warrant credit for anything directly relating to the design and construction of the final product.

Do you think based on this that Macdonald should be given some credit for co-design?

I certainly don't read it that way.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 01:08:30 PM by Mike Cirba »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #858 on: December 22, 2006, 01:45:18 PM »
Mike,  I don't disagree with anything - they designed the course and built it using their own ideas, but getting some valuble in put from CBM.  But having not read all 31 pages, is the fact that CBM consulted in some way the missing peice of how Merion came to be?  Is there any debate about his contribution there?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #859 on: December 22, 2006, 01:51:42 PM »
Mike,  I don't disagree with anything - they designed the course and built it using their own ideas, but getting some valuble in put from CBM.  But having not read all 31 pages, is the fact that CBM consulted in some way the missing peice of how Merion came to be?  Is there any debate about his contribution there?

Jeff,

That seems to be the million dollar question that I'm still not sure the answer to.

That is, David Moriarty seems to think that certain folks aren't giving Macdonald enough credit for the Merion East course.   There is no need to read all 30 pages but I think the bottom line for me is that Macdonald's advisory role has been acknowledged throughout history and based on Alan Wilson's letter, with complete historical accuracy.

To me, you're right...the bottom line is that Wilson and the committee designed and constructed the course and they did it their own way.   Macdonald provided WIlson with a great deal of valuable advice probably on many fronts, but certainly on the strategic values of the best holes and where to visit in GB during Wilson's lengthy stay there.   I'm certain he also reviewed the plans and layout the committee put together, including the work in progress, and commented later that Merion should be wonderful, with a full seven of the holes equal to anything else in the states.

That's all there is to this story in my mind, but at various junctures it was suppositioned that perhaps Wilson wasn't the architect at all, or that it couldn't be proven.

At least now we know the answer to that question.  


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #860 on: December 22, 2006, 02:07:06 PM »
And the answer is that David Moriarity likes to argue about golf architecture for no particular reason? ;D  (just asking)

I live in Dallas, the home of the conspiracy theory, and I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone or history has conspired to deny CBM any due credit for Merion, or anything else.

That said, I doubt any of us will really know unless some new daily diary surfaces.  I base my opinion on what I have always read, what I read on this thread, and the general assumption that, writing style differences aside, the situation and human interaction would have been about the same as they are today.

The funny thing about the "without a golf course architect" statement is that there really weren't too many of them other than CBM that they could have used, since he coined the term and was our first one.  That emphasis is actually something I would associate with a more modern situation, given the vast majority of courses back then were probably built without a  gca.  Or, it could have been an ego thing on the part of the committee.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #861 on: December 22, 2006, 02:14:27 PM »
And the answer is that David Moriarity likes to argue about golf architecture for no particular reason? ;D  (just asking)

I live in Dallas, the home of the conspiracy theory, and I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone or history has conspired to deny CBM any due credit for Merion, or anything else.

That said, I doubt any of us will really know unless some new daily diary surfaces.  I base my opinion on what I have always read, what I read on this thread, and the general assumption that, writing style differences aside, the situation and human interaction would have been about the same as they are today.

The funny thing about the "without a golf course architect" statement is that there really weren't too many of them other than CBM that they could have used, since he coined the term and was our first one.  That emphasis is actually something I would associate with a more modern situation, given the vast majority of courses back then were probably built without a  gca.  Or, it could have been an ego thing on the part of the committee.

Jeff,

I think you're correct on all counts.

Frankly, I think all of us, including David, like to argue about golf course architecture.  ;)  

I've tried to keep it light-hearted for the most part, even tried to interject some humor, but sometimes that's like trying to bring peace to the Middle east.    ::)

By the way, I've been to Dallas and after many years of fascination with the case and almost certainly feeling that some conspiracy was involved, I've come to the firm conclusion in recent years that Oswald acted alone.  

I think that proves two things;

1) Sometimes it's good to challenge myths and we should all keep an open mind.
2) Most myths are based in historical fact.

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #862 on: December 22, 2006, 03:34:57 PM »
I hope when the time comes, my sibling writes the history of my derrings-do also.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #863 on: December 22, 2006, 03:53:46 PM »
I was reading the Time Man of the Year (its "YOU) and somewhere it said that when the Rodney King incident was taped we all couldn't believe a camera was present. Now, anything happens and its a miracle that it isnt.

Same with privacy. Look at all the crime solved through hard drive data.  At least in the case of golf club atlas, its our former big brother watching us, and he is but a shadow of his former own self...........
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #864 on: December 22, 2006, 04:39:43 PM »
Technology has caused another change in the world of GCA, this thread is getting shorter ...
"... and I liked the guy ..."

TEPaul

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #865 on: December 22, 2006, 05:36:28 PM »
MikeB:

It did get shorter and it was because I tried to delete my posts on this thread (I can't believe how many I had which in and of itself is frankly more than a little depressing).

Wayne deleted all his a few days ago. At first I didn't even bother to think why he did that but now I know. Both of us are disgusted with this thread and probably disgusted with ourselves for getting so entangled in it.

The precise point of this thread has never been clear and I still don't think it is. It doesn't seem to be about who designed Merion East, even if Tom MacWood did call that into question too. I think the fact of who designed Merion East has been known since the beginning. I guess this thread became about what is specifically meant by the reports that M&W "advised" Merion. In any case, I'd like to think that the Alan Wilson report that I posted last night cleared up any doubt in anyone's mind about the design and construction of the course.

Having gone through this thread and deleted my posts today I noticed two posts #147 and #155. Read them. That seems to be the point where David Moriarty accused Wayne Morrison of defaming him. All Wayne did (read it) is disagree with him. I never knew defaming someone was the same thing as disagreeing with them but some people seem to have some pretty strange ideas about certain things. And in post #155 in response to Mike Sweeney asking David Moriarty if he'd consider writing and "In My Opinion" piece about Merion East, David Moriarty said he probably wouldn't consider doing that because that would subject him to a verbal battering by me like the one David Moriarty said Tom MacWood took on a Pine Valley thread.

Now, think about it. Were those necessary things to say? Were they at all called for? I don't think so and I know Wayne doesn't. About five pages into any thread David Moriarty starts this kind of thing seems to happen without fail. People need to ask why.

Do I tend to get insulting towards him when these things begin to happen? Yes I do, I admit it. And I admit it pisses me off when people like Moriarty and MacWood accuse us of trying to promote Wilson and Philadelphia architecture at the expense of Macdonald or Crump at the expense of Colt.

I feel that kind of thing is downright insulting in both cases because it simply isn't true. We've done the best we could to date with what we have concerning Merion and its history and I feel the same about what I've done to analyze the entire creation of PV.

We'll probably get flack from David Moriarty for some reason for deleting our posts, but neither one of us want anything more to do with arguing whatever the subject and question of this thread is, which again, still isn't very clear. Perhaps the real subject of this thread by its originator is simply to see how long this West Coast fellow can continue to argue about anything and everything with everybody.

But yes, this thread really shrunk. It was me who shrunk it.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 05:37:14 PM by TEPaul »

Phil_the_Author

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #866 on: December 22, 2006, 08:38:04 PM »
Tom Paul,

ONLY for the sake of posting honesty, I must ask you when you make a statement such as , "Now, think about it. Were those necessary things to say? Were they at all called for?" in discussing things that someone said in a derogatory manner, do you ever ask that about yourself when you hurl your own invectives such as calling him MacFud on every thread since whether he was particpating in it or not?!?

It certainly seems that you believe it is proper for you to curse someone out on site and threaten them as you have with Tom Macwood, but for someone to say something poorly about you, or in this case Wayne, that is blasphemous.

Tom, I don't care if this one pisses you off or not, but someone has to call you out on your pompous arrogance for writing that!

You just can't help yourself. It is time for you, and all others who feel a need to berate others out here to recognize that this is a site where GROWN-UPS come to DISCUSS things and act that way themselves.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 08:46:07 PM by Philip Young »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #867 on: December 22, 2006, 09:53:22 PM »
Fellows,

Patrick speaks some very wise words here.

We are all very passionate about a subject that we have such interest in, and healthy debate is just that, and very useful in terms of education and helping to shed light from all angles.

However, we seem to have degraded here to a lot of personal acrimony and tawdry comments that really don't portray any of us at our personal best.  

To my friends in Philly; I know David personally and I know you'd enjoy his humor, temperament, humility, and devotion to learning about the game.   Anyone of you would enjoy sharing a few beers in his company, and you couldn't ask for a nicer, more unassuming guy in person.  I'd hope that we could be a little less defensive about his motivations (me included) and slower to rush to judgement about the nature of his questioning.   I'm also pretty certain we'd all feel the same way about Tom MacWood if we can ever drag him to the City of Brotherly Love for a few days.

And David...I think that sometimes you let your passion for winning a debate exceed your ability to accept reasoned criticism.   We are all wrong at times...well, except for Patrick, that is ;), and sometimes it's easier to concede a point or at least grant that those who might be closer to a situation have an advantage in personal knowledge.  

However, we all get on here and sometimes the impersonal nature of this forum puts all of us on our high horses and we tend to write things that we'd never say to each other in person.   That cuts both ways, and sometimes it makes us brilliant and sometimes it makes us ignorant, belligerent, and obnoxious.   I don't think there's many of us who post here often who aren't guilty of that at least once in awhile.

So, I'm done with this thread.   I'm hoping that even this post doesn't come off as ridiculously condescending, because that's not my purpose.  

It's just that when you weigh bruised feelings and angry diatribes and lost personal friendships against whether Macdonald was given enough credit for what happened at Merion, it's really not all that friggin important.

When Patrick Mucci and I become the logical voices of reason, the train is clearly off the track.    ::)

To steal a line from the wise beyond his years Kyle Harris, "Never has so much been so well fought over for so little."

However, call me overly idealistic but I believe something good can come of this, truly.  

We have a collective opportunity to make this site great, and to do some pretty good things for the game.  I think it's about time we all start moving forward together, or else just throw in the towel, because when we piss off unassuming, reserved gentlemen like Dick Daley and Philip Young, then we're all wrong by definition, no matter how right we think we can prove we are.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2006, 10:01:43 PM by Mike Cirba »

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #868 on: December 23, 2006, 04:08:45 AM »
Mike, I am not sure we read the same report, but since it is long gone now, I may never know.  

1.  AWilson did not say M&W were helpful in "the process" or with "irrigation, agronomy, and a host of other construction matters," or with “advice on his overseas trip,” or with “the concepts of the great strategic holes of the game,” or even in “getting the process off on sure footing.”    Alan Wilson said (my bolds):  "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.”

You think these guys were precise with their word usage?  Well then why doesn’t “as to the lay-out of the East Course” mean as to the lay-out of the East Course?   So far Tillinghast, Travis, Lesley, Alan Wilson, and more have all said that M&W advised about laying out the East Course.   Yet you still insist this was really all about preparing for the Europe trip or just about anything but what they actually said.  

Call me crazy, but I just do not think that when all these men said THE LAY-OUT THE EAST COURSE, they really meant WHAT TO SEE IN EUROPE.

2. AWilson did not say that M&W advice was not helpful, or ultimately rejected, or  politely rejected, or even that  “in the end the committee did not find it useful.” They said that (my bolds):   "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.

And, again, I do not think that when Tillinghast, Travis, Leslie, Alan Wilson and others referred to M&W’s advice and suggestions about laying out the East Course as helpful and as THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE, that they actually meant NOT USEFUL. or ULTIMATELY IGNORED.

You are saying these things.  Alan Wilson is not.

3.  You attach unfounded importance to Alan Wilson’s insistence that the committee deserves the credit for the design and construction of Merion East.  In so doing you overlook the three words that immediately follow the description of M&W’s involvement (my bolds and caps):

”EXCEPT FOR THIS, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Commitee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E.Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr, Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."

The committee is entirely responsible, except for the valuable help M&W gave them.  

Quote
However, it's also clear that Alan Wilson, and seemingly the other members of the Merion Committee, didn't feel that Macdonald's role and input was significant enough to warrant credit for anything directly relating to the design and construction of the final product.

Alan Wilson thought M&W’s role was significant enough to warrant credit.  Credit for all that he mentions, including (but not limited to) providing advice and suggestions that were of the greatest help and value in laying out Merion East.   Since when does laying out a golf course not directly relate to the design and construction of its final product?  

[As an aside, I don’t think that Alan Wilson was on the committee.]

4. As for your “coup de grace,” let’s take a look . . .

Quote
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."

a. He does not say “ALL of the excellent suggestions and good advice in the final product came from the committee.”  In fact, he doesn’t exclude the possibility of other suggestions or advice in the least bit.  Rather he merely says that the committee members gave “many excellent suggestions” and “much good advice,” and that Wilson was “largely helped.”    

How does this exclude the possibility of M&W’s also offering good advice which was used in the final product?  

b.   It seems that, in this paragraph, Alan Wilson is simply making a case that his recently deceased brother deserves more credit for the design than the rest of the committee members, and that even the committee members themselves think it so.  

You try to read this simple report as some esoteric code rightfully purging M&W from any credit for actually contributing to the laying out of the course.  Your reading is  stretched well past the breaking point.    

__________________

Jeff,

As you can probably tell, I do not agree with Mike's assessment of what this is all about.  As you can also probably tell, we do have real differences on what MacDonald deserves credit for.  

And Mike was one of the more reasonable ones on the issue.  
-- Mr. Morrison insisted that there was no information suggesting that CBM was involved past Wilson's visit to NGLA before the overseas trip.  
-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there.  

Don't believe me?  Check their posts.  

A few pages back I wrote a summary of my take on the entire thing.  It is a little long, but if you want to understand where the differences fall, it may be worth looking at.  
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 04:16:44 AM by DMoriarty »

TEPaul

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #869 on: December 23, 2006, 08:36:48 AM »
"-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."

David Moriarty:

For the record, I didn't say that, you did.

What I said was it has always seemed logical to me with all the available information we've had for quite some time (most of which has been put on this thread) that Wilson and his committee laid out, designed and built the golf course (obviously with foreman Pickering and Flynn) because they were the only ones whom we are aware were there everyday during that six month span it took to create the initial stage of Merion East. It seems to me Alan Wilson's report makes that more than clear (without mentioning foreman Pickering and Flynn, who were mentioned in this vein in correspondence elsewhere which we have in our possession).

I'm not trying to minimize M&W's contribution, and I never have, despite what you and Tom MacWood seem to have implied. I'm just taking what the words of those who wrote about the creation of Merion, particularly Hugh Wilson who was there every day (and his brother Alan who probably was around all the time too) say about M&W and particularly the ones who were obviously there every day on the project.

(of course if there ever had been a series of architectural plans developed and drawn by someone (as was the case with PVGC) that may change the way this creation of Merion should be looked at but we are not aware such plans ever existed with Merion East or West----although Flynn did draw plans of most of the original Merion East but we believe he did that after the fact.)

Obviously that an Alan Wilson who was asked by the first Merion historian to write this report for the purpose of the first Merion history fifteen years after the beginning would say Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of the golf course and that he'd been told that by every member of the Merion Committee is just another good reason why Hugh Wilson has always been considered the architect of Merion East and West.

I don't see that anything has been uncovered that would require interpreting it differently.


PS:

I'd like ya'll to take particular note of the kinder, gentler and far more even-tempered tone of contributor TEPaul which you can expect in the future.    ;)
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 09:04:01 AM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #870 on: December 23, 2006, 09:10:52 AM »
Dave Moriarty,

Surely you can distinquish the difference in the following two phrases:

1     .....As to the lay out of the East Course

2     .....Laying out the East Course

# 1 would seem to reference comments about a course that's already been routed or layed out

# 2 references the undertaking of the process of routing or laying out of the course.

Those two phrases seem light years apart in meaning.

# 1 suggests that comments were made about an existing lay out (routing), or at best, general comments, such as:  Don't route # 1 to the East and Don't route # 18 to the West

# 2 suggests that one will be actively involved in the process of laying out (routing) the course.

If M&W were intimately involved in routing the golf course, why use such ambivalent language ?

Why not state exactly how M&W assisted them ?

Why isn't there any record such as this:

M&W showed us how to traverse the deep depression in the northern section of the property by creating a long approach shot and a subsequent tee shot over the chasm.

Or, M&W showed us how to route the golf course by crossing the road only twice.

Or, M&W showed us that we could cross over a hole to get to another, while producing the best holes the property would offer.

Or, we were stuck on how best to leave and return to the clubhouse.

Or, M&W convinced us not to return to the clubhouse for the 9th hole by ......

If M&W had tangible imput, where is it evidenced ?

Why isn't there one clear item or routing specific reference substantiating their involvement ?

Could it be because they were never involved in the details and only gave some general advice ?
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 09:23:26 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #871 on: December 23, 2006, 10:13:50 AM »
Thank you Shivas, Tom Paul, and Patrick for saving my fingers typing another long response to David.

Happy Holidays, David.   We're never going to agree here but hopefully we'll be able to pick up discussion on a related topic in the next week which is;

Well...I'll wait and see if someone else defines the paramters first, but I'm hoping to see something about the American "Naturalism" movement very soon.  ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #872 on: December 23, 2006, 10:43:21 AM »
The theory being that if Merion was a rejection of anything, it was a rejection of CBM trying to ram his rote copycat brainless crap down the Wilson brothers' throat and they told him to stick his fifth of scotch where the sun don't shine 'cuz they had better ideas? ;D

Shivas,

Do you really feel that your response is consistent with the new kinder, gentler approach we're taking on this site?  ;)

Actually, I suspect they stuck the business end of the wicker stick there instead and gave the scotch to Flynn and Pickering.  ;D

Dave Bourgeois

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #873 on: December 23, 2006, 11:13:27 AM »
The last page of this thread has been very informative.  I am amazed how there were accounts written about the construction of the course at all.  I wonder if they thought that Merion would be so relevant this far in the future.

My question, which you may ignore because of my inexperience, is the following.  How would M&W's helpful suggestions be any different than the suggestions that a modern day associate would give to a lead architect?

It would get very complicated if we went back and started to partition credit for all designs.

I am sure I need to read some of this again because this chemists reading comprehension is not up to the level of the litigators on this site. ;)
« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 11:14:39 AM by Dave Bourgeois »

TEPaul

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #874 on: December 23, 2006, 01:05:00 PM »
"The last page of this thread has been very informative.  I am amazed how there were accounts written about the construction of the course at all.  I wonder if they thought that Merion would be so relevant this far in the future."

Dave;

The written accounts (as you call them) that are probably the most informative for the simple reason they were written by the Wilsons (of Merion) were two----eg one from Hugh Wilson, the architect of both courses in 1915-6, and the second one was written by his brother Alan in 1926.

Hugh's report in 1915-6 of the creation of Merion concentrated primarily on agronomy not architecture. One wonders why that was and the obvious answer was that back in that day that was the very thing everyone seemed to be so dedicated to for the simple reason back then they knew so much less about it than we do now and they were very much struggling to find their way in that area. Golf agronomy back then was a massive and constant problem. In a word agronomy totally fixated Hugh Wilson from 1911 until his premature death in 1925.

Alan Wilson's report of the creation of Merion still has a lot to do with agronomy (a field he also became an expert in like his brother Hugh) but approximately half of it is about the architecture of the course particularly the early architecture. Alan was asked by Richard Philler the club historian for that report because he obviously felt Alan was one who would perhaps know best.

I don't think it was unusual that Alan described the architecture the way he did basically calling it one of the best courses for the simple reason that by 1926 the course had held 'three nationals" as he called them and a number of other championships. As a championship golf course Merion was on the national tournament scene very early in its existence. That may not have been the only reason it was well recognized but that was one most important reason it was so well recognized in 1926.

"My question, which you may ignore because of my inexperience, is the following.  How would M&W's helpful suggestions be any different than the suggestions that a modern day associate would give to a lead architect?"

I think M&W's suggestions or "advice" needs to be looked at in two parts---eg before Wilson went to GB and after he returned and started with the project.

Wilson himself described pretty comprehensively what M&W did for he and his committee before he went to GB but neither he nor Alan later said anything much specific about what the "advice" or the suggestions were M&W may've given Merion afterwards which probably were limited to those two visits in late 1910 and the spring of 1911.

Some on here have been speculating maybe Wilson or Merion didn't really want his advice for some reason at the point Wilson returned form GB. My sense is that probably had little or nothing to do with it if M&Ws advice or suggestions (after Wilson returned) was of such a limited nature that noone thought to mention anything specific about it after the fact (those two reports).

My sense is that Macdonald just may not have been particularly interested in getting specifically involved in the design and construction of Merion. Why would he? It wasn't his project, he never took money for anything he did in architecture so why would he be particularly inclined to get specifically and significantly involved in a project in another city and another state which he personally had nothing to do with?

To me that's probably the most pertinent question here.

There's another very interesting piece of info in Alan's report. He says in no uncertain terms that Merion never used a golf architect.

What could that mean? Did they consider Macdonald a golf architect and of so that he really wasn't used? I don't think so. I don't think those men from that era we sometimes call the "amateur" architects referred to themselves at that point as "architects". And why not? I believe to them the term connoted professionalism and we certainly do know that in that era (the teens) an amateur golfer could have nothing to do with professionalism of any kind in anything even relating to golf or he would lose his amateur playing status and not a single one of those men we are discussing here wanted to risk that. And that very much included Macdonald who explained years later he never took a cent for architecture because he didn't believe a man in his amateur position should do that.


« Last Edit: December 23, 2006, 01:11:29 PM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back