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

[TEPaul]

"August 14, 1910 - Buy Dallas Estate to lengthen course as per CBM recommendations and possible routing sketch.  Whether or not CBM routed it, look at an aerial and you can see it would be obvious that you couldn't get a championship course on that side of Ardmore without it.  Francis says as much in his recollections."


JeffB:

This is what I absolutely just don't get with some of the contributors on here regarding Moriarty's essay and the way some seem to automatically buy his logic. Of course it's possible that Macdonald could've done a routing and design for Merion. Do we even have any idea how long he was here to do that? Not that I've seen. What if he was here for a day in June 1910? What does that tell you?

But what I just don't understand at all is Moriarty tells us Hugh Wilson for about the next six months after Macdonald was there must have been standing around doing absolutely nothing until Jan 1911. And he makes it even more ludicrous by suggesting that two men who would serve under Wilson were out there working on the routing and design while Wilson was doing none of that for up to six months even since he became their chairman.

Doesn't that sound pretty illogical to you that two guys who would serve on his committee may've been out there working on a routing and design plan for up to six months while their future chairman did nothing at all??

Do you even have any idea WHY Moriarty puts those two guys back there doing that in 1910 when that really does not appear to what Francis said at all in his land-swap story?? Moriarty also has to accuse Francis of hyperbole just to get him back into 1910 instead in his essay and in his logic!   

My point is Moriarty's logic in his essay is terrible. It's Moriarty who said these two guys who would serve under Wilson were out there in 1910 and if they were why does he think Hugh Wilson wasn't? It makes no sense. If those two guys could be responsible for the 15th and 16th hole in 1910 then why in the world couldn't Wilson himself have been responsible for most of the rest of the plan in 1910? We sure do know from Alan Wilson's report that all the members of the committee told him that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of the East and West course when he and his committee DESIGNED and built both!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

You are correct. Not sure where I came up with that one. I was sort of reading and typing in between real work and came up a bit short on that one.

One can only imagine that if CB liked seven holes in the planning stage, it was the seven he suggested......

I get the impression, BTW, that CBM had to have been involved before the August purchase of the Dallas estate, which I think was done by an intermediary because I believe it was he who suggested more length.  If it was really going to be a big house, and Haverford/Lloyd stepped in later, then certainly it was in fall, and the committee letter was written in November, which included the CBM recommendations.  The other land swaps took place around then, so the whole land deal may have stuttered a bit and then come together quickly.

The the Feb letters to the agronomist and the soil samples indicate that the committee was plugging along in its appoined duties after being formed, uh, formally.

None of my timeline (just shortened up version of  DM's) can or ever will address the central question asked by TePaul - what exactly did Barker, CBM, Whigham, Francis and Wilson (and possible Conner and Lloyd as higher ups in the plan) contribute to the routing?

I figure each of them is in their somewhere, if only because when I have competed for jobs via a routing plan, several gca's come up with similar holes. 

It would be hard to believe that Barker got exactly zero holes right, having taken the first run at it. (although I have been accused of same!)  And there doesn't seem to have been any wholesale shifts of the property which might be expected in other cases, like moving the whole golf course west, or more through the housing (I note one creek runs paralell to a road in the plan, and that might have been used for golf in a different era)

It seems his plan had flaws though, which CBM corrected.  Lastly, I can't imagine Wilson not tweaking even the great CBM's suggestions a bit further, and Francis working to make sure both golf and housing had the room they both needed, exemplified by the land swap.

IMHO, the routing seems like a matter of degrees and shades of gray.  Wilson had final run at tweaks even after the boundary was set in 11/1910, so does he get credit? 

I think DM's only point, perhaps overstated in a few cases is, that reality was a bit more complex than Wilson did it all.  And, when you look at Crump at PV, or any modern day owners proclaiming a self designed course, if you look hard enough, they were smart enough to ask for some help from someone who had done it before, even if they want to take all the credit.

That's where the emotion comes in.  We like our legends!  Its almost as if Roy Rodgers and Gene Autry and John Wayne all turned out to NOT be real cowboys........oh wait...



Were Barker and CBM/Whigham consulted simultaneoulsy as a team or sequentially as double check? (I believe the latter)

[Peter Pallotta]

TE, Jeff

This is where I find myself right now - still asking myself what Macdonald was able to do during his (what appear to be) short visits to the site; and still wondering why there's a need to "correct the misperception" that Wilson did it all, given that no one seems ever to have claimed that for him.

Of course, I'm still wondering how in the heck a man like Macdonald managed to get LESS credit than he deserved. I can't imagine the conversation:

Big Shot: Hey CB, the boys in Philly are saying that WILSON designed Merion?

Macdonald: Really? Oh, those rascals. But what the heck, huh, live and let live I say.

Peter         

[Jeff_Brauer]

"August 14, 1910 - Buy Dallas Estate to lengthen course as per CBM recommendations and possible routing sketch.  Whether or not CBM routed it, look at an aerial and you can see it would be obvious that you couldn't get a championship course on that side of Ardmore without it.  Francis says as much in his recollections."


JeffB:

This is what I absolutely just don't get with some of the contributors on here regarding Moriarty's essay and the way some seem to automatically buy his logic. Of course it's possible that Macdonald could've done a routing and design for Merion. Do we even have any idea how long he was here to do that? Not that I've seen. What if he was here for a day in June 1910? What does that tell you?

But what I just don't understand at all is Moriarty tells us Hugh Wilson for about the next six months after Macdonald was there must have been standing around doing absolutely nothing until Jan 1911. And he makes it even more ludicrous by suggesting that two men who would serve under Wilson were out there working on the routing and design while Wilson was doing none of that for up to six months even since he became their chairman.

Doesn't that sound pretty illogical to you that two guys who would serve on his committee may've been out there working on a routing and design plan for up to six months while their future chairman did nothing at all??

Do you even have any idea WHY Moriarty puts those two guys back there doing that in 1910 when that really does not appear to what Francis said at all in his land-swap story?? Moriarty also has to accuse Francis of hyperbole just to get him back into 1910 instead in his essay and in his logic!   

My point is Moriarty's logic in his essay is terrible. It's Moriarty who said these two guys who would serve under Wilson were out there in 1910 and if they were why does he think Hugh Wilson wasn't? It makes no sense. If those two guys could be responsible for the 15th and 16th hole in 1910 then why in the world couldn't Wilson himself have been responsible for most of the rest of the plan in 1910? We sure do know from Alan Wilson's report that all the members of the committee told him that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of the East and West course when he and his committee DESIGNED and built both!

TePaul,

First, I wonder again if you read my post to know that basically I agree with you. I think Wilson probably was in play a bit earlier than the forming of the Construction committee.

That said, I can fathom that Wilson became the head of the committee and guys like Lloyd were figureheads on the committee based on their previous involvement and they knew Wilson had the time, interest and inclination to build a golf course.  I don't think either one of us pictures a Lloyd out there taking directions from anyone to dig a ditch just because he was on the committee!

Our personal disconnect comes, I think, from my experience that land acquistion and subdivision is often very much a separate process from final design.  As an enthusiast who had a similar piece of philly property for golf only at one time, you might wonder how those two could be divorced.  But, when housing is a factor for some investor syndicate, it can.

I seriously doubt Lloyd was working on the routing as a limited partner in HDC or as a Merion rep.  JPM had to keep him  pretty busy and putting together deals was probably his interest, not designing holes.  Conner was most likely in charge of day to day at HDC and brought in Barker to help his engineers plan the golf side, while the engineers came up with lotting plans.  He did that knowing full well that MCC would have right of approval as to golf course land.  But, if HDC had the land option, I would think they and their consultants would be taking the lead to start.  Thats how it would happen today, anyway.

So yeah, based on my experience and Davids time line which seems well documented, I have no trouble with his logic.  I think it probably happened very close to what he said.   As you suggest, I bet the most interested parties like Wilson, were hanging around and walking the property on weekends, just out of interest in the subject matter.  And certainly he was probably out there when CB made his July site visit throwing out ideas.

But, since they didn't own the land or option, their input might have been just that - input that HDC considered in the routing to be good partners, but if Wilson or CBMac had come up with something really radically different that either affected lot sales or profitability, or maybe even started the group down a different direction that would delay things, the group dynamic probably would have had the power to shoot it down.

I envision the final plan coming together slowly but steadily throughout 1910 with all the input as DM described.  It seemed like a logical development process to me.

I don't see where DM puts any hyperbole in Francis mouth.

From my perspective, I see your logical conclusion that a guy like Lloyd was out at the country club rather than working for JPMorgan about as goofy as me spending three hours today alone speculating on what happened at Merion over 100 years ago rather than doing MY real work.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TE, Jeff

This is where I find myself right now - still asking myself what Macdonald was able to do during his (what appear to be) short visits to the site; and still wondering why there's a need to "correct the misperception" that Wilson did it all, given that no one seems ever to have claimed that for him.

Of course, I'm still wondering how in the heck a man like Macdonald managed to get LESS credit than he deserved. I can't imagine the conversation:

Big Shot: Hey CB, the boys in Philly are saying that WILSON designed Merion?

Macdonald: Really? Oh, those rascals. But what the heck, huh, live and let live I say.

Peter         

Peter,

First, routing doesn't seem to have taken as long in those days.  If Bendelow did 18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon, no reason CB couldn't.  Especially when he had a Barker layout to critique, rather than starting from scratch.  Also, it was a farm and presumably easier to get around than NGLA.  His work seems to come in the form of written recommendations.  Again, I think most agree he felt the course needed length and gave them ideas where to get it (Dallas Estate)

No one has talked about that a lot.  Here are a few half baked potatos....er theories that we can throw out. They should fan the flames enough to finish cooking them....

One theory is that CBM became at least a little miffed as it dawned on him that Wilson wasn't going to follow his style. Perhaps he was even miffed he or Raynor wasn't going get any work out of it.  They were in the biz by this time and may have accepted consulting hoping it would lead to bigger things.  At least, that happens today, albeit, I don't think it happens to Fazio and the big boys very often.  But, it happens.

He could have also walked away after his April visit.  From some of the writings, its clear that the Merion boys didn't care for CBM's blind holes and geometric style and Wilson wanted to pioneer his own.  CBM, like any modern day designer, may have agreed to take his name off the project because it wasn't being built to his standards.

The other possibility is that CB felt he had some conflict of interest to get involved further because of his role at NGLA or the USGA, although I can't figure out what it would be.  Perhaps he just had time constraints.

And, MCC might have felt it was better to be an original, and not an NGLA lite, which they may have been percieved as if CB was involved.

Again, just speculation and possible options based on what might have happened in today's world.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks.

I think I've been assuming all along some of the very things you're now speculating on. If there's a difference between us, it's that I'm lead by that (plausible) speculation back to where I started, i.e. to believing that Macdonald has been properly credited for his advisory role at Merion all along, and that Wilson (like some other well-heeled and smart and passionate amateurs of the period) worked and worked at the job until he got Merion designed and built.

Peter   

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Perhaps a better way is to ask;

Do you have the Site Committee letter(s), or are you quoting from a Board of Governors report that might be a summary of several?

The reason I ask is simply because in your quote from the July 1910 letter, it refers to simply informing the Merion Governors that HDC has some land and would sell about "100 acres" to the club.    This seems odd, as it is the amount Barker asked for.

If Macdonald/Whigham had already been there, and had recommended the use of 120, why would the report have even referred to the lesser amount sought by Barker?

Jeff,

The one thing to consider about the land deal and Lloyd's role/Merion connection is that in Nov 1910, it was reported in the papers that Connelly, et.al. were tipped off about the need for the new course 16 months prior, or roughly July 1909.

At the time, they controlled 150 acres.   Shortly after, HDC was formed, and they quickly scooped up another 200 acres, which is what they came to the table with in the late spring of 1910.   Do you have doubts that Lloyd was the insider who 1) found the site as a member of the site committee, 2) saw the potential of location, location, location, 3) Quickly invested in HDC and put together the larger "Real estate scheme", 4) Had the power and influence at Merion to convince the board of Governors, especially since they could all buy in for mutual profit, and 5) then was on Wilson's Construction Committee.   

If nothing else, it tells us that the Merion  guys were looking hard at this property as early as July 1909, and I'm sure they were considering all of the adjacent properties for expansion, and GOLF possibilities.

I'm sure you know that you don't need a routing to look at a parcel of land and determine basic suitability for interesting golf.   If you were standing on today's 3rd tee, for instance, and surveying the "Dallas Estate" in raw form, you might easily say, 'I think we should try to get that land", wouldn't you agree?

[Lou_Duran]

"David's research suggests that  Barker, Macdonald and Whigham deserve design credit for the holes that were  laid out and seeded in 1911. Wilson deserves the credit for the  excellent construction of the holes and for translating Macdonald's  ideals so well into the ground. The end of Part One concludes in 1912, so the  knowledge that Wilson picked up in the UK in April/May of 1912 had not yet  made its way into the design. As David says, that is for another  day."  Ran Morrissett

I have finally read David's well written opinion piece.  The extensive detailed work and passion for the subject matter clearly show.  However, in the absence of any copies of Barker's and Macdonald's & Whigham's separate routing plans to compare to actual maps or aerial photography of the course, nor a direct reference that such plans were actually used to construct it, I don't see that the official record is convincingly challenged.

Other than the single mention by Whigham assigning credit for Merion to Macdonald many years after the fact, is there anything in the literature which seeks to dispute or diminish Wilson's role in the creation of Merion?  Did Barker claim credit for the routing?  Is Merion included in the list of courses by Barker that Tom MacWood was able to compile?  While perhaps not quite at the same level of self-promotion as Donald Trump, Macdonald was hardly the shrinking violet.  What evidence is there of CBM challenging or contradicting the written accounts of Wilson's role?  Not receiving attribution for one's work is something that even today does not pass without great consternation as a couple of regular posters here can attest to.

In his glowing endorsement of David's piece, Ran states: "After all, if you wanted to  build a world class course, wouldn't you consult with the one man who had just  done so?   The thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize  upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies is both romantic and a bit far fetched, at least to me."   

I was not aware that Macdonald's role as a consultant was being contested here.  It does seem a bit ironic to me that on this site where the role of Tour pros acting as design consultants is typically marginalized, in this one instance, Macdonald's few days advising and/or teaching Wilson and his committe members somehow warrants a meaningful level of design credit.

That David or no one else could find conclusive proof by way of a ship manifest or specific dates noted in reputable magazines or newspapers is certainly interesting but hardly excludes the possibility that Wilson had visited the UK prior to 1912.  But even if he had not, by David's own account in the article, Wilson was a very good amateur by 1910.

For the most part, courses built in the U.S. prior to that time were done by former players, greenkeepers, and professionals immigrating from there (the UK).  These folks were not reinventing the wheel, but putting on the ground what they had grown up playing in Scotland.  They may not have been as precise, meticulous, or artful as MacDonald (or Raynor later), but Wilson could  have learned the playing strategies that Ran notes from their derivative work on American courses, in addition to the photographs and sketches that he and the committee had at their disposal.  So no, I don't find the "thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize  upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies is both romantic and a bit far fetched" at all.       

I was curious when the first thread got going about its impetus.  Not having played Merion, I asked if there were any of its design characteristics which suggested Macdonald's strong influence.  I don't recall anyone noting suspicious similarities.                 

If a reference to doing a routing is all that's required to question paternity, I have had four separate routings done on properties I was trying to develop.   Two were eventually developed into golf courses by other people; one of them with about half of the original design concept largely intact.  My name probably appears on several documents in the files which a future David Moriarty might happen to come across.  I neither deserve or would want any credit for them. 

It also seems curious to me that George Bhato, probably the foremost authority on Macdonald and Raynor today, has remained silent on this matter.  I remain in the dark regarding the motivations that drove this line of inquiry.  Perhaps these will become clearer in the next instalment.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

You know there may be some ironies here that are truly spooky.

First of all it is beginning to occur to me that what really may've happened at Merion Ardmore with MCC, Wilson, Lloyd and the rest and some available land not far away has so many parallels and similarities to that Ardrossan project that it is almost beyond spooky, all the way from how and why somebody who has never done architecture before really does get involved somewhere else for his existing club and how things progress from there with say a seller getting an independent routing done (the Ardrossan family actually got an independent routing done by Gil Hanse of all people) to the way a guy like me or Wilson and his committee begin to evolve things with architects (Wilson's Macdonald to my first getting Rees and then C&C) and the way a plan is evolved and finally presented for consideration to the buyer and the club and its interests and the seller or land-swapper in Ardrossan's case.

And the spookiest thing of all, JeffB, is here you and I are talking about something else (Merion almost 100 years ago) and you are one of the few people who ever saw that Ardrossan layout which of course you saw without actually ever seeing the land itself. What I remember you saying about that plan is I sure couldn't draw a plan very professionally and you sure are right about! Crump was actually a worse drawer than me judging from that "blue/red" line topo.  Nevetheless the routing and all the details of it were on that Ardrossan topo map plan.

Matter of fact, I'm looking right at all those colored sharpee pens I used about ten years ago to do it on the big topo map of the a part of the estate I wanted to use. The point is when that plan was fully developed enough to be presented to my club (land swaper) and Ardrossan (land swapper) we were miles from ever actually swapping the land (which would've been essentially the same thing as buying it----eg GMGC would take ownership of it).

But you want to know how that plan that was eventually presented to my club and the seller actually evolved over about a year and a half? It was basically just a collaboration of some of Bill's ideas and some of mine. He said he did not want to put anything down on a plan for reasons that might be obvious to you but actually he did with the understanding that I wouldn't evere show them to anyone, and to my recollection I never have and probably never will.


But I'll tell you one time I was driving him back from Hidden Creek to the Philly airport and he sat there and studied that plan the whole way for over an hour. You know how quiet he can be sometimes. Finally, near the airport I asked him what he thought, and he thought about it for a moment and just said; "It's very interesting, very interesting." Obviously he knew that land real well because by that time he'd spent over a week on it himself. Then I dropped him off and away he went.

It would not surprise me if Wilson and Macdonald had that kind of experience along the way and likely during 1910!

You said:
"From my perspective, I see your logical conclusion that a guy like Lloyd was out at the country club rather than working for JPMorgan about as goofy as me spending three hours today alone speculating on what happened at Merion over 100 years ago rather than doing MY real work."

That is almost PRECISELY WHY you and many others on here really do HAVE TO UNDERSTAND the way that world was back then as well as a company like Drexel or Morgan. Lloyd did not "work for" J.P Morgan the company or the man. He worked with J.P Morgan who was another of nine "partners" like Lloyd. Becoming a partner of companies like that back then generally made one millions because at the end of the year all they do is wack up the total company profits, pay their employees and keep the rest.  If the company made millions by financing something like the Pennsylvania Railroad which they actually did do they could make millions in fees as well as off their own personal investments in things like that which they did all the time.

Basically if Lloyd wanted to spend his life at his club there isn't a damn thing Morgan or any of the other partners would say about it as long as he produced business like all the partners did.

For you to think Lloyd "worked for" Morgan the company or the man as some glorified employee is completely misunderstanding the way it was with those people. It wasn't anything like that at all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

b]
RJ,

Why is it that you and everybody else clamoring for CBM's routing plan haven't asked for Wilson's routing plan ?

Why is there the same overwhelming burden of proof being required of Wilson that's being required of CBM ?

Got to run, be back in a few days.

Have fun without me. [/b]

I understand this seemingly uneven burden of proof, but we have to start out giving Wilson credit for the design because he was the boss. 


Sean, I don't agree with that.
That's tantamount to giving credibility without proof.

I believe it's agreed that Wilson is named boss of construction by the committee, but, to assign credit for the routing without proof is beyond uneven, it's improper by any scientific or academic standard.[/color]

I don't know how many different ways to put this.  This is how the world works.  The boss is given credit and he doles out credit to associates etc if he chooses to do so. 

But, Wilson wasn't the "boss" he was the designated supervisor, appointed by the committee.  The committee apparently held the ultimate authority, chosing to delegate the supervision of the construction end of the project to Wilson.

You can't assume that Wilson routed the course just because he supervised construction.

Who supervised day to day construction at Sebonack ?
It wasn't Tom Doak, was it ?

Yours is a convenient argument if you choose to ignore the time line, but, you can't ignore the time line, it's a critical component.[/color]

So it is logical to start with Wilson as the designer even if he sought out help and advice - this is what managers do. 

Except that Wilson wasn't the boss, he was appointed supervisor of construction by the committee and not the architect of record by the committee.[/color]

Thus far, I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wilson wasn't in charge of the project or that somebody else had a much larger role to play other than as an advisor or resource.

Wilson was only in charge of construction AFTER the committee appointed him to said role in 1911, not prior to that date.

If you examine DM's time line, one is hard pressed to accept the notion that HIW routed Merion prior to that time, and, the record and HIW's own words seem to indicate that he didn't have the knowledge, data, experience and know how to rout and design courses prior to his visit to CMB.

And, as I've stated earlier, would a committee appoint a novice, totally unskilled in architecture, totally unfamiliar with the courses of the UK, to design a course from scratch, especially when they could call upon CBM, a recognized expert in this field.

So, to assign design credit, including routing to HIW can't be THE choice by default, as you propose.[/color]  

I think the piece breaks down who did what and when fairly well, or as well as could be expected given the evidence.  Like Rich and Peter, I don't buy that a writer doesn't have an angle and I do believe it is best to lay that angle on the table. 

Can't the same be said of reporters in the Philly area circa 1910-12 ?[/color]

David seems to do this by essentially concluding that Merion was a group effort led by Wilson.  However, I do sense (and I could be wrong) that David wants to take this a step further (his full angle as it were).  He must have suspicions as to where he thinks his research will lead him and I do believe the piece is not as good as it could be because he doesn't come out and properly state what his suspicions are.  I spose you could call it a difference of opinion on writing style.  I like it when the author is upfront because I know he does have an angle and I would rather not waste time trying to figure it out.  Bottom line, there is no such thing as objective history so there is no point in claiming objectivity.

Sean, think of where you are today, in terms of your understanding the genesis of Merion, and where you were a month or so ago.

David's white paper is revealing.
It questions previously accepted accounts and appears to discount them, with facts supporting David's premise.

In your reading do you not gleen that MPC isn't being objective, or that he has no agenda ?

TEPaul ?

Wayno ?

David has presented a reasonably constructed premise.
Elements of which are factually supported.
Including time lines, etc., etc..

What I find interesting is that the burden of proof on the Wilson designed/routed Merion theory has been given a pass, whereas the burden of proof, scrutiny and criticism of David's premise has been ..... withering.  And, that's not fair.

Both positions should be held to the same standard.

There is NO default position, no position that should enjoy precendence over another, absent proof to the contrary.[/color]

[TEPaul]

I'll tell you this whole thing really is beginning to fascinate me. In a little while I'm going to offer a bare bones bullet post of what I think really happened with MCC and the MCC Golf Association and members like Lloyd, Lesley and Griscom and certainly Wilson and his committee and  Macdonald/Whigam both at NGLA and Merion Ardmore basically probably starting in the latter part of 1909, running through 1910 and into 1911 to the spring of 1911 and the beginning of the actual creation of Merion East. I think the actual routing may've taken up to a year and a half to develop for a lot of reasons, not the least being they all decided to pick up some pieces of land that had nothing to do with HDC and people like Connell and Nickolson. I think it will also much more clearly explain that interesting land-swap story of Francis and why he went to Lloyd's house in the middle of the night and that the quarry hole really was begun in two days. Moriarty says that was hyperbole on Francis's part. I don't think it was hypebole at all.

It's a bare bones scenario and I'll fill in the details later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's way too much speculation and jumping to conclusions in most of your posts, Pat.  Get dirty and dive into the research and analyze the complete set of primary assets.  You are mailing it in from wherever you are after merely looking at bits and pieces.  Frankly, you Ran, Tom N and others made up your minds before any serious discussion/analysis took place regarding David's valuable work.  As a devotee of everything Macdonald, especially NGLA, be careful because your bias is showing.  Many of us have biases, but who is putting them aside and searching for the truth?  There's a lot of accusations flying back and forth but the fact is, amid the skirmish smoke can be found some sound reasoning and important new information.  It is just hard to identify the poor reasoning and false leads when your baseline of understanding is so low.

Rather than making up minds on an increasing but still far from complete data set, at this point we should be more interested in amassing all the information we can.  Again, these inquiries, even if proved false, help point us in the many directions we need to search.  But the incomplete, though conclusion laden evaluations by Ran and Pat on this site and others off-site (a small minority) is premature (as I've said all along) and wanting in a robust discovery process.  Give David the proper measure of consideration for all his efforts and study it carefully along with all the complete original information.  It is shocking how you and Ran jumped the gun and endorsed this piece when you did and now are loathe to believe anything at all that may upend your conclusion.  Ran, was it sweeps week? 

I'm delighted David is conducting this research as many are asking good questions and putting forth a renewed effort to discover answers.  Pat and Ran have not done any leg work but have taken a quick and easy review and conclusion process.  Sorry, I do not intend to stifle debate but must point out these significant short comings in their conclusion process.  If they turn out to be right, it is not because of their process but rather David's unfinished process.  And now I must comment by saying that David has been open to accessing his materials.  In that regard, I too have been sharing information with him as is only right and in the proper spirit of investigation.

Wayno,

David Moriarty's white paper is the most cogent, comprehensive single piece I've read on Merion, to date.

It contains dates, time lines, facts and prudent reasoning.

If you have information which refutes his facts or his premise, please present them.

Absent a factual, prudent refutation, I'm willing to accept most of David's premise.

Rather than criticize Ran and myself as unknowing cheerleaders, put forth your refutation.

If you can't prove that Wilson visited the UK prior to 1912, by the preponderance of the evidence presented by David and by prudent man reasoning, the history of Merion should be amended.

Wilson's own words seem to confirm that he had NO knowledge of the courses of the UK prior to visiting CBM.  Certainly, a man who spent a month or seven months in the UK would NOT convey his lack of knowledge regarding those courses.

I have a family, run a business, am involved with charities, have a social life, play golf and have other pursuits, thus, I'm content to let David and others engage in research.  Despite the consumption of my time by other interests, my ability to reason remains steadfast and keen.
And, to date, David has presented a well structured, well researched, reasoned premise that I'm content with.

If you or anyone else has proof positive that his facts, reasoning and conclusions are flawed, please present it.[/color]  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Go back and read what Hugh Wilson said.

He never said that he and his committee weren't familiar with famous hole concepts.

That would be like me and you having lived in our time and never hearing of Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes.

What they said is they knew next to nothing about constructing a golf course from an engineering, and agronomic standpoint.


Seriously...

Let's think about this.   Everyone here...

Let's say tomorrow your club asks you and five other members to go and layout and build a new golf course that emulates some of the best holes in the world.

Would your problem be that you didn't know what a great hole was?

Or would your problem be where to begin in terms of construction and grassing?

Common sense seems to be on leave from this thread at times. 

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

You asked, "Phil, Isn't the Sept 14, 1912 opening of Merion written up by Tillinghast in the October issue?   I would think longer articles might take some time, but quick blurbs shouldn't have taken six months..."

You are confused with what I am referencing. It is not 1912, but 1910. There is no mention by "Hazard" in the October 1910 issue of American Golfer about CB Macdonald's visit to merion or anything whatsoever about Merion.

I actually quoted from YOUR Post #376 on page 11 where you are challenging david on Macdonald's site visit and when it occurred and YOU were quoting David's own words about the December 1910 article written by "Hazard."

In it, Tilly wrote, "Merion is to have a new golf course and one that they will own. Never have I made an announcement with greater pleasure..."

Two paragraphs later he writes, "The new course, which is part of a tract of 300 acres, has been purchased by a syndicate of merion members..."

In the next paragraph he writes, "Recently, Mr. R.E. Griscom had as his guests Mr. C.B. Macdonald and Mr. H.J. Whigham..."

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

My mistake...I was thinking about "Far and Sure's" blurb announcement of the Sept 14, 1912 opening of Merion in the October issue of "American Golfer".   

If memory serves, I do recall some TIlly mentions of "June" in the "July" magazine, and so on, but your point that it would be subject to the vagaries of time, travel, mail, etc., is well taken.

Still, I do find it very, very, very odd that in the December issue Tilly is talking about a recent visit by Macdonald to Merion in June.

I'm hoping David can clear that up, because I still don't understand the evidence that shows Macdonald at Merion in June, based on the Site Committee letter he cited.

Thanks!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Go back and read what Hugh Wilson said.

He never said that he and his committee weren't familiar with famous hole concepts.

Of course they did.
It was only after meeting with CBM that they began to understand what the great hole concepts were.[/color]

That would be like me and you having lived in our time and never hearing of Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes.

Nonsense, you can't take a 1909 situation and context it in 2008.[/color]

What they said is they knew next to nothing about constructing a golf course from an engineering, and agronomic standpoint.

Mike, they didn't know jack about routing and designing individual holes.[/color]

Let's say tomorrow your club asks you and five other members to go and layout and build a new golf course that emulates some of the best holes in the world.

Would your problem be that you didn't know what a great hole was?

In 1910, you bet they wouldn't know what a great hole was, especially if you'd never been to the UK.  There were ONLY three courses of substance in the U.S.  Myopia, NGLA and GCGC, and the terrain and soil at GCGC is dramatically different, as is the soil at NGLA.  The ability to see these courses and the distances involved to get to them are an impediment to studying the principles of the great holes in golf.[/color]

Or would your problem be where to begin in terms of construction and grassing?

It wouldn't be construction and grassing, it would be routing and individual hole design.[/color]

Common sense seems to be on leave from this thread at times. 


Not on my part.[/color]

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - you wrote:

"In 1910, you bet they wouldn't know what a great hole was, especially if you'd never been to the UK.  There were ONLY three courses of substance in the U.S.  Myopia, NGLA and GCGC, and the terrain and soil at GCGC is dramatically different, as is the soil at NGLA..."

A question - in 1910, how much did MACDONALD know about working on a site like Merion? I accept that he understood certain principles of great golf holes (at least to the extent of knowing which ones to copy). But in 1910, did Macdonald know much about how to work on different terrains and how different soils would react/impact the construction and playability of a finished course?

Some have made much hay about the possibility (and it's still only a possibility) that Hugh Wilson had never been to the UK or studied the courses there. Well, maybe I can make some hay about the possibility that neither Macdonald nor anyone else in 1910 was an EXPERT on actually what would work in the ground on a specific site, and how it would work on a specific site. 

You tell me - in 1910, and reputation aside, how had Macdonald's talent and expertise manifested itself, save for the first iteration of NGLA? And was the first iteration of NGLA a smashing success?

Peter     

PS - I think Lou Duran's post is a very good one.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A question - in 1910, how much did MACDONALD know about working on a site like Merion?

I believe, PLENTY.
If you've ever been to NGLA and if you've read "Scotland's Gift" in which he describes the conditions at the site as abominable, AND, you've seen how much dirt was moved, I think you'd come to the same conclusion.

This guy knew his stuff, and, he had a valued assistant, Seth Raynor.
If you'll read pages 202-206 you'll see how highly CBM thought of SR and his abilities.[/color]

I accept that he understood certain principles of great golf holes (at least to the extent of knowing which ones to copy). But in 1910, did Macdonald know much about how to work on different terrains and how different soils would react/impact the construction and playability of a finished course?


I believe he did.

If you've ever seen the terrain at NGLA it's as, if not more, dramatic than the terrain at Merion.

Construction was one of his strengths as was his understanding of playability.

His record as a golfer is rather impressive.[/color]

Some have made much hay about the possibility (and it's still only a possibility) that Hugh Wilson had never been to the UK or studied the courses there. Well, maybe I can make some hay about the possibility that neither Macdonald nor anyone else in 1910 was an EXPERT on actually what would work in the ground on a specific site, and how it would work on a specific site.

I'm going to make a wild guess and state that you've never seen or played NGLA, for if you had, you would never make that statement.

And, apparently you're unaware of Seth Raynor's abilities.

Ask yourself the following question.

Could a man who designed and built NGLA, Yale and Lido NOT be an EXPERT on what would work in the ground on a specific site ?

Case closed[/color] 

You tell me - in 1910, and reputation aside, how had Macdonald's talent and expertise manifested itself, save for the first iteration of NGLA?


See my response above.[/color]

And was the first iteration of NGLA a smashing success?


Overwhelmingly so.[/color]

[Kirk Gill]

The man in this discussion that I have heard the least about is Whigham. With MacDonald  being such a towering presence, Whigham seems to slip into the background.

Yes, there were his achievements as an amateur golfer. He was also MacDonald's son-in-law. But is this the same H.J. Whigham who was the editor of The Metropolitan? A world traveler? Correspondent for the Chicago Tribune? How many H.J. Whighams were there?

If the H.J. Whigham who worked with MacDonald is the H.J. Whigham who was a prominent journalist, then some attention needs to be payed to his listing of "Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia" among his father-in-law's designs when writing his obituary.

For those of you more "in the know....."

Are these H.J. Whigham's the same person?

[RJ_Daley]

I haven't attempted to say anything on here in about 36hours.  Since then, it appears that about 20,000 or more new words were written.  I just don't have the patience to wade through each new response.  I skimmed a few, and I can't really see where anyone on either side are really bringing forth more than regurgitation of the same documents and materials that are known and exposed.  We've all seen and heard the arguments for what is physically out there.  And, we've heard every manner of reiteration of interpretation of what those documents mean. 

I did read Lou's summation and believe it is quite objective and I agree with how he laid out his views. 

So dear gentlemen, I am  going to give myself a holiday from this thread.  But, I would appreciate it if the fellows who do care to hang in there with this debating academy (the independent ones like Peter, Rich, Lou, others) would kindly IM me a notice, should someone 'actually' publish, or devulge, or display any real 'new' piece of evidence to consider, nomatter if that lends credence to a greater role for CB or bolsters the known and accepted history of Merion and Wilson, and the committeemen. 

Thanks, discuss among yourselves... 

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

The December Hazard article announced that Merion had acquired a site for their golf course.  That was announced by the board to the Members on Nov. 15, 1910.   

On November 15, 1910 Merion also informed the membership that M&W had inspected the property, etc.   
_________________________

Mike Cirba,   The information from Barker's visit and M&W's visit comes from ONE site committee report, dated July 1, 1910.   That letter was also included with the Board's November 15, 1910 report to the members.   
______________________________

JES, 
The Barker letter is copied in the site committee report, so they definitely got it.   
I have found no connection between Connell (one of the developers) and Merion, other than this land deal. 
__________________

Peter,  You say that there is only a "possibility" that Wilson did NOT take an earlier trip to study courses abroad.   Really?  Just a possibility that he didn't?   It is just a possibility that he was NOT an alien, from another galaxy?   You cannot prove he was not an alien, can you?    Sure all the evidence seems to point toward him being human, but until you prove he was not an alien, shouldn't we all consider him an alien.

At this point there is no REASONABLE possibility that he traveled abroad to study courses before 1912.   There is no no hard evidence that he did, no factual reason to believe he did, and even he speaks only of studying the overseas courses AFTER NGLA.   So why on Earth do you and others still treat this as a viable theory.   It is nothing but smoke and mirrors being used to try and prop up the old legend.   It is intellectual disingenuous to say the very least.
_________________

I have answered many questions, yet those I asked in post 328 remain unanswered.   Why is that?




 
 

[Rich Goodale]

I haven't attempted to say anything on here in about 36hours.  Since then, it appears that about 20,000 or more new words were written.  I just don't have the patience to wade through each new response.  I skimmed a few, and I can't really see where anyone on either side are really bringing forth more than regurgitation of the same documents and materials that are known and exposed.  We've all seen and heard the arguments for what is physically out there.  And, we've heard every manner of reiteration of interpretation of what those documents mean. 

I did read Lou's summation and believe it is quite objective and I agree with how he laid out his views. 

So dear gentlemen, I am  going to give myself a holiday from this thread.  But, I would appreciate it if the fellows who do care to hang in there with this debating academy (the independent ones like Peter, Rich, Lou, others) would kindly IM me a notice, should someone 'actually' publish, or devulge, or display any real 'new' piece of evidence to consider, nomatter if that lends credence to a greater role for CB or bolsters the known and accepted history of Merion and Wilson, and the committeemen. 

Thanks, discuss among yourselves... 

Sorry, Uncle Dick, but I'm taking a holiday from this too (good excuse=trip to Ireland to study Eddie Hackett's work).  Maybe if anything significant arises some kind soul can start a thread entitled:  "Somebody says something new about Merion!"  Until then I'll let Lou, Peter etc. man the bastions of impartiality.

Rich

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You wrote, "Phillip, The December Hazard article announced that Merion had acquired a site for their golf course.  That was announced by the board to the Members on Nov. 15, 1910. On November 15, 1910 Merion also informed the membership that M&W had inspected the property, etc..."

I disagree with your APPARENT ASSERTION that Tilly did not know of either of these two things before that date. You did state that because this (and other) articles often appeared contemporaneous to the club's statements that Tilly must "not be in the know."

Because of the lead time necessary in 1910 to publish this national publication and have it out for a December 1st public purchase, Tilly ABSOLUTELY HAD to know both points BEFORE the NOVEMBER 15TH ANNOUNCEMENT.
   
Tilly was definitely "in the know" and aware of most of what was going on behind the scenes. To infer that he was simply waiting to publish certain facts until permisssion had been given or waiting on the proper time to do so is not a leap of faith by any standard; rather it is recognizing a VERY COMMON and accepted journalistic practice back then that is still practiced by many repsonsible journals today.

[Mike_Cirba]

On November 15, 1910 Merion also informed the membership that M&W had inspected the property, etc.   
_________________________

Mike Cirba,   The information from Barker's visit and M&W's visit comes from ONE site committee report, dated July 1, 1910.   That letter was also included with the Board's November 15, 1910 report to the members.   
______________________________

David,

Thank you for your answer.   

So, that Site Committee report that talked about the 300 acres and availability of 100 acres for golf talked about BOTH the Barker and Macdonald visits, probably refuting one and recommending the other??

Why did you state earlier that M&W "probably" came to Merion between June 10th and July 1st?

Are you leaving open the possibility that it may have been earlier?  I'm trying to understand why a single document delivered in November 1910 would have had wording that makes it sound as though the site had just been discovered and that 100 acres were available for golf when it's clear that at least the Site Committee had been looking at this land since July 1909?

It also seems strange that a half a year passed between the original HDC offer (with Barker) in June and the submission of a report to be considered by the Governors in November, or that no other communications took place between the Site Committee and their overseers during that timeframe.   This was, after all, seemingly a very, very high priority for the club at this point.   Do you understand my confusion?

This document appears to be fundamental to our understanding at this point.   Is there a way to make it available online, or perhaps share with us the content in greater detail, as there are only scant passing references to it in your White Paper.   Thanks.



p.s.   I think this timing makes it odder that Tillinghast would write for American Golfer in Dec 1919 that Macdonald had visited and only "blessed" the land as good for golf.    If he had indeed created a routing during his intial visit that led to HDC aquiring more land over the next six months as you suggest, Phil is absolutely correct...Tilly would have certainly known about that and absolutely reported it as it would have been astounding news to trumpet to the mountaintops.

I also think the timing of June 1910 for Macdonald's initial visit argues for less Macdonald involvement/credit, wouldn't you agree?

Even if he recommended that the club should try to aquire some adjacent parcels for their course, or suggested adding 20% to the purchase, or both, which Merion (under the guise of Lloyd directing the HDC) seem to have done in the next six months, the fact that he visited in June 1910 to simply recommend the site, and then didn't return again until almost a year later in April 1911 seems to indicate to me very strongly that it was during this time that the members (or somebody) fleshed out a basic routing.    We KNOW Macdonald wasn't there, and KNOW he wouldn't come back until April, and KNOW at that time there was already a "plan" in place. 

To paraphrase Tom Paul, what do you think the Merion folks were doing at this time...sitting on their thumbs?  Where was Hugh Wilson in 1910?   

I think given what we know about Lloyd's direct involvement with both HDC and Merion, it gives new meaning to what Wilson might have meant when he talked about the "purchase' of the property, and the timing of that.   It also may change our understanding of when he and the Committee visited NGLA, don't you think?

However, lest ye think that I'm giving Wilson and the Committee too much credit for the genius of the course we know today, let's not forget that the original routing that opened in 1911 was hardly the brilliant gem we know today.   In fact, almost half the course (at least 7 holes) had been wholly or partially rerouted or fundamentally changed (greensite moved)  within the first 12 years after opening.   Whoever deserves credit here for the original design hardly got it right the first time...while there were stretches of brilliance, there were also some really pretty amateurish things like the 3 parallel street crossing in a row, so thank God that the course evolved over the next period.   

[wsmorrison]

Pat:

David Moriarty's white paper is the most cogent, comprehensive single piece I've read on Merion, to date.

Exactly how extensive is your study of Merion excluding David Moriarty's essay?  If it has been minimal, a statement such as above has no real value and is not a reflection on David's essay but rather your very low baseline of understanding.

I have a family, run a business, am involved with charities, have a social life, play golf and have other pursuits, thus, I'm content to let David and others engage in research.  Despite the consumption of my time by other interests, my ability to reason remains steadfast and keen.
And, to date, David has presented a well structured, well researched, reasoned premise that I'm content with.


We all have obligations to families, work (well, not Tom Paul), golf, charities, a social life and golf in addition to other pursuits.  Yet I found time to research and write a 1650 page book on Flynn with Tom Paul, David found time to research and write his essay.  And some like Mike Cirba and Joe Bausch have found time to dig deep into research resources to present additional information.  So don't give me that complete BS about you not having the time to invest into anything more than you have to date and being content with your minimal process.

If you have information which refutes his facts or his premise, please present them.

I'm not inclined to provide you with that information. 

Rather than criticize Ran and myself as unknowing cheerleaders, put forth your refutation.

Oh, but you have proved yourself to be unknowing cheerleaders.  You clearly state that you do not have time nor wish to to do any work in this area.  Yet both you and Ran passed rapid judgment on a very detailed and complicated essay without much analysis or due diligence.  You make it difficult to want to work on your behalf and present the findings on this forum when you take the attitudes you took.  It is that simple.  Rereading Ran's intro to this thread is disturbing and a very poor reflection on Ran's ability to reason and his knowledge of the subject.

Absent a factual, prudent refutation, I'm willing to accept most of David's premise.

That is readily apparent.  Sit back and relax. 

Could a man who designed and built NGLA, Yale and Lido NOT be an EXPERT on what would work in the ground on a specific site ?

Why Yes, as a matter of fact.  How disingenuous can you get in a reply?  At the time of Merion's design and construction, Yale and Lido weren't even being considered let alone designed and built.  What were the agronomic problems at NGLA?  Why do you think Macdonald knew to recommend Piper and Oakley?  Because your all-knowing CBM had complete agronomic failure.  What expertise did Macdonald display nearly 15 years later in designing and constructing Creek Club, particularly the water holes?  He had complete agronomic failure due to a flawed design plan and construction effort.  So much went wrong that the club had to spend more than the original cost in fixing the problems.  And your man CBM, rather than taking the blame, pointed his sausage finger at Raynor and blamed him.

Construction was one of his strengths as was his understanding of playability.

So in what way was construction one of Macdonald's strengths?  Do you know if he was out on the job on a daily basis overseeing the construction since he was such an expert?  Or was he sitting around inside the clubhouse with wine, women and song?  Did he get his fingers dirty?  Somehow, I doubt it.

This guy knew his stuff, and, he had a valued assistant, Seth Raynor.
If you'll read pages 202-206 you'll see how highly CBM thought of SR and his abilities.

...And, apparently you're unaware of Seth Raynor's abilities.

What exactly were Raynor's abilities in 1910-1912?  We know he was an expert surveyor.  What did he know about golf in the early 1910s?  What did he know about constructing golf courses in the early 1910s?  What are your sources?  Certainly not Macdonald's autobiography that was written more than a decade later, right?  If you aren't going to accept Alan Wilson's writings, why would you accept Macdonald's?