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

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I still have to wonder why such a narrow strip would even by labeled for the golf course from the outset if the would have to reconfigure, the as yet unbuilt, Golf Club Road just to use it at all...doesn't seem logical through the dilligent process to lock into that 190 yard long strip when it is too narrow to place even a green and a tee.

Sully:

I'm not exactly sure what you mean there, but part of it just might be that you really haven't yet realized, as I don't think many have, the real interconnection here in all of this between the interests of MCC (for their future course) and the interests of Lloyd (HDC) and his interests in the large tract of land to the west on which his own estate ended up being about 1/3 of the remaining land of over 200 acres.

It's not as if somebody who had no interest in Merion controlled that land west of the upright "L"; Lloyd owned or controlled that through HDC and, don't forget, he TOO was on the Construction Committee charged with designing and building Merion East.  It was no big deal for him to shift the proposed configuration of an unbuilt road over a bit. It's probably of no real difference than if you and I and Wayne were trying to build a golf course on my farm here or whatever and I was going to put a house on it and to get a couple of types of holes in you just asked me if I would mind changing the lot line of the yet-to-be-built house or road on the property.

Another reason this all seems to make sense is, just as the history of Merion has always said, these guys really were routing and designing and building on this land having never done anything like a golf course before. That's much of the fascination of this time and these types of amateur architects like Leeds and Crump and Wilson and Fownes et al. And this is probably the very reason both Wilsons and Merion have always given Macdonald (and Whigam) the credit they did, even if, as Peter Pallotta very intelligently suspected, it may've been even more than he actually deserved.

When all the facts here are finally unearthed by the likes of the research of Wayne Morrison in the last number of years and up to and including some stuff that he found today, and then very carefully reanalyzed after close to a century, and some of the material that supports the story behind Merion and the real facts behind its creation is made available, I think it just may be time to start a thread or two about what's happened here with an essay like this one with these long challengint threads and some of the mentalities that surrounds them.

There's a very good history professor who uses a term for people who can't really understand history or the people who were part of it and consequently tend to view them as stupid or incapable of doing what they did. Professor Loewen calls people like that the "No-Can-Doists", and their mentality and assumptions and conclusions that way can really distort history, and it can disrepect people from that time but mostly Loewen believes that mentality is just plain arrogance. I agree with Loewan. I think we have a number of classic Loewen "No-Can-Doists" on here and ultimately I don't think they do any of us any good in ever completely understanding this stuff and what really went on back then and how.

I've said it before, you can give me just one Peter Pallotta for 20 "No-Can-Doists". He may not know as much about the details of this as some of  them do, or even any one of them, but I think his sensibilities about history is much better than all of them put together.

We're going to need a really good thread on this subject of "No-Can-Doism" after about five years of unending and unyielding "No-Can-Doists' challenges over the real architectural history of Merion, particularly as it related to Hugh Wilson!

And finally, here's to you Rodman Griscom, Richard Francis, Dr Henry Toulmin, certainly Horatio Gates Lloyd, but most particularly your young chairman, Hugh I. Wilson, who may've even died young in his reamarkable and unceasing effort over Merion.

You Boys, really were "The Men of Merion" because of not just what you did but mostly how you did it, even with a little help and advice from your friend C.B. Macdonald and his son-in-law Henry Whigam who you called 'those two good and kindly gentlemen and sportsmen'. I'm sure they were exactly that to you and Merion. It's just a shame that a bunch of 2008 "No-Can-Doist" mentalities don't or won't understand what you all really did and how, and that they feel the need to call you such a novice that you were incapable of doing what you did!

But do you really want to know what the supreme irony here is? It's that there are a number of Merion members, and some pretty significant ones, who tried to follow some of this and a number of them are reported to have said and to feel that it would actually be a very cool thing to have Charles Blair Macdonald more closely connected to the architecture of Merion East and perhaps be given more attribution for it. I hope they won't be disappointed in how this seems to be playing out.

And they feel that way about Macdonald despite accusations by someone, and who was followed by a few others, who referred to their mentality and defensiveness about their legends and their status quo, as well as to our defensiveness about them, as "The Philadelphia Syndrome"! I didn't accuse him of saying something like that, he said it himself on this website and it's still on the threads in the back pages.

My advice to him is to call up a fresh mind on here like Peter Pallotta. I'll supply his number. This guy, with his massive research capability (or at least that's what he says about himself) and maybe a few others who've joined him, should all call PeterP and perhaps discuss what a more sensible way to look at all this is in the future. Because if they don't and they continue to put a club and its architect through something like this essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion", and all the mindbending challenges to both in all these long posts, they never will understand what really went on way back then, and the truth of it and they will never understand how to honor the truth of it as it should be honored! 

I'm not accusing anybody, I'm just saying this wasn't the best way to get at the truth, and I feel that way very strongly. Some of us never expected to do this kind of research only because we never saw the purpose of it or the necessity of it. To me, I've always stood behind particularly those Wilson reports as they explained the creation of Merion East and West---I've said that all along. I hope the Wilson brothers, Hugh and Alan, and the reports they wrote have been vindicated now!

[Patrick_Mucci]

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...

JES II,

I've consistently stated that I believe that Merion was a collaborative effort and that the legend of its creation is .... flawed.

I see nothing wrong with crediting a group of individuals, members and non-members alike, with its routing and design pre 1912. 

Post 1912 I believe that Wilson deserves the great bulk of the credit.

To me, Merion is a very interesting study for a variety of reasons.

I've always been fascinated by the cross overs, a daring tactic that some think is a flaw in the routing plan.  I think it's a brilliant solution to providing great individual holes.

My criticisms of Merion have been along the lines of them narrowing their fairways and NOT returning them to their full widths, the excessive rough, aspects of the bunker project AND that they may alter some of their greens, which I think would be a travesty.

You may recall the failed use of bunker woll and the other difficulties encountered on the bunker project.

But, the golf course remains a wonderful challenge that's fun to accept, for every level of golfer.

And, I agree, it's amongst an elite cadre of golf courses in the U.S. and elsewhere.

[JESII]

Pat,

You are taking an interesting approach to this debate...you are demanding proof from one side to refute established proof on the other and I don't think even David would suggest he has proven that CBM routed the golf course.

It is an interesting conversation that hopefully will continue to bear out some real interesting information, but proof of anything seems to be absent so far...and lacking that, it's tough for me to see any rewriting of an architectural history.

CBM has been creditd with providing a great deal of advice and assistance...with that, the group of guys tasked with building the course did their job.

[TEPaul]

"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."


Patrick:

Even if there have been some mistakes and misinterpretations in the history of Pine Valley what they have done to memorialize Crump over what he did is accurate. And what Merion has done to memorialize Wilson and his committee, including what he and his brother wrote about Macdonald's (Whigam's) part in advising and helping them, is accurate.

But this essay on here "The Missing Faces of Merion" is not accurate---eg it makes far more out of Macdonald's roll of advising and helping them than he ever did. It virtually concludes and certainly suggests that Wilson and his committee merely built their golf course to Macdonald's routing and design. To come to such a conclusion the author had to construct a series of premises that individually all basically needed to check out factually as he presented them and all those premises needed to support one another for his conclusion to stand. If none of them did, then like a house of cards his conclusion and any validity of it was going to come crashing down. And it is doing that now. We told him that all along if various events were really vetted factually and presented on here. This triangle premise of his is a good example today.

I take no satisfaction in seeing the validity of his essay come apart---like he says he is, all I am or ever was is after the truth. And the fact that Macdonald did not route and design that course in such a way that all Wilson and his committee really needed to do is construct it to Macdonald's plan is beginning to come out like water out of an increasingly open spigot.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE - thanks for the nice words. It's very true that I know less of the details than anyone else on these thread, and I've wanted to be clear about that.  I just like thinking about history and the people who make it, and in the context of their lives and times. As an aside, here's an example of the information I find telling/informative. It's from the Findlay Douglas article that Tony posted:

"A few years after the organization of the National, three older members of the Apawamis Club came to the weary but reluctant conclusion that they needed a course which would be easier to walk. The three were E. C. Converse, W. Hamblen Childs and Frederick S. Wheeler. They assembled a group of 160 Founders, of which Findlay Douglas was one, and organized the Blind Brook Club, in nearby Port Chester, in 1916. Although this was to be unashamedly an easy-walking course for older men, it was to be designed and built by Charles B. Macdonald and his assistant Seth Raynor. However, Macdonald and Raynor lost interest in building a course in that conception, so Findlay Douglas, as Chairman-designate of the Green Committee, built it with the assistance of George Low, the professional at the Baltusrol Golf Club and an architect of parts."

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You are taking an interesting approach to this debate...you are demanding proof from one side to refute established proof on the other and I don't think even David would suggest he has proven that CBM routed the golf course.

You're alleging that there's established proof, but, we've already seen that what was taken for granted as "established proof" wasn't in fact, "established proof"

I'm asking for established proof from BOTH sides.

And, David's premise appears to have supplied a good deal of it.[/color]

It is an interesting conversation that hopefully will continue to bear out some real interesting information, but proof of anything seems to be absent so far...and lacking that, it's tough for me to see any rewriting of an architectural history.

That's only because you've accepted "legend" as "established proof".

Do you believe that Wilson spent 7 months abroad studying the great courses of the UK before he returned to route, design or build Merion ?[/color]

CBM has been creditd with providing a great deal of advice and assistance...with that, the group of guys tasked with building the course did their job.

I accept that position, but, I don't believe that MPC, TEP or WM accept that position, seeking instead to disavow or minimize any substantive involvement on the part of CBM and HJW.

You may recall, that years ago, I too refuted CBM's and HJW's involvement.

With David's presentation however, I have changed my mind.[/color]

[JESII]

Pat,

If you re-read my post it clearly says that I don't believe either side has proven much of anything but you are acting as though David has.

To be honest, I had accepted the "legend" and David's piece and these conversations changed that.  But now, I am becoming more and more convinced that CBM had virtually nothing to do with the routing of the golf course...certainly advised on the best values of golf holes and where to find them and maybe even how to build them, but not the routing...the timing just doesn't work in his favor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"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."


Patrick:

Even if there have been some mistakes and misinterpretations in the history of Pine Valley what they have done to memorialize Crump over what he did is accurate.

And what Merion has done to memorialize Wilson and his committee, including what he and his brother wrote about Macdonald's (Whigam's) part in advising and helping them, is accurate.

But this essay on here "The Missing Faces of Merion" is not accurate---eg it makes far more out of Macdonald's roll of advising and helping them than he ever did. It virtually concludes and certainly suggests that Wilson and his committee merely built their golf course to Macdonald's routing and design.

I don't know that David concludes that CBM alone routed and designed Merion.

Clearly the inference is that Wilson didn't route and design the golf course.

And that Wilson didn't sail abroad to study the great courses of the UK prior to the routing and design of Merion.  On that part, David appears to be correct, thus, undoing the accepted pre-construction history.[/color]

To come to such a conclusion the author had to construct a series of premises that individually all basically needed to check out factually as he presented them and all those premises needed to support one another for his conclusion to stand.

I think that's backwards.

A premise should be the product of research and prudent man reasoning, and not a predisposed conclusion searching for supporting research to the exclusion of contradictory research.[/color]

If none of them did, then like a house of cards his conclusion and any validity of it was going to come crashing down. And it is doing that now. We told him that all along if various events were really vetted factually and presented on here. This triangle premise of his is a good example today.


For me, like a lease, just because a tenant or landlord violates one clause in the lease, doesn't mean it voids any other clause or voids the lease.

You're seeking to find flaws in David's premise, factual and/or reasoned, and that's a legitimate pursuit.  But, the finding of a flaw, doesn't void the entirety of the premise.  It has to be looked at structurally.  
Is the flaw a component or a linch pin ?
There is a substantive difference.[/color]

I take no satisfaction in seeing the validity of his essay come apart---like he says he is, all I am or ever was is after the truth. And the fact that Macdonald did not route and design that course in such a way that all Wilson and his committee really needed to do is construct it to Macdonald's plan is beginning to come out like water out of an increasingly open spigot.


Your above description or summation is one that could be described as an extreme simplification, and an erroneous one at that.  It seeks to undo the premise based on but one component, and then, expand that particular component to form a general conclusion.

You and especially MPC tend to take an all or nothing proposition, whereas, I feel the answer lies more in between the two extremes.

Here's where I stand today.
I believe that CBM and HJW were intimately involved in the routing and design process.
  
I don't think you can ignore, dismiss or diminish that Whigham indicates that CBM routed and designed Merion.
And, he's the only one to specifically identify who it was that routed and designed the golf course.

I believe that Wilson and his CC built the golf course.

I don't believe that Wilson studied in the UK for 7 months prior to the routing and design of Merion.  

I don't believe that a group of members, acting alone, designed and built Merion.

I'm hoping, through this thread, that more will be learned about the pre-1912 years.

If not, the debate will remain open.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Frankly, guys, I really didn't want to bring something this general up until afterwards and I'm trying to get some conformation from some people who would know more but C.B. MacDonald may never have provided a decent routing plan or hole drawings in his entire career in golf acrchitecture even with the courses he really was personally involved in or took architectural credit for, including on his own life-long dedication and personal favorite, NGLA. So to think he would've done that himself even remotely comprehensively for Merion in a fewy days doesn't make sense to me and it never has! Most of us know, for that---eg plans and drawings, he almost always depended on Seth Raynor. And Seth Raynor never came to Merion on either visit Macdonald made for the purposes of advising architecturally.

I've been involved with the architectural evolution and history of The Creek Club, a club Macdonald was intimately involved in not just creating it but as a central member of it. To date we have never seen anything on it drawn by Macdonald and that was a club he was very involved in as a member, committee person and even the president of the Kellenworth Corporation that owned the land.

Again, for that, drawings and plans and such, he always had Raynor. Macdonald had a big blow-up at a Creek Club meeting at The Links Club in November of 1926 and he resigned on the spot but he eventually gave as his reason for resigning that he wanted to repair to his bungalow in Bermuda and write his memoires that became "Scotland's Gift Golf". After that with architecture and people in it he was basically done for good, even if he would live for about another dozen years.

When Raynor died for all intents and purposes Macdonald was essentially done with golf course architecture. Even a fantastic architect such as Perry Maxwell found that out by letter.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you re-read my post it clearly says that I don't believe either side has proven much of anything but you are acting as though David has.

David's been held to a more exacting standard, whereas the lore surrounding Merion has been given a free pass.

Where's the proof for Wilson's 7 month trip ?

Where's the proof that Wilson routed and designed Merion ?[/color]

To be honest, I had accepted the "legend" and David's piece and these conversations changed that. 

But now, I am becoming more and more convinced that CBM had virtually nothing to do with the routing of the golf course...certainly advised on the best values of golf holes and where to find them and maybe even how to build them, but not the routing...the timing just doesn't work in his favor.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

But, if CBM didn't route or design the golf course, why does Whigham claim he did ?

Why is CBM praised for his contribution over and over again.

As to the design of the holes, how do you explain the presence of the "Alps" and the "Redan" forms ?

Did CBM find them in the land just as he described finding them at NGLA ?

Maybe you, TEPaul, Wayno and MPC have made your decision, but,
The jury is still out where I'm concerned.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Here's where I stand today.
I believe that CBM and HJW were intimately involved in the routing and design process."

Well, then, Patrick, you and I will probably never agree on that and that's OK, as I doubt Merion really cares if you think that if you can't prove it by something more than they have!
  
"I don't think you can ignore, dismiss or diminish that Whigham indicates that CBM routed and designed Merion."

I've been aware of that for years. George Bahto told us about that years ago. I don't know what that means but I sure don't put as much stock in a mention like that in a eulogy about thirty years later (actually it was written in an article by Whigam in T&C that was taken as a eulogy). Maybe, Whigam just mispoke or miswrote and meant to say some other course. But I sure do know that comes nowhere near trumping what the people intimately involved in Merion East for so long said about Macdonald's involvement  and that's what I've always stood behind, particularly Hugh and the Alan Wilson's report of the creation of the first phase. And particularly Alan Wilson's report about who he said DESIGNED and built Merion East and West.


"And, he's the only one to specifically identify who it was that routed and designed the golf course."

And the fact that with the weight of evidence to the contrary, that single mention in a eulogy about thirty years later is why Merion has never put much credence in it.

"I believe that Wilson and his CC built the golf course."

They most certainly did do that.

"I don't believe that Wilson studied in the UK for 7 months prior to the routing and design of Merion."

Maybe he didn't but in my opinion that does not indicate that he and his committee could not or did not route, design and build Merion, no matter how much someone like you continues to caterwall he and his committee members were too much the novices to have done it.  

"I don't believe that a group of members, acting alone, designed and built Merion."

I believe they did exactly that with the help and advice of Macdonald and Whigam just as explained in those two reports of the Wilson brothers!

[DMoriarty]

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.

I knew I'd get in trouble for using Ross.  I just didn't want to use anyone actually involved, and TEPaul doesnt care much for Mr. X, so I used Ross.  But it was Dean Ross, not Donald.

I beg to differ with your characterization that Wilson laid out the course like Tilly and others.   Because these guys were planning on the go, but Wilson was not.   For one thing, he went to NGLA to meet with M&W first.  For another, Barker and M&W had already provided their views on what could be done with the property.  For another, there is evidence that he did not start on the project until AFTER the basic routing was in place, and no evidence that he started before this. 

You seem to think that unless another routing is located then we must assume that Wilson routed the course.  But we can determine the timing of Wilson's involvement without reference to the
whether it was Macdonald or Barker or both who thought the plateau next to the old barn should be a Redan.

Here is another silly hypothetical.  I could be wrong, but I think Wayne has written that Flynn did not work on the creation  of Merion.   Do we have to find a routing by someone before we say that, based on Wayne's information, Flynn did not route the course?    Of course not, because the routing was done before he was on the project.   

The same logic applies with Wilson.  He was not on the project until after the holes were in place on the routing plan.  So he could not have done the initial routing.

And the truth or falsity does not depend on finding a routing plan.  (By the way, there is no Wilson routing plan of which I am aware.)

__________________________

"A few years after the organization of the National, three older members of the Apawamis Club came to the weary but reluctant conclusion that they needed a course which would be easier to walk. The three were E. C. Converse, W. Hamblen Childs and Frederick S. Wheeler. They assembled a group of 160 Founders, of which Findlay Douglas was one, and organized the Blind Brook Club, in nearby Port Chester, in 1916. Although this was to be unashamedly an easy-walking course for older men, it was to be designed and built by Charles B. Macdonald and his assistant Seth Raynor. However, Macdonald and Raynor lost interest in building a course in that conception, so Findlay Douglas, as Chairman-designate of the Green Committee, built it with the assistance of George Low, the professional at the Baltusrol Golf Club and an architect of parts."

Peter

Peter,

Interesting quote, and one that begs the question of whether CBM ever bragged about designing Blind Brook Club.  Given that he or Raynor did not build it, I doubt he did, but am curious if anyone has information to the contrary.

______________________
 

Frankly, guys, I really didn't want to bring something this general up until afterwards and I'm trying to get some conformation from some people who would know more but C.B. MacDonald may never have provided a decent routing plan or hole drawings in his entire career in golf acrchitecture even with the courses he really was personally involved in or took architectural credit for, including on his own life-long dedication and personal favorite, NGLA. So to think he would've done that himself even remotely comprehensively for Merion in a fewy days doesn't make sense to me and it never has! Most of us know, for that---eg plans and drawings, he almost always depended on Seth Raynor. And Seth Raynor never came to Merion on either visit Macdonald made for the purposes of advising architecturally.

I've been involved with the architectural evolution and history of The Creek Club, a club Macdonald was intimately involved in not just creating it but as a central member of it. To date we have never seen anything on it drawn by Macdonald and that was a club he was very involved in as a member, committee person and even the president of the Kellenworth Corporation that owned the land.

If this is the case then you answered your own question and that of others as well. 

Many have made a big deal out of the "fact" that Macdonald sent a letter but not a map.  (Frankly we dont know this to be the case, but lets assume it was a letter with words only.   

If he never drew out a routing plan, then why would you ahve expected him to a Merion.  Whether he could draw or not is not the issue.  The issue is whether he communicated their views on could be done with the land, and the Committee says he did this. 
_______________________________

But now, I am becoming more and more convinced that CBM had virtually nothing to do with the routing of the golf course...certainly advised on the best values of golf holes and where to find them and maybe even how to build them, but not the routing...the timing just doesn't work in his favor.

Can you give me a snapshot of what you mean here?  Because in my mind the timing very much in his favor. 

___________________

TEPaul,

I take no satisfaction in seeing the validity of his essay come apart---like he says he is, all I am or ever was is after the truth.

First, this is absolutely  outrageous.  Need I remind you of your of your foolish behavior last time you prematurely proclaimed the death of my essay?

Second, and more importantly, the validity of my essay is stronger than ever.   

And the validity of your counter argument looses credibility every time you pronounce my essay is dead but then fail to  offer anything new or novel by way of facts or reasoning.   

The dimensions of the Johnson Farm are not new or novel.  In fact, I am taken aback that you guys did not have this imformation.  I specifically recall you mentioning that Merions land was on the old Johnson farm.    Likewise, the revelation that the land did not go immediately to Merion Cricket Club is nothing new and changes nothing about the transaction between Merion and HDC. 

If facts and logic require that I reconsider part of my essay, then great.  But so far, this hasn't happened.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

There is a big difference between the concept that Wilson designed Merion and that CB or others did: the Merion Golf Club and those who have written it's official histories believe that he did. In addition, men of his day such as Tillinghast who were there when it was designed and built state that he did.

Because of this the burden of proving that Wilson didn't must meet a higher standard than the proofs that he did. Sort of like the old adage that you have to knock out the heavyweight champion to take the crown away from him.

Again, I am NOT stating that I am ofthe opinion that Wilson designed Merion or that CB didn't. Here is what I wrote before, I believe you missed the last portion:

"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."

THAT is why I finished not by saying you are wrong, but that, "You need more proof..."

BY the way, since there are evidently no design drawings to be found, OTHER than Wilson and the committee, did ANYONE STAKE out a course on the property from which the holes were built?

[Peter Pallotta]

David -

I saw something else entirely in that quote - I read an example of Macdonald's very definite ideas about golf course architecture, and of his own sense of himself as the man doing the defining....which is why the courses that he really had anything to do with seem to be so identifiably his.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Here's where I stand today.
I believe that CBM and HJW were intimately involved in the routing and design process."

Well, then, Patrick, you and I will probably never agree on that and that's OK, as I doubt Merion really cares if you think that if you can't prove it by something more than they have!

Unlike others, I don't form my opinions to please or cater to Merion.[/color]
  
"I don't think you can ignore, dismiss or diminish that Whigham indicates that CBM routed and designed Merion."

I've been aware of that for years. George Bahto told us about that years ago. I don't know what that means but I sure don't put as much stock in a mention like that in a eulogy about thirty years later (actually it was written in an article by Whigam in T&C that was taken as a eulogy).


What difference does the forum for disclosure make ?[/color]

Maybe, Whigam just mispoke or miswrote and meant to say some other course.

So, when Whigham speaks and writes, he mispeaks or miswrites, but when Alan Wilson and others speak and write we're to accept that as The Gospel.  [/color]

But I sure do know that comes nowhere near trumping what the people intimately involved in Merion East for so long said about Macdonald's involvement  and that's what I've always stood behind, particularly Hugh and the Alan Wilson's report of the creation of the first phase. And particularly Alan Wilson's report about who he said DESIGNED and built Merion East and West.

As I stated above, you selectively choose who you want to believe based upon whether or not they agree with your perspective, or the party line.

You can't dismiss Whigham's spoken and written words because they're contrary to your beliefs.[/color]

"And, he's the only one to specifically identify who it was that routed and designed the golf course."

And the fact that with the weight of evidence to the contrary, that single mention in a eulogy about thirty years later is why Merion has never put much credence in it.

That's your opinion.

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

"I believe that Wilson and his CC built the golf course."

They most certainly did do that.

"I don't believe that Wilson studied in the UK for 7 months prior to the routing and design of Merion."

Maybe he didn't but in my opinion that does not indicate that he and his committee could not or did not route, design and build Merion, no matter how much someone like you continues to caterwall he and his committee members were too much the novices to have done it.  

Let's get rid of the "maybe" since you have no verifiable evidence that Wilson traveled in the UK for 7 months prior to 1911.

Do you, like MPC, believe that this collection of neophytes routed the golf course and designed all of the holes:
1 Without any help from CBM
2 Without any help from other outsiders
3 Without a good deal of help from CBM
4 Without a good deal of help from outsiders
5 Without considerable help from CBM
6 Without considerable help from outsiders

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

"I don't believe that a group of members, acting alone, designed and built Merion."

I believe they did exactly that with the help and advice of Macdonald and Whigam just as explained in those two reports of the Wilson brothers!

Now you're contradicting yourself.
You just stated the following:

Maybe he didn't but in my opinion that does not indicate that he and his committee could not or did not route, design and build Merion, no matter how much someone like you continues to caterwall he and his committee members were too much the novices to have done it.

Do you think that CBM and HJW were simply observers or actively involved in the routing and individual hole designs ?

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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Frankly, guys, I really didn't want to bring something this general up until afterwards and I'm trying to get some conformation from some people who would know more but C.B. MacDonald may never have provided a decent routing plan or hole drawings in his entire career in golf acrchitecture even with the courses he really was personally involved in or took architectural credit for, including on his own life-long dedication and personal favorite, NGLA.

TEPaul,

Your statement is grossly irresponsible.

Why would you throw an unsupported rumor into the fray ?

If you have proof, why not evidence it ?

CBM's written words dispute your claim.

You're being intellectually dishonest.

Is this just another desperate attempt to discredit CBM and HJW ?

Wilson and Merion acknowledged their involvement.

You seem more concerned about winning the debate with David than getting to the truth on the issues.[/color]

So to think he would've done that himself even remotely comprehensively for Merion in a fewy days doesn't make sense to me and it never has! Most of us know, for that---eg plans and drawings, he almost always depended on Seth Raynor. And Seth Raynor never came to Merion on either visit Macdonald made for the purposes of advising architecturally.

That's interesting.
You accept that Wilson went to the UK prior to 1911, when it appears that he didn't, yet you pretend to know whether or not Raynor ever visited Merion.  Have you read anything that states that Raynor NEVER visited the site, or is this your own conclusion ?[/color]

I've been involved with the architectural evolution and history of The Creek Club, a club Macdonald was intimately involved in not just creating it but as a central member of it. To date we have never seen anything on it drawn by Macdonald and that was a club he was very involved in as a member, committee person and even the president of the Kellenworth Corporation that owned the land.

I hate to tell you this, but, that's got NOTHING to do with his involvement at Merion, an involvement that lead Wilson and Merion to commend him for his significant efforts.

You're getting more desperate by the day.[/color]

Again, for that, drawings and plans and such, he always had Raynor. Macdonald had a big blow-up at a Creek Club meeting at The Links Club in November of 1926 and he resigned on the spot but he eventually gave as his reason for resigning that he wanted to repair to his bungalow in Bermuda and write his memoires that became "Scotland's Gift Golf". After that with architecture and people in it he was basically done for good, even if he would live for about another dozen years.

Again, that's totally irrelevant when it comes to Merion.[/color]

When Raynor died for all intents and purposes Macdonald was essentially done with golf course architecture. Even a fantastic architect such as Perry Maxwell found that out by letter.

You seem to be fixated on irrelevant issues having nothing to do with CBM's involvelment at Merion.[/color]

[Peter Pallotta]

So Patrick -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter

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

Ah..perhaps because he WASN'T substantively involved. Do you believe David's essay gives ground enough to answer your question differently?   

[TEPaul]

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

Pat:

I know some think we argue and seem to fight because we don't like each other while others know it's sort of a game and we know each other well but that statement of yours is over the line. Matter of fact, it is way over the line.

I trust you to do the right thing about it and to do it right on this thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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

Pat:

I know some think we argue and seem to fight because we don't like each other while others know it's sort of a game and we know each other well but that statement of yours is over the line. Matter of fact, it is way over the line.

Why did you think that sentence was referencing you ?

It wasn't, it had nothing to do with you.[/color]

I trust you to do the right thing about it and to do it right on this thread.


I'm trying to be a Devil's Advocate, and interested spectator and a fair arbiter.

I'd like to find out more about the early years of Merion.

What continues to befuddle me is the following.

CBM was one of the giants of American golf, why the effort to distance him from Merion's beginings, disavowing him of any substantive involvement ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In post #130 apparently you didn't read what I said. All I said is I'm not aware that C.B. Macdonald drew routing plans and hole designs and either did Whigam. If you can find one he ever drew for any course he was involved with including those that he certainly did take architectural design credit for, much less Merion Ardmore which he never did take routing and design credit for, then why don't you show some to me?  I checked with our resident Macdonald expert before I said that on here and he's not aware of any either. But maybe now you think you know more about Macdonald and what he did than anyone in the world! The point is when he needed things like that, Seth Raynor did it for him always.

And as far as everyone on here has said, Seth Raynor never came to Merion Ardmore on those two of so visits Macdonald and Whigam made there.

Do you get my drift now, about routing plans and design drawings and C.B. Macdonald (or Whigam) doing one?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

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

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

Those are pretty harsh words, implying that people ignore the truth or are outright fabricating information with the aim of pleasing a membership.  Not only are you mean-spirited, but you are completely wrong.  Why are you still on this kick that Merion, Philadelphia, GAP and Pennsylvania all are in some conspiracy to avoid the truth and hold fast to myths and legends?  I've mentioned that I've spoken to quite a few members, particularly those that are charged with compiling the historical record.  There isn't a club in the world with a better Archives and a demonstrated history of pursuing the true history of Merion.  You slander these efforts with your uniformed and poorly considered positions.  How did Merion take to the notion of Flynn's greater role in the design evolution of Merion?  Do you know?  If you did, you wouldn't worry about the club response if it was proved that Macdonald and Whigham were specifically involved in the design and routing of Merion.    You take for granted something you have no clue about and act like it is a fact.  I wouldn't be too proud of your record on this subject.

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

That's your opinion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TEPaul]

"Why did you think that sentence was referencing you ?
It wasn't, it had nothing to do with you."


You know Patrick, you really are amazing! I think it's just a God-damn crying shame your parents didn't make you a lawyer or let you be one. Had they, you'd be on the US Supreme Court years ago or one of the best interstate criminal lawyers in America.

I guess that's why I love you and your unpredicatable "action"! Don't worry, I won't ask you who you were referring to because if I did you'd just bob and weave around it. 








PS;

Have I told you lately you're still a total pain-in-the-ass?

[Mike_Cirba]

Neophytes?


Reading this thread, I'm beginning to think that it was Hugh Wilson who shot JFK!   

David,

A prominent member of the club, a guy who was named CHAIRMAN of the committee to build the course...

didn't come onto the scene until 1911?

Your inability to find proof of his activities prior to then should clearly not be taken as evidence that he wasn't intimately involved in every detail.

Unless you can find video of him vacationing on the beach at Le Touquet with his mistress Michelle throughout the period 1909-1910, this is a very, very flimsy contention.

[Phil_the_Author]

From the April 1910 issue of GOLF magazine:

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

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

Questions:

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

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

[BCrosby]

Phil - Intersting find. I would guess that there were many other Merion members in the UK for tournaments or visits. That's what wealthy golfers did then. Evidence for it is just a matter of digging it out of old magazines.

A part of what I don't get about the firestorm over Merion is the notion that CBM and only CBM knew anything about great golf holes, let alone already famous holes like the Redan or the Alps.

By 1910 or so, Wilson and any number of Merion members had played on college golf teams that played virtually all of the best US courses at the time. Their golfing travels continued after graduation. Books by Hutchinson, Darwin and others described the great holes in the UK. Their books are full of pictures. Magazine articles routinely described great holes. Many written for the express purpose of educating golfers about golf design.

I can think of lots of reasons why Merion might have brought in experts, but one of those reasons would not have been to educate them about famous golf holes. 

Bob