[JESII]

At some point one of the two of you will come to their senses and just forget about that crap and get down to something intresting...something along the lines of your suggested issues from post #603...


About that statement...

I believe what all you guys may shortly come to realize is that what was really going on back then at NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley et al can be seen in the analogy that it was sort of like those guys were getting into building what they thought were some pretty cool new cars, but the only problem was they just couldn't figure out where in the hell to find some decent wheels to put on them so they could begin to drive them.

in concert with this one...

My sense is getting to be that to understand Merion and that time better we probably need to understand that it was not necessarily the architecture they were concerned about, at least nowhere near as much as we think they were. It was something else entirely that hardly ever concerns us much anymore in the building of golf courses.

...does make me think of Royal New Kent by Mike Strantz down on Route 64 between Richmond and Williamsburg. I played a golf tournament there in the heat of the summer three years in a row. I was flat out blown away by the golf course, but the conditioning was really bad. When I say conditioning, I refer to what appeared to stem from a very poor combination of: 1) golf course location 2) golf architectural style 3) and grass selection. They just didn't blend to maximize the experience, and I think the grass selection was dictated by the location, and the awesome architecture looks out of place because of it.

I don't want to sidetrack this to a RNK discussion, I was more thinking of the agronomy issues that you think are non-existent today. I would suggest they are certainly minimized, but not eliminated.

Anyway, enough of the tiddlywinks between you and Moriarty and tell me what you think was on the ground in 1912. Then, if it's appropriate maybe you start a thread laying out the changes to the course over the ensuing years and the reason behind those changes.

[TEPaul]

"Anyway, enough of the tiddlywinks between you and Moriarty and tell me what you think was on the ground in 1912 . Then, if it's appropriate maybe you start a thread laying out the changes to the course over the ensuing years and the reason behind those changes."

Sully:

And why would I want to do that? So we can continue arguing that somehow that proves M&W's roll in Merion was more important, more significant, different in some way, whatever?

I'm not interested. Maybe David Moriarty is interested in that for some reason but not me. I don't see the point to it. But I do see a point in discussing why it changed. But that's not the point of his thread here and he gets more than a little pissed if someone strays from the point of his threads.

But we could probably tell you what Merion East looked like in Sept 1912 with some degree of accuracy even if there are no real photos, aerials, drawings etc. The drawings of the course by Flynn before the 1916 US Amateur would give you a good idea what it was like in 1912 because those drawings are before most of the real architectural changes occured. I don't think there's any question Wayne could explain all that to anyone far better than anyone else in the world could.

If you're interested, what I suggest you do is meet Wayne at his house and he will show those early drawings of Merion East to you and you can look at the section of the Flynn book on Merion that explains most of this stuff.

[Mike_Cirba]

The one fundamental important difference between the course that opened in 1912 and the one which hosted the US Amateur in 1916 seems to be the bunkering, which was noted as very minimal by Tillinghast and referred to as a "rough draft" of a course by Travis shortly after the course opened.   If that was true, then by 1916 there were roughly 70 bunkers added, the majority of which appear in their same positions today.   Today's number of bunkers is about 130, but by 1916, Merion was well on its way to adding tons of strategy through the strategic placement of bunkers.

The second major difference is the greens themselves.   Wilson reported that 18 months after opening the greens had to be completely dug up, rebased, and rebuilt entirely from scratch.   How much would you bet that they were wholly different from an undulation, orientation, slope, positioning, and bunkering standpoint than the ones in 1912?   I'd bet the house.

[TEPaul]

"I don't want to sidetrack this to a RNK discussion, I was more thinking of the agronomy issues that you think are non-existent today. I would suggest they are certainly minimized, but not eliminated."

Sully:

I'm sorry to hear about the condition of RNK but I have a feeling they probably know how to establish good turf for golf down there, they're obviously just not doing a very good job of it for some reason. But if you think RNK was in bad condition I think I can pretty much assure you that Merion in the early teens would just about blow you off the planet with its condition. I think I can assure you that the super at RNK probably knows about a thousand times more about how to establish good turf for golf than anyone in America knew in 1912.

The point here is that a number of the changes in the architecture of very early Merion were done because of agronomic problems and not to do with golf architecture.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

If the greens of Merion East were significantly different in 1912 than those Flynn drawings of the holes of the course before the 1916 Amateur then I can pretty much assure you too that noone will ever know what those greens looked like architecturally in 1912. We do know the ones that were significantly or otherwise changed somehow at various times after 1916 but as far as the others are concerned you go ahead and bet your house they are all significantly different but I don't think I'm gonna bet my house on that.

The ones we know have changed a whole lot are #1, #2, #8, #10, #11, #12, #13. Of the rest #14 quite a bit and #15, #17 not much. #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #16, #18 could be pretty similar to the way they were back then.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

If the greens of Merion East were significantly different in 1912 than those Flynn drawings of the holes of the course before the 1916 Amateur then I can pretty much assure you too that noone will ever know what those greens looked like architecturally in 1912. We do know the ones that were significantly or otherwise changed somehow at various times after 1916 but as far as the others are concerned you go ahead and bet your house they are all significantly different but I don't think I'm gonna bet my house on that.

The ones we know have changed a whole lot are #1, #2, #8, #10, #11, #12, #13. Of the rest #14 quite a bit and #15, #17 not much. #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #9, #16, #18 could be pretty similar to the way they were back then.

Tom,

Are you saying those greens you listed changed between 1912 & 1916 or between 1916 and today?

I do recall reading somewhere that Wilson was going to completely re-do the 17th green somewhere around 1914.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

The first comprehensive visual reference I know of is the drawings of the holes before the 1916 US Amteur so it would be between then and say 1934 or call it today if you want because Merion's greens have not been redesigned since then.

[Bryan Izatt]

________________________________________________________

The second major difference is the greens themselves.   Wilson reported that 18 months after opening the greens had to be completely dug up, rebased, and rebuilt entirely from scratch.  

Mike, the Wilson turf article from the Tufts library says:

"As was stated before,
the results were good the first year, and it was not
until the end of the second year that we noticed
much deterioration in certain of the low-lying greens.
In the fall of 1913, two years after seeding, the
grass started to die in these greens and although
we nursed them carefully, having noticed early
in the summer that they were weak, all our efforts
with fertilizer, water, and care were of no avail."

You say that the greens had to be "completely" dug up implying all of them.  Wilson seems clear it was only some of them.  Only the low-lying ones.  And it was two years after seeding, and one year after opening.  Do you have another source that says otherwise?

[TEPaul]

Bryan and MikeC:

I think we should all realize what it is exactly we have regarding the early history of Merion East, and not get too carried away in our apparently zealous forensic investigation of the golf course.

Bryan, you're asking if 'we have something else', some other source, I guess.

We should appreciate that these so-called "agronomy letters" basically between Hugh Wilson and Piper and Oakley (and in later years between Alan Wilson and Piper and Oakley) that span over fifteen years are a pretty unusual and pretty amazing asset into the early history of a golf course that old. If there is anything else as comprehensive as these letters are on some other golf course I'm not aware of it. There may be some of the same type of correspondence between Walter Harban of Columbia CC and Piper and Oakley but somehow I doubt it because Harban was in DC as were Piper and Oakley.

It may seem unfortunate to us that they are all basically in the context of agronomy and not specifically architecture and are generally on things like worms and insects and agronomic pathologies and stuff that may not seem too sexy to us today but they are a pretty amazing history and chronology of an early golf course nonetheless. For that reasaon if we are going to use them for some architectural chronology of the course we should read them very carefully.

I think Bryan is right in that Wilson seems to be implying that not all the original greens of Merion had to be 'dug up' and redone for agronomic reasons in the first few years.

My point, however, is that we come to appreciate better what was going on at Merion East in those days, and the REAL  reasons some things happened to the architecture, and not to assign reasons for changes that were not the reasons things really did happen. By that I mean it certainly seems that things were being done to the architecture more for agronomic reasons than for architectural reasons.

I've said on these Merion threads a number of times that it has always seemed strange to Wayne and I that there are just so many letters and correspondences and interest on Wilson's part in agronomy, the agronomy of Merion and then American agronomy generally and so little on actual architecture. It has made us wonder if there was not some commensurate correspondence on architecture somewhere from him that was just lost over time but I think we all need to realize that perhaps there never was such a thing and what that means to our understanding of what was going on in that early era of golf (and architecture).

Also, and again, Wayne and I only copied those letters that seemed relevent to our research on William Flynn. We were not trying to write a separate history on Merion.

But these threads of David Moriarty's although sort of tortorous in a discussion sense certainly have made us look again at all this material for another or other research reasons. I'll probably get up to the USGA one of these days and look over what we did not copy of that correspondence and what it may say about Merion's early years but I remind everyone that I'm certainly not the only one who can do this. It's all there in the USGA's Green Section in about twenty enormous old files that as I said before resurfaced out of some USGA Mid-Atlantic region agronomist's attic after having been buried away and forgotten about for perhaps eight decades.

[TEPaul]

I guess what I've been trying to say recently is that we probably need to move on and away from the endless discussion and debate about M&W's influence on the architecture of Merion and look more closely at what all those men back then with those famous courses of that time (NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley) were really up against, really concerned with and really doing most of the time and what effect it had on their architecture and their thinking about it.

If we do that I think we will undoubtedly find that they were tearing things up in various ways and starting again in various ways not because they didn't like the architectural look or strategic concept of it or whatever but because they were just trying to figure out how to establish permanent turf on it, and that at first they just didn't know how. We need to look more carefully at what it was they did to finally figure it out, and we certainly need to look closer at just how much that may've concerned them and perhaps effected them architecturally.

Wilson's remark below in his 1915 report on Merion may seem to us today to have been sort of a throwaway comment but if one really concentrates on what all this material really did mean to them back then one can probably see it certainly was no throwaway comment on his part. To them it had to be far more ominious than we realize;

"He (Oakley) was right and it is truly difficult to give definite answers to many of the questions which bother those who are trying to grow real turf. As one greenkeeper puts it, it is easy to grow grass but very difficult to get turf."

To put this kind of really massive problem of that time in the context it probably needs to be and how it played out in various ways, I should point you to Tom MacWood's very good article on George Crump himself called "The Portrait of a Legend".

Obviously, that article centered around the fact that Tom MacWood had proved the age old rumor to be true that Crump really had committed suicide by producing his death certificate. Of course noone will ever know what it was that led him to do that but one cannot miss the implication that it may've had something to do with the massive agronomic failure that he was having establishing permanent turf on an undertaking he had worked so hard and so long on and what that may've meant to what came next and to him.

I can tell you the fact that it may've had something to do with massive agronomic problems down there at Pine Valley, like at Merion and like at NGLA before it sure did get Mayor Ott's attention.

By the way, the solution to PVGC's massive agronomic problems at that time basically came from the Wilsons of Merion and William Flynn and Piper and Oakley. There's a pretty long report about it all from Hugh's brother Alan (Hugh was the Green Chairman at PVGC at that time and for that reason).

Basically PV had a choice between plan A and Plan B. Plan A was to tear most of the course up and start again thereby taking the course out of play for over a year or Plan B to just dump massive amounts of topsoil, binder etc on top of the whole thing and hope like hell it filtered down and worked. They chose Plan B, and thank God it worked or some of the architectural details of Pine Valley may not look today as they do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I think one of the problems you're having is that you're viewing the committee's visit to see CBM in the context of who CBM became, as an architect, rather than who he was in contemporary times.

CBM was not recognized as a great architect in 1910-1911.

He was however, a great figure in American golf.

He was socially connected.
He was a great golfer
He was involved in the forming and played an important role in the USGA
He was familiar with structuring new clubs.
He was a novice designer.

I believe that the committee sought him out based on the above credentials, rather than to obtain specific design advice relative to Merion from him.

The fact that there is no reference to a contour map, no reference to routing, hole design or features has to lead you to conclude that the conversation was in general, not specific terms.

In addition, CBM was known to have an ego.

In almost every club he was involved with, he took control, and usually became a member or founding member.
He certainly was in charge of the design and construction phase.

Chicago, Piping Rock, NGLA and The Creek would seem to bear that out.   Remember, he never took payment for his efforts.  His equivalency, his payment was in being appointed the Major Domo.

Why would the committee approach a novice for design advice ?

And, wouldn't CBM's reputation as a take over or take charge guy make them want to keep him at arm's length ?

Why not contact other American architects ?
Why not contact architects with experience from the UK, [size=8x]
IF [/size]they were seeking purely architectural advice ?

Why not visit Shinnecock, a completed course close by ?

It may have been that the committee was seeking more than  architectural advice, and certainly not in reference to specifics at Merion.

Did CBM visit Merion subsequent to the committees visit to him, prior to the completion of Merion ?

If so, how many times, for what durations and for what purpose ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Your assessment of CB Macdonald at that point in time is spot on and it's really not accurate that anyone would have thought of him first and foremost as an "architect" in 1911.

[TEPaul]

We should also probably note that in his report on the creation of Merion in 1926 even Alan Wilson didn't seem to refer to anyone connected to the creation of Merion as an architect. Matter of fact he distinctly mentioned that '"the Special Construction Committee designed and built the two courses without the help of an architect'. He called the courses "Homemade" and he referred to Macdonald and Whigam as 'sportsmen who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton'.

Perhaps in those days the idea of an "architect" connoted something in the way of professionalism and it is surely true to say those types of men considered themselves amateurs first and foremost.

Is the thing that appealed to Merion about Macdonald and NGLA and perhaps inspiring them to form a committee to create the course that he was viewed by them as the first amateur sportsman to go about building an American golf course in a such a manner as they were about to? Macdonald assembled a group of amateur sportsmen himself to create NGLA three to four years previous.

And don't forget, when Wilson (and his committee?) went to visit Macdonald and Whigam at NGLA the course hadn't even officially opened yet (again probably as a result of agronomic problems).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I think we all made the mistake of viewing the desire to meet with CBM in the context of who we perceive him to be today, rather than who he was in 1910-1911.

[TEPaul]

We view a lot of things that happened in golf and architecture in 1910-11 as if they were in some of the contexts of today rather than the way it really was back then. It's the inherent difficulty of viewing history accurately. It's not easy to constantly remember to strip away from our perspectives everything that came after a particular time and place that we know and of course they could have known at that time.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If the committee was strictly seeking specific architectural assistance, why call on a novice ?

Not that there were an abundance of experienced American architects, but, there were a few, like Bendelow.

They also could have summoned experienced architects from the UK like Colt and others.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't think I'd go overboard on this if I were you by actually calling Macdonald a novice in 1910 or 1911. After spending about 4-5 years planning and building a great golf course (NGLA) I doubt anyone now or then would or should call Macdonald a novice. After spending about five years on a single project I doubt Crump was either or Wilson or Fownes or Leeds or any of the other so-called "amateur" architects who spent that long on those types of projects. They were probably just as good or better than most any of the America professionals of that day and age for the simple reason they were basically there every day for years on their projects. If one can't learn just about all there is to learn about architecture doing it that way I doubt they'd ever understand.

You tell me a professional American architect of that era who spent that amount of time on any single project. I doubt there were any professional architects back in that very early era who spent more than a few days or a week on any single project that they didn't practically live at.

The point of this is Merion and other amateur architects involved in single projects could see that Macdonald had spent about four years building NGLA when they went to see him, and that he was producing something pretty amazing doing it this way (the way they planned to do it). That's what i think got their attention with Macdonald as I mentioned yesterday. Basically, he was like them---an amateur sportsman.

[CHrisB]

Can I stop this merry-go-round for a second and ask a question?

From what I understand (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), when all of these Merion discussions started, it was generally known that Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.

Despite some interesting new findings, after all these pages and posts and arguments, what has really changed?

(I'm not implying that these discussions haven't been well worth it--I have enjoyed the whole process and have read practically every post of all these threads. I'm just trying to take stock of where we are right now.)

[Mike_Cirba]

Can I stop this merry-go-round for a second and ask a question?

From what I understand (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), when all of these Merion discussions started, it was generally known that Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.

Despite some interesting new findings, after all these pages and posts and arguments, what has really changed?

Chris,

That's the gist of it, isn't it?   David, despite his protestations to the contrary, is here to claim that CB Macdonald was actually the architect of Merion and his motivation should really be apparent now after three months of this back and forth.

It's reminiscent of Marc Anthony after the death of Caesar, where in this case he repeatedly assures us that Hugh Wilson and the Committee are "all honorable men", and that he agrees CB Macdonald doesn't deserve design credit, while all the while spending virtually every waking moment of the past 90 days trying to convince us exactly otherwise.  

While David might try to take my words in dissent and say that my "anger and frusration are palpable", I would certainly assure David that he has no reason to worry about my having any acrimonious feelings towards him or his suppositions and that his efforts to paint me as being emotional beyond reason are really pretty transparent at this point.

David would have us believe that CB Macdonald, who created template holes on every single one of "his designs", as well as those of his direct disciples, suddenly and inexplicably decided to teach Wilson and company the "principles" behind the great hole designs, instead of the "templates" that Macdonald himself built course after course after course.  

He tell us this while scratching his head over the lack of substantive evidence that any holes at Merion bear any direct characteristics to any of Macdonald's famous template holes.   He tells us this while not knowing for certain whether the two holes he cites as possibly having template characteristics; the present 3rd and old 10th, were in the same state in 1912 as they were in 1916, after Wilson's trip to Great Britain.   He tells us this while telling us that the features such as the Valley of Sin on the 17th HAD to have come from Macdonald when it's clear that this green was completely rebuilt sometime well after Macdonald had left the scene.   Most absurdly, he tells us this knowing full well that every single one of Macdonald's predecessors continued in his vein of building courses chock full of template holes, with CB Macdonald's full knowledge and encouragement.

The obvious question is simply this;   if Macdonald had laid out Merion, or had such a HUGE impact on Hugh Wilson as to be the architect by proxy, then why didn't he have Wilson lay out template holes?   Or, asked another way, why didn't he insist that Seth Raynor and Charles Banks, who worked directly for him, go find their own original holes that only relied on the "principles" of the great holes, instead of relying on as near exact copies as were possible given the landforms and other restrictions as they did throughout their entire careers?   After all, he had another 20 years after Merion's creation to get these guys to see the light.

Of course none of that makes any logical sense whatsoever if Macdonald played a huge role in laying out Merion.   Why would it?   After all, that wasn't Macdonald's intent, nor was it his standard practice.   Instead, I think CB Macdonald's own comments best exemplify his thinking and philosophy regarding course architecture.

"Why not build a golf course emulating the great holes brought out in the discussions?   Why not duplicate these holes?  If 18 of the world's greatest holes were incorporated into one golf course, would it not be the finest golf course in the entire world?   This would certainly be the ideal golf links."

None of what I have written has been meant to disparage Macdonald's great works in any way.  They are simply intended to point out the obvious truth that while Macdonald was greatly helpful to the Committee in helping them to understand great hole concepts, it is a wild leap of logic and reason to conclude that Macdonald himself laid out any of the holes at Merion, created any of the particular features, or had any more than a purely "advisory" role as has been cited by everyone there at the time, all of whom also spoke out clearly over the years that Hugh Wilson was the true architect of Merion.

 

[TEPaul]

From post #625:

"Quote from: TEPaul on January 18, 2007, 01:44:50 pm
. . . What you need to do is deal with the reality of why Wilson IN THAT REPORT IN 1916 gave M&W the credit he did for that visit to NGLA and said virtually nothing else about what they did while in Philadelphia. You have to deal with that or else just come right out and admit you must be implying Wilson was lying for failing to credit them with some significant involvement once the project got underway---and that certainly includes the routing.

David Moriarty's response:
 
"With all due respect Tom I fail to see any significance whatsoever in the fact that Wilson did not discuss Macdonald’s specific activities at Merion during his two on-site visits.  

First, as you have acknowledged many times, H. Wilson did not discuss anyone’s specific role in routing, laying out, or constructing Merion East in the report or in any other document of which we are aware.  He did not mention what the specific roles of Pickering, the other committee members, Flynn, or even himself.  Why would you expect that he would mention Macdonald??

Second, as you have also stated many times, Wilson was focused on agronomy issues in the report.  His drafts indicated this.  If he had started in on the specifics of the design process, that too would probably have ended up on the cutting room floor with his comments on the bunkering.  

Third, Wilson not only leaves the names out, he leaves out all the details of the design process. For example, he only mentions his trip overseas in passing.  He did not discuss where he went, what he saw, or what influenced him.  In fact, despite all the letters about agronomy, he apparently never wrote anything about the design; he never explaned the routing, the road crossings, the bunker placement; or any other aspect of the design.  

It is too much to expect Wilson to have outlined everything Macdonald did, given that he never provided this information about himself or anyone else.    

In fact, given Wilson’s complete silence about the design process, his few paragraphs about Macdonald stand out all the more.  Wilson’s entire discussion of the design process consisted entirely of praise for Macdonald and a general description of how much they learned from him!"

David Moriarty:

Thank you for finally responding to what I think is a fundamental issue, probably the fundamental issue in this entire subject of the early creation of Merion East---eg Hugh Wilson's 1915 report on the creation of Merion East.

I now finally have your response and position on this report and this issue and I completely disagree with your position and I reject it as even a remotely accurate or logical one.

In that report, in the first paragraph, Wilson mentioned the visit to NGLA, explained in general terms what was done there and thanked Macdonald for it. He mentioned learning the right principles of design from famous holes abroad, he mentioned what to look for with the natural conditions of Merion and he mentioned that they went over the course (NGLA) the next day. This is a general description of what they did at NGLA for two days and obviously he felt it important enough to mention in this report four years later.

He mentions nothing at all about Macdonald again to do with the laying out and construction of the course, and certainly nothing about anything he did for them while at Merion itself from the time the golf course went into construction between spring 1911 and Sept 1911 when construction was completed and seeding began.

What Wilson does mention in the beginning of the second paragraph of that report four years later is who it was who layed out and built the golf course. He did not go into specific details of who did specifics on the holes and the reason for that which you also fail to acknowledge is obviously because no one did that back then or even today.

Wilson reports in the beginning of the second paragraph:

"Our problem (proposition) was to lay out the course, build and seed 18 greens and 15 fairways. Three fairways were in good pasture turf. These will be mentioned later. We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and (then asked Messrs Oakley and Piper to help us out. They did it most generously, and we) started in the Spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had been largely farm land."

As has been mentioned to you many times and what you continue to avoid, is the fact that Wilson always used the word "we" ("Our") when referring to himself and his Construction Committee. This did not include Macdonald which is proven by the fact that in this same report (again written four years after the fact) he uses the same "WE" when mentioning the trip to NGLA and Macdonald; "We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow"----so obviously in everything that Wilson wrote about the creation of Merion "we" does not and never did refer to or include Macdonald.

Wilson says in no uncertain terms, and four years after the fact, who precisely it was who layed out and built the East Course. Not only that but Alan Wilson said the very same thing only more often in his report and he also mentioned what the entire committee had reported on the subject of who laid out, designed and oversaw the building of Merion East and West. It just couldn't be any clearer or more straight forward, and for some reason you just can't see it or you just refuse to acknowledge it.

These threads of yours on Merion have been long and there has been more than ample opportunity for you to present your case or your hypothesis. I don't see that there is any question at all that your hypothesis really has been put through a long and detailed catechism from numerous people on here and it is eminently clear that almost all find it lacking in fact, logic and deduction and ultimately unconvincing.

And so do I. I completely disagree with what you said above about your interpretation of Wilson's report vis-a-vis what it means regarding Macdonald's part in the laying out and building of Merion East, but again I thank you for finally stating what your opinion is on Wilson's report vis-a-vis Macdonald and the laying out and building of the course between the spring of 1911 and Sept 1911.

I do not believe that Merion East's architectural history needs your further investigation of the accuracy of its beginning and who it was who was responsible, particularly significantly.

You've made your points on here and I've made mine, and we should just leave it all now and look to see who believes which version---eg your version that M&W's part in the course has been minimized or my version that it has not been minimized and that the record produced (the Wilson reports, agronomy letters et al) proves that it has not been minimized.

That's what a "catechism" like these threads on your "hypotheses" on Merion is all about, and that's what the real value of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its contributors is all about.

Again, I think your position is finally clear on an issue I consider to be very important---eg the reports of Hugh Wilson and Alan Wilson, and I don't see any purpose in rehashing any of it or discussing your "hypotheses" any further unless new and heretofore unknown information surfaces.

[TEPaul]

"Further, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary.  I am not aware of anyone who stated that the committee was formed in 1910."

Then obviously you're not aware of Alan Wilson and his report. He doesn't exactly say the committee was formed in 1910 but judging by what he does say there most certainly is that implication.

If you are going to argue a point, it probably isn't a good idea to just totally avoid evidence to the contrary as I'm sure you're aware that those you are debating or discussing this issue with you are going to produce it.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Chris, I hate to answer because this has been a major point of contention and animus, but I do not think it is entirely accurate to say that it was "generally known that Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.

David,

I agree with this statement as you quoted above from Chris Brauner.

Do you?

We've gone round and round and round and I have to imagine your fingers are as tired as mine.  We each read the same things and interpret them very, very differently.   What I was referring to in my statements which hyperbolically minimized Macdonald's role were the very strong statements made by Alan Wilson, Tillinghast, Max Behr, contemporaneous news accounts, and Hugh Wilson himself that HW was clearly the architect of Merion.  

I felt that you were trying to overemphasize Macdonald's role and still believe that, so my statements were probably overstated the other way.  I just think you're making a very large, unsubstantiated leap when you begin to suggest that Macdonald possibly laid out the course or had something to do directly with the features on the holes.

I really can't spend the next six months of my life debating this.  

Can you answer the question above from Chris Brauner?   I agree with it, fully and wholeheartedly.   If you agree that Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.", then I think we can reach a cease fire and walk away before we bore the rest of the GCA collective to death.  

[TEPaul]

Chris Brauner said:

"From what I understand (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), when all of these Merion discussions started, it was generally known that Wilson and his committee designed and built the East Course at Merion, the committee was advised by Macdonald and Whigham, and though the advice may have been valuable, it did not warrant design credit.

Despite some interesting new findings, after all these pages and posts and arguments, what has really changed?"

ChrisB:

I'm glad you posted that and that you explained it as taking stock of where we've come on these threads and what has really changed about our understanding of the early creation of Merion.

For me nothing much at all has changed. We here, who know the course and its history well still know, as we have for years, that Wilson was the architect of the early stage of the Merion courses and that he and his committee layed out, designed and built those golf courses in 1911 and 1913 with the aid of those who worked for them on the crews. We also know that Macdonald (and Whigam) initially advised them at NGLA and twice in Philadelphia. We've known all that for many years. It's been part of Merion's record since the beginning.

What we DID not know is that Wilson went to GB in 1912.

What we DO not now know is whether that was his first or second trip to GB for the purposes of the Committee project of creating Merion East (and West).

Those last two brief paragraphs are all that these Merion threads have changed for me.

However, if the 1912 trip was his first trip to GB it would not change a thing, in my opinion, about who it was that layed out, designed and built Merion East and was its first early architect.

Some on here may even try to prove and may've already implied that if Wilson had not at first been to GB he was far too much the novice to have ever been able to lay out, design and built Merion East in 1911.

I do not buy that for a second and I never have because the record shows clearly that is exactly what he and his committee did do anyway.

If someone believes he was too much the novice to have done it, and they are trying to prove that or even suggest it on here, I don't think they understand Wilson and his committee well at all and I don't think they have any real understanding of this era in American architecture.

By the way, these Merion threads are David Moriarty's and he wants them to only discuss the first early construction of Merion East in 1911, nothing more, but the fact is that once Merion passed the age of  four or five (1915-16) another architect entered the picture very significantly in the creation and architectural development of Merion East AND West with Wilson until he died in 1925 and then on after his death.

That of course was William Flynn, and the extent of what he actually did in those years is something that Merion never knew much about. They do now, and they embrace it.

But somehow I don't see them, or frankly hardly anyone else embracing the fact that Macdonald's role in the creation of the course has ever been minimized or discounted and I don't see them embracing the fact that his role needs to be reanalyzed for the simple reason there are no facts that really support either one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think one of the problems you're having is that you're viewing the committee's visit to see CBM in the context of who CBM became, as an architect, rather than who he was in contemporary times.

CBM was not recognized as a great architect in 1910-1911.

Patrick, as TomPaul suggests, you are mistaken about Macdonald not being well known for his architectural approach in 1910-1911.  

First, you are forgetting about his work in Chicago.

NO, I didn't.
I'm clearly aware of his limited efforts in Chicago in 1893 and 1895.  TEPaul is a Flynnophile, I'm the BigMacophile.
Everything he knows about CBM that he learned from "Scotland's Gift" he owes to ME.    

Second, you are forgetting that NGLA may have been the most anticipated golf course in the history of golf architecture.

There doesn't seem to be much support for that claim.

Macdonald had been talking and writing about building for years before he started building it, and the course was widely debated and discussed on both sides of the Atlantic many years before it officially opened.    

I've found no evidence of that.

I don't see how that's possible given the date the site was purchased in 1907 and played for the first time, in 1909.

Are you sure that the date the clubhouse officially opened is the same date that the golf course officially opened  ?
Most of the discussion about NGLA seemed to have occured AFTER the course was completed, and not prior to that date.

If I recall correctly it received critical acclaim from the likes of Horace Hutchinson and Bernhard Darwin even though it had not yet officially opened.  

I believe that Hutchinson's initial comments were made in 1910 after the course was finished, and that Darwin's initial comments were made in 1913, long after the course was finished.

There were also rave reviews after the invitational tournament in July 1910.  

I believe that the Invitational Tournament was conducted on September 11, 1911.  MacDonald Himself writes that the first invitational tournament was conducted in 1911.

I can see how having the wrong dates would lead you to erroneous conclusions.

Third, as TEPaul has noted many times, all these guys knew each other very well.  No doubt that by the fall of 1910, men like Lesley and Griscom were well aware that Macdonald was doing something potentially revolutionary for American golf on Long Island, and that the early reviews were rave.  

That's just not true.
While they knew or knew of each other, there were NO raves about the course pre 1907 and probably none pre 1909.
Most of the raves came afterwards.

You're trying to force a square peg into a round hole and the diagonal of the square is lengthier than the diamater of the round hole.

[TEPaul]

"Patrick, as TomPaul suggests, you are mistaken about Macdonald not being well known for his architectural approach in 1910-1911."

David:

I didn't suggest Patrick was mistaken in what he said about how Macdonald was looked at in 1910 or 1911. I merely mentioned that if I were him I wouldn't go overboard in calling Macdonald a novice in 1910 or 1911.  

Patrick's point was that when we discuss a subject like the one on these Merion threads we should remember that in 1910 Macdonald was not as well known in American architecture as he would become. He certainly wasn't considered to be the "Father" of American golf architecture at that point.

What Macdonald probably was to Merion at that point was a great player, a man heavily involved in golf administration in America and an amateur "sportsman" who had just built a great course with a loose committee of fellow amateurs as Merion and their committee of amateur sportsmen were intending to do in Philadelphia.

I think that's what probably really got Merion's attention about C.B. Macdonald.

I think the fact that Alan Wilson stressed in his report on the creation of Merion that no architect was used is probably more significant then we've realized. They didn't even consider Macdonald to be an architect, just a sportsman who knew a great deal about the game.

Patrick makes a good point that he was probably not looked at back then as he would be looked at later or as he is looked at today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()