[Mike_Cirba]

There has been some discussion here in the past about the identity of "American Golfer" writer "Far and Sure".   I believe that it's Tillinghast, and Phil Young believes it's Travis, and David Moriarty isn't certain, but no matter.   We know he was connected at the very, very top levels of early American golf, and was likely one of the first practicioners of architecture in this country.

For some days now I've been carrying around the article Far and Sure wrote right after the opening of the Merion East golf course, and earlier today I quoted from it on another thread, part of which I will reproduce here.

But, I went to lunch and re-read a portion and all of a sudden, it hit me.  The Great man himself tells us who did what.

Let me first re-state what I typed earlier this morning in response to Shivas;

David quotes "Far and Sure"'s review of Merion in "American Golfer", but listen again very carefully to how he describes the respective roles of Macdonald and Wilson in the creation of Merion when he played it right after it opened in Sept 1912.   The writer was either Travis or Tillinghast...I believe the latter and Phil disagrees, but no matter;

"Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen, but every new course is "one of the best in the country", and one must see to believe after trying it out."

That is the sole mention of Macdonald.   It doesn't say he created anything...whether the term is planned, conceived, laid out, constructed, designed...nada.   He VIEWED it, and offered great assistance in exactly the things that Site Committee recommended him for, and exactly what Hugh Wilson later gave him thanks for...CONSTRUCTION and AGRONOMY.


Then, what does he say about Wilson;

"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."


So Shivas...I have to ask;  what is a construction foreman doing "conceiving the problems of golf holes"?    Isn't that a definition of Golf Course Architecture, 101?   

What's more, he points out that it's still a rough draft, with more details to be fleshed out later, but who does he say CONCEIVED the holes??

Are you trying to argue that Macdonald just routed the course but Wilson CONCEIVED the holes??   How would Macdonald know what to route where if he didn't even know what holes Hugh Wilson would CONCEIVE of??

If all the Construction Committee had to do was implement to Macdonald's plans for the course, whether written, verbal, in a letter, on a train, in a plane, with a fox, on a box, all they had to do was dig the ground and plant grass?   They would have had no business "CONCEIVING" of anything.   Why was it now 18 months after construction started and they were still only at the rough draft stage if they were just following Macdonald's well-crafted plans??

This was published in American Golfer in a several page spread right after the course opened.   I'm sure it was read by Macdonald and Whigham.   Why didn't they take issue?? 


Interestingly, in response to some other things I'd brought up in that same post, Shivas responded as follows;

"Total red herring.  We know what they meant at the time.  Tom Paul proved that a few days ago with writings from Darwin and Barker.  "Lay out" and "laid out"  meant getting the holes from concept to the ground, without planning or foresight.  Have you forgotten already?  Why do you keep insisting that driving a car connotes engineering it, when it's perfectly clear from Bernard Darwin no less, that to lay out a golf course meant to put the holes on the ground.  We all agree on this.  But you can't go adding additional the additional element of designing a course out of the clear blue sky without some sort of rationale -- and the sad fact is that based on the first-hand written accounts of the day, there is NONE."

"Quit touting it and PROVE IT.  Show me one contemporaneous writing where "lay out" says that the person conceptualized a design.  Just one.  If it were there, we woudn't be having this discussion.  Lay out meant the physical act of putting holes on the ground.  Hell, even Tom Paul agrees with that... he'd better...it was his argument... "

Well Shivas...today must be your lucky day because you're about to get your wish.   

Let's see what else "Far and Sure" said, and let's see who told him;

"Ever since golf was introduced in Philadelphia, the city has been in great need of a course such as Merion has produced, or should I say, is producing, for the work is still in its early stages". (it is now later 1912 and work began in April 1911 - comment mine) 

I had heard MUCH OF THE PLANS and reports of the progressing work, but not until a month ago did I find the opportunity of seeing it."

So, who told him?   How did he know who did what??  What were his sources about Macdonald helping in an "advisory" way and Hugh Wilson "conceiving of the holes"?

He goes on;

Two years ago, Mr. Chas B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, TOLD ME that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen..."


So, Far and Sure heard much of the plans and progress of the work, from Charles Macdonald, and the great man himself only claimed an "advisory role".  Not the designer, not the router, not the person who "laid it out", but simply advised, and reported from a conversation with Charley himself.

A bit later, "Far and Sure" continues with his findings;

"Everything indicated careful, intelligent preparation and painstaking development."  (But this was not a puff piece...this was a review - Comments mine)  "To my way of thinking, some of the greens would be better if they were more undulating, but on the whole they are very satisfactory.   This feature is one of the  few which could possibly be criticised at this time, but this is foundation work and it is no light task to remake a green."

After providing the hole distances, for a total yardage of 6235, the article continues;

"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."

"Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used.   For example, an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made on the fifteenth and in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures.   The hole in question is a two-shotter and the sloping green is so keen and barren of undulations that the player is practically forced to "skittle' his approach in fear of getting above the hole.   Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced.   On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspicously like the bents of Le Touquet."

"However, I think that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious."


Interestingly, and lending credence in my mind to my contention that the writer was Tillinghast, Tilly reported in the April 1911 Philadelphia Inquirer that he had seen the plans of the new Merion course and was most impressed.


We already knew that Wilson "laid out", and "constructed" the holes at Merion, but we now know that he also "conceived" of the holes.

Is there anything else a golf course architect needs to do to prove he's the golf course architect?

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Mike, but as a dispassionate observer of some of your writings on this matter you appear to be abnormally stretching the meanings of words to match your preconcieved notion of what you believe to be reality.

[Mike_Cirba]

In what way Garland?

Only one person or even team can "conceive" of a golf hole.   It seems to me to infer the individualistic, creative act.   How is that a stretch?

Could you "conceive" of a golf hole after someone else supposed created it?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I cannot believe you started yet another thread.   It is entirely unnecessary, especially regarding an article we covered ad nauseum years ago.

What do we have four threads now?  And all but Ran's start by proclaiming the death of my essay.   I don't count George, because his post deserves its own stage.  Yours does not.   

Is your goal to just spread misinformation around in so many places that reasonable minds cannot respond announce the death of my essay?  If so, it may be effective in the short run because i am tired of chasing after you guys, but in the long run my essay still speaks for itself, unscathed.

[Mike_Cirba]

Golf Illustrated  – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast (a man who had been there since the beginning and witnessed the creation of Merion first-hand)

“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth.  Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much.   It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture.  Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”


How would Tillinghast know who designed Merion, and who created the plan?   Was he there??   Did he see the plans???

[Mike_Cirba]

On April 30, 1911, right after Macdonald and Whigham's second visit to Merion, Tillinghast wrote;

"Recently I heard several players disucssing the prospects of the new course at Merion, and one stated that in his opinion it was futile to endeavor to produce a championship course in the vicinity of Philadelphia because the conditions were so unfavorable - the character of the soil, rank native grasses, worms, etc., etc."   ( I wonder if he had a predisposition to locating courses on sandy soil! - comment mine)

"This is sheer folly.   The conditions about this section are not at all iimpossible;  as a matter of fact, they are rather good - not as easily handled as some other parts of the country, but on the whole, very satisfactory..."

"I have seen enough of the plans of the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realizaton of the hopes of the committee."

[Jim Briggs]

Two years ago, Mr. Chas B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, TOLD ME that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen..."


So, Far and Sure heard much of the plans and progress of the work, from Charles Macdonald, and the great man himself only claimed an "advisory role".  Not the designer, not the router, not the person who "laid it out", but simply advised, and reported from a conversation with Charley himself.

Mike,

I am dispassionate observer in this as well, but I'm not sure how you can look at the term "advisory role" and say with certainty that it precludes CBM from having performed certain activities (such as a routing).

With my own personal finances, someone can work with me in an ADVISORY capacity, and in that capacity understand what my short and long term objectives are (build a golf course), understand what the assets I currently have to work with are (land), and that advisor can create a very specific action plan (or a routing) as to how I begin to get there, including what stocks and bonds I should buy or sell right now.  I may not execute through him, but rather through others (construction committee), but the advisor can certainly (and in my example) have played a significant role, for better worse in me acheiving the objectives I laid out to him.

Again, I'm not saying what CBM did or didn't do, I am just pointing out that you can not say with any level of certaintly what Advisory role means, because it could span from little to great significance.  I take from your post that you correlate Advisory with minimal and little significance.

Jim

[DMoriarty]

Mike, did you really start a new thread so we could cover the same basic cases that we have talked about for two years. 

I've addressed all of it before and am not going to again.  Your are just running around in circles, but you bit off your own tail long ago.   

Are you really suggesting that "the hopes of the committee" means that they routed the course?  Laughable.

Please let this thread die and beat this dead horse on one of the other three threads, just for the sake of clarity.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Who is the only man who claims to have seen the plans that none of us can find?   Tillinghast.

Who does Tillinghast tell us "conceived of the holes"?   Wilson

Who does Tillinghast tell us "planned the course"?   Wilson

He was part of it, talked to Macdonald, knew what was going on, saw the plans, and told us.

[wsmorrison]

Anyone on this site who claims to know exactly what the initial design attributions should be for Merion East, unless they are sitting on undisclosed information, are deceiving themselves and others.   We do know that it was a collaborative effort and some of that collaboration has long been in the public domain.  David would have us believe that, unlike the currently accepted perspective, Wilson had nothing at all to do with the design and routing of the golf course.  He attributes most of the work to Macdonald and Whigham.  He brought attention to the earliest design effort proposed by Barker.  I've known about Barker's work for several years, though it slipped my mind, since I found the scrapbooks in the Historical Society of PA and copied a number of them in July 2003 (including an indecipherable copy of Barker paper).  I made a more recent trip and rather than photocopying them (some were downright horrible and others barely legible) I was able to take digital photos of them and they are easy to read.

David is not alone in failing to break the code.  Mike does not know the full truth and neither does Tom Paul or myself.  However, I think some of us are onto a line of inquiry that may not tell us all that happened, but it will determine whether David's essay stands up to close scrutiny. 

Why such scrutiny becomes adversarial (from both sides) is somewhat understandable.  I've been trying to avoid it as much as possible and am pleased that David and I have maintained a cooperative relationship throughout this process.  David asked for our analysis and he is getting it.  I will comply at some point. 

In the meantime, I encourage all parties to stop deluding themselves into thinking they know the true story and stick to amassing primary material.  There is too much speculation from all sides being disguised as fact.  I think Tom Paul is taking a different enough course.  He is clear about the fact that he is speculating about some things because he wants to take the discussion in a certain direction, that is an exploration of Francis's role and the timing of the land swap and the blasting of the top of the quarry fronting the 16th green.  This will test the timeline that David put forth.  If the timeline cannot stand up to this test, much of David's essay unravels.  If it does stand up to the test, it still does not mean David is right.  There remain too many gaps, too much reliance on circumstantial evidence and a foundation of too many unsupported suppositions.

We do not know what Macdonald and Whigham advised.  Without knowing the contents of their report and evidence that it was incorporated in the initial design of Merion East (though it was soon dramatically altered and a number of holes redesigned), there is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusions he draws and that David Schmidt, Pat Mucci and Ran Morrisett concur with.  It is simple, boys.  The truth cannot be known given the information on hand.  The Macdonald report is vital to David's claims.  He claims he does not have it.  I wonder if it still exists.  Perhaps part 2 will clear it all up.

What else is clear is that Merion is not shielding myths and legends while subordinating the truth.  Pat is completely wrong about that and he should be ashamed for pointing an accusatory finger at the club and its members.  Given how little he knows about the club and its membership, perhaps we should just ignore his malicious judgments altogether.  Interesting that Raynor has been introduced by several posters when there hasn't been one shred of evidence linking him to ever setting foot on Merion at the time of its planning and construction.  Or perhaps ever for that matter.

Should any new evidence rise to the level required for proof, the written record will be amended.  So far, by any objective measure, it has fallen well short.  For now, I will continue to cast my lot with Wilson, the Committee and Pickering with perhaps some able assistance from HC Toomey. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

Sound like an interested party with money to spare should see if they can video enhance Barkers original report!

[wsmorrison]

Jeff,

No money and no time 

There may be an opportunity to explore the one place where there may be some documents related to the early history of Merion East.  As of yet we have not been able to gain access.  That may soon change.  If it happens and anything turns up, report to follow.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yeah, I was thinking more along the TePaul lines........

Another option to settle this whole mess would simply be to hold a seance at Merion and have them bring old CBM, HIW and others back to tell them exactly what happened back then!

OMIGOD I am brilliant.  Why didn't someone think of a seance sooner?

Ya know anyone who performs those kind of works?

Only question is, we couldn't let some guys in the room. They would probably still challenge old Charlie about his definition of "layed out" and maybe the ghost of CBM would demonstrate how he "laid out" those who challenge him.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wayne,

I do not claim to know the whole truth.   But I do think certain bits of information are useful to consider, even if conjecture.

It is difficult at this juncture to avoid trying to piece together the facts that we do know however, and in this case, it occurs to me that the only man who claimed to have seen the plans, Tillinghast, also came out firmly and decisively in telling us who was responsible for the planning of the Merion course.   The fact that both Tom Paul and I believe that "Far and Sure" was Tilly also lends credence if in fact he was, based on his statement that Wilson and the Committee conceived of the holes, and we also know he had spoken to Macdonald, so he clearly knew what was going on at Merion at that time.

I also think it would make sense that when Tillinghast reported about those plans in April 1911, it was as a result of actually being there discussing things with the Merion Committee and Macdonald.   

He knew them all well and certainly would have been apprised of the great man's visit to town.

JBriggs,

I appreciate the dispassionate response, but these guys were golfers writing for other golfers.

When in the history of golf reporting and writing did you ever hear of someone "advising", when they actually meant the person routed or designed a golf course?

This language of "advising" is most curious, because it's what was used separately by "Far and Sure", by Robert Lesley in a later article, and by Alan Wilson.   For whatever reason, they were all trying to convey that his contributions were a bit vague and probably general.   The fact is that nobody told us specifically what he did, but only that his major contributions were in teaching construction of holes and agronomy, as well as teaching the correct "principles" of the holes, which is far different that saying he created the holes themselves.

If he laid out or designed or routed the golf course, I believe they would have been very proud of that fact, and very clearly stated that smple truth.

[David Ober]

Isn't there an easy way to find out who "Far and Sure" actually was? Wouldn't computer-aided forensic examination of the writings make sense?

I'm pretty sure such technology exists. You know, the kind where it compares one writing sample to another in order to tell you whether the two writers are the same?

[wsmorrison]

How do you delete posts? 

[Mike_Cirba]

David Ober,

I'll try to provide some details in the next few days as to why I think it's Tilly.

For now, let's just say he knew way more about Philly golf than I believe Travis would have.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

We do not know what Macdonald and Whigham advised.  Without knowing the contents of their report and evidence that it was incorporated in the initial design of Merion East (though it was soon dramatically altered and a number of holes redesigned), there is insufficient evidence to draw the conclusions he draws and that David Schmidt, Pat Mucci and Ran Morrisett concur with.

In particular, which conclusions did I concur with ?

I was the one who first stated that I believed that Merion was a collaborative effort.

Is it your opinion that Wilson spent 7 months studying the great courses of the UK prior to 1911, or, do you agree with David, as I do ?

[Mike_Cirba]

I hope he doesn't mind, but Jim Nugent's post on another thread was so good, and so relevant to this discussion of "advising", that I thought it made sense to reproduce it here.


"Whigham exaggerates at least once in his eulogy.  He calls Yale a Macdonald-Raynor course.  According to Ran's profile, that is not accurate.  Ran says,

"And as George Bahto, the leading Macdonald/Raynor historian, points out, it is Raynor and not Macdonald that deserves the credit for Yale. Bahto found an article from Charles 'Steam Shovel' Banks, who worked on the Yale construction team. The article appeared in an Alumnae Bulletin in 1929 and in it, Banks writes, Raynor deserves credit for 'what is today considered by many to be the outstanding inland golf course of America.' Banks went on, 'Mr. Macdonald, who served on the advisory committee, was familiar with the plans from the outset, but Mr. Raynor was the real genius of this masterpiece, who made the layout, designed the greens, and gave the work of construction his supervision from start to finish.'"

Actually, that sounds a lot like what Merion says CBM did at MCC.  He was familiar with Merion's plans from the outset, played an advisory role, but someone else (Wilson) made the layout and built the course. 

If Whigham was wrong about Yale, perhaps he was wrong about Merion, too.   And as others have pointed out, he isn't only calling Merion a CBM course.  He's calling it a CBM-SR course.  As I understand it, there is zero reference to or record of Raynor ever doing a thing at Merion.  Yet Whigham, in this eulogy, gives SR half credit for Merion's design. 

Another possibility:  Whigham may simply have been wrong about CBM and Merion.  I have seen this many times.  People (incorrectly) give themselves and their friends/associates/relatives credit for things they never did. 

This does not require anyone to lie: they often believe they are right.  Especially if the people involved have or had some association with the project in question.  Brilliant people can be as guilty of this as anyone else. 

Also, memories 30 years later often get distorted and exaggerated.  When Whigham wrote CBM's eulogy, he was in his late 60's or early 70's. 

Interesting side note: Whigham won his 2nd U.S. Amateur in 1897 at the Chicago Golf Club.  In the final, he shot 87 for the 1st 18 holes, and led 7 up.  His opponent shot 97.  Whigham shot 44 in the first nine of the 2nd round, and picked up another hole: his opponent shot 46.  You can see the scorecards at:  http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F01E5DD1039E433A2575AC1A96F9C94669ED7CF

Maybe I'm missing something.  Seems like these guys were far from scratch golfers. 

I'm curious, what did CBM shoot back in those days?  Mid-80's, like his pal Whigham?  e.g., did he play in the 1897 Amateur at Chicago Golf Club, a course he designed? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

It sounds like CB Macdonald couldn't break 80. 

What's up with that??!    It sounds like Rodney Griscom and Richard Francis and Hugh Wilson and Horatio Gates Lloyd would have kicked his ass.     Probably even Dr. Toulmin would have given him 2 a side at that time. 


Seriously, I'm trying to find out more about his trip(s) overseas, but am first waiting on his birth certificate to arrive.

I'm still betting it's Hugh Irvine Wilson and that the 1880 US Census was in error, but if it's actually Hugh D Wilson, that opens up an entire new line of research.   We'll see.



Oh...did you see Jim Nugent's post above?   

What expertise did Raynor have to do such a thing?

Did he even play golf?? 


I also note that you strangely don't mention anything about Tillinghast, who saw the "plans" in person for Merion before construction started yet clearly stated that Hugh Wilson was the one who planned the course.

Do you think he was lying?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Who is the only man who claims to have seen the plans that none of us can find?   Tillinghast.

Who does Tillinghast tell us "conceived of the holes"?   Wilson

Who does Tillinghast tell us "planned the course"?   Wilson

He was part of it, talked to Macdonald, knew what was going on, saw the plans, and told us.

So Tillinghast was "part of it."  Man, you have much better sources than I do, because this is news to me. 

Are you kidding me?  Hazard talks to Macdonald in 1911 and sees some plans, and so you assume that 23 years later he finally decided to break the news that those were Wilson's  plans??   

And Mike, you CANNOT just assume that Far and Sure was Tillinghast.   Look at what your two Tillinghast's say about Merion and when.  If this was the same guy then he had a split personality.

One more time.  If you cannot make your point without twisting the facts, then you have no point to make.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's see what else "Far and Sure" said, and let's see who told him;

"Ever since golf was introduced in Philadelphia, the city has been in great need of a course such as Merion has produced, or should I say, is producing, for the work is still in its early stages". (it is now later 1912 and work began in April 1911 - comment mine) [/color]

I had heard MUCH OF THE PLANS and reports of the progressing work, but not until a month ago did I find the opportunity of seeing it."

So, who told him?   How did he know who did what??  What were his sources about Macdonald helping in an "advisory" way and Hugh Wilson "conceiving of the holes"?

He goes on;

Two years ago, Mr. Chas B. Macdonald, who had been of great assistance in an advisory way, TOLD ME that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen...

So, Far and Sure heard much of the plans and progress of the work, from Charles Macdonald, and the great man himself only claimed an "advisory role".  Not the designer, not the router, not the person who "laid it out", but simply advised, and reported from a conversation with Charley himself.


He wasn't a member.
He wasn't paid.
Advisory is an apt description when you're neither a member or paid for your services.[/color]
.
A bit later, "Far and Sure" continues with his findings;

"Everything indicated careful, intelligent preparation and painstaking development."  (But this was not a puff piece...this was a review - Comments mine) 

"To my way of thinking, some of the greens would be better if they were more undulating, but on the whole they are very satisfactory.   This feature is one of the  few which could possibly be criticised at this time, but this is foundation work and it is no light task to remake a green."

So, the golf course had already been built.
You stated above that this article was written in 1912.
[/color]

After providing the hole distances, for a total yardage of 6235, the article continues;

"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."


"ROUGH DRAFTS OF THE PROBLEMS, conceived by the construction committee headed by HIW"

How would HIW conceive of the problems ?
How could the holes be rough drafts when the course was already open for play in Sept of 1912 ?
And, why is there a comma after the word "problems" the comma connotes a disconnect of sorts.[/color]

"Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used.   

That would be the summer of 1912, correct ?[/color]

For example, an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made on the fifteenth and in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures.   

Wait, ANOTHER TEMPLATE HOLE, THE EDEN, HOW COINCIDENTAL.

But, AWT visited Merion AFTER it was built, probably after it was open for play in September of 1912.  It would seem that the Eden hole was part of the initial routing and hole design.[/color]

The hole in question is a two-shotter and the sloping green is so keen and barren of undulations that the player is practically forced to "skittle' his approach in fear of getting above the hole. 

Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced.   On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspicously like the bents of Le Touquet."

"However, I think that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious."

Interestingly, and lending credence in my mind to my contention that the writer was Tillinghast, Tilly reported in the April 1911 Philadelphia Inquirer that he had seen the plans of the new Merion course and was most impressed.  

Where did AWT see these plans, it's not as if faxes and scanners were available in 1911 ?  He'd have to be on site, no ?
Could they have been contained in CBM's letter ?
[/color]

We already knew that Wilson "laid out", and "constructed" the holes at Merion, but we now know that he also "conceived" of the holes.

That's not true.
You're assuming that "laid out" and constructing have two seperate meanings, and the data to date doesn't bear that out.

As to Wilson conceiving the holes, you didn't read carefully enough, the quote is that indicates that Wilson conceived of the problems in the rough drafts.[/color]

Is there anything else a golf course architect needs to do to prove he's the golf course architect?

By your logic, of course not.
By "prudent man" reasoning, plenty  [/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

One other contention makes little to no sense, and that's the idea that Macdonald somehow created his template holes at Merion in a routing, but then Wilson waited to see how it played before bunkering it, sometime after it opened in 1912.

Hogwash.   Complete and utter nonsense, and all of you guys are smarter than to buy into that, including David.

Think about it.  

Macdonald was high on Merion and told friends that "it would be one of the best inland courses...etc.", and that "seven holes would be as good as any in the country..etc.", ALL Before a shovelful of dirt was turned.  

Was that because he had created the routing and was so confident in it?  

No, it was because the club was working with Macdonald, and leveraging his knowledge of the great holes.   We've seen in contemporaneous news articles how Macdonald was trying to sell the concept of copying the "ideal" holes from overseas into courses in the states.   I'm quite sure from what he wrote, as well as from his subsequent designs that he viewed it as almost a franchise...and his legacy.  

After NGLA, the first course to come along wanting to do something similar was Merion.   They dearly wanted a "championship course", and were going to try and leverage Macdonald's expertise.   I'm sure he thought that they would just build the standard templates, much as he had done, and following his vision and example.

Somehow, things went awry.

While we don't know the story, the fact that the course started under construction in April 1911, and didn't open until Sept 1912...and then with holes without bunkers and only as a "rough draft" indicates clearly that they didn't follow the Macdonald model.

Why do I say that?

If you think about it, the entire idea of template holes that Macdonald and Raynor regularly produced and the idea of waiting to place bunkers until the course had been played are entirely incongruous.

We could go to George Bahto's hole descriptions, but the fact is that virtually every single template hole is a template hole because of the PREDICTIVE NATURE OF THE BUNKERING that created the hole's strategy, or the hole's "problems".

On a redan hole, a diagonal green is approached over a large fronting bunker that is on the same angle as the green.

On an eden hole, there is a dangerous front bunker, and an equally dangerous leftside bunker for those trying to avoid the first.

On a bottle hole, a string of bunkers intersects the fairway at a diagonal.

On an alps hole, a large crossing bunker lies directly in front of the green.

On a road hole, a huge bunker cut into the internals of the green forces play around it, where one can get tripped up by hedging their bets too far away and finding even greater trouble on the road (often replaced by Macdonald with a bunker) behind.

On a short hole, a par three green is virtually encircle by a sea of sand.   Skeptics might point out today's 13th as an example, but that hole wasn't built until 1924!

On a Biarritz, long, thin bunkers flank both sides of the green of a long par three.   Again, one might consider stretching the definition to include the 17th at Merion, but Hugh Wilson and William Flynn totally rebuilt that green and redid the bunkering configuration in 1916.

The Long hole was something similar to a Hells Half Acre hole, where a "Hell"-type bunker intersected the hole on the second shot, requiring a full carry or play around on a longer route.

The leven hole features an intesecting central bunker feature that one could avoid by either carrying, or attempting a lengthy carry away to one side.  

Other standard Macdonald holes didn't exist either.   There was never a "cape", or a "double plateau", but those were about the only standard MacRaynor template holes that did NOT require some type of rote, standardized bunkering configuration that dictated the holes strategy, or problems.

EVERY SINGLE COURSE THAT MACDONALD BUILT had most of these holes includes, as well as Raynor, and later Banks.

These holes are not only MIA at Merion...they never were there...even upon opening.

...simply because there were almost no bunkers built when the course opened in 1912.

[TEPaul]

The more I've been involved in some in-depth research of some of these clubs the more I realize that while newspaper and magazine articles are useful for some timeline issues and such they aren't very good for specific analytical purposes unless there's no source material at all in their place. They are essentially indirect and can never really be as useful as original source material.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Tillinghast wrote in April 1911 that he had seen the plans.   The course was not yet under construction.

Was he making it up?

Tom Paul,

Can you provide me with an example of what you're referring to in terms of their inaccuracy?

Do you feel that Tillinghast's or Travis's accounts in American Golfer should be taken with a proverbial grain of salt, and if so, what exactly of the written word should we count on from back then?

We have seen how even government documents such as Shipping Manifests were not worth much in the way of providing comprehensively accurate information, but why shouldn't we trust the guys who were there and what they wrote?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()