[TEPaul]

"I thought his position was that the need for that extra property was highlighted by the act of routing of the course -- in effect, CBM saying "you need that extra property to make this work."  I could be mistaken, though."

Shivas:

That is what Moriarty is saying. However, none of us feel he has anything concrete or factual to support that conclusion other than a bunch of his own premises, such as the mention by the committee that Macdonald offered his "OPINION" of whatever they were all looking at in the end of June 1910 MUST HAVE included a routing and hole design plan either in or included with that letter he apparently sent to Griscom (or Lesley). No one HAS EVER said such a thing before David Moriarty about a month ago, 

We've all said to him, FINE, ASSUME such a thing but if you want any of us or Merion to believe it then PRODUCE some evidence of the damn thing!   

In my book, it's just a real stretch to conclude that someone's OPINION of a site, even the great C.B. Macdonald's, is the very same thing as a full blown routing and design plan of how Merion East got build back then. If you want to make that kind of logical stretch then go for it by all means but we won't be doing that without more and either will Merion G.C.

[Mike_Cirba]

If you analyze the acreage that was used, versus what we know M&W didn't consider, if you think about this, it basically PROVES that M&W didn't route the course that opened in 1912.

David was nice enough to show us that the 130 x 190 portion that wasn't considered by M&W included the entire northern piece of 15 & 16.   That was why they couldn't fit in the final 5 holes. 

Also, we know that the land they swapped for "wasn't part of any golf plan"

So, of the pieces of the property that were ultiimately used for the golf course...the 120 acres, we know that around 20 of those acres were NOT part of any hypothetical M&W plan.

[TEPaul]

"Logically, this means that the phrase "lay out", back in this time, did NOT refer to the act of routing a course.  That means that what Wilson was saying when he said "“Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairway..." was NOT that he had to first conceptualize a routing, as TEP and you have posited.  Taking the phrase "lay out" the way Darwin and Barker used it (which by the way, Tom was kind enough to use as proof of how the phrase was used back then), there IS NO redundancy in what Wilson wrote.  His job was to take the concept from concept to the ground, build that, and then seed it.  That's what he said.  That's what he meant.  Same as Barker, who said he had a sketch of a proposed lay out.  To think otherwise is to think that a sketch of something is the thing itself!"


Shivas:

In my opinion, your interpretation above is just about 180 degrees wrong and I do understand exactly what you're saying! Back in that day when they referred to "laying out" or a "lay out" they were referring to either what we genreally call a "stick routing" of a course or the quick staking out of a basic routing on the ground. ("Excuse me, Mrs. Dallas, would you mind getting out of bed so I can putt a stake under it for a green that will some day be the par 3 third hole at Merion G.C. that some might refer to as a redan?")  

They were generally not referring to the actual building or construction of a golf course.

[TEPaul]

I don't know about you MikeC but I'm definitely not going to spend any more time getting involved in another one of Shivas "sentence structure/word parsing" excercises!   

[TEPaul]

"And it doesn't mater what Connell's involvement was and it doesn't matter whether what Barker sketched was ever built.  All of that is completely irrelevent to the point.  You said that we know what "lay out" means from the usage in the day.  Barker used the phrase the way he did.  Darwin used the phrase the way he did.  There's no running from that by attacking this messenger or his word parsing.   And they did NOT use it to describe the act of routing a golf course or to describe what we would call today a "routing."  That, Tom, is a fact.  And it's not subject to serious debate.  Barker, in fact, called it a "sketch".  He did not call it a "lay out".  He said his sketch SHOWED a lay out.  I hope you're not arguing that a sketch of something is the thing itself.  I hope you're not arguing that the red/blue drawing of Pine Valley actually IS Pine Valley.  C'mon, man, that's just not productive."


Shivas:

What in the F... are you talking about above??    Does someone actually pay you to think like that?

A sketch on a piece of paper of a golf course "layout" back then is generally just a representation on a piece of paper of what the routing ON THE GROUND of the holes of a golf course looks like! Where are you getting this idea that I'm saying lines on a piece of paper are the same things as the holes on the ground?

No wonder some of these threads go on for thirty pages!   

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

If I can somehow engage you in a really intelligent (read not dismissive or constant denials on your part) of all the ramifications and the significance of this Francis land-swap story and WHEN you speculate it took place I think we will find your entire essay may not be very supportable and is definitely not based on what you keep claiming is fact, UNLESS you really can produce some specfic land transfer transactions that support your assumption of that Francis land swap event, and particularly WHEN you say it took place. All of that is something I've definitely never been aware of.

If you can do that I very well may buy into your conclusion or get a whole lot more interested in it because I am not aware of those specific transactions at a date or even the year that would remotely support your premise about what you said about Francis and that particular event. I guarantee you I will keep at your interpretation of that entire Francis story so everyone who reads these threads is aware of it.

I'm not even sure, at this point, if you're aware of all the significance in that entire story to your essay. We should get into that because if you have something I've never been aware of, again, you may end up going a long way to convincing me that your conclusion in your essay should be seriously looked into. But if you have none of the specifics you seem to base your Francis premise on I can't see that your essay will hang together.

Are you ready to really go over that entire Francis story now?     

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I reread your piece (again).  I have to conclude that the agreed to land swap didn't have to occur before November 1910 as you suggest. If it had, why would the club map of November 15 say "approximate road location."  That suggests to me that they knew there were still a few details to work out, no?  There are real estate mechanisms that would allow such a flexible transaction, esp. between two friendly and intertwined parties.

The committee recommendation to act fast might have played a role in this. The agreement to purchase came just a week after the Dallas Estate was secured by the club, but there was perhaps no detailed land plan done by Conner until after that road location was settled by the club.  There must have been some reason (expiring land options perhaps) why the transaction was completed in principle before a final land delination was made.

To all,

MPC mentions the land needed to rerout holes 10-12 in 1925.  Can anyone enlighten me as to exactly what parcel that would be?  It would seem to be another scrap tract of the Pennsylvania Railroad just south of Ardmore.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

The area of today's lower 11th fairway/green as well as the 12th tee up to the creek were NOT part of the original land purchase, coming later in 1924.   

The last 100+ yards up the hill to the 15th green and coming down from the 16th tee (essentially, "the hill" were not part of what Macdonald considered for a golf course because we know Richard Francis got his brainstorm sometime after that.

Even then, if we consider the Francis "swap", he mentions that they traded land "not part of any golf plan", so that's another net loss for Macdonald's mythical 120 acre course.

Also, the land where today's 2nd green sits was not part of the purchase.   That hole was considerably shorter, though still a par five.

Also, we know Macdonald couldn't recommend the 3 acres near the tracks where the old 12th green/13th hole existed, because that was owned by the railroad, and not by the Development Company.

If we give Macdonald the benefit of the doubt and say he recommended purchase of the 21 acre "Dallas Property", then of the land that opened in 1912 that supposedly Macdonald routed, only 101 of those supposed 120 acre "routing" could have even been considered by him, or might he even have possibly recommended.

By definition, that means he either didn't submit a routing, or that it wasn't used.

My contention, and it's pretty unshakeable given the evidence produced, as well as the language used by both the Site Committee and Hugh Wilson concerning WHY they wanted to use MacDonald (Construction and Agronomy, Seeds and Soils), is that M&W clearly did NOT produce a routing, but instead simply stated the obvious...

If Merion wanted a championship course, it had to be bigger than the 100 acre Barker routing, by say oh...20%, and he may have recommended purchase of the Dallas estate, however there is no proof of that whatsoever.

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

As far as tortured grammar and syntaxtical butchering, you get an "A".

Now, go back and read my last post and see if you can also do Math. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & MPC,


My question is what were the qualifications of the committee in 1911?

They were better than average golfers but not among the elite in
Philadelphia, much less America.

Going into the 1913 golf season their handicaps were Wilson-5, Francis-5, Griscom-6, Lloyd-7 and Toumlin-10.
 
To my knowledge none of these men ever represented Philly in the
Lesley Cup

So we are asked to believe that these Merion men with absolutely no
qualifications have no need for the expertise of arguably the two
premier links architects (Barker and Macdonald) in America in 1911?

We are to believe that these novices were so confident in their own
abilities they had no need for outside assistance.

Who would be so arrogant and stupid?

Why engage these experts in the first place?

I thought Wilson admitted after the fact they had no idea what he /
they were doing.

At least they (construction committee) had the wisdom
to hire an experienced construction man in Pickerington.

I guess we are to conclude they needed help on the construction side but no help on the routing and design side.

And the logic behind this theory is...?

[Mike_Cirba]

TEPaul & MPC,


My question is what were the qualifications of the committee in 1911?

They were better than average golfers but not among the elite in
Philadelphia, much less America.

Going into the 1913 golf season their handicaps were Wilson-5, Francis-5, Griscom-6, Lloyd-7 and Toumlin-10.
 
To my knowledge none of these men ever represented Philly in the
Lesley Cup

So we are asked to believe that these Merion men with absolutely no
qualifications have no need for the expertise of arguably the two
premier links architects (Barker and Macdonald) in America in 1911?

We are to believe that these novices were so confident in their own
abilities they had no need for outside assistance.

Who would be so arrogant and stupid?

Why engage these experts in the first place?

I thought Wilson admitted after the fact they had no idea what he /
they were doing.

At least they (construction committee) had the wisdom
to hire an experienced construction man in Pickerington.

I guess we are to conclude they needed help on the construction side but no help on the routing and design side.

And the logic behind this theory is...?

Patrick,

And my question is, what had Macdonald or Whigham routed in 1910 that was anything but the ole, traditional "9 out, 9 back" at NGLA and the absolutely horrendous routing of the original Chicago Golf Club.

Even a few years later, their routing of Shinnecock was abysmal.

Yet, they are being held up here as the masters.   That's absurd.   They were trying to learn, as well, like the rest of most everyone else.

Merion's guys just took their time and did it right.

Using your logic, a design team of Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Bubba Watson, and Jack Nicklaus should design the best course in the world.

Also, re: handicaps...in the days when 72 was a GREAT score, those were very, very low handicaps.   You should look it up. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

The area of today's lower 11th fairway/green as well as the 12th tee up to the creek were NOT part of the original land purchase, coming later in 1924.   

The last 100+ yards up the hill to the 15th green and coming down from the 16th tee (essentially, "the hill" were not part of what Macdonald considered for a golf course because we know Richard Francis got his brainstorm sometime after that.

Even then, if we consider the Francis "swap", he mentions that they traded land "not part of any golf plan", so that's another net loss for Macdonald's mythical 120 acre course.

Also, the land where today's 2nd green sits was not part of the purchase.   That hole was considerably shorter, though still a par five.

Also, we know Macdonald couldn't recommend the 3 acres near the tracks where the old 12th green/13th hole existed, because that was owned by the railroad, and not by the Development Company.

If we give Macdonald the benefit of the doubt and say he recommended purchase of the 21 acre "Dallas Property", then of the land that opened in 1912 that supposedly Macdonald routed, only 101 of those supposed 120 acre "routing" could have even been considered by him, or might he even have possibly recommended.

By definition, that means he either didn't submit a routing, or that it wasn't used.

My contention, and it's pretty unshakeable given the evidence produced, as well as the language used by both the Site Committee and Hugh Wilson concerning WHY they wanted to use MacDonald (Construction and Agronomy, Seeds and Soils), is that M&W clearly did NOT produce a routing, but instead simply stated the obvious...

If Merion wanted a championship course, it had to be bigger than the 100 acre Barker routing, by say oh...20%, and he may have recommended purchase of the Dallas estate, however there is no proof of that whatsoever.

Mike,

Thanks for the info on 10-12. When I played there, I always felt 10 tee felt sort of shoehorned in there, and now I know why.  11 and 12 sure feel pretty good though.....

While we're at it, when did MCC acquire the old Haverford College Parcel and turn it into a driving range?

As to the second green, if you look at the 1910 plan and aerial, Coopertown road intersects College on the west side of the HDC property. If you extend that line down it appears that 2 green is in the same place on both maps, so I am not clear on that.

As to 15 and 16, I see that triangle on both map and aerial.  My take is that it was always in the land proposed by HDC to Merion but that the gently curving Golf House Road as it was on Nov 15, simply made it unuseable for golf and hence was not in any golf scheme to that date.  At some point after that, Francis realized that be widening it and reconfiguring the road, it could be used.   

All perfectly natural when trying to stay under 120 acres.  I get the sense that the Nov. 15, 1910 land agreement may have set the maximum acres and Francis simply had to keep under that acreage, or possibly pay another $825 per acre for what might have been wasted land from both sides perspective.

The fact that Francis and Lloyd seem to have worked out the problems of the last five holes (and in contrast to DM's opinions, probably well after 11/10) certainly means they improved the routing on their own, whether portions of what they improved was originally concieved by Barker, CBM or the committee. I believe the land swap story proves the committee made serveral routing tweaks at a minimum. Left unresolved is who drew how much of the "bones" of the routing that they were tweaking, which is the interesting back story.

Last minute tweaks are famous in the world of gca and I agree that there is no reason to believe 15 and 16 at Merion wasn't one of them.  Maybe Merion gave Pete Dye the idea of "going off property" many years later!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & MPC,


My question is what were the qualifications of the committee in 1911?

They were better than average golfers but not among the elite in
Philadelphia, much less America.

Going into the 1913 golf season their handicaps were Wilson-5, Francis-5, Griscom-6, Lloyd-7 and Toumlin-10.
 
To my knowledge none of these men ever represented Philly in the
Lesley Cup

So we are asked to believe that these Merion men with absolutely no
qualifications have no need for the expertise of arguably the two
premier links architects (Barker and Macdonald) in America in 1911?

We are to believe that these novices were so confident in their own
abilities they had no need for outside assistance.

Who would be so arrogant and stupid?

Why engage these experts in the first place?

I thought Wilson admitted after the fact they had no idea what he /
they were doing.

At least they (construction committee) had the wisdom
to hire an experienced construction man in Pickerington.

I guess we are to conclude they needed help on the construction side but no help on the routing and design side.

And the logic behind this theory is...?

Patrick,

And my question is, what had Macdonald or Whigham routed in 1910 that was anything but the ole, traditional "9 out, 9 back" at NGLA

MPC, you've not only entered the theatre of the absurd, but, you've taken a starring role in it.

So NGLA just represents the ole, traditional "9 out, 9 back" in routing.
Where you aware of how the land for the ole, traditional "9 out, 9 back" was selected ?  Gerrymandered to fit the design of the holes CBM wanted.

You should do a little more research on CBM's efforts before dismissing them and the routing of NGLA.[/color]

and the absolutely horrendous routing of the original Chicago Golf Club.

Which one, the course he routed in Belmont in 1892 or the one he routed in Wheaton in 1895 ?  Perhaps you should become more familiar with his work prior to criticizing it.[/color]

Even a few years later, their routing of Shinnecock was abysmal.

According to whom ?

I wonder why C & W don't mention CBM's involvement at Shinnecock ?[/color]

Yet, they are being held up here as the masters.   That's absurd.   
They were trying to learn, as well, like the rest of most everyone else.


NO they weren't.

There's a reason they are being viewed as masters.
The routed and designed one of the great golf courses of all time in NGLA.

Their subsequent efforts were also spectacular.

Their body of work qualifies them as Masters.[/color]

Merion's guys just took their time and did it right.

"Took their time" ?  You must be kidding.

How did they take their time ?

Why did Merion retain CBM to assist them if they knew what they were doing ?

I now understand why you're so vehement in your insistance that Wilson designed Merion.

Your Cobb's Creek project is heavily invested in Wilson's credibility as an architect, thus, you're not approaching this from an arm's length perspective.

Most judges would recuse themselves, and I suggest that you consider doing the same in the interest of impartiality and fairness.[/color]

Using your logic, a design team of Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Bubba Watson, and Jack Nicklaus should design the best course in the world.

Mike, you examples and analogies are getting more irrational, more desperate, more flawed and more foolish with each post.[/color]

Also, re: handicaps...in the days when 72 was a GREAT score, those were very, very low handicaps.   You should look it up. 

If they were such great golfers what do their records show ?

Did they compete in the Lesley Cup ?

Or, weren't they good enough ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

And my question is, what had Macdonald or Whigham routed in 1910 that was anything but the ole, traditional "9 out, 9 back" at NGLA and the absolutely horrendous routing of the original Chicago Golf Club.

Even a few years later, their routing of Shinnecock was abysmal.

Yet, they are being held up here as the masters.   That's absurd.   They were trying to learn, as well, like the rest of most everyone else.

Merion's guys just took their time and did it right.

Using your logic, a design team of Tiger Woods, Ernie Els, Bubba Watson, and Jack Nicklaus should design the best course in the world.

Also, re: handicaps...in the days when 72 was a GREAT score, those were very, very low handicaps.   You should look it up. 

Mike,

You asked what experience Macdonald and Whigham had at the time
Merion was designed.

Macdonald had designed two courses in Illinois in the 1890s - Downers Grove and Chicago GC.

Whigham was also involved in the design of Onwentsia in the late nineties.

Those courses had hosted nine major championships by 1912.
That's a pretty strong endorsement of their work.

NGLA was considered the premier golf course in the country, and one of
the premier courses in the world.

Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock were being planned by M&W at the same time as Merion.

Thats a pretty good resume.

Not to mention Macdonald spending a decade dedicated to the study of
golf architecture, including numerous trips abroad.

In 1911 he was considered one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject.

Now, could you list the qualifications of each of the construction committee members in 1909-1911 ?

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Rodman Griscom's handicap may've been 6 but back in that day the good players' handicaps were generally quite a lot higher than today (back then the USGA basically related handicaps to a single player---eg the US Amateur champion who was apparently consider to be "scratch"---eg for their handicap system's purposes).

Rodman Griscom won the 1905 Philadelphia Amateur, I'm pretty sure he was almost always a member of the Lesley Cup, his sister was Merion's first national champion. Rodman Griscom's father, Clement Griscom, a big time shipping magnate, supplied the land (from his own estate "Dolobran") on which MCC's first nine holes were built in Haverford. Rodman served on the board of the USGA and was Merion G.C's president when MERION GOLF CLUB came into being as a separate entity from MCC. It actually came into being on Dec. 7, 1941 (the date that FDR said will live in infamy), and Rodman died in 1944, the very same year one of golf architecture's all time expert conceptualizers and analysts was born.

Rodman E. Griscom doesn't seem to me to have been a total novice on thngs to do with golf and architecture but what do I really know? I've only been studying intently Merion's history and the people involved in it for about ten years now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Rodman Griscom's handicap may've been 6 but back in that day the good players' handicaps were generally quite a lot higher than today (back then the USGA basically related handicaps to a single player---eg the US Amateur champion who was apparently consider to be "scratch"---eg for their handicap system's purposes).

Rodman Griscom won the 1905 Philadelphia Amateur,
I'm pretty sure he was almost always a member of the Lesley Cup,

his sister was Merion's first national champion.

Was she on the Construction Committee ?

If not, her accomplishments are an elephant[/color]

Rodman Griscom's father, Clement Griscom, a big time shipping magnate, supplied the land (from his own estate "Dolobran") on which MCC's first nine holes were built in Haverford. Rodman served on the board of the USGA and was Merion G.C's president when MERION GOLF CLUB came into being as a separate entity from MCC. It actually came into being on Dec. 7, 1941 (the date that FDR said will live in infamy), and Rodman died in 1944, the very same year one of golf architecture's all time expert conceptualizers and analysts was born.

Was he on the Construction Commitee ?

If not, his accomplishments are a hippopotomus.

I didn't ask for familial deeds, only the qualifications of the Construction Committee members.[/color]

Rodman E. Griscom doesn't seem to me to have been a total novice on thngs to do with golf and architecture but what do I really know? I've only been studying intently Merion's history and the people involved in it for about ten years now.

Then why did you omit ANY architectural accomplishments that REG had under his belt, unless, he had NONE.[/color]

It's interesting that C & W give Francis co-design credit for Merion.

I wonder where they obtained that info from ?

However, they appear to state that HIW traveled abroad for 7 months studying the great courses of the UK before he's alleged to have designed Merion.

[DMoriarty]

If you have to misrepresent my point make yours, then what’s the point?

I did not say that Macdonald routed the course exactly as it was ultimately built.  I readily acknowledge Francis’ contribution.  Also, some of Barker’s routing may have survived.  And the construction committee and/or M&W could have changed things later.  But reading Francis, it sure sounds like the routing plan was set at the end of the conversation. 

As for your logic here, you original said that Macdonald must have routed the course on only 75 acres, so you are heading in the right direction, but still your logic does not follow.

When M&W inspected the property, Barker had already done a routing on around 100 acres.   Based on M&W’s views on what could be done with the land, the Committee recommended the purchase “nearly 120 acres, which included the clubhouse and outbuildings, which you ” Of this, the Dallas Estate was 21 acres, and the RR land was another nearly 3 acres.   Subtracting out this nearly 24 acres from the “nearly 120” we are left with only 96 acres from the HDC, right around the amount HDC had offered. 

The 3 acres between the creek and the water that was used for the old 13th hole and 12th hole approach/green are off limits.   That land was owned by the Railroad, and even if Merion got access rights to use it, Macdonald could not have recommended that for purchase from the Development company for his 120 acres.

Honestly Mike, I cant figure out whether you are being disingenuous or if you just can’t follow the reasoning.   My theory is that M&W did not limit their inspection and advice to the HDC property.   In this regard, the RR property and Dallas Estate are on equal footing.

As for the placement of the 15th green and 16th tee, that was done by Francis and Lloyd and I have no reason to believe that Barker or M&W had anything to do with this change.  One can see that it would have been very difficult to lay out five good holes on the remaining property, but this is why Francis and Lloyd altered the plan. 

David tells us that Charley Macdonald was able to put a 6235 yard championship course on the property I described, and recommended that Merion spend the big bucks because of this amazing routing he'd put together.

I’d ask you to point me toward where I said this, but of course we both know I never did.   You just made it up to try to make a point that you cannot otherwise make. 

But if you can’t write something negative about my real position then maybe you should consider not writing anything at all. 
___________________________

Phillip, I am in partial agreement with you, and think that your own example helps make my point.  Tillinghast wrote:

“After a careful examination and analysis of the new property, I agree to lay out two (2) courses, each of eighteen (18) holes. These are to be staked on the ground and after the various points had been located by your surveyor, I am to prepare a completely detailed working plan . . . .”

I agree, staking out the course “on the ground” is the same as laying a course out on the ground.

However, laying out a golf course is not always the same as planning a golf course. Tillinghast laid the course out on the ground while he was planning it, but others created written plans first, then later staked out (or laid out) the course.

For instance, what if Ross had wanted the same job, but instead of staking out the land, he inspected the land then sketched his routing on a map and sent it in, calling it his proposed lay out?  Had Ross just laid out the course by creating a written plan?  Or had he merely offered his plan for the proposed layout?  I think the latter, because he had not yet set, staked, or laid the course out upon the ground.

An architect can draw up 50 different routing plans without ever seeing the property, but until someone actually lays the course out upon the ground, no one has “laid out” the golf  course.

Merion was different than your Tillinghast example, because, while Wilson laid the course out upon the ground, he was not the one who had planned where the holes should be laid out. 

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul, 

Barker did not write that he had laid out Merion.  He hadn’t.   What he wrote was that he created a PROPOSED lay out.  The actual layout would not have beem on paper, but would have had to have be upon the ground.

Look how Lesley described what Wilson did at Merion:

” The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B.Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.”


The course was laid out upon the ground.   This is exactly how I think Wilson and others used the phrase they wrote of laying out the course.  And with this meaning, drawing up a proposed lay out is not the same as laying the course out on the ground.

What if Merion had five maps with proposed layouts?   Had Merion’s golf course been laid out five times?  Of course not.   Laying out a course involves laying, placing, setting, or arranging it on the ground.

Can one plan a lay out without having laid the course out?   Of course.  Can one lay a course out on the ground according to someone else’s plan?   Of course.

This quote also contains something else very interesting that I cover above.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You wrote, "Merion was different than your Tillinghast example, because, while Wilson laid the course out upon the ground, he was not the one who had planned where the holes should be laid out..."

The problem I have with this statement is that you can not state that anyone else DID plan "where the holes would be laid out" as there is nothing written by anyone that shows this. The Barker design is missing so there is no way to show that his proposal was followed, there is and never has been a drawing or design produced by Macdonald that has been found or can be shown, yet you categorically state that Wilson didn't do it despite the fact the he laid out the course on the ground and there are drawings produced later that verify this, exactly the same way that Tilly and others were designing courses at the same time, including ROSS.

By saying this I am not stating that I disagree with your essay and it's supposition, that remains to be seen, but rather I don't see that you have produced the definitive proof that would contradict the accepted historical beliefs of the Merion Golf Club.

You also stated, "I agree, staking out the course “on the ground” is the same as laying a course out on the ground.However, laying out a golf course is not always the same as planning a golf course. Tillinghast laid the course out on the ground while he was planning it, but others created written plans first, then later staked out (or laid out) the course..."

While others did it differently as you point out, the question is really HOW was it done at MERION, and by WHOM?

The description of what Wilson's committee did is exactly the manner used by Tilly and others at the time as the design methodology for a golf course. Yet your theory discounts this based upon the definition of what "lay out" meant at that time. That is why the Tillinghast example is so important because it contradicts what you believe it to have been.

You need more proof...

[TEPaul]

"It's interesting that C & W give Francis co-design credit for Merion.
I wonder where they obtained that info from ?
However, they appear to state that HIW traveled abroad for 7 months studying the great courses of the UK before he's alleged to have designed Merion."


Patrick:

I'm quite sure you do wonder where C&W obtained that info from. Have you ever bothered to ask either of them? You don't seem that interested in actual architectural material itself, you just seem interested in asking those who are interested in it endless strings of "twenty questions". Where would you try to get architectural info if you were writing a book about almost every golf course in the world?
 
 
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Can one plan a lay out without having laid the course out?   Of course.  Can one lay a course out on the ground according to someone else’s plan?   Of course.

David,

Can one lay out a course on the ground without a plan? 

Of course, and Pete Dye does it all the time, and I sense Doak does to a degree.

You're missing my point about the acreage.

You tell us in your White Paper that M&W recommended very specifically that Merion purchase 120 acres, because that was the apparent dimensions of their hypothetical routing.

Yet, you now tell us that the 4.8 acres that make up the 15th green/16th tee were NOT part of that 120 acres.

We also know that Francis tells us that the land that was swapped lower on Golf House Road "was not part of "any" golf layout".   This was land that Merion was evidently buying AFTER Macdonald recommended it per your theory.   

It also tells us that someone...who was obviously the Committee at that point...were looking at a couple of different plans, or ways to fit in 18 holes.    To suggest as you did that he was talking about the Barker plan as a possible secondary plan, which clearly had been rejected and was almost certainly on acreage no longer considered by that point, is misleading and disengenous.

And your contention that "the ground was found adapted for golf" meant that M&W had done a routing prior to Wilson and Co doing the layout is laughable.

No, it's clear that Committee was trying to find some way to fit 18 holes onto the property at that point.   That act, whether we call it "laying out", or whatever, is ROUTING the golf course.

And, it happened AFTER Macdonald's June visit.

To say that Francis should get a little credit for helping Macdonald with th erouting is a crock, David.   

My point is simply this;

Given your theory that  Macdonald recommended purchase of a specific 120 acres for his hypothetical routing, where were they?

If they didn't include the 4.8 acres up at the northern end, can you tell me how in God's name he routed the last five holes?!?!  Where would they have been "laid"?   How would you build a championship course of over 6200 yards on the land that was left?

We also know that Merion originally purchased land (again, based on Macdonald's recommendation per your theory) that eventually "wasn't part of any golf layout".   So, this tells us that even if he did a layout in June 1910, which I think is farcical and totally unproven, it wasn't used.

So David, this is what I think.

I think Macdonald told the Merion Committee that the 100 acres Barker suggested was not nearly enough and that they needed 20% more, at least, making 120 acres.   He may have also helped them walk around the perimeter of the land being considered and even suggested they buy the Dallas Estate, although that is unproven as well.   

Other than that, what was there to say?   Gee guys, you've got some nice clay-based soil here on this farm, and a road going through it, and a big quarry up there that I'm not going near.   

Have at it, fellows.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

You asked what experience Macdonald and Whigham had at the time
Merion was designed.

Macdonald had designed two courses in Illinois in the 1890s - Downers Grove and Chicago GC.

Whigham was also involved in the design of Onwentsia in the late nineties.

Those courses had hosted nine major championships by 1912.
That's a pretty strong endorsement of their work.

NGLA was considered the premier golf course in the country, and one of
the premier courses in the world.

Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock were being planned by M&W at the same time as Merion.

Thats a pretty good resume.

Not to mention Macdonald spending a decade dedicated to the study of
golf architecture, including numerous trips abroad.

In 1911 he was considered one of the foremost experts in the world on the subject.

Now, could you list the qualifications of each of the construction committee members in 1909-1911 ?

Thanks.

Thanks, Tom! 

In 1910 NGLA, despite it's great potential and constant Macdonald trumpeting, was barely opened to member play after various agronomic fiascos.

Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock were being planned?  So what?   They didn't exist.

Macdonald basically RAN the USGA at this point.   Is it any wonder that he directed championships to courses that he was involved with?   Are you claiming that those early versions of Chicago GC were GOOD COURSES???   

How about his lovely routing for Shinnecock??  That took TONS Of Creativity!!   

He DID study like no one before him, and the careful results of those studies led to wonderful courses like NGLA, Mid-Ocean, etc.

But despite his son-in-law Whigham's brain fart at Charlie's funeral in 1939, 30 years later after everyone was DEAD, Merion simply wasn't one of those courses.

Ever wonder why Whigham never made that claim while ANY of those men were ALIVE?!?!   

[TEPaul]

David:

Throughout all this I guess I never really thought to ask you something pretty obvious. Maybe we've all just been talking around it, and I'm not really sure what your essay specifically says regarding it.
David:

Throughout all this I guess I never really thought to ask you something pretty obvious. Maybe we've all just been talking around it, and I'm not really sure what your essay specifically says regarding it.

So, the question is, is it your feeling AND YOUR CONTENTION in your essay that Macdonald (and Whigam) actually left Merion with something physical such as a real drawn routing and design plan? Is it your feeling and contention that such a physical thing as a drawn routing and design plan was included with that "LETTER" that the site committee mentions they got from him and mentioned to the MCC board.

I'm sort of wondering if there wasn't something like that how in the world could people like Francis and Lloyd be out there "tweaking" whatever it was you say Macdonald left them with?

I mean, I could certainly see Macdonald/Whigam saying something in that letter like: "We feel you've got enough nice land here to build a good 18 hole course on and you may want to consider the kind of famous template type holes on it we're doing at NGLA. Come to NGLA at some point and we'll show you the drawings and sketches I got from abroad to use to design and build NGLA and I'll explain the principles of those templates and what to look for in that regard on your land."

Do you see them doing more than that? Again, do you think they left Merion with something physical like perhaps a stick routing as Barker did for Connell and perhaps some hole concept ideas they drew for Merion?

Otherwise, again, I just can't see what the likes of Francis and Lloyd would have to go on when you mentioned they were out there "tweaking" Macdonald's routing in 1910, including when you suggest Francis actually had that late night land-swap epiphany. If he didn't have something drawn or physical how could he have known what Macdonald may've been suggesting in that last five hole stretch or anywhere else on what would become the original Merion East?

Thanks.
So, the question is, is it your feeling AND YOUR CONTENTION in your essay that Macdonald (and Whigam) actually left Merion with something physical such as a real drawn routing and design plan? Is it your feeling and contention that such a physical thing as a drawn routing and design plan was included with that "LETTER" that the site committee mentions they got from him and mentioned to the MCC board.

I'm sort of wondering if there wasn't something like that how in the world could people like Francis and Lloyd be out there "tweaking" whatever it was you say Macdonald left them with?

I mean, I could certainly see Macdonald/Whigam saying something in that letter like: "We feel you've got enough nice land here to build a good 18 hole course on and you may want to consider the kind of famous template type holes on it we're doing at NGLA. Come to NGLA at some point and we'll show you the drawings and sketches I got from abroad to use to design and build NGLA and I'll explain the principles of those templates and what to look for in that regard on your land."

Do you see them doing more than that? Again, do you think they left Merion with something physical like perhaps a stick routing as Barker did for Connell and perhaps some hole concept ideas they drew for Merion?

Otherwise, again, I just can't see what the likes of Francis and Lloyd would have to go on when you mentioned they were out there "tweaking" Macdonald's routing in 1910, including when you suggest Francis actually had that late night land-swap epiphany. If he didn't have something drawn or physical how could he have known what Macdonald may've been suggesting in that last five hole stretch or anywhere else on what would become the original Merion East?

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"It's interesting that C & W give Francis co-design credit for Merion.
I wonder where they obtained that info from ?

However, they appear to state that HIW traveled abroad for 7 months studying the great courses of the UK before he's alleged to have designed Merion."


Patrick:

I'm quite sure you do wonder where C&W obtained that info from.
Have you ever bothered to ask either of them?

You don't seem that interested in actual architectural material itself, you just seem interested in asking those who are interested in it endless strings of "twenty questions".

I think the questions I've posed are valid and to the point.

The fact that some can't answer them seems germane to the issues.[/color]
 
Where would you try to get architectural info if you were writing a book about almost every golf course in the world?

TEPaul,

As you've pointed out in the case of the history of PV, what the club's state in their attempt to memorialize their histories isn't always accurate.

You can't selectively chose what you want to accept and what you want to reject, absent third party documentation that reaffirms or disavows the information provided.

I've already listed and addressed the priorities that take precedence over delving into research items on this thread and others.  I only have so much time to apportion and other areas of my life require committments to those areas versus researching issues on GCA.com.

However, I am able to differentiate research and bona fide evidence from wishful thinking and predetermined conclusions.

I'm also open to any and all theories supported by reasonable evidence.

David has developed a premise that I'm not anxious to dismiss because it's contrary to the previously accepted beliefs.

If he's proven wrong by the production of evidence to the contrary, so be it.
But, absent that production his premise seems well structured, factual and well reasoned.

What's equally as important is the resultant information and dialogue that's been generated as a result of David posting his premise.

These are worthy topics for discussion as opposed to the many OT threads

Lastly, I noticed that you didn't answer the question with respect to why
C & W give credit to Francis for "laying out" Merion with Wilson.  Why is that ?



MPC,

Is it your contention that Ran Morrissett, Myself, Wayno, Tommy Naccarato and TEPaul could design and build a world class golf course in the same manner that you imply the Construction Committee at Merion did ?

Without the need for contemporary experts ?

Whose credentials are more impressive in terms of architectural experience and the study of architecture, the Construction Committee or the team listed above ?

Which group has seen more golf great golf courses in the U.S. and abroad ?

What did the Construction Committee know about drainage and the interrelationship between routing, hole design and drainage ?

You would have us believe that a group of novices, from the same club, without the need or help of outside experts created a golf course for the ages.

If it's so simple, why haven't numerous ad hoc groups accomplished the same thing over the last 100 years ?[/color]
 
 

[JESII]

Don't you see Patrick...this group of guys did obtain some help from these experts but the really unique and noteworthy bit about Merion is that the lions share of the creation was their's...it's unique because hundreds, if not thousands, have tried it over these 100 years and yet Merion is unanimously (other than Chip Gaskins...) regarded as one of the very top courses in the world...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()