Timeline of Early Merion.

[DMoriarty]

///

[Dan Boerger]

Boy - I'm sure glad someone gifted me the golf at Merion book they sell in the pro shop -- I would have felt like I wasted my money on all but a picture book after reading these threads!

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

You may want to add Behr's comments about Wilson in 1914, Lesley's comments about the Committee and M&W in 1916, Tillinghast's comments in 1934, and Whigham's comments in 1939.  

Also, I think you should make clear that the bolded "big problem on our hands" that Wilson was referring to when he wrote Piper and Oakley was agronomic, not architectural.   Two fellows from the Dept. of Interior wouldn't have been able to assist with the latter.   In fact, Macdonald evidently referred Wilson to these two fellows because of his own major agronomic problems at NGLA during the same time.

[TEPaul]

"Also, I think you should make clear that the bolded "big problem on our hands" that Wilson was referring to when he wrote Piper and Oakley was agronomic, not architectural."

MikeC:

Even you may not fully realize the significance of what you just said there. There is no question in my mind---none---that this fundamental point and fact is being almost totally missed and misunderstood here on this website. It's a damn shame too, in my opinion, because the failure on here to even remotely appreciate that point and that fact is basically just continuing to skew an understanding of what was really going on back in that day with the likes of NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley et al, and the likes of Macdonald, the Wilsons, Crump et al.

Matter of fact, in one of the early drafts of Hugh Wilson's 1915 report he had a paragraph that dealt with his philosophy on bunkering and he Xed the whole paragaph out along with the notation "Probably better omit this as it comes more properly under Golf Construction".

[CHrisB]

I notice that, for both the East and West courses at Merion, the time from seeding to opening for play was one full year.

How were courses built in that day and age, and what would happen during that full year between seeding and opening day?

At seeding, did they have a finished architectural product (routing, tee/green placement, hazard placement--everything), having to wait a year only for the grass to grow before they could open?

Or did they just have a basic routing/plan at seeding, going in at a later time (once the grass grew) to create hazards, finalize tee/green placement, etc.?

Or was it somewhere in between?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

How do you take this to mean:

Travis noted in Jan 1913 that “It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems."

Do you feel that he is talking about the strategy when he mentions, problems or do you think he is talking about the initial turfing difficulties, or is he being critical of the original architecture, which should always veiwed as a work in progress? (especially when they are treading grounds of architecture that have never been treaded before.)

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

AW Tillinghast was a first hand, EYE-WITNESS to the events unfolding in Philly at the time of Merion's construction.   To purposefully omit his very forceful declarative statements shows bias.  Please let us judge the evidence for ourselves but please include ALL of the evidence.

In 1914, Max Behr made the comment that Hugh Wilson was one of 3 men who had STUDIED course CONSTRUCTION (parlance for "architecture" in those days) as no one before him.  When would that study have taken place, but during the timeline that Merion itself was originally constructed?   Once again, omitting this statement by perhaps the preeminent golf writer and editor of the time is evidence of bias.   We can judge for ourselves.

Please also include Whigham's comments at Macdonald's funeral, as he was an eyewitness, as well.

Thanks.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You wrote, "Travis also described a number of features on the East course which were based on what Hugh Wilson had seen in Europe.  Since Travis dated this trip after the course was seeded, these features were apparently created after the trip but before the opening.  For the most part, these features are the type which may have been completed during seeding:  

-“Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good
-“The grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced.
- Something growing on the mounds "which looked suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet.”  

I think that possibly the very last quote might have the most significance in this discussion. It may actually provide the answer to the conundrum prersented by all of the questions in all of the threads, that is:

1- Was Wilson's brother mistaken in what he wrote about the date?
2- How many trips did Wilson take to Europe?
3- If there were 2 trips, what were the purposes for each?
4- Exactly how, when and by whom was Merion constructed?

Look at that last phrase where Travis wrote that he noticed "Something growing on the mounds "which looked suspiciously like the "bents of Le Touquet.”

Could this be what actually happened:
1- Committees formed to find and buy land and oversee the design and construction of the new course.
2- Committee spends short time with CBM at National and get his advice on how to proceed.
3- 1910, HUGH Wilson goes to GB & I for nearly 7 months and returns after studying courses and holes.
4- After he presents reports and documents to the committee empowered to design and construct the course, they follow Wilson's views that become the actual design of Merion.
5- A major problem arises between the time of the course seeding and its opening, one of an AGRONOMIC Nature.
6- Wilson, represnting both Merion and the construction and design committee, begin what would be a long series of letters (as Tom Paul says they number into the 1,000's) discussing these problems and how to cure them.
7- In 1912, Wilson decides that a real potential cure would be to go back to Europe and obtain samples of seed and actual turf to bring back for use at Merion.
8- Hence that explains the comment Travis wrote about "Something growing on the mounds "which looked suspiciously like the "bents of Le Touquet.”

Admittedly it is pure speculation , but it certainly fits the many of the facts and several of the suppositions quite well.

Tom, is there any mention made by anyone as to Wilson, or anyone else, ever bringing back seed or turf samples for use at Merion?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Phillip,

David is trying to put up just the facts, and I agree with Mike C that he should probably include first hand accounts, and let us decide for ourseleves.  Later accounts and speculation don't help as much.

If he is legitimate in his attempts to provide all written references at the time (and I think he is) he should leave out any speculation as to a second trip, as it defeats the purpose, and will lead to another long, pointless thread.

The time line is fascinating reading, probably one of the most informative things I have ever seen on this site.  It strikes me that Merion was really a work in progress when it opened, as were virtually all the great courses.  (think tinkering with Pinehurst for example)

They probably had commerical/membership issues to deal with and had to get open.  Sounds like they routed and built quickly with the idea that things like bunkering could be added over time.

They must have had a great grass catch, seeding in Sept. and playing in Nov., although by experience (with irrigation no less) the course would have had to have been pretty rough.

Again, its fascinating reading, and I appreciate you putting up as unbiased an account as is humanly possible.  As to our opinions IMHO, it probably doesn't change the attribution of Merion to Wilson, since he was the one man most responsible for the final form, even with help of a lot of others.  But, it doesn't matter.  We'll always have Merion on the US golf scene, and thats what is important, no?

[JESII]

Jeff,

That golf in November is at the original course. The East course did not open for another year (Sep. 1912). That point of that item is to locate Hugh Wilson at that (approximate) date for purposes of determining when he might have traveled overseas.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'll keep out of this because I really don't have any info that would be helpful.

But let me tell you this - THIS is the type of information and discourse that makes GCA.com such a wonderful place.

Thank you, guys!

[john_stiles]

I agree that Merion was very much a work in progress, I havent gone back to check, but I seem to recall that in 1916 in US Am previews, they were still talking about adding bunkers to Merion.  the underlying question I guess, is whether this was intentional or accidental.

DM,

In two of my previous posts on the topic,  I noted an article by Tillinghast about Merion East in the American Golfer April 1916.  Tillinghast relays what Hugh Wilson told him about upcoming intentional changes.

"  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. Undoubtedly the east course at Merion will be found most satisfactory by the contestants for the title, although possibly some may think that boundaries are rather numerous.  Naturally a description of Merion will be of great interest generally, not only to those who anticipate competing, but to the thousands who will follow the play through the columns of the press, and consequently later in the season it will give me much pleasure to describe this very interesting course in detail.

By  HAZARD   "

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

First of all Mike, the purpose of the timeline is not to provide you with a quick and easy reference so that you can sit back and pass judgment on the issue.  Rather, I created the timeline so that we can figure out what happened and when.  I just don't see that this statement from 20 years later shed much light on this issue.  But again, tell me specific facts about the events or order of events you want to include, and I will include them if they are appropriate.  

Second as to your accusation of bias, I think perhaps you and I are in this for different reasons.  Do you own timeline if you dont think I've done mine in good faith, Mike.

David,

When you've posted in BOLD every single reference that seems to support your hypothesis that Macdonald & Whigham were much more involved in the creation of Merion East than can be proven every day for the last month and a half, then I think your objectivity can be reasonably questioned.

In case anyone wants to hear what Tillinghast (a frequent local onsite observer during the creation of Merion) had to say when the US Open was held at Merion in 1934, it is as follows.   If people think it does not belong as a meaningful part of the story of Merion's creation, then they can make that judgement, can't they?


It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..."


And just so its handy, here's what Max Behr wrote in 1914;


"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators.

Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting.  They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."


While you discount Max Behr's words as having to do with what we tend to think green committees do in today's modern world, (as primary oversight for ongoing maintenance activities), the bolded (mine) sections to me point out very precisely that Behr is speaking specifically about the course design and construction activities at each of these bright oases that had just recently appeared on the American landscape.  A "Green Committee" in that time period, especially for a new course like the 3 examples cited, would have been formed for purposes of laying out and building a golf course, or selecting an architect to do so, and there are numerous historical examples.

He's not talking about some ongoing process, David or he'd be speaking in the present tense.   He's talking about what's been already DONE and accomplished by each of these men at their respective venues.  His clear use of "past tense" throughout the entire paragraph is proof positive of this.   He's not talking about ongoing course maintenance or who is going to plant the flowers near the 9th tee.   He's talking specifically about  the design and building from scratch of each of these courses!

Otherwise, what "previous work and study" at Merion do you think he'd be referring to in 1914 when the course wasn't even open until September 1912?

Both of these are first-hand accounts by men who were perhaps the two of the three greatest and most architecturally-knowledgeable writers of their time (the third being Travis) speaking directly about the architecture and creation of Merion.

If these aren't admissible evidence, then what is?

[Mike_Cirba]

As for the Behr comment, there are no facts to add.   You interpret this to be about how Wilson designed the course, I dont.  But it doesnt matter because that is a question of intepretation and is not even in dispute.    What else is there?  Behr said that Wilson was  a committee of one.    TEPaul doubts that he knew enough to say this with any authority, but even if he did, so what?   Personalities are not at issue.  What happened is.   Behr says Wilson studied hard.  He most obviously did.   But again, not really on topic.  

You interpet the Behr piece a certain way.  But that does not make it a fact.

David,

Please re-read your casual, sloughed-off dismissal of what Max Behr wrote above, and then consider it in light of what I mentioned above about Behr's consistent use of "past tense" in 1914 to talk about the work and study already done by Wilson at Merion, as well as the fact that he listened to various source, sifted the info, and made his own decisions and then ask yourself why I question your objectivity.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Thank you for agreeing to add the Behr comments.   I believe they are insightful and relevant.   I'd also still be interested in your take on what previous (past tense) work and study that Wilson did at Merion in a dictatorial way Behr may have been referring to if your interpretation differs from mine.

I don't want to argue either.  I would just note that I find it curious that the 3 quotes that give Wilson total design credit for the Merion East course are all missing from the timeline.

These include;

- Max Behr's report

- Alan Wilson's last paragraph, where he states that to a man, each of the committee members gave Hugh Wilson complete credit for the course design.

-Tillinghast's 1934 US Open writeup lamenting how few people really know that Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion.

While I still don't really know the ultimate purpose of what you're trying to do in constructing the timeline, I would say simply that on 3 threads where you spent a lot of time questioning and casting doubt on everyone's role (including Hugh WIlson) in the creation of Merion, I would think that those comments (2 by very noted architectural experts who knew all these men, including M&W, personally, and one by his brother who was also a first-hand witness) should be included in the interest of fairness and completeness as they relate specifically to the timeframe in question and are recollections of first-hand accounts.

I would argue that HJ Whigham's comments about Macdonald being the architect of Merion at his funeral should be included for the same reason, as he was also a eyewitness.  

I think only by providing the whole picture can people begin to separate the wheat from the chaff.  

Thanks.  

[Andy Hughes]

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around a few things. Any help appreciated:
1. What is the basis exactly for the long-held belief that Wilson took his trip to GB before the course was designed? Is there anything other than what Alan wrote?
2. Apparently Flynn and Pickering and their past experience has been considered of some help with Merion. When were they involved, and how is their impact balanced against what Alan calls Hugh's 'complete credit'?
3. Can we say the course was very good before Wilson's later trip that may have been documented by DaveM?

[TEPaul]

"I would argue that HJ Whigham's comments about Macdonald being the architect of Merion at his funeral should be included for the same reason, as he was also a eyewitness."

Did Whigam say that at Macdonald's funeral??

I'll be damned and go to Hell.

In that case it sounds like Whigam tended to get a bit carried away in eulogies at people's funerals. A few years ago George Bahto told Wayne and me that in his eulogy to Raynor at his funeral in 1926 Whigam gave credit to Raynor as the architect of Merion West.    

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Yes, it came to light on the original 50,000 post Merion thread that Whigham, in 1939 while eulogizing Macdonad listed a number of courses that were designed by "Macdonald/Raynor" which included "Merion Cricket Club".  

I'd go back and look up the exact quote except I'm afraid I might get lost in there and never find my way out!  

[TEPaul]

You know MikeC, the more I think about it the more logical I think it seems what you said about it being a good possibility that Merion may've actually overplayed Macdonald's part in that course, particularly in the beginning.

Think about it---why wouldn't they? At that time he sure was the one who had gotten the notice for what he'd done at NLGA. Why wouldn't Wilson and the club want his name attached to the course as much as possible?

I have a feeling that the same was true at Pine Valley. It's really ironic that some on here like Tom MacWood suggested that there was some campaign around Pine Valley to minimize Colt's part in that course to glorify Crump.

But I've known God knows how many Pine Valley members over the years and a good deal of them always thought that Colt routed and designed that course and that Crump was just there to oversee the building of that Colt routing and plan.

So, I'm very glad to see that that creation has been carefully looked into now to see who exactly it was who did what and when.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

It would totally make sense to overplay Macdonald's involvement.

Put yourself in their shoes.   Your burgeoning membership has appointed you and four equally inexperienced others to a committee to build them a new course.   What's more, the old run of the mill course won't do anymore, because several of your members are well-connected and quite aware of places like Myopia, and Garden City, and what's going on out at Oakmont, and Shawnee, and many vacation out in the Hamptons and have seen NGLA and the old Philadelphia inferiority complex is rearing its head and trying to stay competitive.

Worse yet, you have local golf writers like Tillinghast, and then Travis dropping by, and the whole golf scene on the eastern seaboard is like an 9th-month pregnant woman, just about ready to burst with new ideas and excitement and you're doing all you can to keep up and do right by your membership.

Someone, somewhere suggests that you should go see Charles Macdonald who is not only the most famous golfer in the country at the time, but who has also just completed the first iteration of NGLA to widespread acclaim.   You and your committee feel pretty ill-prepared for the task at hand, and the more you learn, the less you feel you know.   Macdonald is willing to meet with the lot of you if you come out to his place and host your overnight.   He's gracious, and still in that innocent stage of a man proud of his new creation and unburdened by future expectations.

You need "Street Cred", especially with the members back home, and you need to show progress.   So, you tell them that you've gone out to study with the great Macdonald at NGLA and his advice was of the highest order and value.   You tell them that he'd be happy to come out and check out the course the next summer, and give further advice.

Wouldn't this have given Wilson and his team instant credibility and added star power and incredible cache to the Merion project?

No longer was it just Hugh and his 4 Merry Men trying to come up to speed quickly and build a course that not only the members of Merion, but all of Philadelphia golf could be proud of?

No, instead, it's the Merion Committee, costarring the world Famous Charles Blair Macdonald and HJ Whigham, both former US AMateur champions, and fresh from their stunning success at NGLA.

Imagine today a bunch of guys in Peking building one of the first courses in mainland China, and they all of a sudden have the ability to get Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods involved in the project in an "advisory" way.   What do you think they'd do?

[TEPaul]

"Imagine today a bunch of guys in Peking building one of the first courses in mainland China, and they all of a sudden have the ability to get Jack Nicklaus or Tiger Woods involved in the project in an "advisory" way.  What do you think they'd do?"

MikeC:

If you're thinking about us in Shanghai, what we would do is polititely tell Nicklaus to stuff it and tell Tiger that he can hit some shots for us and that's about it. What we want is the advice of the likes of Paul Cowley, Bill Coore, Doak, Hanse or particularly the otherworldly Rod Whitman, the man proclaimed once by Coore as the architect he likes best.  

(On the other hand one needs to be careful when reporting who Bill Coore likes best. I once asked him that and he named a few guys. When I asked him what he liked about the architecture of one of them he said he'd never seen any of his architecture. When I asked him how he could say he likes some guy's architecture if he'd never seen any of it he just said he liked the architect not necessarily his architecture. ).

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Before we "Shanghai"  this thread, I was thinking more about a group of native, avid, relatively new Chinese golfers who formed a club with the idea of building a new golf course and were then part of a member-elected committee to go ahead and do it.   Let's also say that they were internationally well-connected and through the glories of multi-national trade and global peacekeeping efforts they somehow managed to wrangle through those connections some "advisory" time with a Tiger of Jack.  

Wouldn't those unknown Chinese pioneers trump up the involvement of those famed celebrities in every way possible?

Why would we think that Hugh Wilson and company would hae done any differently given the gravitas and celebrity of adding a Charles Blair Macdonald and an HJ Whigham to their project as "advisors"?  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Of course you are right about that and I'm not sure why anyone would deny the logic and likelihood of that except perhaps David Moriarty for the simple reason he seems to feel it's necessary to maintain beyond all reason that somehow Merion, its record, the Wilsons et al and the rest of us here now have somehow minimized, discounted and underplayed Macdonald's involvement with the golf course. No matter how much or how often we explain this to him he seems totally oblivious to it and intent on just pushing on with his odd "hypothesis" to the contrary. As time goes on with this subject it seems to me that JES and perhaps you too were correct that his intention is not seeking out some heretofore unknown "truth" but simply to continue to argue at all costs, and particularly to find and highlight some trivial fact that some of us may've been wrong about.