News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Rich Goodale

David,

I finished reading your essay and I did not come away from it thinking that you made a case for Merion to rewrite it's history and heritage.

In my opinion, nothing you have written threatens the legends surrounding Merion.

Thanks, Bradley

Well said.

Rich

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Quote
Andy,

Prior to 1910, Walter Travis wasn't really a practicing architect.

He had done work with John Duncan Dunn in 1899 at Ekwanok.

He had built a nine-hole course for a vacation resort in the Poconos in 1904 that is NLE, unfortunately.

He also built Flushing Golf Club in New York (also NLE) in 1902, and suggested revisions to bunkering and greens at Dev Emmett's Island GC (Garden City), but my understanding is that most of that work was actually done after he semi-retired from competitive golf in 1916.

Almost no one knew him as anything but a tournament golfer and Amateur Champion in 1910.   
Quote

Mike, first, I am a bit miffed that you left Mt Pocono Golf and Country Club off the list. 
I readily concede you know the history far better than I, but my understanding was Travis was pretty involved at Ekwanok, and in the GCA course write-up it says he spent 2 years  'adding 50 bunkers, deepening others and re-doing all 18 greens. He also increased the length of the course..' by the time it held the 1908 US Amateur.  Surely guys as plugged in as the Philly gang would have been aware of two such well-received courses when there really were not that many quality courses in the Northeast.


Quote
Also, I can't overstate how badly the golfers of Merion in particular and Philadelphia in general felt that they needed a "championship" course at the time, and how they felt the lack of one was probably the single most important reason that Philly golfers were performing poorly in regional and national tournaments.   This philosophy that was driven by a sense of competitive need really was what spawed the "Philadelphia School" of architecture, and which directly drove the creation of Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek.
I have no doubt you are correct here. But that being the case, if it were you, would you opt for someone like Travis, who had several successful courses attached to him, or Colt, or McDonald or someone along those lines, or would you hand the task off to someone who had no experience and had possibly only played two or three 'good' courses? Granted, the benefit of hindsight has shown they chose wisely.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Given the desire for a championship course in Philly, do we think any sort of regional pride caused CBM to push for a sporty 6000 yard course to kind of keep Philly in second place? 

They obviously discussed the need for a longer course, or he wouldn't have addressed it in his letter and try to dismiss the theory that more length was necessary.

Was that push for a sporty course the cause of the reason not to publish the letter and replace it with the vague phrase "we largely embodied his proposals?"
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim Nugent

And Jeff, they did not build that sporty 6000 yard course CBM recommended.  Their course turned out closer to the 6300 yard course Macdonald said was less desirable. 

Patrick_Mucci


Given the desire for a championship course in Philly, do we think any sort of regional pride caused CBM to push for a sporty 6000 yard course to kind of keep Philly in second place? 

NO,

MacDonald Advocated 6,000 yard courses.
His IDEAL golf course was 6,017 yards.
He's on record as stating that, " the generally accepted best total length of a golf course is somewhat over 6,000 yards"

Hence, his recommendation to Merion fits perfectly with his written beliefs.
[/color]

They obviously discussed the need for a longer course, or he wouldn't have addressed it in his letter and try to dismiss the theory that more length was necessary.

He also advocated the proper location of tees, from the preceeding green, allowing for additional elasticity should more distance be required, usually in the range of 20-30 yards.
[/color]

Was that push for a sporty course the cause of the reason not to publish the letter and replace it with the vague phrase "we largely embodied his proposals?"

I don't believe so.
Remember, MacDonald's ideal course was 6.017 yards.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

David,

I finished reading your essay and I did not come away from it thinking that you made a case for Merion to rewrite it's history and heritage.

In my opinion, nothing you have written threatens the legends surrounding Merion.

Bradley,

Then you're willing to perpetuate the accepted history that Wilson visited the UK for 7 months, studying the great courses of the UK, prior to 1911 ?

And, that as a result of what he learned on that trip, he applied that recently acquired knowledge directly to the design of the holes at Merion.

Is that correct ?
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 09:19:27 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0

Given the desire for a championship course in Philly, do we think any sort of regional pride caused CBM to push for a sporty 6000 yard course to kind of keep Philly in second place? 

NO,

MacDonald Advocated 6,000 yard courses.
His IDEAL golf course was 6,017 yards.
He's on record as stating that, " the generally accepted best total length of a golf course is somewhat over 6,000 yards"

Hence, his recommendation to Merion fits perfectly with his written beliefs.
[/color]

They obviously discussed the need for a longer course, or he wouldn't have addressed it in his letter and try to dismiss the theory that more length was necessary.

He also advocated the proper location of tees, from the preceeding green, allowing for additional elasticity should more distance be required, usually in the range of 20-30 yards.
[/color]

Was that push for a sporty course the cause of the reason not to publish the letter and replace it with the vague phrase "we largely embodied his proposals?"

I don't believe so.
Remember, MacDonald's ideal course was 6.017 yards.
[/color]


Pat, I'll accept the first part that his written remarks jelled with his longstanding beliefs, but I speculate that Merion thought the bar on distance was going up (they were studying the problem of the Haskell ball)
Hence, I think they were possibly at odds with CBM's longstanding theory and wanted a longer course from the get go.

I wonder if they didn't publish the letter because it would raise questions in the membership about why we needed more land for a longer course, etc. when the expert recommended that they didn't need more length. On the other hand, they couldn't have been too perturbed at CBM since they went back to CBM for more advice later that year!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm sorry for reviving this thread, but:

Patick wrote:

"Bradley,

Then you're willing to perpetuate the accepted history that Wilson visited the UK for 7 months, studying the great courses of the UK, prior to 1911 ?

And, that as a result of what he learned on that trip, he applied that recently acquired knowledge directly to the design of the holes at Merion.

Is that correct ?"

Patrick,

My problem with David M's essay was simply that it relied too much upon parsing from negative capabilty to be taken seriously as a piece of legitimate scholarism. But let me ask you this: do you believe that Wilson never traveled to the UK to find the inspiration to design what Merion became? Sincerely, I don't see how pinpointing which month of which year he traveled to the UK really bares upon the legend of Merion, when so many people of the era testify to his influence on what Merion evolved in to. Do you think he never traveled to the UK to be enlightened?


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick,

Let me add that I think where this whole argument went astray was in distuguishing where history is genuniely false, from where contemporaneous sources might have been inacurate with minor details.



 

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick,

Let me also add that I prefer my legends to be obscured to naysayers.

Patrick_Mucci

I'm sorry for reviving this thread, but:

Patick wrote:

"Bradley,

Then you're willing to perpetuate the accepted history that Wilson visited the UK for 7 months, studying the great courses of the UK, prior to 1911 ?

And, that as a result of what he learned on that trip, he applied that recently acquired knowledge directly to the design of the holes at Merion.

Is that correct ?"

Could you answer the question ?

After you answer it, I'll be happy to address your questions.

Thanks
[/color]

Patrick,

My problem with David M's essay was simply that it relied too much upon parsing from negative capabilty to be taken seriously as a piece of legitimate scholarism. But let me ask you this: do you believe that Wilson never traveled to the UK to find the inspiration to design what Merion became? Sincerely, I don't see how pinpointing which month of which year he traveled to the UK really bares upon the legend of Merion, when so many people of the era testify to his influence on what Merion evolved in to. Do you think he never traveled to the UK to be enlightened?



TEPaul

Pat:

I had about a three page post ready to go responding to your last post and Merion but I decided to hold the info for an IMO essay on Merion as to what the records say about who really designed it. However, the Wilson trip to GB in 1910 and for seven months is still an enigma. Noboby has proved or disproved it or even determined where it came from, in my book. Do you disagree with that? What about the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion? Do YOU feel that proves, at this point, that it never happened, with the author's and the others' ship manifest research to date?  ;)
« Last Edit: May 17, 2008, 08:34:21 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul,

I fairly sure that production of the fields for various competitions along with other verifiable records precluded a trip of 7 months in 1910, unless there was another Hugh Wilson playing competitive golf that year.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
My problem with David M's essay was simply that it relied too much upon parsing from negative capabilty to be taken seriously as a piece of legitimate scholarism. But let me ask you this: do you believe that Wilson never traveled to the UK to find the inspiration to design what Merion became? Sincerely, I don't see how pinpointing which month of which year he traveled to the UK really bares upon the legend of Merion, when so many people of the era testify to his influence on what Merion evolved in to. Do you think he never traveled to the UK to be enlightened?

Sorry you are not happy the paper's level of "scholarism."

We know that Wilson traveled abroad in the spring of 1912, months after he built Merion East.  You may consider this to be nit-picking, but Wilson's trip to enlightenment provided the basis for much of Merion's creation legend:
1.  The overseas study story elevated Wilson's standing and qualifications by offering an explanation of how he could have pulled off one of the greatest routings and designs in history.   
2.  It explained why the initial course had some holes and features that were thought to have been based on principles of great holes abroad.
3.  It explained away Macdonald's role in the planning of the course, and reduced his and Whigham's involvement to that of glorified travel agents.   

Pat:

I had about a three page post ready to go responding to your last post and Merion but I decided to hold the info for an IMO essay on Merion as to what the records say about who really designed it. However, the Wilson trip to GB in 1910 and for seven months is still an enigma. Noboby has proved or disproved it or even determined where it came from, in my book. Do you disagree with that? What about the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion? Do YOU feel that proves, at this point, that it never happened, with the author's and the others' ship manifest research to date?  ;)

1.  My essay does not rely on shipping manifests to prove the later trip or disprove the later trip.
2.  There is no evidence of a 1910 trip other than a questionable interpretation of an ambiguous newspaper article written after the course opened, and a few others that followed.  Your and others unwillingness to let go of the legend of an earlier trip-- despite the lack of evidence to support it and the ample evidence to dismiss it--  speaks volumes about your and others inability to look at this with an open mind. 
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 12:40:19 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick,

David began that timeline you reference in October of 1910 and ran it through Sep 1912...only a few months prior to the course going under construction...wouldn't you think it prudent to ask were exactly this guy was during the time we are trying to prove that he was not in GB studying golf courses?

Patrick_Mucci

JES II,

If he's listed as playing in a tournament are you stating that he had a double playing for him ?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick,

He is listed as playing a tournament in October of 1910.

The Board of Merion Cricket appointed a committee to find a new property in 1909 (time of year unstated in the essay).

If, in retrospect, Hugh Wilson is unanimously cited as the one who did the most to design and build the golf course I'd say it was an oversight to ignore, or obscure what he may have been doing between the timing of the club's decision to move and the October 1910 golf tournament.

My only opinion is that it has not been disproven that Wilson went abroad prior to March 1912. It seems odd that a researcher would start a timeline, like the one in the essay, at so late a date in the proceedings when it pertains to the key actor.

I'm curious to see the essay Tom refers to above...and I am confident in its production because Wayne is likely on it...


TEPaul

"Your and others unwillingness to let go of the legend of an earlier trip-- despite the lack of evidence to support it and the ample evidence to dismiss it--  speaks volumes about your and others inability to look at this with an open mind. "

David:

Unwillingness to let go of the legend of an earlier trip??

Despite the lack of evidence to support it and ample evidence to dismiss it---speaks volumes about your and others inability to look at this with an open mind???


If the history books say he went abroad in 1910 and for about seven months I don't think it speaks volumes about an inability to look at this with an open mind if we continue to look into it!!

Perhaps you think it never happened but why should we think that without trying to prove it? Should anyone expect us to stop looking into it because you say so on these threads or you think your essay concludes it didn't happen?

You did find that 1912 ship manifest that essentially proved the Merion story that was referred to in the Merion history book as "a romantic story" was not a romantic story at all, and I think Wayne found some evidence later that Wilson really was booked on the Titanic. Don't forget it was me a few weeks ago who essentially proved Wilson could not have been abroad in 1911 and it was me who found R. Francis' letter that said H. Wilson was making a 'hurried trip' abroad in 1912. Until we find evidence that can conclusively prove he was not over there in 1910 or that he could not have had time to be over there in 1910 we will continue to look into it. Maybe you thinks that shows some inability to have and open mind but we don't.

I would encourage anyone to look for evidence that shows Wilson was in this country throughout 1910 whether that's through tournament records or whatever. That's no different than what I did for 1911 except it was easier to do because all I had to do was look through all those "agronomy" letter dates for a timeline putting him over here in most every month of 1911 thereby giving him no time to be abroad. We have tried to look for some tournament listings over here for Wilson in 1910 but we haven't looked into that very diligently yet. One of our sources in Long Island did notice that Wilson played in the Suburban League Matches in June 1909 but apparently not in 1910. Those who play in Suburban League matches understand that clubs try to field the same team members year after year if a player is competitive!

The Tolhurst history books mention, 'In 1910 the committee decided to send Wilson abroad to England and Scotland......'

When I read something like that it gets my attention. Tolhurst's book did not just say Wilson just went abroad in 1910, it says the committee sent him abroad. I tend to wonder what Tolhurst may've been looking at when he wrote something like that in that way.

That's why I think it's probably pretty important to look at who the people were and what they did who were on these Merion Committees or were members of MCC or even the people they were connected to.

Apparently you did not realize (because you've certainly never mentioned it) that Rodman Griscom's father was the chairman of a shipping consortium of luxury lines and other mercantile shipping lines that may've had the greatest tonnage at sea in the world--well over 1,000,000 tons. Apparently you did not realize that essentially J. P. Morgan & Co underwrote and financed that shipping consortium and that Horatio Gates Lloyd was a partner of Drexel & Co from which Morgan and Morgan & Co evolved, and that in 1913 Lloyd became a partner in Morgan & Co. Did you know that in 1909 Rodman Griscom and his wife were in Italy visiting his brother, Lloyd C, who was the ambassador to Italy and that Morgan offered to help his son who was sick? Did you know that Morgan owned a yacht, The Corsair, that may've been the largest in the world, and consequently more than capable of crossing the Atlantic with ease. Did you know that MCC member A.J. Drexel Paul's uncle owned the Alcedo a 275 ft yacht that was actually the first US Naval vessel sunk abroad by the Germans? The point of this is that obviously Wilson may've had many ways and means and friends and contacts through MCC and its committees of getting abroad in 1910 particularly if "THE COMMITTEE SENT HIM ABROAD", as Tolhurst's history book happened to mention! All we are doing is looking into some of these "leads".

Did you even know that Rodman Griscom's father, Clement Griscom, was the chairman of that massive consortium known as "The Shipping Trust" and that his companies also owned or operated over here the White Star Line that owned and operated THE TITANIC!! It probably was no coincidence at all that Wilson was booked on it before delaying his departure from abroad and sailing from Cherbourg in France instead of Southampton in England two weeks after The Titanic sunk. Did you even know that in 1912 Hugh Wilson took the place on the Merion board of Merion member J. B. Thayer who did go down on The Titanic?!

You can dismiss these people by saying, as you did, that we don't need to discuss the lives of the rich and famous. I think we probably do need to look into some of these things and discuss them because it seems they very well might directly related to the story of the creation of Merion East, particularly if we want to discuss going abroad which actually doesn't really matter to the truth of who routed, designed and built Merion East anyway! All you really did in your essay is make the point that since it seems Wilson was not abroad in 1910 he could not have been capable of routing, designing and building Merion East with his committee in 1911. As we will show that's just another one of the false premises in "The Missing Faces of Merion."

Again, as you will see, it really doesn't make any difference to who routed, designed and constructed Merion East WHEN Wilson went abroad or even if he never did go abroad! The fact is even if he didn't go abroad in 1910 or at any time, he and his committee routed, designed and built Merion East with advice and suggestions from Macdonald and Whigam during a day in early April 1911. And furthermore to that, there was no definite routing and course design in 1910 as you have virtually based your essay on. All of this basically reinforces with more detail the two things we have always said on here we've relied on the accuracy of as to the story of the creation of Merion East----those two Wilson brothers' reports describing the creations of Merion East and West courses!

All of this just underscores that there is every good right and reason why another essay should be done explaining what really did happen with the creation of Merion East! If this essay happens to counterpoint much of what you said in your essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion", well, that's just the way it is, I guess. All it is, is the real and accurate history of Merion East and there is nothing adverserial about it or intended.

If you'd even like to take all of what I'm telling you here and now and put it into your Part Two of your essay, then please be my guest and do just that because all we're looking to do here is get the true and accurate story out there in as much detail as possible. In doing that we very much do want to show that anyone's account that is not accurate is just that---not accurate!
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 10:21:38 AM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick,

He is listed as playing a tournament in October of 1910.

Are you sure that's the only tournament date he's listed as having been a competitor ?
[/color]

The Board of Merion Cricket appointed a committee to find a new property in 1909 (time of year unstated in the essay).

If, in retrospect, Hugh Wilson is unanimously cited as the one who did the most to design and build the golf course I'd say it was an oversight to ignore, or obscure what he may have been doing between the timing of the club's decision to move and the October 1910 golf tournament.

JES II, "unanimously cited" ?   By whom ?

In addition, didn't you read the article Tom MacWood cited ?
Didn't you read Wilson's own words after his meeting with CBM.
If you read those passages, how could you, as a prudent person, divine that he visited the UK prior to Jan, 1911 ?

Could you cite any verification of Wilson's 7 month trip to the UK to study the great courses prior to Jan 1911 ? 
Could you list the courses he's alleged to have visited ? 
Can you confirm his presence there ?
[/color]

My only opinion is that it has not been disproven that Wilson went abroad prior to March 1912. It seems odd that a researcher would start a timeline, like the one in the essay, at so late a date in the proceedings when it pertains to the key actor.

Again, you and others fail miserably when it comes to logical conclusions.

The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that he didn't go to the UK for 7 months prior to Jan, 1911, the burden of proof is on YOU and OTHERS to prove that he did.

Absent that PROOF, you can't contend that he did.
[/color]

I'm curious to see the essay Tom refers to above...and I am confident in its production because Wayne is likely on it...

I'd like to see TEPaul, Wayno, Moriarty and MacWood embark upon a joint venture where all of them have equal access to all sources.

I believe that's the most efficient method for determining the entire story of Merion's genesis.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul,

The committee did send him abroad, but, it appears that it was only in 1912 that he went.

You have to ask yourself, if he went abroad and studied for 7 months, where did he go ?

Why did he make his post CBM meeting comments ?

Certainly, after studying for 7 months he would have had a solid foundation in GCA, and thus, CBM's revelations couldn't have been that earth shattering.

As to crossing the North Atlantic, few prudent men would attempt that trip in a private yacht in the winter months.  Add the 7 months into the optimal sailing time and winter would have had to been the time of one of those trips, making the story less credible.

You can't take a shotgun approach and put forth possibilities, no matter how unlikely they are.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pat,

"Unanimously Cited" by those who were actually there doing it!

And no, the burden of proof is upon you to find any shred of evidence that the attributions are not entirely accurate. That is the point of all this, is it not?

A hell of alot of work has gone into the mission, and yet no proof that any single person's role was over or under acknowledged in the remembrances of those involved.

I'd call that prudent analysis of the facts.

TEPaul

Patrick:

Talk about a shotgun approach!

What are you now, an expert on how those people got to Europe and when? Did you notice what I just said about that Drexel yacht, the Alcedo, and how it was commissioned into the US Navy?  That thing was almost 300 feet. Do you think the US Navy commissioned it to fight the German Navy just to send it abroad in the summer while the crew on it hung around MCC or something in the winter and just goofed off waiting for the weather to get warm again so they could go over and fight the Germans in pleasant weather? Some of the things you say are so off-the-wall there're laughable!  

We will continue to look into WHY the Merion Tolhurst history books and perhaps an earlier one reported that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months but if it turns out he never did that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference anyway to what Wilson and his committee did regarding the routing, design and building of Merion East but perhaps you haven't even figured out THAT yet.

I guess this is what happens when people like start actually believing some of the premises and conclusions of an essay like "The Missing Faces of Merion."

TEPaul

"The burden of proof isn't on me to prove that he didn't go to the UK for 7 months prior to Jan, 1911, the burden of proof is on YOU and OTHERS to prove that he did.

Absent that PROOF, you can't contend that he did.[/color]

I'm curious to see the essay Tom refers to above...and I am confident in its production because Wayne is likely on it...

I'd like to see TEPaul, Wayno, Moriarty and MacWood embark upon a joint venture where all of them have equal access to all sources.

I believe that's the most efficient method for determining the entire story of Merion's genesis."


Patrick:

You should stop fixating on proving or disproving a trip abroad by Wilson prior to 1912 because we are going to show that whether he did that or NOT it makes no difference to who routed, designed and built Merion East! So stop fixating on it unless you really believe that Macdonald gave Merion a routing and they just built the course to it. I''ve been telling you there was no definite routing or location for the course laid out in 1910 compared to how the course was built-----not by Barker, not by Macdonald/Whigam, not by Francis or Lloyd or Wilson------not by anyone.

All that is just speculation on David Moriarty's part to be able to come up with these premises he offered that he thinks support the conclusion to his essay that Macdonald/Whigam gave them a routing in 1910 and that they just used that to route and design and built Merion East. That just didn't happen and we do have the information to prove that.

And Tom MacWood and David Moriarty are definitely not going to help us write this essay explaining this new information and what it means.

They already had their opportunity to explain how they think the Merion creation story happened and now we are going to have our opportunity to explain it. Recently, David Moriarty has been saying that a counterpoint essay on our part explaining the true history of who did Merion East and explaining in the process how his essay is not correct is some kind of an adverserial thing. It is nothing of the kind, and we in no way intend it to be that. An essay on our part on this subject is simply a literary tool to provide and explain additional information and in the process how it disproves some of the premises and conclusion of the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."

David Moriarty and Tom MacWood and you and everyone else should simply take this as an educational and learning experience and mechanism and not some adverserial thing.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 12:23:32 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Pat,

"Unanimously Cited" by those who were actually there doing it!

And no, the burden of proof is upon you to find any shred of evidence that the attributions are not entirely accurate. That is the point of all this, is it not?

That's the most absurd, unacademic reasoning I've ever heard.

Under your method, you just create a myth, premise or theory, and if it can't be disproved, you saying that it must be accepted as factual.
[/color]

A hell of alot of work has gone into the mission, and yet no proof that any single person's role was over or under acknowledged in the remembrances of those involved.

What's that got to do with Wilson's alleged 7 month trip to the UK ?
[/color]

I'd call that prudent analysis of the facts.

Then you don't understand the definition of the words "prudent" and "facts"
[/color]


Jim Nugent

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

I'd like to give a summary of why I think Wilson and Committee probably designed Merion and M&W did not.  Though I also believe M&W advised Wilson on the design, and may have given him some specific hole/routing ideas.  

First, problems with the theory that CBM designed Merion:

1.  CBM does not say he designed the course.  He says absolutely nothing about this.  This apparently is extremely OOC for him, if in fact he was Merion's architect.
2.  Merion does not say CBM designed the course.  
3.  No one else in history gives any hint that CBM designed Merion, except Wrigham, who was Macdonald's son-in-law.  Wrigham made this claim once, nearly 30 years after the fact, in passing, as part of an obituary for CBM that contained other factual errors.  
4.  CBM had very little opportunity to do the design.  He visited the prospective site for a few days in June 1910.  But Merion had not even bought the land yet, and Macdonald's letter to the committee shows his purpose during that trip was not to design a course.  It was to evaluate the site, and advise Merion whether he thought they could build a 1st-class course there.  If he did route Merion, it was almost surely based on that one trip.  Perhaps someone sent him a topo map later.  But there is no evidence anyone did that.  And even if they did, could CBM have come up with such an intricate routing in this way?  I asked earlier if he designed any other course in this manner.  No one could give a single example.  It certainly is not how he designed NGLA.  And that is the only CBM course rated as highly as Merion.  
5.  There is no evidence that Raynor had any involvement of any kind with Merion.  But there also is no evidence that CBM designed any courses without Raynor, once they collaborated on NGLA.  
6.  Merion, as I understand it, did not and does not look like other courses CBM designed.  When it opened, it had at most a few templates.  Many on this site debate even that: at best the so-called templates were poorly or half-way done, at worst they may not have existed at all.  One example: the alleged Redan green apparently sloped back to front, and did not allow runup shots.  Descriptions I've seen of the course from back then noted that Merion did NOT copy the famous holes.  As I understand it, this stands in marked contrast to other courses CBM designed.
7.  Besides not looking like other CBM courses, Merion probably did not look like the course CBM recommended to the committee.  In his June 1910 letter, he suggested a sporty 6000 yard course.  The course actually designed and built was a championship 6245 yarder, with room to expand to 6500 yards.  This may be one reason Merion chose not to have CBM design their course: the shorter course he suggested was not the course they wanted.    
8.  David's theory rests on the idea that Merion's design was finished by November 1910...Wilson was not part of Merion's Construction Committee until January 1911 or later...and therefore could not have designed the course.  But David cannot prove Wilson was not involved earlier.  All he can do is show they didn't form the Construction Committee till 1911.  It seems likely to me that Wilson WAS involved: I doubt Merion would have turned over construction of this course to a complete novice who had no experience with or knowledge of the project.
9.  Merion's committee wrote a letter to members, apparently in 1911, saying plans were being prepared for the course.  While we have argued over what they meant, one explanation is that they were still designing the course in 1911.  If so, that throws out David's claim that the course was completely designed by November 1910.      
10.  David's theory also rests on the idea that Wilson did not travel abroad till at least 1912.  David cannot prove that is so either.  In fact, as the quote in #3 below shows, the USGA believes Wilson traveled to Europe in 1910 to study courses.  As a side note that may be relevant: I've seen Wilson referred to as a Scottish immigrant.  Does that mean he was born in Scotland?  

Reasons to believe Wilson designed Merion:

1.  Tillie says he did.
2.  Merion history says he did.
3.  The USGA says Wilson designed Merion: "The baskets have been part of Merion’s lore since the club moved to its current location in 1912.  It’s not a closely guarded secret, but nobody associated with the club seems to know the origin.  It is clearly linked in some way to a trip taken by course designer Hugh Wilson in 1910 when he was sent by the club to study the best courses in Europe before the course was built on its current site."  So the USGA says Wilson designed Merion; and that he went abroad in 1910.
4.  Tolhurst says Wilson designed Merion.
5.  Herbert Warren Wind says Wilson designed Merion, and even favorably compares Wilson as an architect with CBM as an architect.  
6.  Wilson himself apparently says or implies he designed Merion, as the following passage from David's essay shows:  Quoting Tolson, David says "Wilson admitted that the concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England . . . Yet none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy."  The concepts sprang from holes HE'D seen in Scotland and England.  BTW, this also suggests there were no template holes at Merion: there were no out-and-out copies.  Another strike against CBM.    
7.  Alex Findlay, noted golf writer and architect from back then, implies Wilson designed Merion, by equating what he did with what Leeds did at Myopia Hunt.  Findlay never breathed a word that CBM designed the course.    
8.  Alan Wilson says Wilson designed Merion.  Some say that since Wilson is HM's brother, he may not be trusted.  Perhaps.  But then the same standard should apply to Wrigham, who was CBM's son-in-law.  Also, if you take away Wrigham's eulogy, no one at all says CBM designed Merion.  If you take away Alan Wilson's claim, a number of people and sources still say HM designed Merion.  

Could Wilson have designed Merion?

1.  Patrick says a novice like Wilson could not design a course like Merion.  But other first-timers have designed world-class courses.  Leeds is one example.  He designed and built Myopia Hunt, with zero experience in gca, and apparently zero help from experts.
2.  Wilson had the help of men who had traveled abroad, and seen the world's best courses and holes.
3.  Wilson almost surely had the help of CBM.  
4.  Wilson almost surely was aware of the famous European holes, from newspaper and magazine reports, from others at his club and on the golf committee.  
« Last Edit: May 18, 2008, 02:15:04 PM by Jim Nugent »