Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

[TEPaul]

     "In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to England and Scotland to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course. Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA , America's first modern course, then under construction in Southampton, New York. While there he discussed an itinerary with Charles Blair Macdonald, the designer of the National and the winner of the first US Amateur in 1895. Macdonald had made a similar journey for the same purpose some eight years earlier.
        Wilson spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably. When he returned, he carried a pile of notes as well as sheaves of sketches and surveyor's maps of outstanding holes and features. All of these were avidly studied by the Committee."

I wonder where Tolhurst got this information? He published his Merion history book in 1989. Maybe we better take another look in the Merion archives.

From Merion member and "Construction Committee" member Richard Francis (an engineer and surveyor):
       "Except for many hours over a drawing board, runnng instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course.
        "The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion---with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore Ave---but the last five holes were another question.
         "I was looking at a map of the propery one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with the golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some we could use.
          "Mr Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for the land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so that the green could be built as is is today."

Sounds like just another day in 1911 in the app six month routing, design and construction of the Merion East Course by Wilson and his Merion Construction Committee, huh?  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

At least it seems that you've finally conceded that you would like for us to believe that Macdonald/Whigham, and not that amateur Wilson, were largely responsible for the design and routing of the original course at Merion.

I'd suggest that you should probably change your tagline to reflect that fact.

[TEPaul]

"Funny how the date the land was purchased was important to both of them on the last thread, but is worthless information now."

David:

No, the date the Ardmore Ave land was purchased is no more or no less important to either of us now than it was on the last thread. It was obviously purchased in 1910. Of course, either Wayne or I could go over to the County seat and spend half a day to check the recorder of deeds to see exactly when it was purchased (all that is definitely recorded) but what is the point really?  

We have never seen much necessity or interest in trying to run the validity of any of these rather ridiculous hypotheses of yours to ground anyway. We've explained that if you want to write an article about the validity of your hypotheses than we encourage you to do so. Why don't you spend half a day at the County seat and check the recorder of deeds for the exact purchase date and use it to perfect this timeline of yours? Why should we waste our time doing that to weigh the validity of hypotheses we think are ridiculous anyway?

That you would actually expect us to do that is what's funny here.

And the lease of the land in Haverford and your contention that Merion Cricket Club was being squeezed out is something I'm not aware of.

That's precisely why I asked you who owned that land and why I asked you if you are aware of the significance to Merion of the Griscoms (Clement and his son Rodman).

We will probably shortly see, when I get around to explaining it what the likely connection may've been between Merion, Rodman Griscom and particularly Robert Lesley.

Or on the other hand, why don't you try to do that research for yourself and your article too? It's really not that hard particularly with some of the obvious hints I'm giving you.

[TEPaul]

Quote from: Mike Cirba on Today at 01:09:16am
David,At least it seems that you've finally conceded that you would like for us to believe that Macdonald/Whigham, and not that amateur Wilson, were largely responsible for the design and routing of the original course at Merion.

David Moriarty's response to Mike Cirba:


Mike,

Your posts continue to baffle me.  You pop in each evening and accuse me of some dastardly, dishonest, and clandestine motive.  Perhaps you need to try to set aside whatever animosity is driving you, and actually read my words.  

From my post above, currently No. 100:

3.  Based on what I know now, I still view MacDonald and Whigham as advisors, not the designers, even if Wilson did not go to Europe to study great courses before the initial routing, construction, and sowing of the initial version of the course.  To view them as the designers would ignore the words of too many who were in a much better position to make that call than me.  And if MacDonald did not call himself the designer of Merion East, then I am certainly not going to call him the designer.  He was the committee’s advisor, but was likely a more important advisor than we realized.



Mike Cirba:

The above response seems to be typical of David Moriarty. In response to your statement above which seems to me to be a pretty accurate description of the direction he seems to be trying to go in on these threads with these “hypotheses” of his, he conveniently avoids including the following which I can certainly see would lead you and the rest of us to assume what you said above.


"4. If the trip occurred after the initial lay out, then the importance of MacDonald’s teaching, advice, and suggestions becomes much more apparent.  Like H. Wilson said, the committee knew very little about what they were doing, and Macdonald taught them well, using his own courses as the exemplar.  Not only that, CBM also inspected the site, then came down during the process to offer advice and suggestions on what the committee had done so far.  And he was extremely helpful."


"You are still assuming that the purpose of the visit to NGLA was to prepare Wilson to go to Europe.  What evidence supports this assumption?  I do not know whether or the trip for Merion was in the works, or not."

"Isn't it possible that it was during the actual "construction" process when Wilson realized how little he knew, and at this point he decided to complete the rough draft, sow the course, and then he head off you Europe after the new yearthe next year, during grow in?"

"This is where I think many are selling both CBM and Wilson short.  Apparently, many people believe that Wilson needed to go to Europe in order to learn to do what he did at Merion.  They do not think he could lay out the course without that experience.  I do not think this was necessarily the case, at least as it applies to the initial course.  With CBM's help, advice, and suggestions, he could have layed out the backbone of the course, then gone to Europe, then taken what he learned from MacDonald and what he learned overseas, and GRADUALLY altered the course until he was satisfied."

Clearly David Moriarty's foregoing questions and hypotheses, which, again, he conveniently neglected to include in his response to you above, are intended to eventually set a scenario leading to  his assumption and then conclusion whereby he will claim that in fact due to timing or inexperience Wilson and his Merion Committee actually needed Macdonald far more than the record shows that they probably did.

I think your remark above about where he is probably headed here is pretty accurate Mike.

And for what reason is he doing all this? None of us here have discounted anything that Merion, the Wilsons, Lesley, Travis, Tillinghast et al said about M&W and their "advice" or "involvement" in Merion East. It just appears that none of us are willing to place the importance on it that apparently David Moriarty is and has been for about 1,150 posts on two Merion threads he created.  

Furthermore, David Moriarty is simply plying information on here that is convenient to his fairly ridiculous homespun "hypotheses". He is completely avoiding much of the other evidence such as Alan Wilson's report, Colt's letter and its ramification of probable GB trips of Hugh Wilson et al.

He has just about completely discounted Alan Wilson's report with the off-hand explanation that he believes Alan Wilson's memory must be faulty as his report was written a dozen years later and that Hugh was his brother who had recently died so Alan Wilson must be trying to glorify Hugh in that report.

I submit that almost every one of the Merion Construction Committee and other prominent Merion members were still very much alive when Alan Wilson wrote that report. I submit that any of them most definitely would've corrected Alan's report and Philler's history book explanation if Alan had made a mistake of the facts of the creation story of Merion like that and if Hugh Wilson had not in fact gone to GB BEFORE Merion went into construction and had in fact waited to go until perhaps a year after the course's plan began to be developed and it was routed, designed and constructed.

All these men may not have had perfect memories but I certainly doubt they were all collective liars.

[TEPaul]

Another "possibility" cog in David Moriarty's "hypothesis":

"Isn't it possible that it was during the actual "construction" process when Wilson realized how little he knew, and at this point he decided to complete the rough draft, sow the course, and then he head off you Europe after the new yearthe next year, during grow in?"

Sure David, I guess anything is positive but I never thought such a thing was remotely probable. Merion's creation from the Spring of 1911 to September 1911 was a 'rough draft'

Where did you come up with that notion? Is that anywhere in Merion's record from any source, or is that just another "theory" of yours to continue to promote these "hypotheses"?  Merion intentionally completed a "rough architectural draft" of the course and then seeded it, grew it in for a year while Wilson went to GB to study architecture and then came home and did what? Did they then take apart the architecture of the course and redo it and then reseed it again and let it grow in for another year? I thought they basically took the original course into their first national championship but perhaps the entire course was redesigned and reconstructed by 1916.

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute David, you just might be a research genius.

I just found this memo from Hugh Wilson in the back of an old water stained file behind the radiator in the Merion Archive room;

"From: Hugh Wilson, Chairman Merion Construction Committee
To: The Merion Construction Committee
May, 17, 1911

       Fellows, I'm sorry but I thought I was pretty smart about this architecture business but I just realized I really don't know enough to do this or run this Committee. And obviously all of you must realize that you're all worthless novices despite what we all thought we learned from Charley Macdonald. So I propose that we get Charley and that son-in-law of his down here for the next 4-5 months to route, design and construct us a "rough draft" golf course that we can seed around September and let grow in for a year while I hie on over there to GB as Charley told me to so eventually we can complete the final draft of this course.
         It might even be a jake idea to schedude a National Championship on our "rough draft" course just to see what happens so we might get some other ideas and maybe learn a bit more about architecture.
          Fellows, I realize that most of you, and including my brother Alan, think I went to GB in the last year to study architecture for this project but I didn't exactly do that and I'd very very much appreciate it if you'd just refrain from speculating where I was for those few months.
          And if you agree to this new plan I promise that before I die this potentially talented young man Bill Flynn and our drunken foreman, Fred Pickering and I will make you up a really fine golf course at some point in the next decade and a half or so.
                                  Thank you boys.
                                  Yours Truly, your Chairman
                                            Hugh I. Wilson"

[Mike_Cirba]

Quote from: Mike Cirba on Today at 01:09:16am
David,At least it seems that you've finally conceded that you would like for us to believe that Macdonald/Whigham, and not that amateur Wilson, were largely responsible for the design and routing of the original course at Merion.

David Moriarty's response to Mike Cirba:


Mike,

Your posts continue to baffle me.  You pop in each evening and accuse me of some dastardly, dishonest, and clandestine motive.  Perhaps you need to try to set aside whatever animosity is driving you, and actually read my words.  

From my post above, currently No. 100:

3.  Based on what I know now, I still view MacDonald and Whigham as advisors, not the designers, even if Wilson did not go to Europe to study great courses before the initial routing, construction, and sowing of the initial version of the course.  To view them as the designers would ignore the words of too many who were in a much better position to make that call than me.  And if MacDonald did not call himself the designer of Merion East, then I am certainly not going to call him the designer.  He was the committee’s advisor, but was likely a more important advisor than we realized.



Mike Cirba:

The above response seems to be typical of David Moriarty. In response to your statement above which seems to me to be a pretty accurate description of the direction he seems to be trying to go in on these threads with these “hypotheses” of his, he conveniently avoids including the following which I can certainly see would lead you and the rest of us to assume what you said above.


"4. If the trip occurred after the initial lay out, then the importance of MacDonald’s teaching, advice, and suggestions becomes much more apparent.  Like H. Wilson said, the committee knew very little about what they were doing, and Macdonald taught them well, using his own courses as the exemplar.  Not only that, CBM also inspected the site, then came down during the process to offer advice and suggestions on what the committee had done so far.  And he was extremely helpful."


"You are still assuming that the purpose of the visit to NGLA was to prepare Wilson to go to Europe.  What evidence supports this assumption?  I do not know whether or the trip for Merion was in the works, or not."

"Isn't it possible that it was during the actual "construction" process when Wilson realized how little he knew, and at this point he decided to complete the rough draft, sow the course, and then he head off you Europe after the new yearthe next year, during grow in?"

"This is where I think many are selling both CBM and Wilson short.  Apparently, many people believe that Wilson needed to go to Europe in order to learn to do what he did at Merion.  They do not think he could lay out the course without that experience.  I do not think this was necessarily the case, at least as it applies to the initial course.  With CBM's help, advice, and suggestions, he could have layed out the backbone of the course, then gone to Europe, then taken what he learned from MacDonald and what he learned overseas, and GRADUALLY altered the course until he was satisfied."

Clearly David Moriarty's foregoing questions and hypotheses, which, again, he conveniently neglected to include in his response to you above, are intended to eventually set a scenario leading to  his assumption and then conclusion whereby he will claim that in fact due to timing or inexperience Wilson and his Merion Committee actually needed Macdonald far more than the record shows that they probably did.

I think your remark above about where he is probably headed here is pretty accurate Mike.

And for what reason is he doing all this? None of us here have discounted anything that Merion, the Wilsons, Lesley, Travis, Tillinghast et al said about M&W and their "advice" or "involvement" in Merion East. It just appears that none of us are willing to place the importance on it that apparently David Moriarty is and has been for about 1,150 posts on two Merion threads he created.  

Furthermore, David Moriarty is simply plying information on here that is convenient to his fairly ridiculous homespun "hypotheses". He is completely avoiding much of the other evidence such as Alan Wilson's report, Colt's letter and its ramification of probable GB trips of Hugh Wilson et al.

He has just about completely discounted Alan Wilson's report with the off-hand explanation that he believes Alan Wilson's memory must be faulty as his report was written a dozen years later and that Hugh was his brother who had recently died so Alan Wilson must be trying to glorify Hugh in that report.

I submit that almost every one of the Merion Construction Committee and other prominent Merion members were still very much alive when Alan Wilson wrote that report. I submit that any of them most definitely would've corrected Alan's report and Philler's history book explanation if Alan had made a mistake of the facts of the creation story of Merion like that and if Hugh Wilson had not in fact gone to GB BEFORE Merion went into construction and had in fact waited to go until perhaps a year after the course's plan began to be developed and it was routed, designed and constructed.

All these men may not have had perfect memories but I certainly doubt they were all collective liars.

Tom,

I know.

It's sort of ironic that David claims my posts baffle him.   Perhaps it's because his posts baffle me.

It seems to me that David is trying to keep every single possible option open, so that no matter what comes to light, his hypotheses will be "right".   If he keeps claiming Wilson was the designer while spending 90% of his energies trying to proved that Wilson and the Committee were nincompoops without a clue except for the advise of Macdonald and Whigham, he can't lose, can he?

He continually wants it both ways;  Wilson was the designer but couldn't do a damn thing unless M&W told him what to do.  In fact, they were so damn helpful that in a matter of one overnight stay and two site visits they managed to lead those Merion sheep from concept to full-blown course in six months.      

Lord, this gets tiresome.  

[TEPaul]

"Lord, this gets tiresome. "

MikeC:

It sure does, and for what? Are these 35 pages of threads so he can feel comfortable that all of us can completely agree on the exact specific meaning of what the descriptions of M&W's "advice" and "involvement" are in the routing, design and construction of Merion East??

Who really cares? And particularly when an entire Committee who was chosen to carry this out all said that Hugh Wilson in the main was the architect of the East and West Courses. This isn't conjecture, they obviously all said that to Alan Wilson. Does this guy Moriarty really entertain for a moment the notion that all those people were collectively trying to glorify Hugh Wilson and were lying about the facts to do that??

If so that is as nonsensical as Tom MacWood initially implying that not just Pine Valley but most all Philadelphia golf was lying about Crump's efforts regarding the routing, design and construction of Pine Valley to glorify him for the purpose of minimizing Colt's involvement.

This kind of thing is just mindboggling, it's madness and a massive waste of time and energy. In my opinion, it completely marginalizes the competence and credibilty of the people who do that like those two.

If David Moriarty is so fixated on assigning SPECIFIC design credit to people who stop in on a project for a few days and advise on various things then I do not understand why he refuses to give me my design credit and due for my contribution to the architecture of Rustic Canyon (his own HOME COURSE for Chrissstsakes!! ) or at least acknowledge it when I mention it as an analogy of some specific contribution----which frankly I don't exactly understand but those out there who had to do with it everyday say so anyway. Tommy Naccarato always has and did last week again, but this week it is probably no longer convenient to say such a thing.  

[Mike_Cirba]

If David Moriarty is so fixated on assigning SPECIFIC design credit to people who stop in on a project for a few days and advise on various things then I do not understand why he refuses to give me my design credit and due for my contribution to the architecture of Rustic Canyon (his own HOME COURSE for Chrissstsakes!! ) or at least acknowledge it when I mention it as an analogy of some specific contribution----which frankly I don't exactly understand but those out there who had to do with it everyday say so anyway. Tommy Naccarato always has and did last week again, but this week it is probably no longer convenient to say such a thing.  

I am fixated with assigning design credit?  I beleive you may have us confused.  

As for Rustic Canyon and your big contribution, apparently you think it was mighty important because you bring it up virtually every time the design of Rustic Canyon gets discussed, and sometimes when it doesnt.  

But, Tom, you are entitled to whatever credit Gil, Jim, and Geoff want to give you.  They were there and I trust their judgment.  Just as I trust the judgement of H. Wilson, Lesley, Travis, and Tillinghast.  

You evidently don't trust Tillinghast at all, David, except when it's convenient to do so, as his 1934 statement making CRYSTAL clear that Hugh Wilson was the genius, architect, and principal driver behind both courses at Merion has not been mentioned on this thread.

You also forget about Max Behr's statement in 1914 making very clear that Hugh Wilson was the guy who made ALL the decisions at Merion, after sifting through said advice from various sources.

You also forget about extemporaneous, local news articles I've sited that call Wilson the man who "layed out both courses at Merion".

You overlook the clear evidence that Wilson was immediately asked to do the West course, as well, without a single iota of involvement from M&W less than 12 months after the East opened, and then was asked to do a number of other prominent architectural jobs.

You also fail to acknowledge the common sense fact that the members of Merion asked Wilson to continue to evolve the course for the next 13 years, including a number of major revisions with William Flynn helping.  

You overlook all of this evidence and then would have us believe that Wilson learned all of this, essentially everything he knew about architecture...during one night at NGLA and from two site visits Macdonald & Whigham graciously provided him and the committee.

Have you ever thought of writing for "News Of The World"?   I think their feature Elvis sighter retired recently.  

[JESII]

DM,

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt as it pertains to your intentions with this thread. I will believe that you are quite curious about the process in which Merion East came into being in 1912.

I think it would be quite helpful for you to lay out a complete timeline of events from about mid 1910 up to opening day in September of 1912.

I think just factual citings would be all that should go on this list, even if it is written quotes from 20 years later. I understand there will be significant inconsistencies (in fact that is what I find most interesting about all of this), but let's see if we can put them on a list and go from there.




September 1911 - The course is seeded.

September 14, 1912 - The course opens for play



Thanks, I think a list will help with some confusion on my part.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

As for Rustic Canyon, don't ask me, ask those who were there and part of the project. The reason I bring it up is something you apparently totally missed the implication and analogy of.

I don't see that I did much of anything in those two days there discussing particularly two holes. But they all tell me it was a big help somehow. Frankly I never saw it that way but whom am I to say?---they were the one's who were there every day and designed built the golf course just like Hugh Wilson and his Merion Committee did at Merion East.

Your occasional implication that Merion and those there every day were hiding something about Macdonald's contributions is the reason for this analogy. I don't think they were hiding anything, or glorifying Hugh Wilson or anything of the kind. I think their words speak precisely for themselves and that has been my point all along on Merion and these threads and "hypotheses" of yours. If there was something truly specific and significant on his part in the actual events of the routing, design and construction I have no doubt at all they'd be the first to admit it and point it out and give him credit for it.

And that's exactly what you seem to continue to misread and misunderstand.

I don't blame you for that at all---it simply shows how inexperienced you really are in these types of things.

But my hope is you will learn.

[TEPaul]

"At this point I do not expect you guys to to anything at all, or at least not anything that has the potential to undermine your preconceptions. [How'd I do, Shivas?]  You guys have made it readily apparent that you are not interested in looking into anything except what you decided was true before you began to research and prove it."

David:

Not at all. Wayne and I would welcome any new information or documentation or reasonable reinterpretation of events. We simply don't believe any of your "hypotheses" or any of your reinterpretations of events or arguments concerning them are reasonable. Obviously you might think they are but I don't see that many others do.

You are also completely avoiding the evidence of people and events that don't mesh with your arguments and "Hypotheses". You act like this all happened in some kind of historical vacuum. There were many involved in that project and if almost anything was as far removed from fact as you seem to imply from time to time, I see absolutely no reason at all why any number of those people involved wouldn't have been the first to correct it back then.

In my opinion, people like you and Tom MacWood simply question courses and projects and events that are extremely well known just for your personal entertainment and egoism. And given that the thing that fascinates me so much about you two is just how thin-skinned you both are about it all.

But despite even that, if you come up with anything at all that's reasonable and well argued, particularly about the creation of Merion East (or West), Wayne and I will be the first to embrace it and discuss it.

You simply haven't done anything like that on either of these threads as much as you protest to the contrary.  

[TEPaul]

"You weren't aware that it was leased land?  Well chalk this up as a little bit more information I am providing you."

David:

I didn't say I wasn't aware that the land was leased and the land that contained the second nine wasn't on Clement Griscom's property (Rodman Griscom's father). I said I doubt that Merion was being 'squeezed" by that lease as you mentioned in these threads. Rodman Griscom was perhaps one of Merion's biggest early "angels" as apparently his father was too. Rodman Griscom and Robert Lesley were also probably the two who knew Macdonald as well as anyone else at Merion. These are things you pretty much need to learn before you go shooting your mouth off with all these unsophisticated and uninformed "hypotheses" or yours. It seems to be our unfortunate and underappreciated plight to continually teach you these things on here and on these threads.

To continue to do that really isn't our responsibility as you seem to imply. If you want to understand Merion's creation and history and write some article reinterpreting it you should do your own research as we have on the creation and history of Merion, particularly as it relates to William Flynn. But I should remind you in case you weren't or aren't aware of it---we are writing a book on the architect William Flynn, who learned a good deal of his trade at and around Merion---we are not writing another history of Merion itself.

[TEPaul]

"I never said they were being squeezed out.  R.J. Daley wondered it their may have been time constrainsts on getting the new course opened and I was listing possible scenarios where there might have been.  If their lease was coming to an end, then that would be a potential time constraint."

David Moriarty:

No one on here needs you to list 'possible scenarios" about the leased land of the course that preceded Merion East. What those on here do need you to do is begin to learn a whole lot better all the ramifications of the history of Merion and Merion Cricket Club. That's a good deal of what pisses us off about you---you act like some necessary investigator that is doing history some service. If you even want to think about something like that and write a cogent article about it you probably need to come here and do a few years of really in-depth research before shooting your mouth off with all these ridiculous and argumentative "hypotheses".

You probably even think what I just said is getting personal with you again, over which you will probably take personal umbrage again. There is nothing personal about it at all, in my opinion, this is strictly a research and intellectual excercise and nothing personal at all is meant by it by me.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Similar to Tom at Rustic Canyon, that was exactly the point of my story on the other thread where I spent a day at a local club "advising" the restoration committee in detail about their plans.  To me, my role was to simply help them to see what they already knew inherently.

However, I believe if you asked them, they would tell you that my advice was very beneficial and of great value.  

While that might be true from their perspective and largely poppycock to me, my overall input still amounted to a few grains of sand on a very large beach when one considers the project as a whole.

Ultimately, it's basic math.

1 night at NGLA
2 days at NGLA
2 site visits of M&W to Merion

no matter how beneficial, hardly =

180 days overseas studying the great courses
365 days building, laying out, supervising, and constructing the East course

It also says it all that whatever M&W's involvement was with Merion, it terminated very early on, without a scintilla of additional involvement in the West course less than a year after the East opened, nor in the host of changes, additions, and refinements on the East Course that literally took place til the end of Wilson's life 13 years later.

To accept your hypothesis, David, one would have to accept the preposterous notion that in those 3 days, M&W taught Wilson virtually EVERYTHING he would need to know to not only design Merion East, but Merion West, and Seaview, and Cobb's Creek, and Phoenixville, and to lay out the Crump's final four holes at Pine Valley, not to mention advise at places like Kittansett and North Hills!  

Unless Macdonald knew the Vulcan Mind Meld, and applied it to Hugh Wilson during their brief time together, then as Spock would say, "your hypothesis is completely illlogical and as remote as the moons of planet Remulon"!      

Remember that Behr stated clearly as early as 1914 that Wilson at Merion, Macdonald at NGLA, and Leeds at Myopia studied course architecture and construction as no one ever had before, and therefore were each singularly worthy of having dictatorial powers at each of their respective clubs.

I'm quite sure that when Behr said this, he wasn't referring to the 3 days Wilson spent with M&W, even though I'm also sure that was a very beneficial part of what Wilson learned, as he and others stated.  

But, there was much, much, much more that Wilson learned from a variety of other people, like Piper & Oakley, Fred Pickering (who had previous course construction experience and was onsite every day), William Flynn (who had designed a course in New England previously), likely local architect Tillinghast (who had already designed Shawnee) and also I'm sure through lots of trial and error and sweat and blood, working there himself on a day-to-day basis.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Just to be clear on some of the details of what you said above, Hugh Wilson did not lay out the last four holes at Pine Valley that had not been completely finished (#12-#15) at Crump's death. He may've had a little something to do with some of the final architectural details on those holes and their agronomy but they were pretty well roughed in when Crump died. Wilson did become the Green Chairman at PVGC for a time after Crump's death and he and a number of others including Govan, Flynn and the 1921 Advisory Committee that included his brother Alan and W.C. Fownes, among others, were probably all in on putting the finishing touches on those last four holes to be brought into play. But Wilson didn't design them.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

Just to be clear on some of the details of what you said above, Hugh Wilson did not lay out the last four holes at Pine Valley that had not been completely finished (#12-#15) at Crump's death. He may've had a little something to do with some of the final architectural details on those holes and their agronomy but they were pretty well roughed in when Crump died. Wilson did become the Green Chairman at PVGC for a time after Crump's death and he and a number of others including Govan, Flynn and the 1921 Advisory Committee that included his brother Alan and W.C. Fownes, among others, were probably all in on putting the finishing touches on those last four holes to be brought into play. But Wilson didn't design them.

Tom,

I know and my wording was probably poor there.

I just said he "laid out Crump's final four holes...", when I should have just said "finished to Crump's design".

[JESII]

Now listen...don't go trying to take credit away from Wison for those 4 holes...remember our goal here on GCA...

[TEPaul]

You know MikeC, when you mention what Max Behr said about Merion and Hugh Wilson in 1914 and also later, the point of what he said may not be what you think it is. Frankly, it may be even more interesting, however, and certainly more interesting in the context of this thread, certainly in the context of David Moriarty's apparent implication that Hugh Wilson may've need Macdonald at any time after the East got going because he was in some way a novice.

The fact is, and this is from personal letters, it appears that neither Hugh nor Alan Wilson knew Max Behr very well, or at least personally. Hugh was sort of fascinated by not only what Max said about Merion and about him but particularly the way he said it. Alan Wilson, frankly, wasn't evern aware that Behr knew Merion and that's as late as 1923.

So, obviously what Behr said about Wilson and particularly as early as 1914 surely must have meant that even at that early date Hugh Wilson's reputation as a very fine architect with a great course under his belt was seriously preceeding him.

You see, David Moriarty seems to be nearly oblivous to any of this.

I think if David Moriarty is going to attempt to launch into a historical analysis and reinterpretation of some well known golf course, with an eye to writing an article about it or its creation, he should stick to one he knows something about, if there even is one somewhere.

Quite clearly Merion is not the one!

[JESII]

September 1911 - The course is seeded.

September 14, 1912 - The course opens for play


Sometime in 1914 - Max Behr is quoted as saying Wilson...studied course architecture and construction as noone had before...and held dictatorial control over the process at Merion.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I'm sorry if my debating style becomes a bit pointed at times and I apologize if I am very, very confused by your postings because I am still uncertain about your overall point.

I do not want my posts to be offensive to you and I apologize if they have been; I'm just trying to make my points aggressively and if your hypothesis is proven correct over my (and others) challenges, then I think our purpose will have been to help you hone and refine and rethink your positions for the better.

That being said, I do not believe that what you just said is correct, at least for me.   What I mean by that is that I do believe it is possible that the "pre-trip" Wilson and Committee may have designed the East course, particularly considering that both Flynn and Pickering had previous design and construction experience, respectively.   I still think it's probably unlikely, but it's certainly not beyond the pale.  It's also quite consistent with Alan Wilson's report indicating that the original design, construction and subsequent revisions through 1925 were wholly "homegrown".

Where I think we continue to differ is mainly around how much input Macdonald was able to provide to that process given what's known and documented as to Wilson & the Committee's visit to NGLA, and the two site visits.   In the grand scheme of things, I just don't believe that warrants much in the way of additional design credit beyond what has already been acknowledged.  

I'm certain he was helpful;  I agree it was wonderful advice and that Wilson and the committee learned a great deal from him, particularly around the principles of the great holes, as Wilson apparently mentioned a number of times.  

But, unless something additional surfaces that points to Macdonald actually doing something in terms of the specific routing, or features of particular holes, then I still believe that his role was tertiary at best.

Again, I do not wish to offend you David, although I can tell from your response that I have.   For that I am sorry and I would like to apologize.  

I just think your hypothesis requires a leap beyond where I'm willing to go based on the evidence to date about Macdonald's involvement, and if anything, I think the Merion threads you've started have solidified Wilson's status in my mind, and I also sense that Pickering may have had a much greater role than previously acknowledged in the original design.

[RJ_Daley]

One hope I have out of all this discussion is that it heightens the awareness of various people to keep on the look-out for previously unexamined letters and documents.  Perhaps, some old family has letters of an old great grandfather who might have been an original member of Merion, or some acquaintence who might mention or describe these events.  

Most importantly, I think there might be other publications, local newspapers, or periodicals, that are archived somewhere that will further describe things.  You never know when someone will bump into something, if they have had a stimulated awareness from discussions like this.

[Patrick_Mucci]

While it is not yet dispositive, the evidence weighs heavily against this conclusion.  

1.   Multiple sources say that the committee went to NGLA.  

2.   Wilson states that he saw the great courses “later,” and they confirmed what he had learned from Macdonald.  

As I have said before, this does not completely eliminate the possibility of him having gone overseas before the committee met with NGLA, but if he did go overseas before these meetings he either did not study the courses or, if he studied them, he learned next to nothing about laying out a golf course.

Dave,

I think the quotes preclude a prior visit.
Plus, whomever is doing the research on the voyages overseas, should be able to peruse the manifests and see if HIW sailed sometime between 1908 and his voyage of record.

To suggest that he learned nothing on his "theorized" first visit, but came away a genius after his second visit is more than a stretch.

And, if he didn't learn anything on his first visit, why send him on a second ?

If someone came back from a tour of the courses in the UK and could offer nothing in the way of insight into the routing, design and construction of golf courses, I sure wouldn't send him a second time.   I'd send somebody else.

It's clear that the committee sent him to study the golf courses of the UK and that he stopped in to visit CBM prior to doing so, since CBM had embarked upon the same journey for almost the same purpose, thus the stopover with CBM was a quick primer 101.[/color]  

He notes that they knew nothing more about constructing a course than the average club member, and also that the task was much more daunting than they expected it to be:  

“I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half the things we did not know."  

Dave, I can tell you that "on the job training" is a reality when endeavering to embark on almost any project beyond the area of your expertise.

There's a lot more than meets the eye and I think the above comment is simply one of honesty.[/color]

This does not sound to me like he already had an overseas study trip under his belt.  

That's because you're unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of a golf course project.

You can study courses all you want, but, building them is another discipline, and in many cases, on the job experience can be the greatest teacher.[/color]

______________________
Patrick,

We are in agreement:  If H. Wilson did not go overseas to study before the committee routed, constructed, and sowed Merion East, then the entire committee consisted of rank novices.    

We also agree that it would have been a tough task for rank novices to have routed and built the early Merion East.

Yes, and No

Certainly, figuring out the routing puzzle can be daunting, however, anyone can come up with "A" routing.  
The critical question is: how good is it ?[/color]

Where we differ is whether or not it would have been possible for rank novices to pull it off, even with M&W acting as advisors.

You are sure they could not have done it, while I see no reason to doubt the historical record on the matter; they did it, with the advice and suggestions of M&W.

That's where we differ.
When you consider what's involved in the routing, design and cosntruction of a golf course, one night spent discussing construction techniques would be insufficient to bring them up to speed, as would limited site visits, pre, during or post construction.

If I were going to the UK for 7 months to study the courses, holes and features, you can be rest assured that my eyes wouldn't be the only tools I'd be using to compile data.
I'd be engaged in in-depth and protracted conversations about every aspect of golf course design: routing, design and construction.

For you to attribute the routing, design and construction of Merion to one night spent discussing construction and a few limited visits with CBM, would confer upon Wilson and the committee superhuman powers of observation, comprehension and creativity beyond one's imagination.

If given the same time limits with C&C, Dye, Doak or Fazio if you could produce a product the equivalent of Merion ?[/color]

But suppose we learn that Wilson definitely did not go overseas to study before he and the committee routed, constructed, and sowed Merion East?  Will you stick with this position, then?  If so, then who could have routed and constructed the course?

David, offering a hypothetical doesn't address the issue, and is a diversionary tactic that will produce no factual results.
You're a lawyer, you know that. [/color]
________________________________

David Stamm,

NGLA was opened on September 11, 1911, while they were sowing seed at Merion, so the Tolhurst reference doesn’t really narrow it down the date of the NGLA trip much at all.

There was an “informal invitational tournament” (Bahto) at NGLA in July of 1910, long before the course opened.   So there would have been plenty to see by then.  

But contrary to TEPaul’s speculation above, construction was not complete at this time.  According to Bahto, Macdonald used the tournament as a “test run” and made a number of changes after the tournament.  For example, a new 18th green (then the 9th) was built, and the 2nd was substantially lengthened. (Bahto.)  H.L. Fitzpatrick reported in the January 1911, American Golfer that NGLA was “not yet complete.”  
Here is a 1910 photo of the first green on the Sahara hole.
 



David, I often wonder if that's the 11th hole, or the 12th hole?

The flag and the hill behind the green, together with the configuration of the green lead me to believe that it's the 12th green.

If it was the 11th green it would have to be well short of the crest of the hill, which would make the hole about 165 to 185 yards long, at most.  Yet, the original 12th was 262 yards long.

Perhaps the photo is mislabeled or I'm mistaken.[/color]
 

Here is the exact quote of Tolhurst:

"In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to England and Scotland to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course.

Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA ,
America's first modern course, then under construction in Southampton, New York."

[Phil_the_Author]

As I have followed along without recently commenting, time and unforseen circumstances preventing, I have 2 questions to ask.

David &/or Mike... is it anyone's contention that Wilson, "pre-trip" and without any significant help from CBM, could NOT have designed Merion?

The second one can only be answered at this point by David and is one I posed a number of pages back without any answer being given. Is there any PROOF that the Wilson in the posted passenger manifest IS THE Wilson of Merion fame?

There have been several pages of comments now based upon this accepted "fact" when in reality it is still unrpoven supposition.

This is important to me as unless there is proof, this can ONLY be an intellectual exercise in "what if" rather than a debate as to actual "who," "what," when," where," "why" and especially "how."

David, you stated that you had a "hypothesis" that you wanted to explore in a very scientific manner; therefor that proof is needed.

Finally, if you are considering writing this for publication, then unless you provide the proof, it can ONLY be written as a "what if." I don't see that as being something you either believe or story you are interested in writing.

 

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

I wouldn't even bother to apologize to David Moriarty for what you said was a somewhat harsh debating style on your part. I mean what's the point? Do you think he's going to pay any attention to that?

Just look at this fellow on his last few posts. Not only are his arguments on these threads a constant stream of mindbending trivialities and useless argumentation but once again and right about on schedule for him he has begun to act pouty and hurt as if he has been personally challenged and threatened by a bunch of goons.

Wayne and I deleted all our posts from that other thread because we got into that mode with him and we never should have. He should've deleted his posts on that other thread that were in that vein too. Who needs that as a record on here?

Look at his last few posts. He's acting like a piqued child again. He's telling us he doesn't want to hear about our 'fifteen minutes of fame' even though we offer those things as real analogies to what probably happened once long ago at Merion. He doesn't get that or doesn't want to hear it as it shows his argument and his "hypotheses" for what they really are.

And he completely avoids all kinds of evidence that show his timelines and hypotheses for what they really are---eg a truly amateurish dialetic designed for one purpose only---to defend these preposterous assertions of his at all cost.

Look at his post #102. Can you believe that one? He's acting like he thinks he's some kind of courageous "Little David" defending some kind of honor or principle against a big Goliath that's bunch of Philadelphia goons who're only out to glorify Wilson and denegrate Macdonald and insult "Little David" personally in the process. He says on that post he's standing up to them and calling them out and facing them down so that this subject and thread can carry on as an intelligent discussion.

Unbelievable!!

Somebody really should take this fellow aside and tell him to put his little slingshot and his ridiculous little rocks away. As both you and JES have implied this really is a pathetic little vendetta on his part and it should stop. It's definitely waste of time.