Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty, TEPaul, et. al.,

I think this has been an informative exercise.

One has to view Dave's theory along the following lines.

1     Wilson was in the UK prior to the design and cosntruction
       of Merion.

2     Wilson was in the UK after the design and construction
       of Merion.

3     Wilson was in the UK during the design and constuction
       of Merion.

4     A combination of the above.

5     Wilson was never in the UK

Irrespective of the answer, a related question remains.
Were any of the committee members in the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion ?

Since we know the names of the committee members we should be able to ascertain that information.

If none of the committee members were in the UK PRIOR to design and construction, then any reference to the architectural qualities/values of the courses in the UK would have had to have been obtained through third parties.

Other architects have been able to design superior golf courses without examining the courses of the UK.

What talents, experience and resources did the committee have at their disposal that would enable them to produce a golf course acclaimed as superior from the get go ?  
One that's withstood the ultimate test, that of time.

Pat, that is totally ridiculous!  Totally and completely!

No it isn't.

Since when is obtaining more data, more information ridiculous ?[/color]

The entire history of the club references WILSON going to GB and WILSON coming back with sketches and WILSON being the driving force.

David Moriarty has introduced a powerful element that can't be ignored, the required re-entry manifests of ships departing for America.  Detailed documentation listing all those who are entering America.  If HIW can't be found on the Manifests of all of the ships arriving in America from 1910 until the completion date at Merion, one has to question the accuracy of Merion's club history.

As to the sketches, they could have been obtained from third parties.

Dave Moriarty has presented a valid question/theory.
If ALL of the Manifests between 1910 and the completion of Merion are examined and HIW's name is not found, it would be difficult to support the "history of Merion's" account of Wilson's involvement.

Adding to this is the attribution of the design of Merion to M&R by Whigham circa 1936 ? [/color]

And now that it looks like he might not have went, you want a shift-on-the-fly substitute like hockey and find out if any of the other committee members were there prior to construction?  

I think it's relevant.[/color]

C'mon, that's preposterous, and I know you know it, at least as far as to whether the currently accepted understanding of Merion assigns rightful and due credit to the parties involved.  

We've been exposed to errors in other club's history books, like Pine Valley's, so why must we accept a club's history book as totally accurate and complete, without question ?
Especially when the question may have some contradictory basis in fact.

You're an attorney, why would you reject and deny the discovery process ?[/color]

It may be useful in determining who might have been more valuable that previously thought,  assuming that Wilson didn't go but not as to whether or not the currently accepted Merion history apportions credit appropriately.


I wouldn't make that judgement until all of the substantive facts are known.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Besides, even if it were to be true, then the logical conclusion to be drawn is that Hugh Wilson and his bother flat out lied and stole credit from their fellow committee members.  Getting dates wrong a decade later is one thing; claiming to have been the one who came back from GB with all the ideas in your head when you weren't would be quite another.  

If TEP is going to get whipped into a tizzy of a kooky lawyer's theory, I think this one has it over any of DaveM's theories 8 ways to Sunday...."

I certainly am not. Lawyer's theories haven't done golf, golf architecture or Merion's record and history one damn bit of good, in my opinion.

I was just waiting for some lawyer to imply or even accuse either or both Wilsons of lying and I didn't have to wait all that long either.

If the lawyers on here want to compete with each other over their "hypotheses" and techniques on argumentation then I suggest they take them and themselves into some "mock court" somewhere.

I'm going to Long Island and I won't be Online---Thank God!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, my comments stand (notwithstanding your usual MacKenzie-inspired rhetorical green camoflage).

It's ridiculous to now bring up the theory that other committee members likely went to GB (instead of Wilson) and that therefore no further credit is due to CBM.  

That's not my theory, that's your convoluted misinterpretation of a legitimate question.

If HIW never went to the UK prior to the completion of Merion, why is it IMPROPER to ASK if other committee members had spent time playing or studying golf courses in the UK prior to the creation of Merion ?

That's the single most preposterous thing that's been uttered on these Merion threads, and that's saying a lot!  

It's a legitimate question.
If HIW never went to the UK prior to the completion of Merion, knowing if other committee members had played or studied the courses of the UK is a material piece of information.

If NO members of the committee played or studied courses in the UK prior to the completion of Merion, then any reference to the influence of courses in the UK has to be deeply discounted or dismissed.

If none of the members had the UK experience, then some questions have to be asked.  Some of which are:

1  To which third party sources did they turn for advice ?
2   Where did they get the UK sketches from ?
3   How much of Whigham's claim re M&R has merit ?

If members of the committee had played/studied courses of the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion, then reference to the influence of the courses of the UK would be legitimate.

The question remains.   Did they play or study courses of the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion ?

Besides, even if it were to be true, then the logical conclusion to be drawn is that Hugh Wilson and his bother flat out lied and stole credit from their fellow committee members.

You conclusion isn't logical, it's emotional.

I know several partners of a large successful corporation.
If you talk to each one of them, they all claim being the major force behind the success of the corporation.  Are they lying, or is that their legitimate perspective ?  

Getting dates wrong a decade later is one thing; claiming to have been the one who came back from GB with all the ideas in your head when you weren't would be quite another.  

That's why they have judges, juries, plaintiffs and defendents.
You, above everyone else should know that.

If TEP is going to get whipped into a tizzy of a kooky lawyer's theory, I think this one has it over any of DaveM's theories 8 ways to Sunday....

I have no dog in this fight, but, you can't ignore what Dave has presented in his theory and his support for his theory.

If you've been reading this thread, you know that I haven't given Dave's theory any weight until he produced the Manifest of the S.S. Philadelphia AND researched the entry manifests from 1910 to 1912.

If, between the period of 1910 and May 1912 there is no record of HIW having been in the UK, vis a vis the entry manifests of every sailing ship, one must look, with enlightened suspicion, upon the claim that Wilson traveled to, studied and brought back sketches of courses in the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion.

One must then look to the experience of the other committee members, all of whom were intimately familiar with golf, for their experience in the UK.

If no substantive experience existed, some conclusions might be valid.

1     They did it without a UK influence, by themselves.
2     They did it without a UK influence, aided by others.
   2A Who influenced them ?
   2B  What was the quality and quantity of that influence ?

All of these are legitimate questions that should be addressed.

You may recall that Tom MacWood was met with the same disapproval for challenging accepted history, and that the protestations were passionate if not contentious, from others, including me, with respect to his claim that Crump didn't die from an infection in his tooth that traveled to his brain.

So, before we discount or dismiss Dave's theory, let's examine it more carefully and seek the information that will clarify, confirm or deny what actually happened

That's reasonable isn't it ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

I am surprised that you are now challenging the reasonableness of the theory that H. Wilson’s first trip to golf overseas was in 1912. Early in this thread (before I posted the manifests) you concluded that Hugh Wilson’s own statement “proves he went to GB AFTER meeting with M&W at National with his committee (or members of his committee.) (my bolds)

You also note that Hugh Wilson would not have described himself as a novice had he "already spent a number of months in GB studying golf courses and their architecture in preperation to build Merion East.

What has caused you to change your tune on this particular issue?"


David Moriarty:

I just don't understand this. I'm quite sure Wilson did go to GB after meeting with M&W at National. As I said on my first post on this thread we have just never known when he went to see M&W at the National or when he went to GB. Alan Wilson's report certainly makes it sound like he went to GB early in the project---eg before they began to design and construct the course. Alan Wilson said 'On his return the plan was gradually evolved...."

If you are now ONCE AGAIN trying to make it sound like I said I believe that Wilson was too much of a novice to layout and build the course (Spring 1911 to September 1911) if he had not been to GB FIRST I will remind you I never said anything like that.

That is the same thing you said when I mentioned you are putting words in my mouth I never said. Just check out post #183 again or I will cut and paste it up here to prove I never said that.

I have not changed my tune at all and you really do have to learn to stop putting words in people's mouths they never said in some attempt to keep making these points of yours on this "Hypothesis".

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul:

The portion of my post you quote had nothing to do with whether you have previously said that had Wilson not gone to Europe before, he would not have the knowledge base to have built Merion East, or whether I put words in your mouth (I did not.)"

David Moriarty:

Well, at least I'm glad to hear that!

"Rather, the post was in response to these comments you made above, and those that follow.  Specifically you asked:

Quote from: TEPaul on January 06, 2007, 02:05:28 pm
How reasonable is it really to assume that his first trip to Europe or GB to play golf was in 1912 when he was 32 years old?
 
You had already concluded that Wilson's overseas golf trip (where he learned about design) was not before the NGLA trip, so I was wondering why you now think that he may have been overseas golfing (and learning about design) at some earlier date."

David:

Again, you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. I simply asked how reasonable is it to assume that a 32 years old man like Wilson who was a good golfer had not been to GB before. Take the remark as a legitimate question and try not to assume or imply I said or implied something in that question I did not say or imply.

The primary point of this exchange and discussion is that I never said that if Wilson had not been to GB BEFORE Merion East went into construction that he was too much the novice to have done it wih his committee.

If this is a point you are going to try to say, imply or suggest I ever implied on here I am going to continue to tell you that I have never said anything or impliecd anything of the kind.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 08:33:24pm
David:

Again, you seem to be trying to put words in my mouth. I simply asked how reasonable is it to assume that a 32 years old man like Wilson who was a good golfer had not been to GB before. Take the remark as a legitimate question and try not to assume or imply I said or implied something in that question I did not say or imply.
 
 

Come on, Tom, your question was rhetorical, as was made clear by your description of how common it was for these people to travel overseas, using your own family as an example.  

Plus, you already answered this question in this very thread when you noted that Wilson's own statements prove that he could not have gone earlier!  Otherwise, he would not have said "later" and would not have described himself as a "novice," to use your word."

David Moriarty:

My question was rhetorical?

Rhetorical??

I think that pretty much says it all about you, your arguments and your hypotheses.  

My questions about the mode of travel in those days, be it my family or those such as Hugh Wilson in 1910 are merely questions of fact. The problem is you just can handle those questions, and those questions of fact!!!  

[TEPaul]

"You also note that Hugh Wilson would not have described himself as a novice had he "already spent a number of months in GB studying golf courses and their architecture in preperation to build Merion East.”

David Moriarty:

Would you mind showing me where I 'noted' that?

[TEPaul]

"Unfortunately, Tom, this has just not been the case.  You, Wayne Morrison, Mike Cirba, and others have continuously minimized Macdonald’s “part in Merion” by insisting that almost every bit of credit remain in Philadelphia; by insisting that a few newspaper articles did not establish that  Macdonald had actually been helpful with the laying out of the course; by insisting that Macdonald’s involvement was tangential and that the acknowledgements were gratuitous; by insisting that there was no information regarding Macdonald’s involvement beyond his preparing Wilson for the trip."

David Moriarty:

Show us where we said Macdonald's involvement was 'tangential'. Show us were we said any acknowledgements were 'gratuitous'. Show us where we said 'a few newspaper articles did not establish that Macdonald had been helpful'.

I don't know what the others said but I know what I said. I said Macdonald apparently came to Philadelphia to look at the site before construction, probably in the latter half of 1910. I said that the record indicates that he came to Philadelphia probably in the spring to look at the plans for the course. That was probably a grand total of a day or two. And I've said that Wilson, his committee, Pickering, Flynn, Valentine et spent EVERY DAY for about six months laying out, designing and building that golf course between the spring of 1911 and Sept of 1911.

To get an idea of what that means and of who laid out, designed and built the golf course you do the math----that is if you have any idea how to do the math.

[Mike_Cirba]

It didn't look anything like NGLA in the earliest iterations.

First, Mike, you confuse mere style and aesthetics, on the one hand, with substantive principles underlying good golf holes, on the other hand.  Macdonald was interested in spreading the basic principles of good golf, not with spreading any particular style.

Second, as for the supposed lack of naturalness of Macdonald’s courses, you again confuse Macdonald's work at NGLA in the early 1910s with Raynor's style.   The pictures I have seen from around this time (1910-1912) look little or nothing like what you apparently think was always Macdonald's style.  

Third, while you name a few holes mentioned in the articles (redan, alps, valley of sin, Eden green) this is by no means a comprehensive list of possible design principles Wilson may have learned from M&W, especially if these principles were incorporated into Merion’s natural conditions, as Hugh Wilson says they were.
________________

David,

I'm not confusing anything.   CB Macdonald and his disciples had a very identifiable "fingerprint" on their designs, irrespective of "naturalness", or lack thereof of the features.

On every one of their courses, they sought to create identifiable template holes, copied after their favorites overseas, as you well know.   Short, Eden, Biarritz, Redan, Alps, Double Plateau, Long, Cape, Leven, Punchbowl, Sahara, Hog-back, etc, etc.

Not every course included all the template holes, but most courses features a vast predominance of them.

Ironically, none of them included Valley of Sin features.  Do you think this was suggested by Macdonald for WIlson to use at Merion on 16 and 17?  I very much doubt that.

Even more ironically, their Eden greens were very tame in terms of slope back to front and all appeared on par threes.  Why would the green on 15 at Merion have very sharp pitch back to front, similar to the original at St. Andrews, but very different than the one at NGLA?   If it's an Eden green at all, as Travis evidently thought, then why does it appear on a par four when every other Eden green built by Raynor/Macdonald appear on par threes?

Despite your efforts to view the original 10th at Merion as an "Alps" and the present 3rd as a redan (despite the fact it bears almost none of the primary characteristics of every single other redan M&W and Raynor ever built), there is no way that Merion follows the templated design mode of EVERY other Macdonald/Raynor course.

No, instead the Committee at Merion took the "principles" of great strategic design and created wholly original golf holes, and with it, took American architecture to the next logical great leap forward from what Macdonald had done and would continue to do himself and with his disciples for the next 20 years.

If the templates don't fit, you must aquit.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

I don't think you can conclude that because HIW and others may not have visited the UK prior to the design and construction of Merion, that CBM and associates automatically deserve design credit or that they had a substantive influence on the routing, design and construction of Merion.

When Atlantic was criticized for its early crossover routing I pointed out that the same flaw existed at Merion.

I would submit to you that CBM wouldn't recommend or advise on a crossover routing

At this point, too much information is missing for you to make the leap that the architectural void inherent in the committee of novices was automatically filled by CBM.

[TEPaul]

"At this point, too much information is missing for you to make the leap that the architectural void inherent in the committee of novices was automatically filled by CBM."

As far as I'm concerned you people can go on speculating and dreaming for another forty pages about too much  missing information or that a committee of novices could not have laid out, designed and built Merion East between Spring 1911 and Sept 1911 but the undeniable and provable fact is that they did just that.

[JESII]

Still pissing at each other with hardly a drop in the bucket...you guys should stop pissing or start aiming for the bucket...

[Mike_Cirba]

Charles Blair Macdonald guided American golf though its formative years by example. He first built our first 18-hole course in Chicago, later demonstrating what an ideal course should look like when he designed and built the National Golf Links of America between the years on 1907-10 - this country's first fully strategic course, the National Golf Links if America. He did not strive to reinvent golf, but rather emulated many great classical holes of Europe intertwined onto a single course - with no weak holes.   - George Bahto

Macdonald showed his determination when he decided to design and build a golf course in the United States that would stand favorable comparison to the classic courses of Scotland, he ultimately succeeded emphatically on Long Island. He was motivated by a survey of the great players of the period (all from Great Britain) regarding the “best and most difficult” holes they had ever played. This resulted in a kind of laundry list of holes that Macdonald realized had special merit for incorporation in his own planned masterpiece.

Macdonald traveled across the pond to systematically study the “best” features of the “best” courses. This resulted in a priority list of golf holes that he planned to recreate in the United States. In the process, his concept of course design changed. As described in Bahto’s wonderful book, Macdonald developed a quantifiable theory for laying out a championship course. He assigned “merit” percentages of importance to various “essential characteristics” and was guided by them in his thinking about the lengths and sequence of the “imported” holes for The National Golf Course of America.

This was easier said than done, of course, since the ideal holes had to be adapted to fit the existing terrain on Long Island, where The National was to be built next to Shinnecock Hills (another great course). - Bob Weisgerber (review of TEOG)

[TEPaul]

I think Tom Doak had it exactly right when he said that Macdonald was the one who had the idea to transport some of the "classic" holes of Europe over here, and in that sense it was considered to be sort of an instant success formula.

However, I think that idea of just using "classic" holes from the other side ran out of popularity and interest over here remarkably quickly and the likes of Merion East may've been one of the first and best examples of that departure in America.

But I think the thing that Macdonald really did over here with his NGLA was to inspire, even if by the example of how he went about creating NGLA, and not necessarily by his actual involvment, a number of other "amateur" architects like he was to follow the same process he used at NGLA---not the same architecture or style, necessarlly, but the same process of projects led by amateur architects and done over long periods of time.

Ultimately I think that's what C.B. Macdonald's contribution to American golf architecture was and in that particular era it was not insignificant.

[TEPaul]

The thing I believe a David Moriarty completely fails to appreciate or understand is that it was probably very unlikely that C.B Macdonald even wanted to get involved in the creation of Merion East anymore than the few days he met with that committee.

Why would he have wanted to get more involved than that? If anyone really thinks he may've wanted to be involved for more than a couple of days, I think they have a real lack of understanding of C.B. Macdonald.

Had Merion, Wilson and his committee actually asked Macdonald to layout, design and build their course for them in Ardmore perhaps he may've considered it but I doubt he would've even done that.

In any case, that is not what they did, and that fact is patently clear to all with perhaps the single exception of David Moriarty.

[Jon Earl]

I'm a newbie so forgive me if this is a stupid question.

It has been mentioned somewhere in this thread that there are no real examples of a redan or alps on Merion. Are there any obvious examples of holes on Merion that can be seen to be greatly influenced by originals in the UK in the same way as the redan at NGLA?

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean,

Have you been reading?  

For discussion purposes, if Wilson didn't go to GB until 1912, then he and the committee laid out the original course without the benefit of that experience, and may have tweaked the holes on his return.  

Why people find that preposterous is beyond me.   At that time, ALL of these guys were in their initial trial and error efforts, including Macdonald, who's NGLA didn't even open until 1911!  

Before these men put real effort into understanding and implementing sophisticated tactical and strategic design, most courses were laid out summarily by former pros, or guys with Scottish names who'd march 100 yards, put a stake for a cross bunker, march another 100, put a stake for a green.  

Starting with Macdonald, and Travis, and Emmett, and Tillinghast,  and continuing with Wilson, and Crump, and so on....

Who taught Travis?   Who taught Tillinghast?

Where were they formally trained in golf course architecture?

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm a newbie so forgive me if this is a stupid question.

It has been mentioned somewhere in this thread that there are no real examples of a redan or alps on Merion. Are there any obvious examples of holes on Merion that can be seen to be greatly influenced by originals in the UK in the same way as the redan at NGLA?

Jon,

It's a good question, and I don't believe a single hole at Merion can be traced as a copy of a very similar hole in GB.

Of course, I'd like to hear dissenters offer up some comparisons if they believe I'm wrong.

[Jon Earl]

I'm a newbie so forgive me if this is a stupid question.

It has been mentioned somewhere in this thread that there are no real examples of a redan or alps on Merion. Are there any obvious examples of holes on Merion that can be seen to be greatly influenced by originals in the UK in the same way as the redan at NGLA?

Jon,

It's a good question, and I don't believe a single hole at Merion can be traced as a copy of a very similar hole in GB.

Of course, I'd like to hear dissenters offer up some comparisons if they believe I'm wrong.

OK then. What did Wilson learn by his trip(s) to the UK and does the absence of such holes tend to suggest that CMB had very little input into the actual design?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

The rest isn't germaine to the issue because I never said that Merion was a MacDonald course.

Patrick,

I havent concluded that M&W deserve design credit.   As for whether M&W made a substantive contribution, how could anyone not conclude that?   Almost everyone who was there notes that M&W were of great help in laying out the course.

David,

Let us know when you "conclude that M&W deserve design credit", because that's what you've obviously been trying to prove for two months now despite your repeated protestations to the contrary.

Please name one hole at Merion that you consider "links inspired" by a particular hole overseas and then tell us why.

I find it almost unintentionally humorous that you're back at full-circle, once again claiming the 3rd is a redan, despite anyone who's ever played it saying it bears not even a hint of the tell-tale redan characteristics,  and that the original 10th was an "Alps", despite the fact that it bears as much resemblance to the 3rd at NGLA and the 17th at Prestwick as I do to Natalie Gulbis.  

[Mike_Cirba]

-- It means that we have to rethink the source of Wilson's inspiration for the links inspired features and principles which existed in the initial layout and construction of Merion East.  

For specific examples, there are numerous reports that the 3rd hole was inspired by Redan principles, and that the 10th hole (or at least the 10th green and surrounds) was inspired by Alps principles.  

If Wilson had never seen the links courses in person when he layed out and constructed these holes, then what was his influence and inspiration?   Wilson himself credits MacDonald for teaching the committee about the principles underlying the great links holes so they could incorporate these principles into Merion's natural conditions.


Jon Earl asked:

It has been mentioned somewhere in this thread that there are no real examples of a redan or alps on Merion. Are there any obvious examples of holes on Merion that can be seen to be greatly influenced by originals in the UK in the same way as the redan at NGLA?

Jon, there may be no "real examples . . . on Merion" which would qualify of what we think of as a redan or alps hole BY TODAYS DEFINITIONS, but when Merion was initially built, numerous sources noted that the 3rd hole (then the 7th) was based on the principles of a redan, or at least inspired by the redan.  Likewise, multiple sources suggest that the 10th hole incorporated principles of an Alps hole.  

This begs the question:   What other possible source is there except for Macdonald?   After all, Hugh Wilson credits MacDonald with teaching him all these principles, and on what basis do we have to deny it??

In 1914, Robert Lesley wrote;

“ The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick;  in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”

What makes you think the 10th hole that Hugh Wilson built in 1911 had these features?

What makes you think the present 3rd hole, supposedly inspired by the redan (sort of like saying that Red Skelton looked "statesmanlike", looked like that in 1911?

What is the earliest reference to either of these holes that you've come across?   Prior to Wilson's spring 1912 trip?

There are 18 holes at Merion.   What other holes were inspired by M&W's famous holes?  

The Valley of Sin?   Where might Wilson have come up with that idea if NONE of M&W's courses have that feature?

The supposed Eden green of the 15th?   How would WIlson know to slope it severely like the original at St. Andrews when the one at NGLA is almost flattish?  

Any others?

C'mon...there's 18 holes there.  Surely you can cite something that will help us to "conclude that M&W deserve design credit"?  

[Phil McDade]

Sean,

Have you been reading?  

For discussion purposes, if Wilson didn't go to GB until 1912, then he and the committee laid out the original course without the benefit of that experience, and may have tweaked the holes on his return.  

Why people find that preposterous is beyond me.   At that time, ALL of these guys were in their initial trial and error efforts, including Macdonald, who's NGLA didn't even open until 1911!  

Before these men put real effort into understanding and implementing sophisticated tactical and strategic design, most courses were laid out summarily by former pros, or guys with Scottish names who'd march 100 yards, put a stake for a cross bunker, march another 100, put a stake for a green.  

Starting with Macdonald, and Travis, and Emmett, and Tillinghast,  and continuing with Wilson, and Crump, and so on....

Who taught Travis?   Who taught Tillinghast?

Where were they formally trained in golf course architecture?

Mike:

I can actually -- from reading these postings -- give credence to the idea that Wilson and the committee laid out the course initially, and then "tweaked it" upon Wilson's return from GB. After all, golf architecture was in its infancy here in the states.

But if that is the case, doesn't that go against what one earlier poster referred to as the mythology surrounding Merion's development? After all, no less a source than the World Atlas of Golf (a source of inspiration to the likes of Doak, among others...) says that the members of the Merion Cricket Club "wanted a championship layout."

"Merion was the first effort of a transplanted Scot, Hugh Wilson, a member of the old West Course when it was affiliated with to the Merion Cricket Club, whose members at the time wanted a championship layout."

"They dispatched a young Wilson to Scotland and England to take a post-graduate course in British linksland before transforming a section of Philadelphia's Main Line -- the long stretch of the city's socially elite suburbs -- into a 'golf links' no proper Philadelphian would be ashamed of."

I don't necessarily view the World Atlas of Golf as the definitive word on the formation of Merion, or any other golf course. But it is one text -- a significant one at that, in our little arcane world of GCA -- that suggests Merion was created one way, and these threads suggest it may have been created a different way.

[Mike_Cirba]

I started out with the premise that Macdonald substantially influenced Wilson, the committee, and the creation of Merion, and every step of the way, the case has gotten much stronger.  The only thing surprising to me is just how strong the case has become.  

David,

Of course they were substantially influenced by Macdonald.   That's a given and a historical fact.   Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, and Robert Lesley all mentioned this.

The question we've been debating is HOW MUCH.  

You seem to think the evidence points that it's greater than previously believed.   I don't.

The Committee visited with M&W at NGLA for an overnight stay.

Macdonald visited the property AFTER it had been purchased by Merion and pronounced it pretty cool for golf.

Macdonald visited the property once after the plans had been established and said that 7 holes were the equal of any in the country.

Then, nada.   Not a word, act, gesture, hint, notion, idea during the next 13 years until WIlson's death.

What's surprising to me is that he gets much mention at all, and I think that it's because he was the most famous man in American golf at the time, a true celebrity, and because adding him as a notable "advisor" gave the project instant cache and notoriety.

In thinking about it, is it possible as was advanced earlier that Wilson travelled by private yacht (a sailboat) from Southampton, NY to Europe after visiting with Macdonald?

I ask that because of this account by Jim Finegan;

Before sailing, Wilson made it a point to visit Charles Macdonald at Southampton, where the National was under construction. Macdonald was able to advise the young pilgrim on the courses that were, if you will, "required reading," and to suggest the aspects of those renowned eighteens that should particularly be noted.

Hugh Wilson spent some seven months abroad. For the most part it was the shrines of Scotland and England he was playing and studying, though on occasion he visited less well-known courses, including some of the inland ones near London, such as Stoke Poges and Swinley Forest. After all, the new Merion course he was charged with laying out would scarcely be seaside.

He returned full of information—and not simply in his head. He had made copious notes, drawn sketches of exceptional holes, and managed to get his hands on a number of surveyors’ course maps highlighting singular features. He was now reasonably well equipped to tackle what for many would have been—or at least should have been—a daunting task.

Wilson was never bent on slavishly duplicating famous holes. True enough, he was inspired by what he had seen and experienced abroad—the splendid 3rd at Merion harks back to North Berwick’s 15th, and the forepart of the green of the equally splendid 17th does call up the Valley of Sin at St. Andrews’ 18th—but anyone who looks for full-fledged copies of renowned Scottish or English holes is bound to be disappointed. Wilson was out to build the best possible parkland course, with the beauty and playability implicit in the term, and at the same time to imbue it with a sweep and naturalness suggestive of the great models—many of them seaside—he had studied. Consistently strong shot values, good balance and variety, honest resistance to low scoring, an overall design that would both challenge and charm—these were the qualities he sought for Merion.

Has anyone asked Mr. Finegan the source of his article?

[Andy Hughes]

I know some have thrown up the idea of how could an inferior Merion be almost immediately granted a significant USGA event?

Sean, this is actually what I keep stumbling over. I haven't a clue how the 'credit' for the initial design of Merion should be apportioned, but I keep wondering how good it was and when exactly it was awarded the 1916 US Amateur.

As others have said, I do not think it impossible for novices to create a good course--but I do think it unlikely for them to have done so quickly.  The Crumps of the world all seem to have taken some time before the course turned out well--did Merion have that time before it got the Amateur? Or did Merion get the Amateur even though the course really just wasn't that good when awarded?

EDIT: references to US Open changed to US Amateur as I have been notified I had the wrong event. Thanks--you know who you are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I never said that the committee was incapable of routing, designing and constructing Merion.

Their backround in golf gave them a reasonable foundation.

But, if HIW never visited the UK prior to the routing, design and construction of Merion, one can't attribute features, holes and courses in the U.K. with having a substantive influence on the creation of Merion.

And, it would also beg the question, where did the referenced sketches come from ?

Preserving the status quo on what is believed to be known about Merion shouldn't take precedence over, or prevent continued research related to the creation of Merion.

That's akin to sticking your head in the sand.

Why wouldn't you welcome a legitimate effort to uncover more information about the creation, routing, design and construction of Merion ?

Bona fide research will either confirm what's currently accepted or reveal additional information that's relevant to Merion's history.