Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

[TEPaul]

Where is post #800? Why don't you post the appropriate part of it or highlight the appropriate part of it so we can all see what the hell it is you are really driving at on all these Merion threads of yours? Why do you suppose it is, David Moriarty, that virtually noone on any of these threads seems to know??? And you accuse me of being long-winded?? I wouldn't be one tenth as long-winded if you had any conceivable idea how to get to the point or define your point. Is it any wonder noone on here seems to know?

And why can't you?

It seems to be more apparent every day!

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You stated, "I haven’t used their database, nor do I plan to, as it doesn’t even address the dates we are concerned about.  I am still in the process of trying to get more info on Ancestry’s database, but for comparison’s sake, they have over 100,000,000 records in their searchable passenger database lists."

If I am wrong in my assumption please let me know, but are you confusing 1.5 million PAGES with containing far LESS information than 100 million RECORDS? How many referenced parties are there per record vs. how many vs. page?

The implication from the article and website is that every outgoing record from the UK has been scanned and that comprises 1.5 million pages.

Now this could be incorrect and I certainly don't know, but they do seem fairly sure that they have scanned every passenger manifest for ships leaving the UK between 1890 & 1900.

The minimum that I have shown is that there are definitely records and lists that are no longer to be found. Could a warehouse have burnt down and these be lost? Could bombs have fallen from the sky say between 1939 & 1945 and some were destroyed?

Destroyed records can never be scanned into any database.

I have made two points consistently. First, that the Hugh Wilson in the 1912 manifest has not been proven to be the Wilson of Merion; you finally admitted that you could not prove it factually.

Secondly, you have floated the idea that maybe Wilson only travelled to the UK in 1912 despite the 1911 date given by both his brother and Merion. This because you can find no mention of a Hugh Wilson sailing from the UK to America by ship manifest in the years of 1910-11.

That the scanned records may be incomplete doesn't enter into your calculations yet I believe I have shown a very good example with the Tillinghast's how the available records are not complete. Therefor an assumption that Wilson did not travel to the UK in 1911 is at least a BIT premature.

You further kindly offered me help. Thank you, it's appreciated. PLease understand though that we have plenty of proof to be able to factually state when Tilly went to the UK and when he didn't.

You further wrote, "Phillip, I had done a bit of checking on Tilly's travels a while back, but didn’t really ever get it all sorted out.  I may have been looking into earlier trips, as my trips don't match yours..."

The first thing that tells me is that you never read or possibly even purchased that wonderful Tillinghast biography that came out last year titled "Tillinghast: Creator of Golf Courses."  

If you HAD you would have found that Tilly made only three trips to the UK in his entire life. The years were 1895 & 1898 when both his wife and his parents accompanied him. His third and last trip was in 1901. We know that his wife went with him and there is some evidence that his parents did as well, but it is inconclusive.

You went on to say, "Unfortunately, I am afraid my ancestry research days are about over.  But perhaps you can give me a bit of info, and I see if I can be of some help...

"What was A.W. Tillinghast’s wife’s middle initial?  H.?

Lillian was born Lillian Quigley without a middle name. Her death certificate shows none as well. Her parents were Thomas Fletcher Quigley and Susan Paradise Boyer and she was born November 26, 1877

"And her place of birth?" It is listed on her death certificate as simply "Pennsylvania," although the newspaper account of her death lists it as the Philadelphia suburb of Frankford. This is the same place where Tilly grew up.

"Did his father have any business interests in Cuba?" No.

"What year did BC. pass away?" Benjamin Collins Tillinghast died in May of 1918, just a short time after Tilly was given the Baltusrol commission.  

“Was there another Lillian in the family?” None that are known, though with a Tillinghast family Association membership that numbers more than 6,000 today, that there might be another Lillian Tillinghast somewhere back then wouldn’t be too much of a stretch.

“What was B.C.’s wife’s name.” She was born Lavinia Worrall Davis.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I tried post #800.  It still talks around the "significant" point.  You said at the beginning of #800:

5.  Based on all the available information, we have no choice but to conclude that MacDonald and Whigham advised the committee in the laying out of the course, and that their advice was significant and beneficial to the committee.

As far as I know, there are at least three contemporaneous accounts of MacDonald and Whigham being involved in the creation of Merion East; one concerned CBM’s inspection of the site, one account was written during the design of the course, and one account was written after the course was opened but while work was still apparently being done.

-- In the December 1910 American Golfer, Tillinghast reported that CMB and Whigham had inspected Merion (apparently at the invitation of committee member R.E. Griscom) and “pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game today.”

-- In the May 1911 American Golfer, Tillinghast reports that the new course at Merion is “nearing completion in the planning.”  He also noted that CBM and Whigham had visited the site;  that “CBM and Whigham have been aiding the committee;”  that CBM and Whigham were greatly pleased over the prospects; and that CBM said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country.

-- In the January 1913 issue of Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis reviewed the new Merion, and noted that  CBM had been “of great assistance in an advisory way/”  and that CBM had told Travis that Merion “would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen.”

This is immediately after point 4 I quoted above and already you've moved to the contribution being significant.  To support the point you list the known information again.  You then lapse into admonishing the others about their interpretations.  I see no clear explanation of how the points you list support a conclusion that their contributions and advice were "significant" to the layout of the course.  That is what I'm asking you to do.  Describe why the items in the quote above constitute a significant contribution to the layout of the course.  You have avoided giving that explanation so far as I can see and remember of all the posts.

Later on in post #800 you add:

Lesley’s article not only confirms that that CBM and Whigman advised on the laying out of the initial Merion, it also implies that Lesley thought their involvement significant enough to list them along with the committee.

Is this the context in which you use "significant" - that Lesley mentioning them as advisors to the committee makes their contribution significant.  You think Lesley is implying that.  Are you then implying that that implication is the grounds for your attribution of significance to their contribution?  All I'm looking for is a simple concise description of why you think the references that you and others have mentioned many times constitute a significant contribution to laying out the course.

Others may have down-played the contribution; but, you seem to be over-playing it.  The known information is what it is.  I don't see how either side can claim that it is significant or insignificant.  There is not enough factual information to make either claim.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

That is an interesting bit of information about Tilly & his parents trip abroad in 1890. Yet it does shed light on the nature of the problems in historical research.

The first is the date of birth as listed being "about 1876." I am wondering how this date is arrived at? It certainly could not have come from Tilly or his parents as they all would most certainly have known the exact date of his birth, yet the implication of what is shown is that it is on the manifest in that manner. That makes no sense. The reason that this is important is that the family had believed for many years that he was born in 1874 because family photographs of him as a six-year old are dated on the back as being taken in 1880.

It is only research done in line with my bio that enabled a fixed date to finally be reached three years ago. That is why I find the phrase "Estimated birth year:   abt 1876" interesting and wonder the source. Because of it's inexactness it just doesn't seem to be a phrase that would be found on a manifest, though I could be wrong about that.

By the way, Tilly was born on May 7, 1876.

I understood what you meant when you asked the question about Cuba and the connection to rubber. B.C. bought finished rubber in sheets through larger suppliers. He and his employees would then fashion it into the goods that they sold. Why he got into ribber goods is unknown, but he had joined the Merchant Marines and put out to sea when he was 12 years of age. It is because of his being "of the line" that he was admitted into the Naval Academy. That he may have sailed to Cuba and many other places in his youth would be of no surprise and may have led him to get into the rubber goods business after he had to leave the academy due to illness.

Tilly was their only child.

Which reminds me, Tilly & Lillian married in 1894 and his daughter, Marion Francis, was born on January 30, 1896, and was also on the trips overseas in 1898 & 1901. Tilly was 18 & Lillian barely 17 at the time of their marriage.

David, just so you understand, the reason I see that the establishment of facts in relationship to the Wilson trip(s) are so important is because of the effect of teh implication. By showing the manifest you expected the reader to see it as an established fact and then speculations by many began as to maybe Wilson only took the 1912 trip and what that meant in relation to the creation of Merion.

I personally don't care if at the end of all research we find a letter and blueprints drawn by President Taft proving that he designed Merion. That isn't my point. I just feel that historical research should be done to find the FACTS surrounding a situation and it is only at the proving of these facts that an idea may go from hypothesis to historical record.

You have said many times that you want your hypotheses examined in a scientific manner, and I believe you do. That is why when I earlier stressed this point that you made the change in your timeline to recognize that A Hugh Wilson had travelled...

It is because of teh vagaries of the manifest information to be found on the internet and even at physical locations, that to claim that someone definitely did not travel somewhere at a certain time despite written information to the contrary can only be supposition and not provide more than directional look for a researcher who is seeking exact location.

[Mike_Cirba]

Bryan Izatt,

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!  

You not only saved my fingers, but you saved my sanity.

Thank you for so succinctly and accurately (and politely, I might add) saying what I've been trying to do for two freaking months now.  

That really is the heart of the whole debate here, isn't it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

IF your other research sources include Tom MacWood, why don't you ask him come back to the site and post his fndings instead of using you as the middle man, ferrying questions and answers back and forth between the interested parties.

It would be much simpler and more expedient.

Tom's been a good contributor to the site even if he thought Seminole was Flat  

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You wrote, "I DID NOT SHOW THE MANIFEST AND EXPECT THE READER TO ACCEPT IT AS ESTABLISHED FACT.  NEVER.  I SIMPLY PRESENTED THE FACTS, AND POINTED OUT THE POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS... Get over this Phillip.  You are wrong.  Just because you want a greater degree of certainly than exists is not reason enough for me to stop what else I am doing until you are satisfied. The authenticity of the database I am using stands or falls on its own despite what you might have found in Australia."

My last word on this David, all I've asked is that it be represented properly. It wasn't, at least in my opinion. I am also not challenging the authenticity of the database that you are using, just whether or not it is complete and is being INTERPRETED properly.

[Andy Hughes]

Others may have down-played the contribution; but, you seem to be over-playing it.  The known information is what it is.  I don't see how either side can claim that it is significant or insignificant.  There is not enough factual information to make either claim.

What's actually interesting to me is that that is not the interesting part of all this. Everyone continues to slog ever-onward about what percentage of 'significant' everyone should be allotted.  But to me, it is fascinating that there has been an accepted version of the history of one of the great, classic American courses and all of a sudden, Dave and Wayne and TomP and others, despite what I consider excessive ugliness and boorish behavior, have looked under some rocks and suddenly it looks like those accepted stories may not be accurate.  And now, there are new questions to ponder.

[Phil McDade]

Andy:

I agree. I actually think one of the most fascinating parts of this is TEPaul/Wayne's discovery of the agronomy letters that apparently presaged the USGA's entire greens section development. That's pretty cool original documentation kind of stuff.

But without taking sides on this, do folks think the following  is how Merion originated?

"In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.  He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably.  One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique.   The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly.  He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle.  As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee.  The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off.

"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrew's 18th hole.

"On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.  A report of the opening said the course was "among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country".  This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years."

This is the version of Merion that you'll find on the club's website, and near-exact replications of it are what you find in the writings of Finegan, the World Atlas of Golf and other publications. Should they be updated and/or revised?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

A gap in your theory would appear to be the conclusion you draw about HIW's travel abroad.

You can't state with certainty that he didn't travel abroad before the summer of 1911.

From early in 1911 to the Spring/Summer of 1911 leaves ample time for a trip abroad, even if it took a month.

Not having closely scrutinized every post, has anyone reviewed Wilson's article in December of 1916 to see if he references the date the committee members met with CBM at his home ?

Is there anything written by MacDonald or maintained by NGLA that can help establish the date of the meeting ?

The second gap is the limited amount of time the committee spent with CBM.  Only one night, going over construction and reviewing sketches.  That's such a limited amount of time in which to educate a committee and bring them up to speed on routing, design and construction.

What's a little puzzling about the December 1916 article is Wilson's reference to Pine Valley since in December of 1916 four holes, 12, 13, 14 and 15 had yet to be constructed.

[Phil_the_Author]

      Pat asked how closely the December 1916 Golf Digest article written about the design and construction and subsequent agronomy issues for both of Merion’s courses. He asked, “Not having closely scrutinized every post, has anyone reviewed Wilson's article in December of 1916 to see if he references the date the committee members met with CBM at his home?”
      After taking another look at what Hugh Wilson wrote, I now contend that David’s hypothesis about Wilson making a trip to the UK and it POSSIBLY being the one and only trip made is wrong. The proof is in a short section of this very same article, one that hasn't been given proper consideration before in this discussion.
      Consider, in paragraph two Hugh Wilson writes, “We opened the course September 14, 1912…”
      Toward the end of this paragraph, about halfway down the right-hand column, he writes, “Two months after opening our course, we were forced… to buy one hundred twenty-five acres more for another eighteen hole course, which we started to build in March, 1912, and seeded in May…”
      Consider carefully the meaning of these words.
      “We were FORCED to buy” strongly suggests that they had NOT INTENDED at the time of the property purchase, design, construction and even up to the opening day of the first course to buy land and build a second.
      The purchase took place “two months after opening our course…” Taking him at his word, this puts the purchase in mid-November 1911. It also means that before that date a layout and design of the second course would/could not have taken place as they didn’t own the land.
      He further states (Capitals mine) “WE started to build in March, 1912, and seeded in May…” Hugh Wilson was the driving force behind the design and building of Merion West. Since the LAYOUT and DESIGN of Merion West HAD TO HAVE OCCURRED between mid-November 1911 and EARLY MARCH 1912, Hugh Wilson COULD NOT HAVE SAILED TO EUROPE DURING THIS TIME.
      IN addition, since he further states how (again Capitals mine) “WE started to build in March, 1912, and seeded in MAY…” He further would/could NOT HAVE SAILED TO EUROPE DURING THIS TIME.
      That means that the Hugh I. Wilson listed on the passenger manifest that David is using as the basis for his hypothesis that Wilson may have only gone to Europe in “Early 1912” is NOT the Hugh Wilson of Merion because he WAS IN AMERICA by HIS OWN WRITTEN WORD at that time.
      It also means that everything that the others wrote must also be true! Travis, that Wilson traveled to Europe in the SUMMER of 1912. Hugh’s brother, in the timeline that HE laid out stating that Hugh went to Europe in 1911 BEFORE the East course was designed, and all the rest.
      Merion’s history is correct as has been written. Hugh Wilson’s own words confirm it,

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

If he was off by a year in what he wrote than I apologize for simply believing what was written when he stated the date of 1912.

[CHrisB]

But it also makes Macdonald's contribution much more important.   At the meeting at NGLA, we was not prepping Wilson for an overseas trip, he was teaching them how to build a links inspired golf course at Merion's new site.   He was teaching them design principles that would work at Merion.   He was giving them examples of holes based on sound principles, so that they could use those principles at Merion.  He was helping them sort out what they should try to accomplish with the natural conditions at Merion.   And Macdonald knew what he was talking about, because he had already inspected the Ardmore site.  Plus he followed up with another site visit after they were under way with still more advice and suggestions.

If you read the Hugh Wilson chapter linked above, keep in mind that Hugh Wilson's description of Macdonald's teaching was likely about how Macdonald taught them to lay out and build Merion.  In my opinion this puts the entire matter in a completely different light.

David,

I have followed all of these early Merion threads and have enjoyed most of it and have been hanging in there with your analysis, but in my opinion you are now making a big jump from Wilson's own words (I only included those words which directly referred to what he said they learned from CBM):

Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.

In my opinion, there is a big difference between the very general CBM giving the committee "ideas about golf course construction" and "a good start in the principles of laying out the holes" at Merion, and the very specific "teaching them how to lay out and build the holes" at Merion.

In other words, there is a big difference between discussing theory (i.e., how to build A golf course) and practice (i.e., how to build THE golf course at Merion).

Wilson also says that

May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.

To me it sounds like Wilson and the committee learned the "correct principles" of golf course construction and laying out golf holes, and then later "adapted them (the correct principles) to their own course" at Merion.

So in other words, to me it sounds like CBM was Wilson et al.'s "GCA 101" teacher, whose main instructional tools were "sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time", from Wilson et al. were able to figure out from CMB's teachings "what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions".

Again, I don't see anything convincing that CBM essentially taught Wilson et al. "everything they knew" about building Merion. To me, all signs point to CBM teaching them the basics of GCA, some things they should keep in mind regarding their "natural conditions" (I assume he means turf, soil, and weather conditions), and then Wilson and the committee figuring out for themselves how they would apply those teachings to the construction of Merion.

I think that if CBM had a more direct role in determining exactly how his teachings would be applied at Merion, then it would have been written by someone somewhere in very direct language. I haven't seen such direct language anywhere.

But again, I'm enjoying following the exercise and I'm glad you brought it up and are pursuing it.

[TEPaul]

ChrisB:

I tend to agree with you that if Macdonald had supplied Wilson and Merion some real significant help with the actual laying out, design and construction of Merion East (beginning in the spring of 1911 and carrying on through the summer to the fall of Sept 1911 when the course was seeded) it seems pretty illogical to me that Hugh Wilson himself would not have acknowledged that fact in his report that he wrote in 1915 (1916?).

I have mentioned this an number of times in these Merion threads.

It seems illogical to me for the simple reason that we are talking here about the very same 1915 (or 1916) report in which Hugh Wilson rather comprehensively explains and describes the help Macdonald gave he and his committee at NGLA during those two days.

In other words, if Wilson says all that about the NGLA visit and the specific type of help they received there and then---why in the world does he say nothing more about Macdonald helping them actually lay out, design and build the golf course if in fact Macdonald did that in the following months?

Again, I remind all on here that this is the very same report Wilson wrote four years later! This is not a matter of Wilson writing piecemeal and contemporaneously as events unfolded from early 1911 until 1915 or whenever when he actually did write this important report we are all looking at now.

If Wilson had been writing contemporaneously as events unfolded through 1911 I could certainly see he may've been charged up by what they had learned at NGLA if he'd written about that then and then perhaps been concerned with other things if he wrote contemporaneously throughout 1911 et al when the course was actually under construction and just neglected, for whatever reason, to mention Macdonald in the same grateful vein he did when they were at NGLA.

But this is all FROM the very same report he wrote four years later. If four years later he wrote what he did about the help from Macdonald at NGLA back in 1910 or early 1911, then why didn't he say anything at all iN THE SAME REPORT about help from Macdonald once the course got underway?

Again, I just can't see any real logical reason why he would NOT have mentioned when he wrote this report four years later some significant help from Macdonald from the spring of 1911 until Sept 1911 if Macdonald had offered it or given it during that time. The only logical reason I can see that Wilson never mentioned anything like that in this report four years later is because it just didn't happen.


By the way, this is pretty odd but for some reason we have a number of "drafts" of Wilson's report. Neither Wayne nor I know how to explain this as we found those drafts of Wilson's report in the so-called "agronomy letters" which are in the USGA. Recently we've wondered how Wilson's 2-3 drafts of this report which was apparently written for Piper and Oakley's 1917 book on agronomy found their way out of Philadelphia (where he must have written that report) and eventually into apparently a Mid-Atlantic USGA regional agronomist's attic from which all these 2,000 agronomy letters eventually emanated in the last five years!?!

The reason I mention this at all is because if Wilson was wrong about his 1911 date of the Construction Committee's formation or whatever, one of these drafts may explain why he may've been wrong (I remind you that Wilson did seem to get some dates wrong--eg he was clearly a year off in the date of the construction of Merion West in this very same report).

What looks like the very first of a few drafts of this report which eventually became part of Piper and Oakley's book (his report from their book is in a link in a post above) Wilson begins his report with the words 'Four years ago'. There is no mention in that draft of 1911 in the first paragraph which includes the formation of the construction committee. Then Wilson proceeded to cross out 'Four years ago' and write over it 1911. In the later drafts and in the final report that went into the book the date 1911 apears a few times in the first paragraph as it does in one of the later drafts. There is no date of 1911 in this first draft---just 'Four years ago'. I'm not certain at the moment when he began to write this report but I'll be glad to inform you of that date when we compare some of the agronomy letters that lead up to the discussion of this report and Piper and Oakley's book.  (Piper and Oakley actually asked Hugh Wilson to write the book on agronomy but he begged off saying he was too busy and that he frankly thought he was a really poor writer Actually, in one of the later "agronomy letters" Alan Wilson tells Piper and Oakley that he thinks he's a pretty poor writer too. ).

Frankly, it's pretty cool stuff these drafts of this report which seem to be so important both to and for our interpretations and analyses today. It's almost as if we're standing looking over his shoulder as he writes and makes changes about what-all transpired in the preceding years.

(I wish I had been standing over his shoulder back in 1915. I would've whispered in his ear---"Hey, Hughie Baby, would you mind putting in that report that you went to GB in 1909 or 1910, that is if you did go over there then because that word "Later" you just added over a crossout just may not cut it some day pal, what ship you went over on and came home on, so we could check the reliability in 2007 of ship manifests from the teens, and who and what you saw every minute of every day while over there, and exactly who laid out, designed and built every single feature of every single hole at both Merion East and West so we could shut up some revisionist clown from California in 2007? Oh, and just one more thing, Hughie, would you mind whispering in my ear what EXACTLY the words "advice", "involvement" and PARTICULARLY the word "significant" means to you?").

But alas, even as old as I am I just wasn't around in 1915. If I had been I think I would've followed the guy around every single day for about fifteen years and audio and video taped every single thing he did. Or at least every minute of every day that I wasn't over at Pine Valley audio and video taping every single thing Harry Colt said and did in his week there in 1913 and every single thing George Crump said and did during his 7-8 years there every day.  

[TEPaul]

Pat and Phil Young:

I think we can be very close to concluding now that Hugh Wilson did not travel to GB in 1911 before the course got started in construction in the spring of 1911. I say that using our agronomy letters as a form of a check.

I did say that I think the first "agronomy" letter to Piper and Oakley from Hugh Wilson was on Feb 1, 1911 (This correspondence continued on for another 14 years). That letter from Wilson was from Philadephia (where most but not all the agronomy letters were post marked or letterheaded from).

Furthermore, I can't exactly remember if Wayne and I copied all the same letters as a combination of two copies each for each of us off one printer, or if we used two copiers and somewhat different letters. (By the way, Rand and Jim Snow and Mr Driver and Mr Fay, I think Wayne and I probably owe you a ton for copying costs back then. I promise to be up there soon again and take you all out to lunch on me.)

I mention this because Wayne may have some letters in his files I don't  have or vice versa. Anyway I mention this because he seems to have a few letters from Wilson from Philadelphia into the late winter or early spring in 1911 and that puts Wilson in Philadelphia and not in GB.

But I see no reason at all not to continue to investigate if Wilson may've gone to GB in 1910 as his brother seems to perhaps infer (in my opinion, Alan Wilson's report in 1926 is probably the logical place where the history books of Merion began to record Wilson's trip to GB as 1910). And the fact that the land was bought up to a year earlier than anyone thought may make that a more legitimate and useful thing to do.

There are inaccuracies in these reports but it seems to me that most all of them are with the dates of events and facts and not necessarily with inaccuracies of the actual events or facts per se.

This is why timelining is so important to do and why Wayne and I have basically "timelined" everything in the research for the book. I can't tell you how much a basic timeline helped me unravel events and facts to do with the details of who did what and when at Pine Valley.

By the way the single thing that changed or skewed so much about who did what at Pine Valley was a single misinterpretation of the meaning of one date on one map. That alone took the entire remainder of the interpretation for the next five years of the Colt/Crump thing down the wrong road.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Brauner,

I agree with your post # 538.

I think I made the same post pages and pages ago, unfortunately, I can't remember which page and which post.

David Moriarty,

The fact remains, in all of the writings, there's not one reference to any SPECIFIC help CBM MIGHT have offered, from anyone.
No reference to routing, design or construction.

And, Wilson's focus seems to be on construction, and then, general principles.  As a novice when it came to golf course construction, Wilson's one night and perhaps one day with CBM isn't sufficient time for him to be brought up to speed
on the ins and outs of routing, design and construction.
I don't care how bright he was, and remember, it's alleged that the committee met with CBM, and a committee can only progress as fast as the slowest learner.

Do you think that one night and one day with C&C, Dye, Fazion or Doak would be sufficient enough education for you to route, design and construct a golf course ?

I know that I'd need at least another 8 hours

Until you can come up with references to specific areas of assistance, I don't see how you can give CBM more credit than Wilson has already given.

However, I'm still intrigued by Whigham's comments and the reference to PV.

This has been an interesting topic despite some friction along the way.

[JESII]

David,

This is where you lose most everyone in this argument...

This was not some vague theoritical lecture.  They were specifically discussing how to route and build Merion East, and on the eve of laying out the course.

[/b][/i]

At some point you are going to have to prove this, whether you like it or not.

Care to re-post the Wilson quote about the visit because my frequently faulty memory thinks his words do not support your site specific statement quoted there?

[Mike_Cirba]

I think one thing that is being forgotten here is the simple fact that the two key construction guys on the project both had considerable experience prior to working with the Committee at Merion.   Fred Pickering had worked on the construction of a number of prior courses, and little ole William Flynn had already designed and constructed a golf course in New England.   So while the Committee, despite the fact that they were all avid golfers and one was a surveyor, perhaps only had laymen and expert player's understanding of course architecture and strategic concepts, they had already hired experienced help on their internal team.

David seemingly forgets how Alan Wilson was very clear in stating that the project was "homegrown", and also took great pains in stating that all of the members of the Committee recognized Hugh Wilson as the architect and designer.   While he cited Macdonalds help, as well, he didn't say a thing about layout, design, hole features, or anything specific at all.   The "advisor" role seemed by all indications to be theoretical, a "architecture 101" course as someone previously called it, and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.

David would also have us forget that Max Behr, as early as 1914, made clear that Hugh Wilson had almost dictatorial power at Merion, simply because he had "studied course construction as no one before..", similar to Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia.   Behr said that while each of these men would listen to the advice of others, they ultimately were the ones who "sifted" that advice, and made the final determinations.

If Macdonald had layed out the Merion course, why would Tillinghast write for a national magazine in 1934 (with both Macdonald and Whigham still very much alive) that it was sad that so few actually knew that Hugh WIlson was the architect of Merion?   Tillinghast had already built a course at Shawnee in 1908, and was a local boy who was very familiar and an onsite observer of the building of Merion.  If there were some piece of the DESIGN puzzle missing regarding Macdonald and Whigham's involvement beyond which they'd already been credited by multiple sources , why would Tillinghast make very clear that Wilson was THE architect of Merion?

David is hanging his theory on the idea that the Committee was so forlorn and desperate and unknowledgeable that they HAD to use Macdonald's expertise.   The humorously ironic thing is at that time, Macdonald was nearly as much a novice as the rest of these guys, having struggled for the past couple of years to build his own first real course at NGLA (which hadn't opened yet!).   Yes, he had the conceptual knowledge of great holes overseas, but was having serious agronomic difficulties, and one would imagine drainage and other infrastructure issues, as well.   David would also have us imagine that the Committee brought Macdonald a topo, on which the great Macdonald layed out the course from memory during a few hours that evening for the grateful Merion Committee, going so far as to say the 10th was an Alps, and the 3rd a Redan.   It's almost funny.   The truth is that David doesn't know if those holes were originally built with redan or alps features, or whether those were added after Wilson returned from Great Britain.

It also goes to explain why other features from overseas, such as the Valley of Sin, which appear on NONE of Macdonald's courses, mysteriously found their way onto Merion.

And before David contends that if Flynn and Pickering had played such an important role that they would have been cited by Lesley and others, let's remember that they were the HIRED HELP on the Main Line Project.   Do you really think that Lesley would have cited tradesmen, or simple expert laborers in a national publication, especially when he could bandie about the name of the most famous man in American Golf at the time (Macdonald) and another US Amateur Champion (Whigham) as helping "advise" the Committee during the overnight stay and two site visits?  

I think the puzzle has become much clearer, but I think to accept David's version of things, one has to imagine some type of Escher drawing, where everything that is apparent is somehow the opposite of what it seems.   While David argues somewhat persuasively, and certainly eloquently at times, he is still ultimately asking us to accept that all of these men fudged Wilson's role as the chief architect to the sad omission of the real star of this show, CB Macdonald, who in a mere one overnight stay taught this sorry band of nimwits all they ever needed to know to build one of the greatest courses in the world.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Perhaps you've never seen, in its entirety, Alan Wilson's report on the creation of the East (and West) course but all over that report he writes about those initial creations using the words "laying out", "designing" and "constructing" and "building" and in each and every case he is referring to the Merion Construction Committee only. Either Alan Wilson must have been watching people do something every day for about six months that never happened or else Alan Wilson was a total fabricator of facts and information. Logically, there is virtually no way something like that could've happened----eg way too many people would've had to be in on it.

There's no question in my mind that the reports of both Hugh and Alan Wilson cited the events as they happened and who did them. Both of them may've gotten a few dates wrong but not the events of the creation of the two courses, who was responsible for them and who did them.

Both of their reports are correct as to facts even if both have inaccuracies in dates, even though inaccuracy in dates in Alan Wilson's report has definitely not yet been proven.

[Andy Hughes]

I think we can be very close to concluding now that Hugh Wilson did not travel to GB in 1911 before the course got started in construction in the spring of 1911. I say that using our agronomy letters as a form of a check.

Tom, if that turns out to be the case, than what do you make of Alan saying the first thing they did was send HW to Great Britian?  Does that strike you as an innocent blending of events caused by the passage of time?

Yes, he had the conceptual knowledge of great holes overseas....

Mike, while I do not yet find myself moved by David's argument yet re CBM, I would say 'the conceptual knowledge of great holes overseas' is no small thing.  At least he had seen, played and studied great holes and the strategies they employed. What did Hugh Wilson or the rest of the committee have at that point?  
How were they able to design holes of merit or strategic interest? (and yes, I realize that hangs tenuously on David and TomP's assumption now that HW did not travel to Great Britian before the 1912 trip).
Has it been shown yet when the 1916 Amateur was awarded to Merion?

[Mike_Cirba]

Andy,

That's a great question, and I think I'd answer it this way.

In the case of Merion, the bunkering creates much of the overall strategy.   If you think about a course with the holes roughed out (tee here, green there) in somewhat the same basic layout as today (with exceptions at 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13) when it opened in 1912, imagine it if you could with very little bunkering, which is what Tillinghast reported at the time when he essentially said that most of the bunkering would be added later.

After Wilson came back from GB, and sometime between then and say 1914/1916, the real strategies of the course became much more fleshed out and refined.  If anything, this early lack of bunkering (re: strategy) is indicative once again as diminishing Macdonald's role, not enhancing it as David would have us believe.  

In other words, if Macdonald's role was fundamental to Wilson's understanding, and not the trip Wilson took to Great Britain, than all of those strategies and the relevant bunkering should have been right there in that first iteration of the course in 1912, because we also Macdonald had absolutely no involvment after that time.    

[TEPaul]

"Tom, if that turns out to be the case, than what do you make of Alan saying the first thing they did was send HW to Great Britian?  Does that strike you as an innocent blending of events caused by the passage of time?"

Andy:

No, not really.

What Alan Wilson said in his report could mean a few things;

1. He realized that the trip that we are now calling Wilson's 1912 trip was his first trip but for some reason implied it was at some point around 1910. Don't forget, Alan Wilson did not specifically say Hugh went over there in 1910. He just said the land was bought in 1910, the committee was formed and 'the first step was the club sending Hugh to GB'.

2. That Hugh Wilson really did go to GB in 1910 and the 1912 trip was his second.

David Moriarty seems to think he's virtually proved that Wilson could not have gone to GB in 1910. I don't believe he has proved that at all. He can use the fact that Hugh Wilson said the committee was formed in early 1911 but Hugh Wilson could've been mistaken on that date. Hugh Wilson got a few other dates wrong in the same report. So that doesn't prove Wilson could not have gone to GB in 1910 in my opinion.

David Morairty seems to also think that these ship manifest listings also proves that Wilson could not have gone to GB before 1912 but I don't think anybody on here believes he's proved that through those ship manifests.

The history books of Merion have always mentioned that Wilson went to GB in 1910 but as I've said on here numerous times none of us know where they came up with that information. Like many of us they may've simply assumed it from Alan Wilson's report. Again, his report does not specifically say Hugh went to GB in 1910 but if you read that paragraph in his report it does sort of make it sound that way.

By the way, Andy, you make it look like I said I don't think there was any way Wilson went to GB before 1912. I never said that. I only said that these agronomy letters are making it look like he did not go over there in 1911 before the course went into construction.

[TEPaul]

This is a bit off the subject of this thread---thank God but in what I believe to be the very first "agronomy" letter--Feb, 1, 1911, Hugh Wilson does make an interesting statement to Piper, and that is that he's willing to send him a "contour" map of the property (That would be a topographical map of Merion East before the course was built).

That has nothing to do with this subject of who did what and when at Merion East but preconstruction topo maps are super valuable to have of some of these old courses because it basically allows you to tell the way the land was before anything was done to it and then to compare that to the way it is now. Basically you can tell that way exactly what was constructed about the course and what was natural and pre-existing.

But, alas, like a lot of the old documentation and such it's probably gone forever now. I know I've never seen a pre-construction topo map of Merion East but I sure would love to see one. There is this brief mention in the last Merion history book that a lot of Merion's archive material was lost in a flood at some point. Maybe that preconstruction topo was one of the items. Maybe Wilson's drawings and sketches from GB which have always been reported were too. Maybe even an entire report on architecture somewhat like those his report on the creation of Merion which is basically all in the context of agronomy was lost in that flood too. Maybe hundreds of letters on architecture like those agronomy letters were lost in that flood.

We found a preconstruction contour map the other day of The Creek Club that no one knew existed and to me that was sort of like finding the Mother Lode!

[TEPaul]

Guys, the thing all of you seem to continue to miss is that it really makes no different if Wilson went to GB before the initial creation of the East course or not. This speculation about him being too much of a novice to have done it if he had not first gone to GB is just bullshit, because the undeniable fact of the matter is whether he went to GB before OR AFTER the course went into construction, he and his committee did lay it out, design it and build it.

A number of those early amateur architects with their lifelong projects did that too and if you guys can't understand that or you just don't want to, you'll never really understand that era and some of those men like Wilson who made those great early courses.

Perhaps one of the funniest things I've ever heard on this website, and possibly one of the dumbest, was when Tom MacWood proclaimed on one of these Merion threads that some of this information means that now no one has any idea at all who laid out, designed and built Merion East.

Yeah right!  

Who the hell does he then think could've done it----some phantom crew who spend six months here in 1911 without anyone noticing it or them??  

[Andy Hughes]

By the way, Andy, you make it look like I said I don't think there was any way Wilson went to GB before 1912. I never said that. I only said that these agronomy letters are making it look like he did not go over there in 1911 before the course went into construction.

Tom, absolutely, understood. I did not mean to imply otherwise though it is important to mention again that though you think it unlikely HW went in 1911 it is still possible he went in 1910.  I was basing what I said on your quote earlier:
I think we can be very close to concluding now that Hugh Wilson did not travel to GB in 1911 before the course got started in construction in the spring of 1911. I say that using our agronomy letters as a form of a check.

He just said the land was bought in 1910, the committee was formed and 'the first step was the club sending Hugh to GB'.

Now Wayne has shown the land was actually bought June, 1909, and it is looking possible that the trip did not occur til 1912..Alan's 'first step' took a while to happen, especially if the 'first step' actually took place after the course was laid out and seeded.