From David Moriarty, Nov 21, 2006:
"TEPaul,
1. I dont think anyone suggested that MacDonald designed the 10th hole at Merion East. I know I didn't.
2. Your word "evolution" implies that Merion East's roots were in the local golf landscape, but this doesnt seem to be the case at all.
3. There were plenty of golf courses in Philadelphia in 1910, and Wilson could have easily built a longer version in their style at the new Merion site. And you say yourself that Crump went to Europe to study because the local courses "weren't any good." What could be more of a rejection than these two prominent golf figures ignoring what was in their own back yard and instead traveling across an ocean to find something better?
3. You can call it "discovery" if you want to, but they would have had no need to go discovering if they were at all satisfied with the status quo. Based on what I have seen so far, Merion represented a significant departure from what had been going on in Philadelphia (and most of America) for over a decade."
What David Moriarty said above is interesting, and, I think, was the beginning of his interest in Merion's creation and probably his interest in Macdonald's part in it and influence on it.
When he said in #2 that my use of the word "evolution" implies roots were in the local landscape, I never, not ever, not at any time, meant to imply such a thing and if he thought I did back then he was simply mistaken.
He might've thought I implied that; he may still think I implied that but I can tell you that at no time in the last dozen years (when I got interested in classic architecture and its history) did I imply such a thing. I can even supply my own articles on and entitled the "Philadelphia School of Architecture" in magazines such as the GAP's Philadelphia Golfer and the 2005 USGA US Amateur Program that state very much the opposite---eg that in a few significant ways courses like PV and Merion done in the early teens very much were a rejection of the architecture not only around here but generally in America that had come before them.
The reasons for that are somewhat numerous, although they primarily concentrate around just a few primary reasons that are and have always been fairly well known and understood with people who study the history of golf architecture.