News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #75 on: December 27, 2006, 08:59:16 PM »
"I am well behind and havent read a post since last page, nonetheless I will try to address at least some of those posts."

Moriarty, if you can't keep up with the pace of this "trial" then get the hell out of the courtroom. There is no reason whatsoever you should PRESUME to waste the time and attention of this courtroom. Who in the hell do you think you are anyway?

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #76 on: December 27, 2006, 09:55:02 PM »
This is like a script or transcript of the Philadelphia moot court.   It is like a Pirandello play with several characters in search of an author... Who is the presiding judge in this case anyway?  ::)  What are we to call this case; Hugh I Wilson Estate et al VS The evil Dr Moriarity et al?  

Serve the subpoena, Duces Tecum.  Let's have a deposition.  Have Mucci Voir Dire the jury panel for bias.  ::)  Hey kids were going to have a show trial...  ;) ;D 8)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #77 on: December 27, 2006, 09:55:26 PM »
David Moriarty wrote:

"It sounds to me like time might have been running out on their lease, or perhaps it was getting pretty expensive.  Did the lease put a time constraint on them to move into the new course, thus necessitating that Wilson wait until after the foundation was laid to go to Europe?  The Merion Cricket Club website notes that the Haverford site was leased in early 1896, so H. Wilson is a little off with his figure of twenty years.  If it was a 15 year lease, then it would run in 1911, and the 1911 and 1912 seasons would have been most likely at a much higher rent.  

Or maybe H. Wilson meant the lease was 20 years and the lease would be up in 1916?  In the same agronomy article, Wilson notes that the East course's greens failed in the fall of 1913, they dug up the greens, added a drainage system (Query as to whether this had ever been done before in the US or overseas?) then transplanted sod from the old course.
"Finally, we determined that as we could obtain a quantity of good turf from our old course, we would dig them up and resod them.

So maybe they still possessed the old tract?  Or did they merely purchase the sod from the new possessor?

Surely Wayne or TEPaul knows when the lease was up, and when in 1910 was the Ardmore Ave. course purchased.  Or they could easily find out.  But I somehow I think they may keep it to themselves."

David:

You know, Wayne and I never really carefully considered questions such as your above for the simple reason they are such speculation and hypothesis on your part that I'm quite certain no one has ever thought of them before---not ever! They are speculation, hypothesis and questions that are just so far removed from anything to do with Merion's history it's scary.

Merion was not being squeezed by a high ending rent in a lease or anything of the kind. Where do you come up with stuff like that? I'd appreciate an answer to that question rather than another total avoidance on your part of a question you clearly feel you just can't answer.

This is the very thing that really pisses us off about this endless litany of argumentations, questions and hypotheses on your part. They are just so far divorced from the reality of the history of Merion it's frightening. You just basically don't have the vaguest idea what the hell you're talking about with the entire history of Merion Cricket Club going back into the end of the 19th century.

David Moriarty, let me give you a little hint here----eg do some research on the history of the Griscom family (Clement and Rodman) and what they meant to Merion from the beginning to almost the middle of the 20th century.

Your quiz on the subject will be on Friday morning Skebo.

Honest to God, what in the world do you think you're doing on these Merion threads you start David? What in the world do you think you're accomplishing?? What are you trying to prove? Do you think you may make a name for yourself this way?? The best question, I'm sure, is----do you actually enjoy making a fool of yourself? Do you really enjoy arguing with everyone on here all the time??

I'm not trying to be insulting this time, believe me, this has become a legitimate and serious question.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 10:10:41 PM by TEPaul »

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #78 on: December 27, 2006, 10:14:58 PM »
"BTW, at this point of time, why does it matter if Wilson got some design input from Macdonald?  Does it somehow diminish Merion as a golf club or Wilson's standing?  Outside of here and some of the members at Merion, who knows who H. Wilson is and who cares?"

Lou, this is a good question, and my response is that it does matter.

My own view is that it does matter who served as the primary architect of such a course, much in the same way that it matters who was the primary architect of, say, Chicago's first skyscrapers. Reams of paper far longer than these threads have been written on the relative merits of Burnham vs. Sullivan as America's premier "modern" architect, and they are worthy discussions.

Merion's pedigree matters because Merion -- perhaps more than any single course in America -- matters. It was the site of perhaps the game's most notable achievement. It was the site of perhaps its most courageous comeback. Two of its giants fought a wonderful battle there over five rounds in 1971. It is a championship course of the highest caliber that is far shorter, and more compact, than nearly any other course of its merit. And it was designed by someone doing it for the first time -- an amateur, so to speak, in the art of golf architecture. That, to me, is part of the fascination of Merion -- that so much great history has transpired there, that it has held up as such a great test for so long, and that all of that has occured on a course that was Wilson's first attempt at this. It's the equivalent of painting a masterpiece, or composing a world-class symphony, with little or no previous indication of such talent.

I don't want to get in the middle of the thread's overriding question -- how much influence did Macdonald et al. have on Wilson et al. in the design and creation of Merion. The course's greatness, in my mind, stands out regardless of who did first design it. But I might view Wilson's role somewhat differently if evidence indicated Macdonald et al. played as critical of a role os Moriarty suggests.

My own view (couldn't resist) is that the preponderance of evidence points to Wilson and the committee as the primary movers behind its formation and architectural development; I don't see clear and convincing evidence yet -- the standard in civil suits, of which this might be reasonably compared -- of Macdonald having a major or critical role.

TEPaul

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #79 on: December 27, 2006, 10:36:04 PM »
"TEPaul,
Rustic Canyon.  So do we have a bet, or not?"

David Moriarty:

I thought that was your home course but I thought it a better idea that I ask you first just to get it on the record.

The reason I ask is because under your sort of odd and unrealistic "laundry list" idea about who should and shouldn't be given attribution for "advice" or "involvement" in the design or conceptual creation of various golf courses, I was just wondering if you'd be willing to give me credit and my due for "advice' and "involvement" in Rustic Canyon?

I can't say I understand it exactly but those boys out there who had to do with it won't seem to cease giving me credit for architectural "advice" and "involvement" with something to do with holes #12 and #13.

Would you agree with that? Are you willing to give me the credit for architectural "advice" and "involvement" they won't stop saying I deserve? If you don't understand any of this, which of course wouldn't surprise me, just ask them.  ;)

TEPaul

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #80 on: December 27, 2006, 10:41:35 PM »
"It cracks me up every time I read that you and Wayne were “helping” me.  Anyone who followed that last thread knows you went to every length to hinder me.  Yes, I have definitely benefited from information you posted, but it was posted because you thought you were proving me wrong.  It is not my fault that you apparently do not understand the ramifications of your own research.  As for Wayne, he had posted a number of items which were quite helpful before his behavior took a turn for the worse, and before he deleted everything.  I believe I thanked him for it, and am still thankful.  Same goes for any “help” that you have provided me."

The above is perhaps a new low in the history of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com for pathetic self indulgence.

This is a golf architectural website and discussion group, David, and not something for your personal catharsis or weird self-help program.




Phil_the_Author

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #81 on: December 27, 2006, 10:50:01 PM »
I think it is safe to say that in short, David believes that CBM had far more to do with the design and creation of Merion than he has been given credit for and that he now also believes that Wilson made his "study trip" overseas in 1912.

David, is this a quick synopsis of your hypotheses?

The reason I ask is that it appears that no one has yet to realize that if the trip that Wilson took in 1912 was his "study trip" this means that CBM had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the design of Merion.

Consider the following four statements and timeframe made by David:

1-   “Spring 1911.  Committee collected all the information they could from “local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the Spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land.” –Hugh Wilson
2-   “April 1911, the course is “nearing completion in the planning.”  M&W returned to Merion to offer suggestions and advise on the lay out. (A. Wilson)  CBM and Whigham were greatly pleased over the prospects; and CBM said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country.” –Tillinghast, American Golfer, May 1911.
3-   Sometime in 1911.(?)  CBM tells Travis that Merion will be one of the best inland courses he had ever seen . -Travis, January 1913, American Golfer (Travis wrote: “Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen . . . .”)
4-   September 1-15, 1911. Merion seeded the golf course.


So then, by the timeframe that he has laid out CBM was FINISHED with whatever advising and influence he gave for the design by September 15, 1911.

Yet he then maintains that AFTER this Wilson went to Europe to “study the great courses” and came back and THEN applied what he had learned to the design of Merion, with the course then evolving to a finished form. If true, this can only mean that the finished course was Wilson’s design and not CBM’s.

David refers to the statements made by Travis in his January 1913 article where he speaks of Merion. He offers this as proof that it was in 1912 that Wilson made this “study trip” and yet then misses out on the importance of what Travis wrote as it would apply to CBM’s actual involvement. “Mr. Wilson visited many prominent courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used… Many of the imported ideas on hazard formation are good…”

Why are these statements important when considering CBM’s involvement? Because his advice was given back in 1910 & 1911! Here we are in 1912 and they are implementing ideas that came back in Wilson’s mind from Europe. It clearly shows that it was Wilson’s hand then guiding the design and not CBM’s.


Mike_Cirba

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #82 on: December 27, 2006, 11:53:10 PM »
I think it is safe to say that in short, David believes that CBM had far more to do with the design and creation of Merion than he has been given credit for and that he now also believes that Wilson made his "study trip" overseas in 1912.

David, is this a quick synopsis of your hypotheses?

The reason I ask is that it appears that no one has yet to realize that if the trip that Wilson took in 1912 was his "study trip" this means that CBM had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the design of Merion.

Consider the following four statements and timeframe made by David:

1-   “Spring 1911.  Committee collected all the information they could from “local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the Spring of 1911 to construct the course on ground which had largely been farm land.” –Hugh Wilson
2-   “April 1911, the course is “nearing completion in the planning.”  M&W returned to Merion to offer suggestions and advise on the lay out. (A. Wilson)  CBM and Whigham were greatly pleased over the prospects; and CBM said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country.” –Tillinghast, American Golfer, May 1911.
3-   Sometime in 1911.(?)  CBM tells Travis that Merion will be one of the best inland courses he had ever seen . -Travis, January 1913, American Golfer (Travis wrote: “Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen . . . .”)
4-   September 1-15, 1911. Merion seeded the golf course.


So then, by the timeframe that he has laid out CBM was FINISHED with whatever advising and influence he gave for the design by September 15, 1911.

Yet he then maintains that AFTER this Wilson went to Europe to “study the great courses” and came back and THEN applied what he had learned to the design of Merion, with the course then evolving to a finished form. If true, this can only mean that the finished course was Wilson’s design and not CBM’s.

David refers to the statements made by Travis in his January 1913 article where he speaks of Merion. He offers this as proof that it was in 1912 that Wilson made this “study trip” and yet then misses out on the importance of what Travis wrote as it would apply to CBM’s actual involvement. “Mr. Wilson visited many prominent courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used… Many of the imported ideas on hazard formation are good…”

Why are these statements important when considering CBM’s involvement? Because his advice was given back in 1910 & 1911! Here we are in 1912 and they are implementing ideas that came back in Wilson’s mind from Europe. It clearly shows that it was Wilson’s hand then guiding the design and not CBM’s.



Philip,

The reason I quit participating on this thread is simply your first paragraph, which is something I've been saying for the past month.

Although I consider David a friend whose heart is in the right place, I wholly object to the tactics he is using here and believe that they are borne out of real or perceived past transgressions from Wayne and Tom Paul.

His periodic hollow reminder that he agrees fully that Hugh Wilson is the architect of Merion while attempting in every way possible to cast doubt and shadow on that fact reminds me of Marc Antony's speech after the assassination of Julius Caesar, in which he spent 90% of his time exalting the wonders of Caesar while also periodically reminding us that "Brutus and Cassius are indeed good men!"   ::)

It's a nice lawyer's trick of damning with faint praise.

If he had simply come forward back in November when he started the "Other Piece of the Puzzle?" thread and told us all his hypothesis based on the tidbit of info he hard garnered from a ship's log, as well as the hypothetical timeframe he had put together base on other evidence, then I'm certain he would have gotten a fair hearing.

Instead, we were led on what I termed earlier as a "Tragical History Tour", where despite many folks asking hiim what his real purpose was, he continued to obfuscate and re-direct, and ultimately cause the frigging trainwreck that was that thread, and which sadly led to the loss of Tom MacWood from this website.

More sadly, I believe the reason we took that circuitous detour was simply to somehow make Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul look bad, or wrong, or in error in their understanding of the origins of Merion.  

When asked, David would state that he simply wanted CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham to receive acknowledgement as having advised the committee in valuable ways.   When all of us did that, over and over, in multiple ways, did that satisfy or end the debate?

No, of course not.  

Because that is not, nor has ever been the point here.

The reason a lot of us have been confused, and continue to be, is that this is not meant to make some universal point that will increase all of our understanding and insight on the origins of Merion and of American golf in general.

No, instead it's a personal pissing match, and David, you're correct that I'm frustrated and personally disappointed in this whole fiasco.  I don't like the tactics used here and I think it demeans and belittles those people who care a great deal about the architectural legacy and historical understanding of that great course.

If you believed that you'd come across some new and exciting and relevant evidence that was noteworthy, conclusive, and educational, you should have just written the article you mentioned and let others judge the facts for themselves.  Instead, you chose to come here and play a game of personal public poker where you hid your hand in a coy manner while asking questions you already knew the answers to.

That is ultimately insulting and condescending to all of us following along who care about this stuff and I really hope you consider such tactics more carefully in the future because we really aren't all worthy of such seeming contempt.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2006, 11:55:50 PM by Mike Cirba »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #83 on: December 28, 2006, 02:15:35 AM »
David Moriarty,

I know you've stated that you haven't had the time to respond to TEPaul and others, so, I have to ask.

Who is doing all of this research for you ?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 02:15:58 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

TEPaul

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #84 on: December 28, 2006, 08:27:55 AM »
With all due respect to Philip Young's observations above about the timeline improbablility of CBM having influence on the design of Merion East it has always been my understanding that David Moriarty has only ever been referring to CBM's involvement in what we sometimes call the "initial stage" of Merion East's architecture---eg that time period that's contained in the dates 1910 until some time in or after the completion of the architecture and before seeding in Sept 1911.

I'm not sure that I am aware that David Moriarty ever said CBM influenced the architecture or style of the course after that time or that Merion East did not begin to get rid of some of those very early initial stage features that may've looked something like CBM's architectural style or influence.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 08:31:51 AM by TEPaul »

Phil_the_Author

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2006, 09:20:26 AM »
Tom, reread what I said:

"I think it is safe to say that in short, David believes that CBM had far more to do with the design and creation of Merion than he has been given credit for..."

He stated numerous times on the other thread that M&W were not given proper respect and credit for their work advising on the design and building of Merion. He began this with his very first statement in what is now post #7 on the other thread, "Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project..."

Notice the word "significantly." that is what started the arguing onthat ridiculasly long thread.

Yes, he spoke a great deal about the "initial design," of Merion, but if you look at his comments, and I'm pretty sure this something that you are not going to do, he was constantly arguing that M&W deserved far more credit than what has been given them, especially today.

That is all that I said above.


David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #86 on: December 28, 2006, 11:11:50 AM »
"BTW, at this point of time, why does it matter if Wilson got some design input from Macdonald?  Does it somehow diminish Merion as a golf club or Wilson's standing?  Outside of here and some of the members at Merion, who knows who H. Wilson is and who cares?"

Lou, this is a good question, and my response is that it does matter.

My own view is that it does matter who served as the primary architect of such a course, much in the same way that it matters who was the primary architect of, say, Chicago's first skyscrapers. Reams of paper far longer than these threads have been written on the relative merits of Burnham vs. Sullivan as America's premier "modern" architect, and they are worthy discussions.

Merion's pedigree matters because Merion -- perhaps more than any single course in America -- matters. It was the site of perhaps the game's most notable achievement. It was the site of perhaps its most courageous comeback. Two of its giants fought a wonderful battle there over five rounds in 1971. It is a championship course of the highest caliber that is far shorter, and more compact, than nearly any other course of its merit. And it was designed by someone doing it for the first time -- an amateur, so to speak, in the art of golf architecture. That, to me, is part of the fascination of Merion -- that so much great history has transpired there, that it has held up as such a great test for so long, and that all of that has occured on a course that was Wilson's first attempt at this. It's the equivalent of painting a masterpiece, or composing a world-class symphony, with little or no previous indication of such talent.

I don't want to get in the middle of the thread's overriding question -- how much influence did Macdonald et al. have on Wilson et al. in the design and creation of Merion. The course's greatness, in my mind, stands out regardless of who did first design it. But I might view Wilson's role somewhat differently if evidence indicated Macdonald et al. played as critical of a role os Moriarty suggests.

My own view (couldn't resist) is that the preponderance of evidence points to Wilson and the committee as the primary movers behind its formation and architectural development; I don't see clear and convincing evidence yet -- the standard in civil suits, of which this might be reasonably compared -- of Macdonald having a major or critical role.

Phil,

Like Lou, I have no skin in this game and as a side observer have actually found it interesting to read these two threads.  I respect the passion of the Philly guys immensely.  My home course - Plum Hollow - was mistakenly referred to as a Reid Connelan by Cornish and Whitten in "The Architects of Golf" and then this mistake repeated by Tom Doak in "The Confidential Guide".  

I did a fairly thorough research project (As our Club Historian) and presented my finding to Ron Whitten who agreed that Colt / Allison had done the work (Allison really, I could find no proof that Colt ever set foot on the property - although there was some tangential evidence to that fact) to route the course and that Reid had simply come in after the fact and added some bunker work and if he ever got the book published again, he would correct it.  I have often wondered if Doak would have rated us higher had he know his criticisms (Faint as they were) were of Allison and not Reid.

This stuff matters to us because these courses are our children in a weird sense.  Tom Paul explained this to me long ago when he talked about how problematic it was to write negatives about someones home course (Something I had done about Rustic Canyon).  He explained that just like children, we are bound to see the positives and quick to overlook the negatives.

In reading both threads in their entirety (Something I have done from the sidelines) my own opinion (And it is nothing more than that) is that Wilson asked CB for some advice (This would have been a prudent decision given that he had access to him), traveled to the UK to see the worlds great courses (Something that Pete Dye says he did in "Bury Me in A Pot Bunker") and built Merion.  Giving advice does not constitute architectural credit in my mind any more than adding bunkers after the fact but that is just my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 11:13:12 AM by David Wigler »
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #87 on: December 28, 2006, 12:12:09 PM »
Honestly, perhaps I have been too glib in my egging the disputants on.  Mike's comments and his objections to David's methods actually sobered me up, that some folks do (as Wiggles observes about Tom Paul's reference) think of these courses as their children.

I guess I like a good old barn burner of a debate.  I think that David Moriarity is following instincts that he knows best, which is good lawyering technique.  It is sophistry in the good sense, and these discussions were for me the proposition of a good sophist using techniques to argue against some fundamentalist believers in a closely held tradition.  

We have some very intelligent folks in DM TEP WM MC Phil the Author and others, all pointing various things out.  I just don't see why the participants don't hang in there in the spirit of vigorous debate, and know full well that a good round of golf will wash away any sting of having one's closely held debating point dinged up in the give and take.  Tom Mac should not have left, nor should the inferences of questionable character or malicious motives have been cast.  

There are contexts in which folks can play "the dozens" and call yo' momma various things.  Those tuned in can laugh, and those that don't get it are all aghast at the epethets.  ::) :-\ 8)
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #88 on: December 28, 2006, 12:58:31 PM »
It still seems odd the lack of references to newspaper articles. The old AG and GI articles have been hashed and re-hashed.  It seems the string of easy ‘internet’ data mining has played out.

Based on my past microfilm newspaper research,     I agree with one of the above notes by RJ Daley.  Many articles from national magazines GI and AG have been quoted,  but there have been few quotes from the local newspapers.  Even local Tennessee ‘hillbilly’ golf and golfing events were covered quite extensively before WWII in our local newspapers.      

It is possible that the trip(s) to Europe might be mentioned in the newspapers as RJ Daley noted above.

It is also very likely that there are other newspaper accounts of the Merion course work circa 1910-1912.

I can’t recall from this record setting topic if anything has been posted from the newspapers in this time frame of interest.   This requires very tedious and butt numbing hours in the seat of a hard chair before a microfilm reader at the newspaper, local library,  or university library.  Trust me,  the university library is the way to go for newspaper research. You get to look up and rest your eyes occasionally.   I understand the Philadelphia Free Library has the microfilm available for the Inquirer,  although hopefully one or several of the local universities (Temple?) might also have the same records.

If little or none has been undertaken to date,  some newspaper work might yield some new insights.  I wouldn’t expect to find anything that doesn’t highlight Hugh Wilson’s effort.

As to changes to the Merion east course,      The American Golfer of April 1916 did have this article from ‘Hazard’ Tillinghast stating  “ The east course, selected for the meeting, offers some mighty fine golf, without freak holes. The nearest approach to freakishness is to be encountered on the eighth, which was constructed for a well-placed tee-shot, followed by a ticklish pitch and run to the green, which is not above criticism. Fortunately this hole is to be reconstructed for the Championship, and when the putting-green is elevated and a deep hazard placed in front, the
approach will be very different, as it will demand a controlled pitch. This change on the eighth is the only one of importance, although Mr. Hugh Wilson states that the seventeenth green will be lifted in the spring, and numbers of new hazards placed. “

It doesn’t look like Hugh had much time to rest.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #89 on: December 28, 2006, 01:07:34 PM »
Wigs,

I understand that the origins of some golf courses are important to some members and a few others.  David M.'s points above are very good.  But outside of that, tell me, how is Plum Hollow a better course because Alison and not Reid did the original routing?  Will you get some extra points from the raters because it is of more desirable pedigree?

It is certainly understandable in discussing the body of work of C. B. Macdonald and C. H. Alison why it is important to correctly include the courses that they had a significant part in.   However, in discussing individual courses, the pedigree perhaps gets in the way of objective analysis (by nature, concentrating on brand attributes and not the specific product).

BTW, good luck in the Rose Bowl.  The committee did us a great favor; I didn't want a rematch.

Dick D,

If Wigs is correct in his characterization, and I think he is, these types of debates quickly cut through to some very sensitive matters- like "who is your daddy".  Moriarty has not  figuratively called the mother a whore, but I think he is suggesting a bit more than casual petting over the clothes.  From what I know of Macdonald, he was not of the type who kissed and didn't tell.  If he had a big part in the creation of Merion, I think that the contemporary record would be replete with references to it.  After all, Merion was a course of the highest importance from the outset.          

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #90 on: December 28, 2006, 01:18:05 PM »
Why exactly would we think a formal committee had to be formed prior to Wilson going overseas to study? Is it so unreasonable to believe that his standing within the club that later (Winter/Spring 1911) earned him the chairmans post of the construction committee was established by the summer of 1910 (9 months earlier) when the club likely bought the land on Ardmore Ave.?

Alan Wilson is quoted as saying the very first order of business upon acquisition of the land was to send Hugh overseas to study. He did not say it was to form a committee.

Lets take those words for what they are. Let's assume there is no reason to wait until the committee was formally organized before appointing Hugh Wilson as the lead guy. The rest kind of falls into place or falls apart depending upon ones preconceived notions, doesn't it.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #91 on: December 28, 2006, 01:33:28 PM »
Quote
This requires very tedious and butt numbing hours in the seat of a hard chair before a microfilm reader at the newspaper, local library,  or university library.  Trust me,  the university library is the way to go for newspaper research. You get to look up and rest your eyes occasionally.

John, You obviously have done your share of hours in that hard chair...  ;) ;D   The suggestion that those folks who are intent to get the record straight as to who had what influence and who was primarily responsible for the Merion design, ought to retire to the microfilm rooms is a good one.  I'm betting that there are several libraries in Philly area including Villanova that have good historical archives of newspapers that NLE, that had routinely covered such society events as a "mainliner" going overseas.  

As a highschooler who had a great teacher who pointed me to the State Historical Library in order to properly research history papers, and as a university student, I fondly remember spending hours and hours sitting in that hard chair infront of the microfilm machine, studying the old Milwaukee Union Leader news paper.  Imagine my shock as a lad at the finding an article of confirmation of a long told family "lore" that at one time my Uncle was labeled "public enemy #1" (and that at the tender age of 16 - threw mustard gas at a federal agent trying to get the goods on him in a Volsted act attempt to carry out a poured shot of liquor from our family speakeasy !!!  :o :o :o )  Of couse that was yellow journalism - totally false (he hit him with a very large mustard bottle).  They played on the irrational public fear of having recently come through WWI and the use of mustard gas.  ::)

But the value of the gleaning of old microfilm archived newspapers here and in GB would probably yield more info for our debatants to hash over about the timeline travels and influences of Mr. Wilson and Mr. MacDonald.

I wonder what our two protagonist architects in this saga would say about the whole debate?

John, I spent two entire days last winter in those same archives researching an issue of great interest to me, (I even asked TEP a question about the issue) and those periodic looking up for eye relief gets more and more rewarding as we get older, and those co-eds providing the eye relief look even more tantalizing! ;)  ;D
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 01:39:25 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #92 on: December 28, 2006, 01:42:27 PM »
Dave, all that seems totally logical.  Are you a Vulcan?  Oh no wait, you're a lawyer... ;D ;) 8)
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 01:45:53 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #93 on: December 28, 2006, 02:35:03 PM »
Here's what I think:  it's bizarre and downright not believable that if Wilson was on such an important mission from his club and the people that were his friends, he would take a side trip to France for trim or any other reason.  I don't believe that for a second.

What is believable is that the 1912 trip was his second trip because he was so smitten with GB courses the first time, he came back giddy like a schoolgirl and was just dying to go back.  That would explain why Colt said in that letter "the wife says to say hello to the Mrs." and "since I last saw you, we moved into a new house".  It would jive with the import of the mission.  It would explain why Wilson said he was a GCA dope before he saw all that stuff and met with CBM.  It pretty much explains everything.  

Why is it that some people here are soooo quick to conclude that Colt made two trips to the US in close proximity to each other, but they find it hard to believe that Wilson took two trips to where all the great golf courses actually ARE?

This jives with human nature.  Name one guy on this board that didn't come back from his first golf trip to GB as giddy as a schoolgirl, just dying to get back as soon as possible!  


Shiv,

I'd suggest that you're completely overestimating the appeal of the courses of GB if you actually believe they're more attractive than French trim.    ;) ;D

 
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 02:36:27 PM by Mike Cirba »

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #94 on: December 28, 2006, 02:46:09 PM »
Wigs,

I understand that the origins of some golf courses are important to some members and a few others.  David M.'s points above are very good.  But outside of that, tell me, how is Plum Hollow a better course because Alison and not Reid did the original routing?  Will you get some extra points from the raters because it is of more desirable pedigree?

It is certainly understandable in discussing the body of work of C. B. Macdonald and C. H. Alison why it is important to correctly include the courses that they had a significant part in.   However, in discussing individual courses, the pedigree perhaps gets in the way of objective analysis (by nature, concentrating on brand attributes and not the specific product).

BTW, good luck in the Rose Bowl.  The committee did us a great favor; I didn't want a rematch.

Dick D,

If Wigs is correct in his characterization, and I think he is, these types of debates quickly cut through to some very sensitive matters- like "who is your daddy".  Moriarty has not  figuratively called the mother a whore, but I think he is suggesting a bit more than casual petting over the clothes.  From what I know of Macdonald, he was not of the type who kissed and didn't tell.  If he had a big part in the creation of Merion, I think that the contemporary record would be replete with references to it.  After all, Merion was a course of the highest importance from the outset.          

Lou,

I certainly do not want to hijack this thread but I believe you answer your question to me in your third paragraph.  Reid was an accomplished architect in his own right (He did Indianwood Old amongst others) but he was not our architect.  It matters because it is the truth and we are proud of it.  

I would doubt the Philly guys (Although I certainly have no right to speak for them) would feel diminished by CBM having had something to do with one of their great courses but if they believe it to be untrue or unfair to the guy who deserves the credit, than it is like questioning whose your daddy and I would respond just like they have.
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #95 on: December 28, 2006, 02:47:23 PM »
Mike:

Sort of reminds me of the story I once heard about alleged "roaming" by a former vice president who was very fond of golf. When confronting these rumors, the Mrs. said something to the effect of: "You don't know my husband very well if you think he'd be fooling around instead of playing golf."


RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #96 on: December 28, 2006, 03:50:14 PM »
Sometimes when we try to reconstruct an historical figure's life and work, we fail to understand their doings and their times in context.  HIW graduated from University in 1902.  He apparently played a lot of am golf, including capt of his college team.  He worked his way up to Pres. of an Insurance company...when?  He must have had some industrious years devote to work and family in that time frame.  How much golf did he play or time devoted to such?  What were his personal affairs like by these questionable dates of 1909-16?  Do Wayne and Tom or anyone have any of those voluminous sketches and notes that HIW reportedly made while touring GB?  

Does the Spaulding Company's Golf Guide, editted by Tom Bendelow mention any of this about the development of Merion.  

Come to think of it, how much info did HIW get about golf course design and construction from Tom Bendelow.  Surely, they knew each other!
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #97 on: December 28, 2006, 04:36:16 PM »
David Moriarty,

You're a bright fellow, as are many others on this site.

You're a golf architecture buff, far removed from being a novice when it comes to discussing and understanding golf course architecture.  

The quote in "The Evangelist of Golf", states:

"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[/U] that we had learned in all the years we had PLAYED[/u]

It seems clear from the Wilson quote you provded, that ROUTING, feature and hole DESIGN were not the focal point of the meeting, rather the committee seemed to focus on CONSTRUCTION.

Do you think, if you were a novice, that if you spent one night with Tom Doak at Sebonack, or Bill Coore at Hidden Creek, along with some other fellows, that your education on golf course architecture would be complete ?

That you would have been infused with almost everything you'd need to know about routing, design and construction, especially on non-sand based land ?

Do you think that your education, impeded by the slowest learner in the group, would be complete ?

75 % complete;  50 %; 25 %; 10 % ?  

I have no doubt that spending a night with MacDonald, Doak or Coore would be highly educational, but remember, these were novices, who needed to be introduced to GCA 101 and then on to the higher level courses.   However, they had but one night to accomplish this.  Hardly a fitting time frame to be brought up to speed on all there is to know about golf course CONSTRUCTION, let alone ROUTING and  FEATURE AND HOLE DESIGN

I also wonder, how much of the time was spent focusing on holes that CBM felt were worthy of exportation ?  
His holes, borrowed from the principles gleened from the courses he studied and focused on in the UK.  
Or do you think he referenced, in that one short night, all of the holes he had encountered during his visit to the UK ?

I have a hard time accepting that novices could absorb and comprehend the limited amount of knowledge that CBM could offer in a SINGLE night, and that the information provided by CBM's lecture was all encompassing and went directly into the ground at Merion.

I think CBM, TD and BC were/are incredibly talented, but, I don't think spending one night with them would permit an intelligent person, familiar with GCA, to route, design and construct a golf course, let alone novices, unfamiliar with GCA.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 04:37:52 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #98 on: December 28, 2006, 04:59:27 PM »
Patrick, maybe like Doak, Coore, CBM, and all other great architects, this shows HIW had plenty of people (engineers, people that knew how to move and shape earth, and turf knowledgeable people, HELPING HIM at every step of the way!

The architects have the design ideas, the constructors and growers fill in the can-do and can't-do details...
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .
« Reply #99 on: December 28, 2006, 05:05:49 PM »

Patrick, maybe like Doak, Coore, CBM, and all other great architects, this shows HIW had plenty of people (engineers, people that knew how to move and shape earth, and turf knowledgeable people, HELPING HIM at every step of the way!
[size=8x]IN 1912 ?[/color][/size]

The architects have the design ideas, the constructors and growers fill in the can-do and can't-do details...[size=8x]
NOT IN 1912 !
[/color][/size]

« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 05:07:27 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back