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.


Patrick_Mucci

Pat,

I am amazed at your lack of analytical skills and even the smallest measure of understanding anything to do with this subject.

Unlike others, I don't form my opinions to please or cater to Merion.

Those are pretty harsh words, implying that people ignore the truth or are outright fabricating information with the aim of pleasing a membership.  Not only are you mean-spirited, but you are completely wrong. 


Those aren't harsh words, they were a response to a statement TEPaul made about Merion's interest in my views.  I merely responded that my perspective was one complete at arm's length.

On the other hand, others have to exercise caution when it comes to discussing Merion for reasons we both understand.  I don't have that constraint, but, I would, if we were discussing a club I was affiliated with.
[/color]

Why are you still on this kick that Merion, Philadelphia, GAP and Pennsylvania all are in some conspiracy to avoid the truth and hold fast to myths and legends? 

You, TEPaul and MPC seem overzealous in your approach to refuting David's premise, in some cases offering conjecture as fact and poor logic as prudent man judgement.  Coincidently, you're not from Ohio, Florida or Texis, you're all from Merion's neck of the woods.  Is it that far of a stretch to categorize you as "homers" ?
[/color]

I've mentioned that I've spoken to quite a few members, particularly those that are charged with compiling the historical record.  There isn't a club in the world with a better Archives and a demonstrated history of pursuing the true history of Merion. 

I'm sure that Merion takes great pride in its history, as should every club.
[/color]

You slander these efforts with your uniformed and poorly considered positions. 

That's not only untrue, it's absurd.

Some of the positions offered by MPC and TEPaul have been flawed and poorly reasoned, should I accept those erroneous postings as fact, or question and/or contradict them in pursuit of the truth ?
[/color]

How did Merion take to the notion of Flynn's greater role in the design evolution of Merion?  Do you know? 

David's premise has nothing to do with Flynn and Merion, so I have no interest in that connection at the present time.  Why would you want to divert the focus from the issues at hand by introducing Flynn ?
[/color]

If you did, you wouldn't worry about the club response if it was proved that Macdonald and Whigham were specifically involved in the design and routing of Merion.    You take for granted something you have no clue about and act like it is a fact.  I wouldn't be too proud of your record on this subject.

That's because you're unfamiliar with my record on this issue.
I'm on record as contradicting David on the CBM & HJW involvement years ago.  However, I'm open minded enough to alter my views when compelling evidence is presented.  And, I think David has presented enough compelling evidence to unseat the previous story related to Wilson's architectural experience prior to 1911, the singularity of his involvement, and the credit due CBM
[/color]

So give us specific examples of who is catering or trying to please Merion and exactly how.  If you can't, you should knock it off.

I already presented an outline of the geographic imbalance of the attempts at refutation.  It's inherent in the hundreds of posts made by the triumverate.
[/color]

That's your opinion.

Mine is that Merion doesn't want to put any credence in it because it undermines the previously accepted party line.


You have absolutely no basis to come to that conclusion.  You do not know what you are talking about and have no proof of this at all.  If I were you, I would stop disparaging a club that you are so unfamiliar with in terms of its history and its members.  You show as little class as you do an understanding of the Merion history.  Admit it, Pat.  You really don't have any idea at all about any of this.  You read an essay and made up your mind.  If anyone is a slave to a memory and a romantic notion, it is you for Macdonald and NGLA, a man and a club which you regard above all others in golf.  You are blinded by your own emotions and desires yet transfer those same ingrained traits in others. 

Your assessment is at odds with the facts.

Years ago, I got in to a heated debate with David Moriarty and Tom MacWood where I argued that CBM had little or no involvement with Merion.   

Would you tell me how my rejection of their argument is a product of my romantic and blind emotions and desires to credit CBM with anything at Merion ?

Would you speak to the 7 month trip that Wilson's alleged to have taken prior to the routing and design of Merion ?  I mean, that is part of the club history, isn't it ? 

I'm interested in the history of many clubs, Merion amongst them, but, that doesn't mean that the current understanding of a club's history is infallible.

David's premise is well structured, contains facts and is well reasoned.
I'd categorize it as a rather thorough examination, perhaps not complete, but, a rather solid foundation from which to build upon. 

Rejecting David's premise out of hand and stifling David's research efforts serves no useful purpose.
[/color]

Do you really believe that these novices, uneducated and untrained in GCA, agronomy and construction designed and built Merion without any outside help, despite Merion and Wilson both praising CBM for his considerable help ?

Is your memory that bad or your bias that large that you forget about their outside help that has been documented.  Macdonald and Whigham's yet unknown advice and Pickering's experience in construction and golf design.  PICKERING had more experience in golf construction than Macdonald, Whigham and Barker combined.  Howard Toomey was an established civil engineer under the employment of the MCC at the time.  I suppose he just stood around waiting for orders from Macdonald and Whigham in their letter to the site committee.  Stop saying there was no help or ability at the disposal of the committee, you are wrong and do your credibility a disservice. 

I'm not wrong.

Noone cares about construction, that's a conceeded issue.

The interest is in the area of routing and hole design pre-construction.

The problem you have is that I respond to an issue raised by MPC or TEP and you answer it in another context.  Let them answer for themselves and you can answer direct questions I pose to you.
[/color]

How do you explain # 3 a Redan, and # 10 an Alps if CBM and HJW weren't involved ?

Just because Robert Lesley called them a Redan and an Alps doesn't mean they were.  Each only had one or two features of a Redan and Alps as expressed by Macdonald.  Try not to forget that these weren't original concepts to Macdonald.  He copied them in concept and wasn't an originator.  He was far from the only one in America and Philadelphia for that matter that knew about these holes and other hole concepts.  If you think these holes were conceptually linked to the Alps and Redan, please explain in what ways they were.  Never mind what others said, what do you think?  How well do you know the initial iteration of these holes?  If you aren't intimately familiar with them, just how much credibility should we attribute to your statements?   

Both ROBERT TRENT JONES and TOM DOAK are on the record as calling # 3 at Merion a REDAN.

Wasn't # 10 called the Alps hole by Merion ?
[/color]

You are really out of your element when it comes to Merion and its history.  It is evident in each and every post of yours to those of us that do have a sufficiently high baseline understanding.  Yours is so low that it has no validity.  Please refrain from pointing fingers and demeaning others when you are so ill-informed.   Your character is harmed in such a poorly considered process.

I'm as out of my element on Merion's pre-1912 history as you were a month ago.

If you could cite where I'm so ill-informed, I'd appreciate it.

I'm sorry you find the interogatory process so distasteful.

But, censorship isn't the answer.
[/color]


TEPaul

Patrick:

Have I told you lately that you're a DOUBLE DUFFUS?

I don't believe I have so I'm telling you now:

You're a DOUBLE DUFFUS who isn't capable of researching your way out of a medium sized paper bag and because of that all you're capable of doing is asking some of the really good golf course architecture analysts on here endless strings of "Twenty Questions."

I'd be willing to answer maybe one of those questions about once a month but if I even do that your immediate response is "I don't agree", and then you're right back to your endless string of "Twenty Questions."

I had a GIRLFRIEND once who carried on like you do that way and it got so bad I had to go to court and formally divorce her which included a restrainting order on her endess string of "Twenty Questions", my response, she'd disagree, and she was back to her endless string of "Twenty Questions" again!

TEPaul

"Unlike others, I don't form my opinions to please or cater to Merion."


Patrick:

That's just another really good reason why, as we've been telling you for years, you JUST don't know anything about Merion or you wouldn't say things like that.

Wayne belongs to Merion and he understands that if he or most any member or anyone else out there even looked like they were thinking something negative about the course, the club or their legendary architect, Hugh I. Wilson, the chances are as good as not that they would be gunned down before they reach the turn.

As for people like Moriarty and MacWood?? Whooof---Oh MY GOD! Are you familiar with some of the things the Roman Army did to the Carthegians?? It would be worse if those two heretical infidels showed up at Merion G.C.

And you? Patrick, believe, me, even you who knows and undertands Tony Soprano wouldn't want to think about what they would do to you if they caught you.

You're just some DOUBLE DUFFUS who knows nothing about the course or club and who actually thinks he can honestly just go around airing anywhere what you think about Merion.

FORGETTABOUTIT!

Matter of fact, I'm very surprised you are back home typing. I find it hard to believe Pine Valley didn't throw you in their solitary confinement cell the other day. You don't even know where their solitary confinement cell is, do you? DO YOU?

No, I didn't think you did as you don't know anything about that course or club either.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
From the April 1910 issue of GOLF magazine:

"A party of American professionals who have been spending the winter in Great Britain paid a visit to Walton heath Golf Club..." While reporting on some friendly matches being held, the writer tells of a "C. Bell, MERION, and W.L. Mackie, Barnehurst, beat Horace Rawlins, our 1895 Open champion, and Joshua taylor, Acton..."

Interesting to note that among the other "American Professionals" on this extended visit was one H.H. Barker...
Questions:

1- Who was C. Bell of Merion?
2- Is there any possibility that he was asked his advice about courses and holes in the UK when Merion decided to build the new courses shortly after this?
3- Is it possible that HIS several month's trip has been mixed in with later history as having been Wilson's?
4- Because of his realationship with Barker, and they must have had one as a result of this trip if not one before, could HE have RECOMMENDED Barker to be brought in for course design advice two months after this?

This long trip by Bell and connection to Barker and his examining the property two months after this seems far more than coincidental to whatever role he played.

Phillip, are you sure that C. Bell is one of the American Professionals? The other three players in his match are all with British clubs.  There is a place called Merion in England, so is it possible that C.Bell could have been from there?

According to Westward Ho, there was a Charlie Bell who was a professional in Indiana in 1910.  And there was a CC Bell at Westward Ho but I dont think a professional. 

I've got it! The initial is wrong.  I was  William Bell.  Billy Bell, Sr. designed Merion. And that is that.

___________________________________

Wayne Wrote:
Quote
Just because Robert Lesley called them a Redan and an Alps doesn't mean they were.  Each only had one or two features of a Redan and Alps as expressed by Macdonald.  Try not to forget that these weren't original concepts to Macdonald.  He copied them in concept and wasn't an originator.  He was far from the only one in America and Philadelphia for that matter that knew about these holes and other hole concepts.  If you think these holes were conceptually linked to the Alps and Redan, please explain in what ways they were.  Never mind what others said, what do you think?  How well do you know the initial iteration of these holes?  If you aren't intimately familiar with them, just how much credibility should we attribute to your statements?


Wayne. 

I am trying to steer clear of the discussion on the actual holes for now, but a few things keep coming up and I was hoping you could clarify them for me:   


1.   You mention Robert Lesley but he was not the only one who noticed a similarity.  For one example, what about Alex Findlay?   You quoted him recently from the same article where he identifies the 10th as an Alps, and alludes to the 7th as a Redan.   

Who knew more about the 1912 versions of these holes (both the overseas holes and Merion's versions) Alex Findlay or you? 

2.  You note that others were familiar with these holes in 1910.  Which other designers had purposefully incorportated a Redan into their course by 1911?   

3.  Which other had purposefully built an Alps with a fortress green at all simialr to the ones Macdonald like to design?   
(I know there was a hole called "Alps" at Myopia, but it was nothing like Macdonald's conception of the Alps hole at the time, nor did it have the fortress style green that Macdonald like to use for his Alps Holes. I also know that Tillinghast incorporated some Alpinization into Shawnee (?) around this time, but it too was nothing like Macdonald's conception.) 

4.  For that matter, which other designers had purposefully designed both a Redan and an Alps with a fortress green into one of their courses by 1911? 

5.  And of these designers mentioned above, what was their connection to Merion? 

I am not sure that what we think now matters, at least compared to what others like Findlay and Lesley thought then. 

Thanks.
_____________________________________
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)

TEPaul

"I am not sure that what we think now matters, at least compared to what others like Findlay and Lesley thought then."

I was talking to George Bahto the other day and he was telling me it just never ceases to amaze him how often and how much, people, including most on here just completely misinterpret and miss the point of Macdonald's template holes and what Macdonald was really trying to do. George doesn't even like the term "template" as he thinks it's so misleading.

The idea that so many think some architect was completely influenced by Macdonald and his basic school (The National School) when someone calls a hole an "Alps" hole or whatever.

The names of those holes that Macdonald used at NGLA that related to holes with the same name in Europe and probably became popular over here for a while weren't necessarily architects being influenced by Macdonald----they were just using the names on holes.

Myopia's old Alps hole was a good example. That course was famous over here really early and Leeds used that name on one of his holes that became famous maybe 6-10 years before NGLA opened and before Macdonald was known as the architect he would later become. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
"Tom Paul,   I disagree with your views about internet communication.   Nothing personal, but they sound like an excuse to justify otherwise abhorrent behavior.  We would not be incredibly rude in letters, would we?  So why should be so be when writing posts?    Without respect and civilility, productive communication breaks down, and we end up with the kind of fiascos we have had in the past.    In other words, the interaction you are describing does not work.  It has not worked here in the past, and will not work in the future.  All it is does is stifle conversation, chase away participants, and undermine the credibility of all of us.   Unless these things are one's goals, it is a bad idea."

You actually talk like that about my behavior on here after you just called Mike Cirba 'SPINELESS' on a post in the last 24 hours!?! Do you even know how to spell hypocrite, much less grasp the concept of what it means? We'll do our best to have a civil conversation about Merion because we really love the place and the course but with you it sure isn't easy to do.

First, Mike Cirba's behavior was spineless.  It is spineless to spread malicious rumors about someone while at the same time refusing to allow the maligned party a chance to defend themselves.   That being said, Mike had the spine to at least apologize, and I respect that. 

Second,  While I understand why you might so assume otherwise, my remarks were not an attack on your behavior, but rather a response to your unique take on the lower standards of civility one often finds on the the web.  Am I not allowed to point out the inherent shortcomings of your position, without you taking it personally?   

But even if it was directed at your behavior, which it is not, I see nothing wrong with imploring you, me, or anyone to try to be civil and treat each other as we would face to face.  Frankly, I have no idea why you would think if that as personally insulting.

Quote
I know this seems like a strange thing to say but it seems like most probably feel along about now that the best way to have an intelligent and productive discussion about you recent essay on Merion is to do it without you participating. It just seems you're always trying to make this about YOU! It isn't about you---it's only about what you wrote about Merion!

Yes I am sure you think that, but I somehow do not see that as the best way to get this all figured out.   Think of it this way, at least twice now you have pronounced the absolute death of my essay and in both cases you have been absolutely wrong.    Now who better to point than me? 

"I have an idea.  If there are actual facts that you have bring them forward, and I will do the same."

Well, what do you think we've been trying to do?? You took how long to write that piece and produce it? How about giving us the time to do the research to support the things we feel and believe about your essay without remarks like that?


Tom

You seem to be having trouble with understanding the context of my posts, probably in part because I am so far behind in answering that you may not even know what I am answering.  Here is the context:  You told me I needed to research Lloyd, I told you I have, You told me you dont care what I have researched, then you told me to research Lloyd.    My suggestion is simply that you worry about your research and I will worry about mine.   And both of us will share are findings. 

I just don't see any point in getting into Allgates and such if it is not germane to our discussion.  I've looked at it and dont think it is germane, but as I said above, research it all you want, and maybe you will find otherwise. 

As for the timing of your factual refutation of my piece, I don't believe I even addressed it.  Take all the time you want, and let me know what else I can do to help, documentation wise.

But in the mean time, we can't really have an objective discussion without facts, can we?

Quote
You talk about incivility constantly. You need to learn how to respond to some our questions and remarks a bit more civilly if you expect civility from us. There has never been anyone on this website that anyone is aware of where contributors and respondents have to go through these constant incivility accusations like people do on here with you. There's never been anyone on here even close like this. Peoples' patience and equanimity can wear thin pretty fast with the way you carry on, not just on this thread or these Merion threads but on every thread you have been actively involved in as long as you've participated on this website. I don't think there's a single exception and it's all recorded on the back pages.

I see no point in responding, except to remind you that the factual record on the issue is far from complete.

"Merion's deal was in place in Nov. 1910, and the "swapped" land was part of golf course land at that time."


David Moriarty:

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to pass that remark off as a FACT???

Have you even noticed what the title of this thread IS? 

Has it even ever occurred to you that Richard Francis could've been telling the truth in his story about that land swap and the timing of it and that it happened in 1911 and probably late in the summer of 1911?? Has it ever occured to you that he may not have been engaging in HYPERBOLE??

Do us all a favor and DO NOT try to act like something you just ASSUMMED and speculated about is a FACT!

You keep talking to us about just facts and no speculation. Do we now need to define and explain to you what the word "FACT" means too?

Again, you complete miss the context. Maybe this time it is my fault because I did not realize that you were going to treat each of my sentences as a separate argument but I should have known better by now.  While in context it says the same thing, guess I should have written:

[According to Merion's Board],Merion's deal [with HDC] was in place in Nov. 1910, and, [according to the map enclosed with the Board's letter to the Members,] the "swapped" land was part of golf course land at that time.
Factual enough for you?  If so, then we ought to put this conversation behind us until you have had ample time to gather your facts to the contrary. 

Thank you very, very much. With that statement above you have FINALLY committed yourself to precisely what you feel and you feel your essay says or should say about that particular event known as the Richard Francis late-night landswap idea, and which is the subject of this thread.

That is precisely what I was hoping you would FINALLY do on here.

Quote
I, or we, will get back to you, hopefully with supporting facts, on why we feel that is a totally illogical and inaccurate thing to assume, to say and to build a premise on that needs to be supportable on its own and for your other premises and conclusion to be founded on.

I look forward to it, but just so we understand each other, it would be a mistake for you to assume that all my other premises necessarily rely on this one point.


Before you get started on your research, Tom, a few questions:

1.  How is it that you know that my post is illogical and inaccurate if you do not yet have the facts?   
2.  What have you been posting about for the past few weeks if you don't yet have the facts. 

Seems like the cart may be leading the horse here, but perhaps you have an explanation.

Quote
Generally, when anyone tries to take a fairly significant event as far out of it logical timeline position as you did that one (anywhere from 6-9 months or more) something is going to give and take that assumption and premise down, and I have no doubt that this one will be no different.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Francis wrote that he had his epiphany in 1911.

Quote
Of course, anyone can rationalize his premise by suggesting that the source was engaging in hyperbole or lying, as you've suggested or implied with much of the source material of the people present at and around the time of the creation of Merion, but most of the time it eventually will be shown for what it really is---eg basically a cheap trick of rationalization.

How many times to I have to explain that I do not necessarily think he engaged in Hyperbole.   That was an alternative counterpoint to my own argument.    If he did engage in Hyperbole, then my argument becomes weaker, not stronger.   

Quote
The problem with most of the people following this thread is they just aren't that familiar with many of the details surrounding all the source-material events but we are and even if we need to do a bit more digging to find "primary asset" proof and expose your entire very seriously rationalized premises, I don't have much doubt we will be able to do that with time!

Great.
______________________

As for George Bahto, I agree with him about Macdonald.   One could incorporate many of his core principles into golf holes and they not even be recognizable to those too caught up in aesthetics.

As for Myopia, the hole went through a major change around this time, but I don't think either version of Leeds' Alps hole was  like any of Macdonald's, nor was it anything like the one in Prestwick  that inspired Macdonald's and that that Findlay references.     

But if  you have facts to the contrary, I'd love to see them.
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)

Patrick_Mucci


"Unlike others, I don't form my opinions to please or cater to Merion."

Patrick:

That's just another really good reason why, as we've been telling you for years, you JUST don't know anything about Merion or you wouldn't say things like that.

My statement has to do with the independent formation of opinions, not questions about what Flynn's role at Merion was.
[/color]

Wayne belongs to Merion and he understands that if he or most any member or anyone else out there even looked like they were thinking something negative about the course, the club or their legendary architect, Hugh I. Wilson, the chances are as good as not that they would be gunned down before they reach the turn.

That's my point.
[/color]

As for people like Moriarty and MacWood?? Whooof---Oh MY GOD! Are you familiar with some of the things the Roman Army did to the Carthegians?? It would be worse if those two heretical infidels showed up at Merion G.C.


As you know, I don't always agree with David and Tom.
In fact we've all had some heated debates, but, David's premise on Merion isn't a smear job.  It's a well articulated position supported by some very interesting data and prudent man reasoning.  So, we shouldn't get emotional about it, we should analyze it, do additional research and see if we can confirm or deny each side's position.
[/color]

And you? Patrick, believe, me, even you who knows and undertands Tony Soprano wouldn't want to think about what they would do to you if they caught you.

Believe me, I understand.
[/color]

You're just some DOUBLE DUFFUS who knows nothing about the course or club and who actually thinks he can honestly just go around airing anywhere what you think about Merion.

But, that's not the case here.
I'm not creating or supporting wild, irresponsible allegations.
David's white paper has filled in a great number of missing pieces to the puzzle related to the genesis of Merion.  I think we all feel that more pieces need to be found.
[/color]

FORGETTABOUTIT!

Matter of fact, I'm very surprised you are back home typing. I find it hard to believe Pine Valley didn't throw you in their solitary confinement cell the other day. You don't even know where their solitary confinement cell is, do you? DO YOU?

Is that the TEPaul suite ?
Located in a subterranean room beneath the cellar ?
[/color]

No, I didn't think you did as you don't know anything about that course or club either.

I know one thing.
I sure would like to see the mound or a ridge reinserted into the 18th green as it was originally designed.

I think it would be an awe-some addition, strategically and playability wise.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

David, Wayno & TEPaul,

Both Robert Trent Jones and Tom Doak are on record as having labeled the 3rd at Merion as a REDAN.

To state that it's an exact replica would be incorrect, but, as that Idiot-Savant, TEPaul has stated, there are acceptable variations of templates that largely depend on the terrain in which they're created.

If asked to classify # 3 at Merion, I think most reasonable golfers would place it in the "REDAN" category.

As to the old 10th, it sure looked like it had some of those "Alps" features.

And, you may recall, that at first I disagreed with David and Tom MacWood on this hole.

Patrick_Mucci


So Patrick -

- because Macdonald on a couple of short visits found the site suitable for a golf course, he routed it?

I never said that, but, it's possible
[/color]

- because there was an Alps-like hole and a Redan-like hole, Macdonald was the only one who could've designed it ?

I never said that either.
[/color]

- because a year or so later when Merion decided to throw a surprise dinner party for Wilson to thank him  and made no mention of the great Macdonald, they were being spiteful?

Again, I never said that.

These are all your statements and conclusions, not mine.
[/color]

- because the Wilsons consistently thanked and praised Macdonald for his valuable advice but stopped well-short of design credit, they were being disingeneous?

I never made that statement either
[/color]

- because Macdonald himself never made mention again of any significant role at Merion, he was being modest for the first and only time in his life?


According to George Bahto, a recongized expert on CBM, CBM produced more than a few designs that he never got credit for, courses that he seemed to be equally modest about.
[/color]

- because Alan Wilson actually gave his brother credit for Merion's design, you're assuming he could not have meant the word the way we understand it, or that he was lying?

Whigham gives credit to CBM, did he not mean it, or was he lying ?

You can't blindly accept one and blindly reject the other.

However, my position isn't at odds with either/both of these statements.
Evidently yours is, so whom do you feel is lying ?
[/color]

- and because since that day and for all the decades since no one involved in Merion ever thought to give Macdonald more credit than was always and officially given him,  they didn't want to undermine the party line?

I don't think it's unreasonable to draw that conclusion.
[/color]

A conspiracy of epic proportions. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone at Merion would've ever gone to so much trouble.

It's not a conspiracy at all.
It seems rather similar to the issue of Crump's death and Pine Valley.
It was accepted lore/legend rather than an overt conspiracy.
The "party line" was probably perpetuated for convenience and probably because they didn't know the exact details, so the generally accepted lore became the party line.  There's nothing nefarious in its inception, only in its perpetuation should contradictory evidence be presented.
[/color]


edit - Patrick, I see you've asked: "CBM was one of the giants of American golf, why the effort to distance him from Merion's beginings, disavowing him of any substantive involvement?"

Ah..perhaps because he WASN'T substantively involved.

But, that contradicts Wilson's and Merion's own account.

You can't make up convenient excuses in the face of evidence to the contrary.   Well, you can, but they're not legitimate.
[/color]

Do you believe David's essay gives ground enough to answer your question differently?

I'm afraid that I don't understand the question.
Could you rephrase it ?
[/color]
   

Peter Pallotta

Patrick -

yes, let me re-phrase it. You said: "CBM was one of the giants of American golf, why the effort to distance him from Merion's beginings, disavowing him of any substantive involvement?"

That is a compelling question, and perhaps even a fundamental one. But it's a fundamental one ONLY IF you assume that Merion never gave Macdonald his proper due in the first place. My question is: Has David's essay convinced you of that? Do you believe we can legitimately make that assumption?

I don't know nearly enough about that period in American golf or the dynamics of course construction in this specific Merion context to say anything definitive; but the world populated by men like Lesley and Wilson doesn't seem to be one where a "giant of American golf" would be disavowed, or damned with faint praise. (In Mr. Crump's case, I can much better understand the silence, and leaving things unsaid.)

David has done much hard work and presented and articulated his findings well. And he has specifically said that any answers to the questions I'm asking now have been left for a second part or iteration of the essay, i.e. that such answers are beyond the scope of this current essay. So I should just leave off my questioning there

Peter             


Phil_the_Author

David,

You asked, "Phillip, are you sure that C. Bell is one of the American Professionals? The other three players in his match are all with British clubs.  There is a place called Merion in England, so is it possible that C.Bell could have been from there?"

No, I am not sure. I have no idea who he is, just that his name and club is mentioned in an article about a group of American professionals visiting the UK & Walton Heath. That is why I asked for help in identifying him.

He could very well be from the UK. There is a list of American professionals in the first paragraph that does not include Bell, but it begins with the phrase, "Amongst those  are..." Thus the list might be incomplete.

My questions were based upon his being from Merion in Pa. but that is an uncertainty at best.




Patrick_Mucci

Patrick -

yes, let me re-phrase it. You said: "CBM was one of the giants of American golf, why the effort to distance him from Merion's beginings, disavowing him of any substantive involvement?"

That is a compelling question, and perhaps even a fundamental one.

But it's a fundamental one ONLY IF you assume that Merion never gave Macdonald his proper due in the first place.

"Proper due" ?
What is "proper due" ?
How can you give one "proper due" if you don't know the degree of their contribution ?

And, that doesn't apply solely to CBM, it applies to everyone involved.

What's Francis's "proper due" ?
Wilson's "proper due" ?

I take the position that Alan Wilson and Henry J Whigham were BOTH correct in their writings.  I believe that the routing and hole design at Merion were a collaborative effort, not a solo, nor a major effort by a single individual, as history seemed to imply.
[/color]

My question is: Has David's essay convinced you of that? Do you believe we can legitimately make that assumption?

David's treatise changed my mind.
It enabled me to come to my own conclusion based on my reasoning.
[/color]

I don't know nearly enough about that period in American golf or the dynamics of course construction in this specific Merion context to say anything definitive; but the world populated by men like Lesley and Wilson doesn't seem to be one where a "giant of American golf" would be disavowed, or damned with faint praise. (In Mr. Crump's case, I can much better understand the silence, and leaving things unsaid.)

Then you've misread my writings.
My reference, to the degree that you've summarized it above, wasn't in the context of 1910, but rather, today.
[/color]

David has done much hard work and presented and articulated his findings well. And he has specifically said that any answers to the questions I'm asking now have been left for a second part or iteration of the essay, i.e. that such answers are beyond the scope of this current essay. So I should just leave off my questioning there.

Based on the hostile reception David and his treatise received, BEFORE and AFTER he released his white paper, I'm not so sure he has the appetite to continue his efforts.   Would you ?

But, I've made my position on this matter crystal clear.

What's your position ?

And remember, NO HEDGING !
[/color]


Peter Pallotta

No hedging, huh Patrick? Okay, for what it's worth, here's what I believe.

I believe that the Barker routing was an exercise in futility.
I believe that on their first visit to the site, Macdonald and Whigham merely proclaimed it suitable for a golf course, with Macdonald predictably and inevitably trumpeting the possibility of a couple of template holes.
I believe that Lesley and the Committee were knowledgeable and well-travelled men, and had their own ideas.
I believe Wilson and the Committee had Francis develop what was more a topographical map than any kind of specific routing.
I believe Wilson and the Committee then roughly laid out/designed the Merion golf course.
I believe that Wilson then went to visit Macdonald with that topo and some early iteration of a routing and design, and that he had to listen to a lot of ego-fuelled opinions about everything under the sun.
I believe Macdonald had some sketches or drawings of great British golf holes with him during this Wilson visit, and again promoted the template concept; but I believe Macdonald at this point already sensed the Merion wasn't going to be a Macdonald golf course.   
I believe that Wilson had the good sense and good grace to learn some valuable lessons and gratefully take some valuable advice from Macdonald about the problems he might encounter/avoid, and basically ignored the rest.
I believe Wilson went back home and with Lesley and the Committee worked long and hard at finalizing the routing/laying out of the Merion golf course, but that there was still some work to be done.
I believe that when Macdonald visited again, he basically grunted his consent at the good work Wilson and the Committee had managed to do without having been slaves to his ideas.
I believe Wilson was glad to see the last of Macdonald, but like his brother remained too good a gentleman to air that publicly.
I believe that at this point Macdonald washed his hands of Merion and their Committee, and never mentioned the course again because to do so would be to acknowledge that the  fundamental principles of great architecture need not be embodied in template holes.
I believe the advice Macdonald had shared with Wilson stuck with him, and that he used that as a basis for better understanding the great British courses that he now went to see.
I believe Wilson soaked in much insight in the UK, and came back with ideas for some final or finishing touches on Merion.
I believe Wilson was then exhausted but satisfied, and Merion honoured him as the real driving force behind Merion's creation.
I believe that all those in the know at the time similarly acknowledged him and the on-the-job-training he'd had that had created the expert later called into Cobb's Creek.
I believe that later, the Wilsons thought it wise and good to give Macdonald MORE credit than he deserved for his work at Merion, not less.
I believe that this was how Merion was created/designed/built, and that this is recorded correctly in their official history.
I believe the date given for the Wilson trip was an understandable and innocent mistake, the one bit of creative licence based on and trying to emphasize Hugh Wilson's remarkable talent.
I believe there can be no other explanation for Macdonald's decades-long silence in the face of all the reports about Merion and Hugh Wilson's role in it than the fact that he knew those reports to be correct.
I believe Whigham shared Macdonald's bad feelings/bruised ego about Merion, and at his death thought it a great time and last chance to bolster the great man's reputation.

That's it, Patrick, for what it's worth. I may be flat out wrong, but that's what I believe.

Peter

And maybe needless to say, I believe that David M and Tom Paul and Mike C and you and Wayne M and George B and Jeff B and a dozen other posters at least know more about golf course architecture and the details of Merion's creation than I ever will. And I believe that I won't mind at all being proven wrong about any or all of the above, since it's based mostly on just some intuitive thinking and I have little ego attached to it. I believe (hope) that I'm not hurting anyone or anything by posting those thoughts, and that posters like David M and Tom P and the others deserve a great deal of credit for their dedication and hard work on this subject, and for sticking to the debate.  In the face of that expertise, I've been feeling increasingly uncomfortable about tossing in my opinions so casually. But you asked.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 12:09:26 AM by Peter Pallotta »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Guys,

I have been neglecting other more important things for about a month now, and there is absolutely no way I can keep up with this stuff.   I apologize for not covering matters as requested but believe it or not I try to put some thought into my posts and I just do not have time to do most of the comments justice.   I'll try to cover what I can, but I have to be close to then end of this back and forth. 

I am not even sure that my last round of responses were posted in the right threads.   

JES, 

I told you I would respond to your questions online, but for the life of me I cannot even find them except for what you sent me in IM.   So I hope you don't mind me posting an excerpt from the IM,  because I am sure others might be thinking the same thing.   

JES wrote:
Quote
It seems to me that the Merion Site Committeemen focussed in on this general area of land soon after they were formed...in 1909...and were trying to 'lay out' golf holes where they could...as you and I would...almost immediately.

I don't know that they were appointed in 1909.  They may have been but I can't remember if this is fact or legend.  If you or anyone else has the support for this, please refresh my memory. 

Whenever they were appointed, I do not think there is any reason to think they found this property in 1909.   First, both the board and committee note that there were a number of other possible sites, and given that they chose this one there is a good chance it was last in line.

Second, if Merion was already busy monkeying with the site, then the Barker routing doesnt really make sense.  Why would HDC bring in Barker if Merion was already planning their own course?   

Third (and this is related to the second) I know that Mike and TEPaul have presented the 1909 involvement as if it was a certainty, but I have found no evidence of it.   They have made the assumption that Haverford Development Company (HDC) and Lloyd/Merion were one in the same but this conclusion is thus far just not supported by the record.  Not only that but there are a number of factors that hint against it.   

First, while HDC was formed in June of 1909, there is no real evidence that Lloyd was at all involved at this time.  HDC seems to have been incorporated in conjunction with the conveyance of a 70 acre parcel, north of College Ave, to HDC.  This was not an arm's length purchase but essentially a transfer (for $1) changing the titleholder from a trustee acting on behalf of a number of investors to a corporation.   HDC may have been created to consolidate the interests of in two parcels the second property being  the Johnson Farm property.  Iy looks like these two groups of investors with overlapping interests put their eggs into one basket and that basket was HDC.

One important fact is that while this transaction occurred in 1909, the two respective parcels were actually purchased by the groups of overlapping investors in 1907, not 1909.   And while they likely consolidated interests in 1909, there is no evidence that Lloyd stepped into the fray at this time..

I should note that the Philadelphia and Western RR began service in 1907, so suddenly this beautiful land was much more accessible for those working in the city.  Most likely these guys bought up land in the hopes of eventually capitalizing on the suburbanization of this area, and this is frankly what happened.

After HDC's incorporation the PI listed some prominent stockholders in HDC but Lloyd's name is not there.   Also the 1909 deed lists the investors who were conveying their property for a buck, and while there is overlap with the names in the paper, Lloyd is still not mentioned. 

So why do we hear that Lloyd was involved in in 1909?

1.  The Nov. 1910 newspaper clipping that appears to be from the developers states that the developers got a tip that Merion needed land and so they began to put this land together.   Some have assumed that this must have been Lloyd and that he rode in and bought everything, but there is just no reason to believe this other than it is convenient.   The fact that 210 acres were already controlled  by the entities that became HDC weighs against this version, as does the lack of evidence of their involvement.

2.   The June 1909 transaction was thought to have involved the golf course land, and somehow it was just assumed that HDC, Lloyd, and Haverford were one and the same.   In fact, last round of these discussions right after Wayne first located this deed, TEPaul repeatedly posted that Wayne had found a deed that proved that Merion had purchased the property in 1909, and this became his key support for his contention that this whole process, including Wilson's trip, must have occurred much earlier than we previously knew.  TEPaul has referenced a number of times in these converastions as well.

Problem is, the deed said no such thing.  For one thing, the conveyance did not even involve the golf course land.  [I am not trying to imply that anyone was being sinister here. The deed is handwritten and extremely difficult to read, and it is easy to see how it could have been misinterpreted, especially since it is an adjacent property.]  After comparing the description with the old atlases I am virtually certain that the deed refers to a 70 acre parcel north of College, and think Wayne and I now pretty much in agreement on this.     

For another thing, on the face of the deed, neither Lloyd nor Merion had anything to do with the conveyance.   I guess TEPaul must have just assumed that HDC and Merion were one and the same.

That is a long winded way of saying that the 1909 rumor has been floating around this website for a couple of years now, and I still do not think there is any evidence at all to support it.  I'd be glad to consider facts to the contrary, but I just do not know of any.

Quote
It appears by your essay that Barker was brought in by non-involved speculators to create a value in the land they owned and wanted to sell (ie: "see, a golf course can fit right here..."). Short of any direct connection between Connell and HDC/MCC and the mechanics of the Site Committee I would say he was ill informed as to the land usable for golf.  A routing on the 100 acres you carved out on the Google Map makes it impossible for me to envision one resembling what actually went into the ground. Hence, I don't think Barker should be discussed at all and is merely a red herring on your part to make it clear that there was a routing plan completed prior to the 11/15 date.

I too cannot imagine that whatever was done on 100 acres could  have been a championship course, much less anything like Merion, but I am not willing to dismiss it outright.   One thing I didnt get into in the essay in part to avoid more speculation was just how different things were prior to 1910, especially in Philadelphia.  I don't think the concept of a 100 acre championship course was that unusual.   As for what if anything could have survived from his routing it is possible that some of it (like green sites for example) could have been used, but I dont know.  But he did a routing of Merion, likely the first one done, and ignoring it would have been negligent.

Quote
To me, you too closely connected Barker (and his routing) to CBM...so when I discredit Barker, CBM loses some credibility. I am not taking him out of the picture, just returning him to the role the Wilson's credited him with, and not much more.

Not sure what you mean here.   I speak of them together because I dont know the details and do not want to eliminate one or the other without reason, and I don't think I have reason.  But they didnt work together and I have no way of knowing for sure if M&W liked or followed much of anything done by Barker.   I also note that M&W could have been working off the barker sketch, but that doesnt really mean they agreed with it. 

Maybe I am missing something. 

Hope this helps on the the timing issues.

DM
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 12:17:02 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)

Patrick_Mucci

Peter,

That's an interesting view.

Do you think that M&W would be summoned to Ardmore and travel all the way to Ardmore to look at the land and declare it fit for golf, then return home ?
 
How do you explain the "redan" and "alps" holes ?
Especially when the "alps" hole was so constructed.

It appears that you don't think that Wilson traveled to the UK to study courses for 7 months prior to 1911.  Is that correct ?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Patrick

I almost hate to throw out any more speculation, but since you asked....

We know CBM made one site visit in 1911 during construction.  Could it be that he was on site the day or days  those two holes were being built and exerted his forceful personality upon the crew?  Then, when he left, they went about building the rest of them the way they damn well pleased?

Certainly, the first 12th green looked little like the rest of the course.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim Nugent


How do you explain the "redan" and "alps" holes ?
Especially when the "alps" hole was so constructed.


Some other possibilities besides Jeff Bauer's suggestion:

*  Wilson saw both those holes at NGLA, and decided to create his own;

*  When Wilson visited Macdonald, he saw CBM's plans and drawings for those holes, and decided to create his own;

*  Other members of Merion's golf course committee, who had traveled abroad and seen the Redan and Alps, told Wilson about them, and he decided to create his own;

*  Wilson read magazine/newspaper/book reports about the Redan and Alps.   (Including, perhaps, the ones at NGLA.)  He saw photos of them.   He decided to create his own;

*  CBM suggested to Wilson and/or the committee that they create their own Redan and Alps.  Perhaps on general principles, perhaps after seeing the site.   Wilson followed through by designing and building the actual holes.

The fact that Merion at most has two template holes -- and some on this site debate even that -- seems to me a point against CBM designing Merion.   Only two?  Did Macdonald design any other courses with two or less templates?  Does Merion "look" like a CBM course? 

After reading David's essay, I agree mostly with Peter Pallotta's view.  At the same time, I am GREATLY impressed with David's ideas, initiative, research and presentation.   IMO you've done a great service to this website, David.     

Question: on which pieces of land are the Redan and Alps at Merion?  The original tract that CBM saw on his first visit?  Some later additions?

 

 

 
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 11:58:09 AM by Jim Nugent »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Peter,

That's an interesting view.

Do you think that M&W would be summoned to Ardmore and travel all the way to Ardmore to look at the land and declare it fit for golf, then return home ?
 


Pat,

The US Open was in Philadelphia during the time CBM is supposedly on site...after June 10 and prior to July 1 1910...I don't think he rode his donkey from Southampton just to see Hugh and the boys...

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick

I almost hate to throw out any more speculation, but since you asked....

We know CBM made one site visit in 1911 during construction.  Could it be that he was on site the day or days  those two holes were being built and exerted his forceful personality upon the crew? 

Only if he had the design authority for the golf course.

Remember, Wilson was in charge of construction.

Nothing was going to get built without Wilson's approval.

And, what makes you think that CBM altered the plans in building the Redan and Alps holes ?

They fit extremely well into the general, tight routing of the golf course and as such I don't think they were a last minute addition.

I think they were planned from the get go as part of the overall routing plan and individual hole designs.

And who amongst those involved would be the most experienced in understanding, designing and building an Alps and a Redan hole ?
[/color]


Mike_Cirba

HeyZues H. Kryst, Patrick...

The 3rd at Merion is the worst friggin excuse for a redan if that is what it was trying to be that I've ever seen.   

On the other hand, it's a great hole, but it ain't even close to a redan.

The old Alps...I've never seen, but it also seems that they got it bassackwards.

The hillside...instead of making the approach blind...was build BEHIND the green!   Have you seen pics of that monstrosity?   Lord it was fugly.

Have you seen the pics in David's article, that shows the old 10th from behind, with that gawdawful mound sticking up and out of place like a Rees Jones wet dream jutting from the landscape.  ;D

Is it any wonder you're enthralled with David's interpretation of events?  ;) ;D   

You've given it the same degree of critical review as you did to Sand Pines.  ;)

Now, I love Hugh Wilson, obviously, and I also believe Fred Pickering was vastly underrated here, but if they were trying to build a redan and an Alps, either they had the blueprints upside down or Charlie Macdonald came into town with a major buzz on.  ;)

Or maybe David's right, only righter than he thought he was...maybe Hugh Wilson NEVER saw those hole overseas.

Lord knows that no one else on the planet would have thought they bore the slightest resemblance if they hadn't said out loud that that's what they were going for.   ::) 

Can you run the ball onto the green on the "redan" at Merion, Patrick?   ::) ;D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2008, 11:31:38 PM by MPC »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
"or Charlie Macdonald came into town with a major buzz on."

With that statement, our major benefactor and supporter of the "flask" style of gca, TePaul, will officially change sides in this argument! ;D
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Cirba

"or Charlie Macdonald came into town with a major buzz on."

With that statement, our major benefactor and supporter of the "flask" style of gca, TePaul, will officially change sides in this argument! ;D

Jeff,

Agreed.  ;D

Of course, it may have been more than just the flask at work.   If Merion was a "one off" for Macdonald's architectural resume, the degree of difference from his standard stylistics and approach would have suggested something much stronger.

Was Dr. Timothy Leary a Merion member at the time?  ;D

TEPaul

I was just over at Huntingdon Valley C.C. today for the 75th "Baily Cup" that rotates annually between HVGC, PVGC, Merion, and Gulph Mills. Frederick Baily was on the MCC search committee that found their Ardmore sight. He was killed by lightening in the 1920s and the tournament is in his honor. It's a wonderful old fashioned affair, particularly the team dinner.

All the people who run those clubs were there and some who know the history of them were aware of these Merion threads about Macdonald.  My sense was that all of them are very interested in knowing if Macdonald had more to do with the architecture of Merion than was heretofore realized. Not one of them could see anything of importance in "The Missing Faces of Merion" other than Wilson really did go abroad in 1912 rather than perhaps 1910. All said they couldn't really see the point of the essay and they couldn't possibly follow these threads.

If we want to even remotely get the attention of a club like Merion about something like this we need to really tighten it up---and I mean REEEALLY tighten it up. Again, I think they'd definitely like to know if Macdonald had more to do with the architecture of their course than their histories suggest but all said to consider that they really need to see SOMETHING concrete and all of them feel this essay and these long thread aren't showing them much of anything.

I think they're right----eg this website needs to REEEALLY tighten it up!

Patrick_Mucci


HeyZues H. Kryst, Patrick...

The 3rd at Merion is the worst friggin excuse for a redan if that is what it was trying to be that I've ever seen.   

On the other hand, it's a great hole, but it ain't even close to a redan.

MPC,

The "Evangelist of Golf" declared it to be a redan in 1917.
Tom Doak declared it to be a Redan in his "Confidential Guide.
And Robert Trent Jones declared it a Redan as well.

But, you and Wayno are going to insist that everyone is wrong and you're right.

If I recall correctly, you declared the 11th at LACC a Redan, didn't you ?
[/color]

The old Alps...I've never seen, but it also seems that they got it bassackwards.

The hillside...instead of making the approach blind...was build BEHIND the green!   Have you seen pics of that monstrosity?   Lord it was fugly.


If I recall correctly, the fronting bunkers added blindness to the approach and the berm behind the green was similar to the one at NGLA and Prestwick.

You and others can protest all you want, it was an "alps" hole.
[/color]

Have you seen the pics in David's article, that shows the old 10th from behind, with that gawdawful mound sticking up and out of place like a Rees Jones wet dream jutting from the landscape.  ;D

Yes, I have.
[/color]

Is it any wonder you're enthralled with David's interpretation of events?  ;) ;D   

You've given it the same degree of critical review as you did to Sand Pines.  ;)

I've played Sand Pines, have you ?
[/color]

Now, I love Hugh Wilson, obviously, and I also believe Fred Pickering was vastly underrated here, but if they were trying to build a redan and an Alps, either they had the blueprints upside down or Charlie Macdonald came into town with a major buzz on.  ;)

Then how is it that the source you quote, calls the 15th and EDEN ?

Another template green.
What a coincidence, more templates, that's three (3) and counting.
[/color]

Or maybe David's right, only righter than he thought he was...maybe Hugh Wilson NEVER saw those hole overseas.

Perhaps he saw them post 1911, but, we don't know which courses he visited in 1912, do we ?
[/color]

Lord knows that no one else on the planet would have thought they bore the slightest resemblance if they hadn't said out loud that that's what they were going for.   ::) 

Can you run the ball onto the green on the "redan" at Merion, Patrick?   ::) ;D

Since when is that the defining feature of a redan ?

How about at # 11 at LACC ?
You can't have it both ways.
[/color]


Mike_Cirba

Patrick,

I have little doubt that Hugh Wilson and Committee wanted to build a version of the redan, an alps, and even an eden, as has been reported by a number of sources.

Those were famous, well-documented holes that were drawn and pictured in golf magazines and played by the well-to-do golfers of the time who could afford overseas travel.

Heck, Robert W. Lesley went to England/Scotland right in the middle of the Merion land purchase, in June 1910.   These guys were not stupid or backwards or provincial.   

Tillinghast was friends with all of these guys and he had been going over there since the 1800s. 

They knew what these holes were about.   They just didn't know how to build them, and more importantly, they wanted to grass them in a way that would make them play in some similar way, "with their natural conditions". 

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back