David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO

[wsmorrison]

Mike Sweeney's point about Macdonald not discussing his work at Merion is interesting but, as I am sure he is aware, it is not conclusive.

One thing that was brought to my attention is the close relationship between Travis and Barker (via Garden City) which may have been responsible for a comprehensive account of Barker's design work at the time he is mentioned at Merion published in many editions of American Golfer.  Even small projects such as the additions of bunkers at Springhaven are mentioned in a number of American Golfer editions along with Barker's advertisements.  Yet nothing was mentioned of his work at Merion.  This isn't conclusive that Barker's work was not being put on the ground in Ardmore, but it should be considered as part of an analysis.

[wsmorrison]

Sean,

The original look of the 9th green was nothing like the look of the green you posted.  That was a redesigned green by Wilson and Flynn.  Here's a 1912 photo of the original rectangular green with Mid-Surrey mounds.  Stuff like this supports my characterization of the course as a transition course between the existing steeplechase courses and a more modern design style.

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

One of the primary reasons they may've settled very early on (maybe even around 1909) right around the basic site they chose and certainly the old barn that became their clubhouse is the very same reason that many clubs of that era settled on particular land and clubhouse sites including my own club, GMGC, that's about five miles from Merion. And that is that land and the barn they used as a clubhouse was REALLY close to the railroad and back in that day that was really important to them for a lot of reasons!

[Mike Sweeney]

I think the very best example of this is The Creek Club itself. Do you want me to explain that one to you in detail because if I do I think you will see EXACTLY what the answer to your question is when it comes to #2 here? It's a helluva story and I think it will teach this site a truly important and accurate REALITY of C.B. Macdonald and his life and times in golf course architecture!  

I have been in George's basement, so I have a good grip on The Creek and don't want to get off topic.

Thanks

[John Foley]

Given George  Bahto's detailed work on CB Mac, has anyone consulted him on what his involvement?

[wsmorrison]

Maybe some of the answers can be found in the George Bahto Collection which is seemingly off limits.  I think I know why.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick -

I'm aware of the best hole survey. And so were many of the fine architects of old e.g. Mackenzie, Ross, Colt, Fowler etc.  Those architects also knew all about the great British courses/holes, and the principles of good architecture to be found there. But they DIDN'T manifest those principles on their own designs in the same way that Macdonald did or tended to do, did they? You write: "This is where the concept for template holes was born in MacDonald's eyes".  Yes, in MACDONALD'S eyes, not in every one elses. Which is to say, the template concept and an adherence to the principles of great British architecture are not necessarily identical.   

David - 

thanks. I take your points (e.g. think Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow), and as someone who has much to learn on this subject. And yet given what Macdonald himself was writing about his courses in, say, 1914, it still does seem to me that there's a big difference between how the courses that he DESIGNED were being described and how courses that he ADVISED on were being described.

My last sentence about "proving" had a touch of rhetoric in it. As I've tried to say to Patrick above, I simply meant that I don't think we can take as a GIVEN that the principles Hugh Wilson was looking for or saw or intuited in the UK were in line/indentical with what Macdonald saw, or with Macdonald's WAY of seeing.

Peter   

Who still has the same questions Mike Sweeney does, and who still finds it difficult to disparage or not take at face value the Wilson Report, and the credit it DOES give Mr. Macdonald.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

The original look of the 9th green was nothing like the look of the green you posted.  That was a redesigned green by Wilson and Flynn.  Here's a 1912 photo of the original rectangular green with Mid-Surrey mounds.  Stuff like this supports my characterization of the course as a transition course between the existing steeplechase courses and a more modern design style.

Wayne

Cheers.  However, I don't see how that detracts from my point. 

Ciao

[wsmorrison]

It doesn't, Sean.  I just wanted you to see what the first iteration of the hole looked like.  I think you'll soon appreciate the current version just fine!

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Here are a few of the problems I have with your points and logic that you asked for:



1.   Your characterization that Hugh Wilson essentially had nothing much to do with the study of the land that became the golf course which would include parcel choices and the consequent routing and hole design conceptions in 1910 and BEFORE he was appointed the CHAIRMAN of the committee in Jan. 1911 (in my opinion it is very likely that Wilson made a mistake in his 1916 report on the date his committee was appointed, and I'll get into the reason why I say that later) that Alan Wilson said DESIGNED and constructed Merion East really doesn’t make much sense at all---it’s just not logical or commonsensical. Why in the world would a club have a man who they were going to appoint as the chairman of the committee to create the golf course sitting around doing nothing throughout 1910 when you have placed two members (Francis and Lloyd) who would work under Wilson on that committee out there ‘tweaking’ (as you say) Macdonald’s routing and designing and swapping land and picking parcels?

No Sir, if Francis and Lloyd really were out there in 1910 doing what you suggest (“tweaking” Macdonald’s routing) it is completely logical to assume that Hugh Wilson was out there TOO doing the same things Francis and Lloyd were and probably doing a whole lot more of it than they were---again given Alan Wilson’s report that ALL the MEMBERS of Wilson’s committee mentioned that Hugh was primarily responsible for the design and construction of the golf course.

Clearly, the only possible reason you have Francis and Lloyd out there earlier in 1910 before their committee was appointed in Jan. 1911 is to either rationalize a factual report (Francis’) to a time that fits into your speculation that Macdonald had to have routed and designed the holes without Hugh Wilson, or else that Wilson and his committee couldn’t have because none of them would be appointed until January, 1911. Essentially if you are going to assume that Wilson couldn’t have been out there and was a complete novice before January 1911 then the very same assumption must hold true that the two men who would work under him on his committee were novices before being appointed to the committee but yet you have them out there with apparent experience working on the course's routing and hole designs!




2.  You said:   

“So, by mid-November 1910, the layout had already been planned. I have found no evidence that Hugh Wilson had been at all involved in the purchase or the planning at this early date.  To the contrary, as will be discussed below, the historical record indicates that Wilson became involved in early 1911, after the purchase was finalized.”

So what? Just because YOU have found no evidence of it is in no way shape or form indicative of the fact that Wilson very much would have been out there in 1910 (see above) if two guys who were going to work under him in 1911 were out there in 1910 working on the routing and design. You've simply placed Francis and Lloyd out there in 1910 to conveniently explain away Francis and Lloyd's land-swap story to support your assumption and conclusion that Macdonald must have routed and designed the course and perhaps in something like two days which is also pretty illogical.



3. I think you have completely miscalculated Horatio Gates Lloyd and his roll in the entire land dealings that included the golf course and Haverford Development Co real estate development. Even if the options and deeds and mortgages are complex it looks to be very clear that Lloyd was playing the part of MCC’s and MCC Golf Association’s real estate facilitator and even their financial “angel”. Lloyd was on the MCC Golf Association committee, the site committee and the construction committee. In fact, the man was everywhere within the administration of Merion in these transitional years with MCC. Lloyd probably was the HDC or he controlled it which would explain why Francis went to him in the middle of the night with his land swap idea and why quarrymen could blow the top off the quarry in two days. You assign hyperbole to Francis’ story only to make it convenient to your speculation that Macdonald must have routed and designed the course. My explanation above does not need to torture the factual Francis/Lloyd land-swap story by claiming it must be hyperbole. The above perfectly explains why it was not hyperbole at all.

In 1910 Lloyd bought 25 acres of land on nearby Cooperstown Rd to create his famous “Allgates” that would be expanded into a famous 75 acre estate with the Garden Club of America. We have an early photo of this Lloyd estate where it appears Merion GC can be seen in the background. This is further evidence that Lloyd likely was HDC or completely controlled it and why when HDC optioned a good deal of this land on January 24, 1909, Lloyd was likely behind the whole thing and controlling it all.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
My antique golf book collection includes a 1910 edition of the Badminton Library - Golf (originally published in 1890) by Horace G. Hutchinson.  (in fact, it's the only book in my collection)

The book is wonderful because it includes hand drawings, and photographs of Europe's finest courses.  Interestingly, it really demonstrates the transition going on at this time away from steeplechase golf.

If one makes the assumption that Wilson didn't travel to Europe before 1912, couldn't he have availed himself of books like Hutchinson's which provided an exact description of Europe's finest golf holes?  And couldn't that knowledge have been enough to allow him to lead the design of Merion East?  And, using your premise, have gone to Europe in 1912 to gain further knowledge to refine his design?

[TEPaul]

"I have been in George's basement, so I have a good grip on The Creek and don't want to get off topic."


MikeS:

I'm not talking about what's in George Bahto's basement on The Creek Club---that's not indicative of what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the MINUTES of The Creek Club and if they're in George Bahto's basement then he stole those too and he damn straight better give them back like yesterday!   

The only reason George would know about the blowup Macdonald and The Creek had is because it was probably covered in a mammoth "architectural evolution report" (AER) on The Creek that George Holland and I did in the last year or so.

[Rich Goodale]

Dan H

I fully agree.  In fact...there are a number of experts and/or course designers who have done some excellent work regarding "template" holes without ever seeing some of them in person!  And, no, I'm not going to name names.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Dan and Rich:

From the gist of the way that little magazine blurb was written that apparently MacWood just found the other day  it looks to me like Macdonald was very much trying to promote Wilson and Merion abroad and otherwise as perhaps another proponent of his new template hole architectural model in America.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Could you look up and post the definition of the word, "construct" in that 1907 dictionary ?

Thanks

[BCrosby]

Dan/Rich -

Hutchinson published two other books before 1900 on British courses. One was the now famous "British Golf Links," a landmark book of its time. Not to mention books and articles by Darwin and others during the same period.

By 1910 there was lots of information about famous British holes easily at hand to anyone (even a Yank) wanting to build a golf course.

To the extent that David's argument relies on the notion that - absent a trip to the UK - only C.B. would have suggested a "Redan" or an "Alps," that argument loses much of its force.

(In any event, I don't see the 3rd as a Redan. And certainly not the 9th.  (If the orignal 9th had Mid-Surrey mounds, are those feature MacD used a lot?) Other than the original 10th, I don't see template holes influenceing much at Merion.)

Did MacD have some input at Merion? The record says so. How much? I don't think a granular analysis of  "how much" matters a lot unless you want to assign him partial design credit. I think that would go beyond the evidence presented to date.

Bob  

[Rich Goodale]

Pat

I am your unworthy servant...

"Construct:

1.  To put together the constituent components of in their proper place and order; to build; to form; to make
2.  To devise; to invent; to set in order; to arrange."

As my favo(u)rite Professor used to say, "Therefore, Mr. Mucci, 'What?'"

Bob

Agreed.

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick -

I'm aware of the best hole survey. And so were many of the fine architects of old e.g. Mackenzie, Ross, Colt, Fowler etc.  Those architects also knew all about the great British courses/holes, and the principles of good architecture to be found there.

But they DIDN'T manifest those principles on their own designs in the same way that Macdonald did or tended to do, did they?

You fail to context the time frames of CBM's work and the work of the architects you cite above.  In addition, what architect, not directly descended from CBM would seek to copy his work rather than produce their own style ?

MacKenzie's body of work in America didn't begin until the late 1920's, early 1930's, 16 to 20 years after CBM's work on NGLA.

The bulk of Ross's work also came later.
Are you qualified to unequivically state that Ross didn't use templates in any of his designs ?  Have you seen all of his work ?

Tillinghast certainly produced templates, especially his par 5's with the Sahara feature.

Fowler produced one course in America prior to 1921, and while I've played it and have a general recollection, I can't speak to its particulars.

The bulk of Colts work is in the Mid 1920's, a good 10 to 15 years after CBM's work at NGLA.

MacDonald was the "Father" of American Architecture.[/color]


You write: "This is where the concept for template holes was born in MacDonald's eyes".  Yes, in MACDONALD'S eyes, not in every one elses.


The newspaper article posted above by David Moriarty would seem to refute your claim.[/color]

Which is to say, the template concept and an adherence to the principles of great British architecture are not necessarily identical.   

I asked you previously, who maintained that position ? And, you never answered the question.

As to the choice of the word "identical", perhaps the term used in geometry, "similar" as in similar, but not congruent triangles, would be applicable.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Et. Al.,

Let me see if I understand this.

Now that it appears that Wilson NEVER set foot in the UK prior to 1912, despite claims that tied the design of Merion to Wilson's phantom visit, he's now alleged to have read the works of architects familiar with the great courses of the UK, and from that, gleened how to design a golf course.

Ask yourself this question.

If you were in charge of the Merion project in 1909, would you turn it over to someone with NO prior architectural experience, someone who hadn't seen any of the great courses, who JUST READ about them ?

You must be kidding.

You're so desperately grasping at anything to refute David's premise that you've lost your sense of values and your common sense.

I don't know if David's premise is 100 % accurate.
But, It sure beats anything else I've seen on the subject, and his premise has yet to be refuted by factual evidence.

I've got to go, I just finished reading two books on Neuro-Surgery and the local hospital needs my services.

[BCrosby]

Patrick -

No one is saying that Merion "turned things over" to Wilson. The historical record shows that there were a number of people that influenced the final design.

David is making a claim, as I read it, that MacD ought to get design credit of some sort. That's a strong claim. I don't think the evidence supports it.

I also don't see any evidence that Wilson deserves sole design credit.

David has succeeded in showing that there were a group of people that had a hand in the design of Merion. Beyond that we should all fear to tread.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - 

My point is a simple one - that Mr. Wilson would not necessarily have needed Mr. Macdonald to understand the principles of great British architecture, especially as those principles are similar to but not congruent with Macdonald's understanding and conception of them.  I believe in architecture's fundamental principles; I don't happen to believe that Macdonald fathered them anew in North America.  I'm not qualified to "unequivocally state" anything at all about anything at all, except that I'm aware of my own existence.

Bob C -

Tell me, do you wake up being that smart and thinking so clearly and articulating so well?

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter - I have to wake up every morning ready to fend off my wife's logical, thorough and accurate arguments about why I need to be a better person. So I come into work each day ready for the worst.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Ask yourself this question.

If you were in charge of the Merion project in 1909, would you turn it over to someone with NO prior architectural experience, someone who hadn't seen any of the great courses, who JUST READ about them ?

You must be kidding."


Patrick:

You just don't get it do you? But that never surprises me, as you know?

That's exactly what Merion did do with Hugh Wilson and it's up to you to figure out both how and why that happened. There is no question at all it happened that way no matter how much you want to argue with us or anybody else on here. To the degree you continue to do that is the same degree you'll slow down the education and understanding of the real true and accurate history of Merion and of men like HUGH WILSON on this thread.

One needs to understand that world, that time, those people like WILSON and his membership and what they were looking at in THEIR time not in something somewhat similar to OUR time.

Most of all this website has just got to stop treating Wilson like some dumb-ass novice who couldn't figure out how to do anything in architecture. The fact is he figured it out remarkably well and we can help you understand better WHY and HOW that was.

This is what guys like Moriarty and MacWood just don't get either, in my opinion----eg they just don't really understand or GET that world back then and the way it really was (obviously WAAY different than ours) and this is what forces them to AUTOMATICALLY go around looking for the likes of a Macdonald for Wilson or a Colt for Crump to do everything for them to make it all make sense to them (the Moriartys and MacWoods and apparently the Muccis too) about that remarkable era and those remarkable "AMATEUR/SPORTMEN" architects who even though YOU think and THEY think were novices who couldn't do it on their own, DID DO IT ON THEIR OWN to a degree far, far greater than most on here think or can apparently imagine. THIS, Patrick, is the beauty, the majesty, and the freaking interest and fascination involved in the golf and architecture of that time with those remarkably people like Leeds and Wilson and Crump and Fownes and Thomas or even Behr and Hunter et al. If you can't get that, if you can't imagine it, you'll simply never understand the accurate history of it!

If this website cannot or does not figure out the realities of that remarkable early time in golf and architecture and how a few of those remarkable men like Wilson and the courses he did  and what they really did do WE are just not doing that remarkable TIME in the HISTORY of golf and golf course architecture justice!

Maybe we better give some of you jokers a little bit better background on a guy like Hugh I. Wilson and WHO he was and WHY a club like Merion Cricket Club back then turned to HIM the way they did!

So back the hell off in what you THINK happened and what YOU think Wilson was, would you Skeebo, and try and let us fill you in on what the REAL history was and WHY!  
 

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick,
What makes you think Wilson never travelled to Europe prior to 1912?  Lack of evidence is not evidence. 


Using Oakmont as a corallary, what about "novice" H. C.  Fownes?   Seeing how the great Oakmont was designed by a "novice" in 1903, why does one assume that Merion East couldn't have been designed by her "novice" Wilson?

[TEPaul]

You know if some of you super opinionated egoist analysts want my advice, it would do you well to start listening a lot more carefully to both the commonsense, the logic and sensibilities of one Peter Pallotta. This guy has a real intuitive sense of this era and those people, I can tell. He's definitely not coming at a subject like this with all the PRECONCEIVED opinion-baggage a lot of you guys are!