Why Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed Merion East.......

[TEPaul]

......And C.B. Macdonald and his son-in-law Henry J. Whigam, didn't!

(Or alternatively, The "Philaldephia Syndrome's" bully boys and the "Men of Merion's" response to the "status quo" and "legends" questioning of certain uncivil aliens and outsiders from the "City of Brotherly Love").   


After reading the letter from the site committee to the MCC board on July 1, 1910 and including a Barker letter mentioning his sketch on land that the developer Connell chose (100 acres or so) and including MCC's letter to the membership on Nov 15 1910, and Lloyd’s land deal letter about the same time, here's what I think happened:

1. In June 1910 Connell got Barker to do a golf course sketch on land that probably was something like some of what Merion's site looks like now, and Barker sent his sketch and his letter to Connell who gave in to the site committee. This was around the middle of June 1910.

2. The site committee considered it and decided to get another opinion (Macdonald/Whigam). Griscom who knew Macdonald anyway asked him to look at the land that MCC's site committee had been considering at Merion Ardmore among other tracts elsewhere.

3. The US Open was about to be held at The Philadelphia Cricket Club at St. Martins on June 17-19, and Macdonald being on the board of the USGA and one of a few on the USGA Rules Committee probably was in Philadelphia or was going to be for the US Open anyway as Whigam probably was going to be.

4. On July 1, 1910, the site committee sent a report to the board of MCC mentioning Macdonald/Whigam’s visit, and mentioning that Macdonald had written a “LETTER” to a member of the site committee (probably Griscom) about which the site committee’s  report said; ‘We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the committee based their recommendation largely on their opinion.’ One would almost undeniably have to assume that if Macdonald/Whigam who perhaps visited Merion Ardmore around the US Open for a day or less to look at land for a course MCCs site committee had been “considering” and had supplied them with a routing and course design plan that a future “construction committee” could use simply to build to that they would have said exactly that to the MCC board. But they said nothing like that---they never mentioned a Macdonald routing or design for Merion East. Matter of fact, that has never been suggested anywhere at any time until David Moriarty’s essay “The Missing Faces of Merion” in April, 2008, almost a century after the fact. All they said was Macdonald wrote them a “letter” in which he and Whigam felt that the land the site committee had been considering for a course was ‘in general terms, favorable.’ This is why some of us here and apparently Merion never thought Macdonald/Whigam offered Merion a routing and hole-design plan.

5. From perhaps July until November 1910, the club, through the organization and financial help of Lloyd and some other Merion members, the MCC board described as “guarantors”, parceled together Haverford Development Company (HDC) land holdings with the so-called “Dallas Estate” that totaled app. 117 acres which is most all of what the course is today.

6. In January 1911 MCC appointed the “Construction Committee” with Hugh Wilson as the chairman and Lloyd, Toulmin, Francis and Griscom as his committee members.

7. Wilson and his committee very likely journeyed to NGLA to see Macdonald and Whigam in Jan. 1911 to go over drawings and plans, probably NGLA’s construction plans, AND perhaps the template drawings Macdonald had amassed from abroad in 1906, and then they analyzed NGLA on the ground the following day. Of this visit Hugh Wilson said 4-5 years later in his report on Merion East and West (which by the way was written for Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture and was not intended to be about the architecture but about the development of the course’s agronomy). Wilson said in his report in 1915-16; ‘Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what WE should try to accomplish with OUR NATURAL FEATURES.’

8. Wilson and his committee returned to Merion and on Feb. 1, 1911 Wilson wrote his first letter (afterward known as the “Agronomy Letters”, perhaps 1,500 in the 14 year correspondence) to Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture explaining that Macdonald had asked him to contact them for soil analyses that might be accomplished from area soil testing that Piper and Oakly might identify off a contour topo map of the course site that Wilson offered to send them.

(continued)

[TEPaul]

9. Beginning perhaps as early as Feb. 1911-----the recently formed Merion “Construction Committee” chaired by Wilson and populated by Toulmin, Griscom, Lloyd and Francis,  with their new site topo maps in hand, and without H.H. Barker’s plan which the Merion “site committee” populated by Baily, Felton, Bodine, Lloyd and committee Chairman Lesley and the MCC board had turned down in July, 1910 and NO ROUTING or HOLE DESIGNS from Macdonald/Whigam because they never DID ANY since they only offered their opinion on the site, in general terms, in a LETTER----began to ROUTE the course and DESIGN the holes on their own, both on their own plans and on the ground! In their approximately six month construction phase between the spring of 1911 and September of 1911 when the course was “grassed” for a year Wilson and his committee were helped by an apparently excellent crew including foreman Frederick Pickering, young future great architect William Flynn and Joe Valentine with an excellent group of Italian workers.

10. Perhaps having done what construction committee member Richard Francis mentioned as, ‘many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking’ for 2-3 months in the winter of 1911 and into the spring, they began to build the golf course in the spring of 1911. At this point, apparently Macdonald/Whigam returned for perhaps a day or so and apparently looked over the committee’s own routing and design plans on paper and/or how it laid out on the ground. They may’ve advised and made suggestions about some of the details, at this point, which Hugh and Alan Wilson gave them credit for in their later reports. When Macdonald/Whigam left after that spring 1911 visit which constituted what was generally reported as only the second time they’d seen Merion Ardmore, they apparently never returned to lend Merion G.C. any more architectural advice. Their entire presence at Merion Ardmore for architectural purposes may’ve totaled no more than 2-3 days even though the club always remained so grateful to them for that two days visit of Wilson’s and his committee at NGLA, likely in Jan. 1911.

11. It seems the most interesting, and also perhaps the most confusing single event surrounding who really routed and designed Merion East and when, is the story of Richard Francis’ idea of swapping land with the Haverford Development interests to make room for the 15th green and 16th tee and consequently the great 16th “Quarry” hole. This is the event the “Missing Faces of Merion” essay author, David Moriarty, refers to as, ‘Francis’ late night epiphany.’ In his essay, author Moriarty assumed; ‘Francis’ recollection of the timing may have been hyperbole.’ Here’s the way Francis described that event:

“The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.... The idea was this:  We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout.  Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?”

Francis continued:

“Mr Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by the fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee.  Within two days quarrymen had drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so the green could be built as it is today.”

(continued)

[TEPaul]

The “Missing Faces of Merion” essay assumes this epiphany of Francis’ took place back in 1910 with Macdonald’s routing and that Francis was engaging in hyperbole because the top of the hill above the quarry could not be blasted by quarry men as the course wouldn’t even be started for at leas a half a year. I submit that since there was never a Macdonald routing or hole-design plan, this interesting land swap idea to the west was done in 1911 and probably towards the end of the summer of 1911 when the Construction Committee was nearing the end of the design and construction of the golf course and that quarry men did blast the top of the hill above the quarry I two days just as Richard Francis reported. His land-swap story and the immediate coming into being of Merion’s famous “Quarry” hole was not hyperbole on his part at all.
Further evidence of that can be seen if one carefully considers again what else Francis said:

“…it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion…”

He probably could have said that a bit more clearly by saying it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes either designed or constructed UP INTO the upright portion of the L. It also seems much more logical to assume, that when his late night idea came to him to swap land along the western border of the upright portion of the L along the road corridor of Club House Road which in that 1910 “Proposed Plan For the Golf Course” that was sent out in MCC’s notice to the membership on Nov. 15, 1910, and since Club House Road as it was drawn on that plan for the course was, at that time, only an “approximation” of the road that was to be built between the golf course and the future real estate development to the west, that Francis’s idea was AFTER 13 holes had already been CONSTRUCTED. And if that was the case, which seems most logical, then it would also explain why quarrymen really did blast the top off the hill IN TWO DAYS to make way for the 16th green. In other words, Francis was not engaging in hyperbole in his story at all, he was absolutely right that it was done perhaps towards the end of the summer of 1911 in two days which of course could not possibly have been done back in 1910 because that WOULD HAVE BEEN about six months BEFORE any part of the course went into construction.

But how did Francis’ late night land-swap idea provide for the 15th green and 16th tee when it shows that triangle which they are in was already part of the “Proposed Golf Course Plan” in 1910? I submit that even if that triangle on the top of the northwest side of the upright portion of the L was there, it was not wide enough to fit the approach (the fairway) of the 15th green and the beginning of the 16th hole into it and the top of the triangle is too narrow also. In effect what Francis accomplished was to widen the base of that top triangle by around 130 yards starting about 190 yards from the 15th green and he also widened the top of the triangle (I’ll explain that below).

But yet Francis appears to say that his request to Lloyd was to swap some land from the proposed golf course dimensions on the 1910 plan for land that was slated for future real estate development to the west (labeled Haverford Development Co) to pick up some land to complete the last five holes. Note that Francis didn’t just say land to be used for the 15th green and 16th tee, he also said it was not difficult to get in the first 13 holes but getting in the last five holes was another question. Of course that would mean #14-#18 and not just the 15th green and 16th tee!

It is also hard to imagine, at first, if the golf course was taking land from the real estate development, what were they giving back from the 1910 proposed course to the real estate development in return?
And this is where I think Francis’ land swap idea is remarkably clever (but I guess that’s why some engineers really are clever when it comes to dimensionality) and also why it would probably take someone with years of intimate and significant familiarity with most everything about Merion East including the surrounding development and PARTICULARLY the configuration of Club House Road which in 1910 and 1911 was yet to be built.

What it appears Francis’s suggestion to Lloyd in the middle of the night was about was to essentially alter the future configuration of Club House Road from just below College Ave. on the north and just below the 14th tee and near Ardmore Ave on the south. In 1911 Horatio Gates Lloyd and his band of member investors (the ones referred to by MCC in 1910 as “the guarantors”) essentially controlled the real estate development to the west probably by buying and controlling the majority of the stock in HDC which had as its primary asset the entire real estate development land to the west of the top of Merion’s L.

By comparing the rather soft S-curving line of Club House Road on the 1910 plan (shown as an “approximation” to be built on the 1910 plan) to the far more radically east/west S-curving line of the road almost all the way from College Ave on the North to Ardmore Ave on the south as the road was actually built, one can then understand how Francis accomplished this and apparently made it possible not just for #15 and #16 to immediately fall into place but for the remainder of the last five holes (#14, #17, #18) to be immediately built, thereby finishing the initial routing, design and construction phase of Merion East in Sept. 1912 by Hugh Wilson and his committee.

(continued)

[TEPaul]

One can easily see this alteration by comparing the configuration of Club House Road on the 1910 plan that shows the mild S-curving configuration of the yet to built proposed road to the 1924 aerial, for instance, that shows the road as built and as it remains today as far more radically west to east S-curving in various areas. When Francis said the proposed plan of 1910 had land that did not fit in with some hole-layouts, what did that really mean? It meant that between approximately the 14th tee on the west to the clubhouse on the east the 1910 proposed plan (and the construction committees topo maps that the committee was using to plan the routing and design of the course in 1911) had too much land, but not enough near the 14th green or 15th fairway and green. So what Francis’ idea essentially did is reconfigure the curvature of almost the entire length of Club House Road to pick up width where they needed it and to swap width and land back to the real estate development section where they did not need it.

How did something like this occur to me? Because I’ve traveled Club House Road a hundred times or more and about a week ago I realize that Club House Road curved west just below my friends, Bob and Joanie Hall’s house that is bordered by College Avenue on the North and Club House Road on the east. When you get to the southern portion of their place which is just about across Club House Road from the line where the McFadden property line on the south and the Haverford College land’s line on the north border one another on the 1910 plan, Club House Road turns much harder west than the proposed line of the road on the 1910 plan. This sharp west turn made room for the 15th green and 16th tee. And as one approaches the lower half of #14 hole the road makes a big broad S-curve east and essentially “waists in” that section of the course much more than on the 1910 plan.

All this makes perfect sense because the course only has to accommodate two tees and one green west to east between #14 tee and the clubhouse. But up around #14 green the course has to accommodate west to east two tees, two greens and the 18th fairway. The road curvature between #15 and #16 as well as north of #15 green has already been explained. Note: The width between the west edge of the 15th fairway about 190 yards from the 15th green to the east side of the 16th hole bordering on what is now the range (probably the old Haverford College property line in the 1910 plan is probably more like 250 yards rather than the 130 yard wide original triangle on the 1910 plan that author David Moriarty’s essay claimed it was.

I believe all of the foregoing should result in an acceptable conclusion on why Wilson and committee routed, designed and built Merion East as the Merion G.C. history and books has always claimed, and also why C.B. Macdonald did not route or design the course. I don’t believe he ever submitted such a thing for Merion East and he probably never wanted to or had the time to (he may’ve only been there for a few days in only two visits in June 1910 and March of April 1911). And this is why no one has ever mentioned that he did route or design Merion East or deserve credit for doing that (until the recent essay “The Missing Faces of Merion”) and also why he was given all the credit by Merion and in its reports and history books for what he really did do for them, both when and how.   


(sorry if there're typos and formatting problems, it was a rush job because The Creek Club's Ultra-excellent historian, George "Motor-Mouth" Holland, has been calling and "motor-mouthing" me to death for at least a week---I'll fix it later).

[JESII]

Tom,

I know it is secondary to your point, but in my opinion is supportive...I don't think the Barker sketch could possibly be any representation of the original or current routing of Merion East.

Without the Dallas Estate in the parcel (which, according to David, was not considered until CBM recommended buying it), the entire jigsaw puzzle gets thrown off...think about the exact area David describes being added with the purchase of the Dallas parcel...Most of the 6th hole, all of 7, part of 8, half of 4, part of 5 and part of 3. The holes that flow in that out and back direction could not do that if they are cut off in that way...

Anyway, I am glad you agreed with my suggestion that an In My Opinion type write up by you all would help the discussion...I think this will.

[wsmorrison]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

Sayres's letter is dated 04-02-13, long after Wilson returned from his 1912 trip to the UK, which probably explains the "study" comment.

The last sentence of the first paragraph is the most telling to me.

In addition, everyone acknowledges that Merion was Wilson's baby post 1912.

Why was it called the "construction committee" and not the "design committee" or "project committee" or "planning committee" ?

A "construction" committee conotes but one task, .... construction, not designing or planning.

I hope this isn't the entirety of your arsenal of counter argument

TEPaul,

Your post/s has too many subjective conclusions.
It seems more like wishful thinking than evidence to refute David's well documented white paper.

[DMoriarty]

Wayne, Glad to see that you made it to the Pa Historical Society.  Hopefully there is much more to come. 
______________________________
TEPaul:

First, let me just say that I generally disagree with most of what you have written. 

PLEASE NOTE: While I used the word “GENERALLY” above, there is more to my opinion than just this. Much more. The statement above is a GENERAL and CURSORY SUMMARY of my critique, absent all of the particulars.  It is not intended, nor should it be construed, to replace the particular problems in your post.   

But of course everyone knows this; A GENERAL SUMMARY of one’s position does not preclude a more particular and specific explanation—this would be entirely illogical, absurd even.   It would be even more absurd since I indicated to you that I have many more criticisms than just my GENERAL SUMMARY of my PARTICULAR CRITICISMS.   To go to the absurd extreme; it would be ABSOLUTELY ABSURD if you knew that I had given you the GENERAL SUMMARY because you are not to be privy to the details.   Just imagine . . .

“Tom, Mr. X sent us a letter critiquing your post.  We agree with Mr. X’s criticisms, and base our opinion largely on the contents of Mr. X letter.  WHILE WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO SHARE THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER, LET'S JUST SAY THAT MR. X GENERALLY DISAGREES WITH YOU.”
- How foolish would you have to be to interpret this statement to mean, 1) that Mr. X only offered his general opinion with no specifics, and 2) no one really listened to him anyway?

But now I’ve gotten way off track.  Just please try to remember, the sentence above is just my GENERAL SUMMARY, there are particulars as well, I just have not told you those.

[TEPaul]

David:

Shit-can that amazingly circuitous language and logic you just used there---absolutely no one understands a word of it, probably including you tomorrow.

It's over David, and I'm sure by now you know it. Wilson and his committee routed and designed and built Merion East, just like all the reports and the Merion histories have said. C.B Macdonald never did that for that golf course and both Merion and he knew that. I can't speak for that son-in-law of his, Hank Whigam, though. Apparently he'd say just about anything if someone asked him to get up and deliver a eulogy!

Oh, by the way, why don't you write a massively researched essay next on how Mr X routed and designed Merion East? I'm quite sure architectural history would be much better off for it.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Your post/s has too many subjective conclusions.
It seems more like wishful thinking than evidence to refute David's well documented white paper."


They are facts, Patrick, and the beauty of them is they are right there on the ground. If you undertood Merion East even 10% as well as some of us here do, you might understand, but obviously you don't. It is just amazing to me and will be to many on here that no matter what you are provided with as far as compelling evidence you will just continue to deny it anyway. There're a few of you on here who simply are incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

The conclusion of author Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" or the "White Paper" or whatever you want to call it has been proven wrong.

Let's all take on Macdonald and NGLA next, don't you think? I, for one, think that originator of American "Gay" architecture deserves a whole lot more design attribution for that one than anyone has ever given him!

[TEPaul]

"Without the Dallas Estate in the parcel (which, according to David, was not considered until CBM recommended buying it)"

The Dallas Estate was not considered until CBM recommended it???

If David Moriarty can prove that he better get on with proving it and not give anyone any more of his outrageous and illogical assumptions.

Would you just look at him and his responses tonight? What the hell are we supposed to spend the next thirty pages on----eg the architectural talents of "Mr X"?   



Wayne:

Don't put letters like that on here. Don't you know that guy Baily is just another of that evil band of people known as the "Philadelphia Syndrome" who will do or say anything or even hold celebratory dinners for local architects just to glorify them for no other reason than to minimize architects from outside this city of liars!

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

But you need the remedial lesson on use of GENERAL, CURSORY SUMMARIES, examples and all.

Your entire premise fails because you apparently do not understand that such general cursory conclusions do not preclude the existence of the particulars.   

The Committee chose not to publish the details, so you assume that no details exist.  Illogical and Absurd. 

[TEPaul]

It's over David Moriarty, and even you couldn't possibly fail to know it. Take the kind of responses you've made on here tonight into some gathering of frustrated lawyers. Maybe they might be semi-interested but on second thought, probably not.   Your essay's conclusion has been bankrupted, Pal, and it must just about kill you that it was me who did it! It's too bad you didn't take up my offer a week or so ago offline to help you understand some of this. I thought you might do something with it. I'll never think that again. 

The funny thing about your reaction to what I said on this thread is you probably know so little about Merion since you've only been here once, you have no idea what I said above or what it means. I wonder if you drove down Golf House Road a hundred and ten times and then looked at an aerial with that 1910 plan next to it a hundred times, you'd figure it out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

They are facts, Patrick, and the beauty of them is they are right there on the ground. If you undertood Merion East even 10% as well as some of us here do, you might understand, but obviously you don't.

What does understanding the "golf course" have to do with the historical record ?

Answer, NOTHING.[/color]

It is just amazing to me and will be to many on here that no matter what you are provided with as far as compelling evidence you will just continue to deny it anyway.

It's late, I've had a long day, am tired and may have missed it.

Could you list the "compelling evidence" for me again ?

What part of your presentation, that forms the "compelling evidence" is factually documented, refutes David's premise that is not a subjective analysis ?[/color]

There're a few of you on here who simply are incapable of admitting when you're wrong.

I know, I've been reading their posts for some time now. [/color]

The conclusion of author Moriarty's essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" or the "White Paper" or whatever you want to call it has been proven wrong.


Where is that proof ?
Please seperate opinion from proof.[/color]

Let's all take on Macdonald and NGLA next, don't you think?

Tom MacWood and I debated that 5 years ago.[/color]

I, for one, think that originator of American "Gay" architecture deserves a whole lot more design attribution for that one than anyone has ever given him!

So do I.
Who is he ?
Are you and Wayno "outing" him.
It's not Flynn, is it ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

certain uncivil aliens and outsiders from the "City of Brotherly Love").   


After reading the letter from the site committee to the MCC board on July 1, 1910 and including a Barker letter mentioning his sketch on land that the developer Connell chose (100 acres or so) and including MCC's letter to the membership on Nov 15 1910, and Lloyd’s land deal letter about the same time, here's what I think[/color] happened:

1. In June 1910 Connell got Barker to do a golf course sketch on land that probably was something like some of what Merion's site[/color] looks like now, and Barker sent his sketch and his letter to Connell who gave in to the site committee. This was around the middle of June 1910.

2. The site committee considered it and decided to get another opinion (Macdonald/Whigam). Griscom who knew Macdonald anyway asked him to look at the land that MCC's site committee had been considering at Merion Ardmore among other tracts elsewhere.

3. The US Open was about to be held at The Philadelphia Cricket Club at St. Martins on June 17-19, and Macdonald being on the board of the USGA and one of a few on the USGA Rules Committee probably was in Philadelphia or was going to be for the US Open anyway as Whigam probably[/color] was going to be.

4. On July 1, 1910, the site committee sent a report to the board of MCC mentioning Macdonald/Whigam’s visit, and mentioning that Macdonald had written a “LETTER” to a member of the site committee (probably Griscom) about which the site committee’s  report said; ‘We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the committee based their recommendation largely on their opinion.’ One would almost undeniably have to assume[/color] that if Macdonald/Whigam who perhaps visited Merion Ardmore around the US Open for a day or less to look at land for a course MCCs site committee had been “considering” and had supplied them with a routing and course design plan that a future “construction committee” could use simply to build to that they would have said exactly that to the MCC board. But they said nothing like that---they never mentioned a Macdonald routing or design for Merion East. Matter of fact, that has never been suggested anywhere at any time until David Moriarty’s essay “The Missing Faces of Merion” in April, 2008, almost a century after the fact. All they said was Macdonald wrote them a “letter” in which he and Whigam felt that the land the site committee had been considering for a course was ‘in general terms, favorable.’ This is why some of us here and apparently Merion never thought Macdonald/Whigam offered Merion a routing and hole-design plan.

5. From perhaps July until November 1910, the club, through the organization and financial help of Lloyd and some other Merion members, the MCC board described as “guarantors”, parceled together Haverford Development Company (HDC) land holdings with the so-called “Dallas Estate” that totaled app. 117 acres which is most all of what the course is today.

6. In January 1911 MCC appointed the “Construction Committee” with Hugh Wilson as the chairman and Lloyd, Toulmin, Francis and Griscom as his committee members.

7. Wilson and his committee very likely[/color] journeyed to NGLA to see Macdonald and Whigam in Jan. 1911 to go over drawings and plans, probably[/color] NGLA’s construction plans, AND perhaps[/color] the template drawings Macdonald had amassed from abroad in 1906, and then they analyzed NGLA on the ground the following day. Of this visit Hugh Wilson said 4-5 years later in his report on Merion East and West (which by the way was written for Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture and was not intended to be about the architecture but about the development of the course’s agronomy). Wilson said in his report in 1915-16; ‘Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what WE should try to accomplish with OUR NATURAL FEATURES.’

8. Wilson and his committee returned to Merion and on Feb. 1, 1911 Wilson wrote his first letter (afterward known as the “Agronomy Letters”, perhaps 1,500 in the 14 year correspondence) to Piper and Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture explaining that Macdonald had asked him to contact them for soil analyses that might be accomplished from area soil testing that Piper and Oakly might identify off a contour topo map of the course site that Wilson offered to send them.

(continued)

[Patrick_Mucci]

9. Beginning perhaps[/color] as early as Feb. 1911-----the recently formed Merion “Construction Committee” chaired by Wilson and populated by Toulmin, Griscom, Lloyd and Francis,  with their new site topo maps in hand, and without H.H. Barker’s plan which the Merion “site committee” populated by Baily, Felton, Bodine, Lloyd and committee Chairman Lesley and the MCC board had turned down in July, 1910 and NO ROUTING or HOLE DESIGNS from Macdonald/Whigam because they never DID ANY since they only offered their opinion on the site, in general terms, in a LETTER----began to ROUTE the course and DESIGN the holes on their own, both on their own plans and on the ground! In their approximately six month construction phase between the spring of 1911 and September of 1911 when the course was “grassed” for a year Wilson and his committee were helped by an apparently excellent crew including foreman Frederick Pickering, young future great architect William Flynn and Joe Valentine with an excellent group of Italian workers.

10. Perhaps[/color] having done what construction committee member Richard Francis mentioned as, ‘many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking’ for 2-3 months in the winter of 1911 and into the spring, they began to build the golf course in the spring of 1911. At this point, apparently[/color] Macdonald/Whigam returned for perhaps a day or so and apparently[/color] looked over the committee’s own routing and design plans on paper and/or how it laid out on the ground. They may’ve[/color] advised and made suggestions about some of the details, at this point, which Hugh and Alan Wilson gave them credit for in their later reports. When Macdonald/Whigam left after that spring 1911 visit which constituted what was generally reported as only the second time they’d seen Merion Ardmore, they apparently[/color] never returned to lend Merion G.C. any more architectural advice. Their entire presence at Merion Ardmore for architectural purposes may’ve[/color] totaled no more than 2-3 days even though the club always remained so grateful to them for that two days visit of Wilson’s and his committee at NGLA, likely in Jan. 1911.

11. It seems the most interesting, and also perhaps the most confusing single event surrounding who really routed and designed Merion East and when, is the story of Richard Francis’ idea of swapping land with the Haverford Development interests to make room for the 15th green and 16th tee and consequently the great 16th “Quarry” hole. This is the event the “Missing Faces of Merion” essay author, David Moriarty, refers to as, ‘Francis’ late night epiphany.’ In his essay, author Moriarty assumed; ‘Francis’ recollection of the timing may have been hyperbole.’ Here’s the way Francis described that event:

“The land was shaped like a capital “L” and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.... The idea was this:  We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in with any golf layout.  Perhaps we could swap it for some good use?”

Francis continued:

“Mr Lloyd agreed. The land now covered by the fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long---the present location of the 15th green and 16th tee.  Within two days quarrymen had drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so the green could be built as it is today.”

(continued)

[Patrick_Mucci]

The “Missing Faces of Merion” essay assumes this epiphany of Francis’ took place back in 1910 with Macdonald’s routing and that Francis was engaging in hyperbole because the top of the hill above the quarry could not be blasted by quarry men as the course wouldn’t even be started for at leas a half a year. I submit[/color] that since there was never a Macdonald routing or hole-design plan, this interesting land swap idea to the west was done in 1911 and probably[/color] towards the end of the summer of 1911 when the Construction Committee was nearing the end of the design and construction of the golf course and that quarry men did blast the top of the hill above the quarry I two days just as Richard Francis reported. His land-swap story and the immediate coming into being of Merion’s famous “Quarry” hole was not hyperbole on his part at all.
Further evidence of that can be seen if one carefully considers again what else Francis said:

“…it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion…”

He probably[/color] could have said that a bit more clearly by saying it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes either designed or constructed UP INTO the upright portion of the L. It also seems[/color] much more logical to assume[/color], that when his late night idea came to him to swap land along the western border of the upright portion of the L along the road corridor of Club House Road which in that 1910 “Proposed Plan For the Golf Course” that was sent out in MCC’s notice to the membership on Nov. 15, 1910, and since Club House Road as it was drawn on that plan for the course was, at that time, only an “approximation” of the road that was to be built between the golf course and the future real estate development to the west, that Francis’s idea was AFTER 13 holes had already been CONSTRUCTED. And if that was the case[/color], which seems[/color] most logical, then it would also explain why quarrymen really did blast the top off the hill IN TWO DAYS to make way for the 16th green. In other words, Francis was not engaging in hyperbole in his story at all, he was absolutely right that it was done perhaps towards the end of the summer of 1911 in two days which of course could not possibly have been done back in 1910 because that WOULD HAVE BEEN about six months BEFORE any part of the course went into construction.

But how did Francis’ late night land-swap idea provide for the 15th green and 16th tee when it shows that triangle which they are in was already part of the “Proposed Golf Course Plan” in 1910? I submit[/color] that even if that triangle on the top of the northwest side of the upright portion of the L was there, it was not wide enough to fit the approach (the fairway) of the 15th green and the beginning of the 16th hole into it and the top of the triangle is too narrow also. In effect what Francis accomplished was to widen the base of that top triangle by around 130 yards starting about 190 yards from the 15th green and he also widened the top of the triangle (I’ll explain that below).

But yet Francis appears[/color] to say that his request to Lloyd was to swap some land from the proposed golf course dimensions on the 1910 plan for land that was slated for future real estate development to the west (labeled Haverford Development Co) to pick up some land to complete the last five holes. Note that Francis didn’t just say land to be used for the 15th green and 16th tee, he also said it was not difficult to get in the first 13 holes but getting in the last five holes was another question. Of course that would mean #14-#18 and not just the 15th green and 16th tee!

It is also hard to imagine[/color], at first, if the golf course was taking land from the real estate development, what were they giving back from the 1910 proposed course to the real estate development in return?
And this is where I think[/color] Francis’ land swap idea is remarkably clever (but I guess that’s why some engineers really are clever when it comes to dimensionality) and also why it would probably[/color] take someone with years of intimate and significant familiarity with most everything about Merion East including the surrounding development and PARTICULARLY the configuration of Club House Road which in 1910 and 1911 was yet to be built.

What it appears[/color] Francis’s suggestion to Lloyd in the middle of the night was about was to essentially alter the future configuration of Club House Road from just below College Ave. on the north and just below the 14th tee and near Ardmore Ave on the south. In 1911 Horatio Gates Lloyd and his band of member investors (the ones referred to by MCC in 1910 as “the guarantors”) essentially controlled the real estate development to the west probably by buying and controlling the majority of the stock in HDC which had as its primary asset the entire real estate development land to the west of the top of Merion’s L.

By comparing the rather soft S-curving line of Club House Road on the 1910 plan (shown as an “approximation” to be built on the 1910 plan) to the far more radically east/west S-curving line of the road almost all the way from College Ave on the North to Ardmore Ave on the south as the road was actually built, one can then understand how Francis accomplished this and apparently made it possible not just for #15 and #16 to immediately fall into place but for the remainder of the last five holes (#14, #17, #18) to be immediately built, thereby finishing the initial routing, design and construction phase of Merion East in Sept. 1912 by Hugh Wilson and his committee.

(continued)

[Patrick_Mucci]

One can easily see this alteration by comparing the configuration of Club House Road on the 1910 plan that shows the mild S-curving configuration of the yet to built proposed road to the 1924 aerial, for instance, that shows the road as built and as it remains today as far more radically west to east S-curving in various areas. When Francis said the proposed plan of 1910 had land that did not fit in with some hole-layouts, what did that really mean? It meant that between approximately the 14th tee on the west to the clubhouse on the east the 1910 proposed plan (and the construction committees topo maps that the committee was using to plan the routing and design of the course in 1911) had too much land, but not enough near the 14th green or 15th fairway and green. So what Francis’ idea essentially did is reconfigure the curvature of almost the entire length of Club House Road to pick up width where they needed it and to swap width and land back to the real estate development section where they did not need it.

How did something like this occur to me? Because I’ve traveled Club House Road a hundred times or more and about a week ago I realize that Club House Road curved west just below my friends, Bob and Joanie Hall’s house that is bordered by College Avenue on the North and Club House Road on the east. When you get to the southern portion of their place which is just about across Club House Road from the line where the McFadden property line on the south and the Haverford College land’s line on the north border one another on the 1910 plan, Club House Road turns much harder west than the proposed line of the road on the 1910 plan. This sharp west turn made room for the 15th green and 16th tee. And as one approaches the lower half of #14 hole the road makes a big broad S-curve east and essentially “waists in” that section of the course much more than on the 1910 plan.

All this makes perfect sense because the course only has to accommodate two tees and one green west to east between #14 tee and the clubhouse. But up around #14 green the course has to accommodate west to east two tees, two greens and the 18th fairway. The road curvature between #15 and #16 as well as north of #15 green has already been explained. Note: The width between the west edge of the 15th fairway about 190 yards from the 15th green to the east side of the 16th hole bordering on what is now the range (probably the old Haverford College property line in the 1910 plan is probably more like 250 yards rather than the 130 yard wide original triangle on the 1910 plan that author David Moriarty’s essay claimed it was.

I believe[/color] all of the foregoing should[/color] result in an acceptable conclusion on why Wilson and committee routed, designed and built Merion East as the Merion G.C. history and books has always claimed, and also why C.B. Macdonald did not route or design the course. I don’t believe[/color] he ever submitted such a thing for Merion East and he probably[/color] never wanted to or had the time to (he may’ve[/color] only been there for a few days in only two visits in June 1910 and March of April 1911). And this is why no one has ever mentioned that he did route or design Merion East or deserve credit for doing that (until the recent essay “The Missing Faces of Merion”) and also why he was given all the credit by Merion and in its reports and history books for what he really did do for them, both when and how.   


(sorry if there're typos and formatting problems, it was a rush job because The Creek Club's Ultra-excellent historian, George "Motor-Mouth" Holland, has been calling and "motor-mouthing" me to death for at least a week---I'll fix it later).

[Jim Nugent]

The last sentence of the first paragraph is the most telling to me.

In addition, everyone acknowledges that Merion was Wilson's baby post 1912.

Why was it called the "construction committee" and not the "design committee" or "project committee" or "planning committee" ?

A "construction" committee conotes but one task, .... construction, not designing or planning.

Most telling to me may be the 2nd paragraph.  Baily says, "Mr. Wilson...has devoted every moment of his spare time in laying out and constructing this course."  

What does Baily mean by "laying out"?  If he means the same thing that people generally do today, that indicates Wilson designed the course.  Either way, seems like "laying out" is something different from "constructing":  he mentions them separately from each other.  Unless he was repeating himself in the same sentence.  In that case, he was really saying "Mr. Wilson...has devoted every moment of his spare time in constructing and constructing this course."  

Seeing him call it "the Construction Commmittee" seemed odd to me at first.  On the other hand, Pete Dye has said he built certain courses.  Yet I know that he designed them, too.  The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.  

Also, maybe in this letter Baily was focusing on the construction.  Wilson could have desiged the course (as "laying out" suggests) and also been part of a separate construction committee.

Haven't read David's essay yet, but hope to do so this weekend.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Most telling to me may be the 2nd paragraph.  Baily says, "Mr. Wilson...has devoted every moment of his spare time in laying out and constructing this course."  

Are you sure he wasn't refering to the industrious time Wilson spent on Merion AFTER his return from the UK in 1912 ?[/color]

What does Baily mean by "laying out"?

We don't know, do we ?[/color] 

If he means the same thing that people generally do today, that indicates Wilson designed the course.  

That's a big if, especially if you consider that Wilson was a novice.
He had NO prior design experience, no sense of the great courses in the UK, with the only good golf courses in the U.S. being Myopia, GCGC and NGLA.[/color]

Either way, seems like "laying out" is something different from "constructing":  he mentions them separately from each other.  

Not really, especially if you context "laying out" as positioning or repositioning the features/hazards, which, it's alleged that Wilson did AFTER his return from the UK.[/color]

Unless he was repeating himself in the same sentence.  
In that case, he was really saying "Mr. Wilson...has devoted every moment of his spare time in constructing and constructing this course."  

Everyone agrees that Wilson constructed the golf course and continued to modify it when he returned from the UK.  But, Nowhere does anyone state that he designed the golf course.[/color]

Seeing him call it "the Construction Commmittee" seemed odd to me at first.  

On the other hand, Pete Dye has said he built certain courses.  
Yet I know that he designed them, too.  

You can't compare Dye's words and the context in which they're used to a delegated body, deemed the "construction committee"  Next, you'll be telling me that it depends on what the definition of "is" is.

You don't know that Wilson designed Merion.

Especially when the accepted party line was that he designed the golf course AFTER his trip abroad, which now appears to be in 1912.

How do you and the others reconcile that conflict ?

We also know that Wilson worked/reworked the golf course AFTER his return from the UK in 1912, and, the letter is dated in April of 1913.[/color]

The two things don't have to be mutually exclusive.  

But, they can be.

Do you have friends at Merion ?[/color]

Also, maybe in this letter Baily was focusing on the construction.  Wilson could have desiged the course (as "laying out" suggests) and also been part of a separate construction committee.

There is absolutely NO record of that.

This is typical conjecture on the part of those that want to preserve the party line.[/color]

Haven't read David's essay yet, but hope to do so this weekend.  

You must be kidding.

You made those pronouncements BEFORE reading David's white paper ?

Why do I sense a predisposition/bias ?[/color]

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks for all that work and thought, Tom.  Could you ask Ran to post it as an "In My Opinion" piece so we can have it for both referral and posterity?

Cheers

Rich

[DMoriarty]

It's over David Moriarty, and even you couldn't possibly fail to know it. Take the kind of responses you've made on here tonight into some gathering of frustrated lawyers. Maybe they might be semi-interested but on second thought, probably not.   Your essay's conclusion has been bankrupted, Pal, and it must just about kill you that it was me who did it! It's too bad you didn't take up my offer a week or so ago offline to help you understand some of this. I thought you might do something with it. I'll never think that again.

The funny thing about your reaction to what I said on this thread is you probably know so little about Merion since you've only been here once, you have no idea what I said above or what it means. I wonder if you drove down Golf House Road a hundred and ten times and then looked at an aerial with that 1910 plan next to it a hundred times, you'd figure it out.

Tom, I think you might be surprised how many times I have driven down Golf House Road.   

Every single conclusion in my essay still stands.   I do find it entertaining though that actually think you are on to something.   I am not sure I know what it is, or that you do either, but it is entertaining nonetheless. 

Your hysterical claims of victory notwithstanding, your long conjecture offers absolutely nothing novel.  In fact, everything accurate in your paper was covered in my essay.  The rest may make a good story (easy to do when adherence to the facts is secondary), but it is ultimately all just misunderstanding or misrepresentation. 

Unfortunately, wading through and correcting your misrepresentations and misunderstandings would  take much more time than you took making stuff up.  But while I cannot hope to cover all the problems, I will try to quickly cover a few of the low spots.

First, I’ll take a look at your most important premise:  You claim that Macdonald and Whigham only provided Merion with a their GENERAL opinion on the site.

To the contrary, the Committee was being general, not MacDonald and Whigham.  M&W offered their views "on what could be done with the property," but the Committee did not want to publish M&W's letter or its contents, so the Committee gave the membership only a GENERALIZED and CURSORY statement, instead.   

You write:

. . . the site committee’s  report said; ‘We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the committee based their recommendation largely on their opinion.’ One would almost undeniably have to assume that if Macdonald/Whigam who perhaps visited Merion Ardmore around the US Open for a day or less to look at land for a course MCCs site committee had been “considering” and had supplied them with a routing and course design plan that a future “construction committee” could use simply to build to that they would have said exactly that to the MCC board.

Naturally, you take the Committee out of context, ignoring that which directly undermines the entire basis for dismissing M&W.  Here is the quote in context, with my emphasis added:

“The report, as made to the Board, embodied Mr. Macdonald's letter, but it was not written for publication.  We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, however, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the Committee based its recommendation largely upon their opinion.

The Committee intentionally left Macdonald’s letter and its details out of the published report.

Without question, you are disingenuously twisting the facts past the point of breaking when you write:

All they said was Macdonald wrote them a “letter” in which he and Whigam felt that the land the site committee had been considering for a course was ‘in general terms, favorable.’

and even more so when you write . . .

they only offered their opinion on the site, in general terms

These statements are absolutely FALSE.   The Committee was being general, not M&W.

You also dwell on the Committee’s reference to a letter, but not a map with a routing.  But I have said this all along.  What matters is the content of the communication, not the form.  Your outright dismissal of the content of the letter is entirely unjustified, especially because we know that, in the letter, Macdonald told Merion “what could be done with the property.” and this provided the basis for them going forward with the project, and probably provided the basis for them significantly altering the shape of the land.  Also, Barker had already done a sketch of his proposed routing.  Doesn’t your entire theory of the design of Pine Valley depend upon Crump starting with someone else’s routing plan, then making changes?  So I guess now you must not think he was responsible for the design?

It's late, will will try to get to more of your unsupportable misinformation tomorrow. 

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Merion had a celebratory dinner for Wilson and his committee after the course was built.  Should they have held the dinner beforehand so it would fit your timeline.  According to you, seven months after the opening is too far removed from the events to be considered contemporary.  Watch that limb you are climbing out on....I hear some cracking.

By the way, in Wilson's excellent essay for Piper and Oakley's book, Turf for Golf Courses,  Wilson in his manuscript removed the section on the design and theory of bunkers.  In his notes, he said that it was better discussed in another paper on construction.  I believe Wilson's definition of construction was broader than yours and most of us today.  Still, shouldn't we consider his use of the term rather than yours?

[wsmorrison]

David,

I spent a good couple of hours at the Historical Society and took about 100 photos of various pages.  I'll crop them and label them and send them to you in due time.  Please remember to send me the horticultural plan when you get time.
Thanks.
WSM

[TEPaul]

"After the visit of these gentlemen Mr. Macdonald wrote a member of the committee expressing the views of himself and Mr. Whigam, as to what could be done with the property. The report, as made to the board, embodied Mr. Macdonald’s letter, but it was not written for publication. We do not, therefore, feel justified in printing it. We can properly say, that it was, in general terms, favorable, and the committee based its recommendation largely on their opinion."

David Moriarty:

That is what the site committee wrote to the board. Maybe you've seen a routing and design plan for a golf course that can be "layed-out" on the ground in the form of someone's OPINION of a site in a LETTER, but I know I haven't, and I'm pretty sure MCC didn't either in June/July 1910.