What did the early term "expert" mean?

[TEPaul]

ahughes:

My Goodness, the entire point here on these Merion threads for about the last five years has never been about whether the 1912 course was good or not only about who routed and designed it.   

When Macdonald approved one of Wilson and committee's routing and design plans for the course he mentioned that he felt the last seven holes would be the best of any inland course in the world, so apparently Macdonald thought it was a good course.

[Andy Hughes]

Tom, are you sure you actually read my post?    I have said nothing about anyone other than Wilson and his committee being responsible for Merion in 1912 (for several reasons, not least because I have no desire to find myself mired in something I can't escape).

Having said that, it is my understanding that Merion in 1912 was not much of a course. Am I wrong about that?  If I am right, then is it not safe to say Wilson was likely too inexperienced and without the skill/knowledge to create a great course at that time?

Not sure what to make of CBM's comments--it could be interpreted or dismissed so many different ways. 

[Mike_Cirba]

I feel that I should probably weigh in here (relunctantly  ) because it was likely my fervent defense of Hugh Wilson and the committee's role in the design of Merion that led to a bit of hyperbole on my part that I think may be a bit misunderstood.

In essence, I stated three things;

1) Like Marshall McLuhan's "Media is the Message", my contention is that in many ways at Merion's first course, the "property was the destiny", because there is absolutely no way to route a 6200yd golf course on the original property without the holes north of Ardmore Ave. running north/south and the holes below it running east/west.   Once the narrow, L-shaped, "Johnson Farm" property was purchased, there was a very finite limit to the ways one could route a full, "championship" golf course, because the narrowness of the property wouldn't permit much anything else.   The routing that was done was quite good, excellent in stretches, yet even with that...

2) The original routing was significantly changed over time with fully 7 of the original 18 holes changed either wholly or in part within the first dozen years.   Holes completely changed by 1924 included 1, 10, 11, 12, & 13, while holes 2, 8, and 14 all had their greens moved from the original location.   Also, the 17th green and perhaps others were completely rebuilt.

3) And, what opened in 1912 was an "unfinished, rough draft" without many of the bunkers built.    I sense this was because Macdnald had taught them that the "principles" of the great holes were largely dictated by the bunkering strategies, and this is likely what he went to study.   Also, other early "experimental" features like Mid_Surrey mounding around the 9th green proved to be short-lived.   

So, yes, Hugh Wilson and his committee were definitely still learning in 1912, but they also came up with a very good routing, that in stretches had flashes of inspiration and brilliance that still exist to this day.   Over time, the weaker parts were eliminated and the course was refined and even "perfected" throughout the rest of Hugh Wilson's life, with much assistance from William Flynn and Joe Valentine.   

However, the course that opened in 1912, that was designed and routed by Hugh Wilson and committee, approved by Charles Macdonald, and built by Fred Pickering was not a bad, or horribly amateurish course, or anything that was indicative of someone who didn't know anything.   In fact, it was immediately hailed as a course that had the potential to be Philadelphia's first real "championship course", something that was quickly realized.

I simply argued that the course that opened in 1912 didn't require some great routing expertise or prior course architectural experience as others have contended.

[TEPaul]

ahughes:

I don't see any reason to speculate about whether Merion East was not a good course in 1912 due to inexperience on Hugh Wilson's part. These threads have been all about whether he and his committee routed and designed it or whether Macdonald did in some way for which he was never given appropriate credit.

[Jim Nugent]

He was clearly able to route/design/create the initial iteration of Merion in 1911, but notexperienced or skilled enough to create a course of much quality.  Is there really any doubt of that? 

Alex Findlay, well-known Scottish golfer and course designer in both the United States and Great Britain, had traveled extensively, playing courses all over both.  He also authored a column called Breezy News about Golf and Golfers, in which he described Merion’s East course shortly before the opening.  He said,

"The last five are the most wonderful in this country.  In fact, I cannot recall having seen such a succession of holes anywhere.  They must be seen and played over in order to be appreciated." 

CBM said something similar, that seven of the holes equaled any in the country.  If five to seven holes are the best in the country, I can't see the course as being of low quality.

William Evans, golf writer and insider on the Phillie golf scene, wrote in 1913 that "Mr. Wilson ...has no superior as a golf architect."  Just a year after Merion opened, it was said he has no superior as a golf architect.  This again suggests Merion was a quality course from the start.  The later changes simply made it better. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Obviously, with only dozens to hundreds of courses in the US, an expert had a much lower threshold to meet in terms of numbers of courses designed, compared to today.  TePaul had made similar points on the Merion threads, noting that the profession of gca was almost non existant, and certainly developing at best.   

It makes sense that the best golfers probably were considered experts.  In the case of Hugh Wilson, it has been shown that he had something to do with the construction of a course earlier.  He was probably made head of the Merion committee based on having one more course design/construction experience than anyone else at the club.

But, there were many kinds of experts, in lieu of the golf course architect as head of the project as you would expect now.  Didn't CBM consult Raynor for his construction and surveying experience, and another engineer for rudimentary irrigation and the USDA and seed salesman for turf and soils? 

Merion use Fred Pickering initially as a construction foreman, who may be undercredited for the initial results, even if fired later for drunkeness.

So, maybe its no different than today.  The public figured golfers knew all there was to know about architecture, but behind the public press releases were many talented people with some contributing knowledge that never get credit for the results. 

Now, if we wanted a true architectural history of those early courses, wouldn't it have to include the names of the horses who pulled the scoops?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff

Thanks for the very commonsensical post.

[Andy Hughes]

I don't see any reason to speculate about whether Merion East was not a good course in 1912 due to inexperience on Hugh Wilson's part.

Tom, please see your quote below, and what you describe as one of the points of this thread. 

One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for

Jim Nugent, I hear ya, and have no doubt those quotes are accurate, though I would mention that CBM's comment was made before the course was even built.  After all the wrangling on the Merion threads, one thing that has been made clear to me is that taking little newspaper snippets here and there is likely a mistake. I doubt the accuracy, and there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole (not much has changed in 100 years  ).

But from a logical point of view, how good can a course really be if it has virtually no hazards?  Where would the strategy come from?  This is the Merion issue that continues to elude me--take away almost all the bunkers from Merion today, and how good a course could it be, even granting that the routing today must be better than the original routing that was changed so much. I readily admit I do not have a good sense of how the course was initially, but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole. Why is Merion v 1.0 any different?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Al,

From some old readings, it was a trend to add bunkers later, perhaps because they weren't sure of themselves architecturally, or perhaps because in many cases, there wasn't the money initially.  But even at top clubs, the ideas of modifying cousres after opening was, I think, well established.  Many places got open just so members could play and then brought in Ross, Mac, Tillie, whoever to shore up the course, even as early as the teens.

Inthe case at Merion, is it possible that at Merion the bunkers were left out specifically because the intent was for Wilson to see the courses in Scotland.  Maybe he meant to go before, but got delayed, so they waited until he got back to finish off the course?  Sorry to introduce more speculation about Merion.........

[Andy Hughes]

Jeff, that seems plausible and likely prudent.  But could a course that did not have its hazards built really be called a good/great one?  As a pro, can you picture Merion initially being very good without its bunkers?

Thanks,
Andy

[TEPaul]

"Tom, please see your quote below, and what you describe as one of the points of this thread.  


Quote
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for



ahughes:

Yes, that's what I said. I mentioned that because in the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" one of the assmptions or premises seems to be Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in early 1911 to have been able to route and design Merion East with his committee, therefore C.B. Macdonald/Whigam must have done it for them. I just don't believe that follows and particularly not with the board meeting evidence that says Wilson and his committee did it anyway.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Andy,

You made the comment that, "but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole..."

This isn't true. What makes the road hole great rather than merely very good is a single bunker, the one in front of the green. That bunker dictates everything from tee shot to risk/reward of layup to many times playing it safely as a three-shot hole by going right and short of the green. Misplayed shots that enter it ruin rounds and championships and those that are misplayed long because of it give the hole the real reason to be known as the "road" hole.

If there were no other bunkers on that hole that single one would cause it to be always considered great. It proves that it takes very few bunkers to make a hole great and therefor very few bunkers on a golf course to make it great as well...

[TEPaul]

ahughes:

This particular thread is not supposed to be just about Hugh Wilson and his inexperience when he started anyway. There are a number of other "amateur/sportsmen" designers who seem to have done good work like he did with their first efforts as well. The notable examples are seemingly Devereaux Emmet (GCGC), Herbert Leeds (Myopia) and H.C/W.C. Fownes (Oakmont), George Crump (Pine Valley). By the way, all of these men were very good golfers!


"But could a course that did not have its hazards built really be called a good/great one?  As a pro, can you picture Merion initially being very good without its bunkers?"

ahughes:

Where have you gotten the idea that the original Merion East had NO bunkers?

[Jim Nugent]

Jim Nugent, I hear ya, and have no doubt those quotes are accurate, though I would mention that CBM's comment was made before the course was even built.  After all the wrangling on the Merion threads, one thing that has been made clear to me is that taking little newspaper snippets here and there is likely a mistake. I doubt the accuracy, and there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole (not much has changed in 100 years  ).

But from a logical point of view, how good can a course really be if it has virtually no hazards?  Where would the strategy come from?  This is the Merion issue that continues to elude me--take away almost all the bunkers from Merion today, and how good a course could it be, even granting that the routing today must be better than the original routing that was changed so much. I readily admit I do not have a good sense of how the course was initially, but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole. Why is Merion v 1.0 any different?

Al, they did not have to build the quarry.  They did not (I think) have to build the stream that meanders around at least one hole there.  I don't know enough about the course to speak of much else.  Except I thought Merion got wide, deep praise when it opened. 

BTW, it would not surprise me if M&W had something to do with the quarry hole.  Macdonald talks about the quarry in his June 1910 letter to the Merion Golf Committee. 

I have a question for Mike Cirba.  If there was only real way to route the course from the beginning, how/why were they able to change so many of the holes later?  Or did they not re-route those holes? 

[Andy Hughes]

You made the comment that, "but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole..."

This isn't true. What makes the road hole great rather than merely very good is a single bunker, the one in front of the green. That bunker dictates everything from tee shot to risk/reward of layup to many times playing it safely as a three-shot hole by going right and short of the green. Misplayed shots that enter it ruin rounds and championships and those that are misplayed long because of it give the hole the real reason to be known as the "road" hole.

Phil, we are in complete agreement.  The Road Hole bunker was included in the group 'any bunkers'.  My point was, take away all the bunkers on the hole (the one in front of the green is part of that group) and it loses much of its appeal and greatness.

[Andy Hughes]

ahughes:
Where have you gotten the idea that the original Merion East had NO bunkers?

Tom, see below from MikeC.  This was commonly mentioned in the Merion threads. If it is not true, please say so. But it was never refuted or argued that I am aware in those threads.

3) And, what opened in 1912 was an "unfinished, rough draft" without many of the bunkers built.    I sense this was because Macdnald had taught them that the "principles" of the great holes were largely dictated by the bunkering strategies, and this is likely what he went to study.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Nugent,

Merion bought property south of where the creek crosses on #12 sometime after 1920 to create enough room for today's 10th, 11th and 12th holes.    

At the time, the present 13th hole was created, as well, and the 1st was wholly reconfigured from a dogleg left to a dogleg right with the old 10th green now out of the way.

I'm not sure I'm describing the events wholly accurately, but that's the general gist of how it went down.

Andy,

"Far and Sure" reported just after the course opened;

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

I don't have it in front of me, but the Tillinghast account in "American Cricketer" mentioned something more definitive about the bunkers.    It certainly didn't have "none", it just didn't have all that were planned to be built, either at inception or as play proceeded and ideas for new placements of bunkers generated.

Jeff Brauer brings up a great point that the rush was on to get the members playing on the course.

[Kyle Harris]

Jim Nugent, I hear ya, and have no doubt those quotes are accurate, though I would mention that CBM's comment was made before the course was even built.  After all the wrangling on the Merion threads, one thing that has been made clear to me is that taking little newspaper snippets here and there is likely a mistake. I doubt the accuracy, and there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole (not much has changed in 100 years  ).

But from a logical point of view, how good can a course really be if it has virtually no hazards?  Where would the strategy come from?  This is the Merion issue that continues to elude me--take away almost all the bunkers from Merion today, and how good a course could it be, even granting that the routing today must be better than the original routing that was changed so much. I readily admit I do not have a good sense of how the course was initially, but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole. Why is Merion v 1.0 any different?

Al, they did not have to build the quarry.  They did not (I think) have to build the stream that meanders around at least one hole there.  I don't know enough about the course to speak of much else.  Except I thought Merion got wide, deep praise when it opened. 

BTW, it would not surprise me if M&W had something to do with the quarry hole.  Macdonald talks about the quarry in his June 1910 letter to the Merion Golf Committee. 

I have a question for Mike Cirba.  If there was only real way to route the course from the beginning, how/why were they able to change so many of the holes later?  Or did they not re-route those holes? 

Jim,

For starters, additional land was purchased which allowed the construction of the current 11th green and 12th tee. This had a cascading effect as it permitted the club to reroute the first hole as a dogleg right, and not have the 10th green and 11th sit on the opposite side of Ardmore Ave from their respective holes. Furthermore, the additional space allowed the club to shift the 13th hole to its present site, with the green sitting near the old first tee.

[Andy Hughes]

Quote
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for
ahughes:
Yes, that's what I said. I mentioned that because in the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" one of the assmptions or premises seems to be Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in early 1911 to have been able to route and design Merion East with his committee, therefore C.B. Macdonald/Whigam must have done it for them. I just don't believe that follows and particularly not with the board meeting evidence that says Wilson and his committee did it anyway.  

Tom,
If the course was no great shakes when it opened, wouldn't that imply that Wilson and committee were indeed too inexperienced or perhaps without the needed knowledge and skills?  That has nothing to with CBM and Whigham or the board minutes.

Al, they did not have to build the quarry.  They did not (I think) have to build the stream that meanders around at least one hole there.  I don't know enough about the course to speak of much else.  Except I thought Merion got wide, deep praise when it opened.  

Jim, but that would still leave most of the course. And I agree Merion seemed to have garnered high praise from even before it opened. I am not sure I see how that can be though with bunkering witheld til later.

Thanks,
Andy

[Andy Hughes]

"Far and Sure" reported just after the course opened;

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

Mike, thanks.  'Far and Sure' seems to be where I am. Do you have a good sense how the course could have been so highly praised at its opening, even earlier in some cases, with much of the strategy still to come?  Is that more an indictment of American golf at the time?

[Mike_Cirba]

Andy,

This might help.   I don't have the American Cricketer article by Tillinghast, but this is what Jim Finegan wrote summarizing the Tillinghast article;


"Tillinghast reviewed the new course at length in the American Cricketer and was generally appreciative of its merits;

"...16th, 17th, 12th, and 3rd are the best holes.   The old quarry, which is traversed by the last three holes is a wonderfully effective natural hazard an makes these holes a fine finish...The yawning quarry makes the 17th look fearsome enough but the terror is more imaginary than real.  The 16th is a corker..It is a real gem...If your drive is a good one, before you stretches the old quarry, its cliff-like sides frowning forbiddingly.  Just beyond, and sparkling like an emerald, is the green, calling for a shot that is brave and true.  It seems almost like a coy but flirtatious maiden with mocking eyes flashing at you from over her fan, and as you measure the distance between, you are fired with the ambition to show off a bit..."

"No one will ever play Merion without taking away the memory of No. 16..." (and then goes on to describe the 3rd, 7th, and 13th - my words)

Then Finegan writes;

"Summing up, Tillinghast pointed out that comparatively few bunkers were yet in place, then concluded on a somewhat muted note:  "I believe that Merion will have a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying out for one for many years.  The construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers."".

[TEPaul]

"If there was only real way to route the course from the beginning, how/why were they able to change so many of the holes later?  Or did they not re-route those holes?"


JimN:

Even if some types of sites are easier to route than others for various reasons---eg narrow sites like original links sites or narrow L shaped sites like Merion East (where there is not much side to side latitude) there is never just one way to route and arrange holes, that's for damn sure, and certainly not on Merion East's site either. The fact is Wilson and committee did many different "course" iterations in 1911 and with the advice and suggestions of Macdonald/Whigam on April 6, 1911 they all settled on the one they thought the best and that's what they took to the board for approval. But there was never just ONE routing or course or layout for Merion East in the winter of 1911, the fact is they came up with a number of iterations. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom, see below from MikeC.  This was commonly mentioned in the Merion threads. If it is not true, please say so. But it was never refuted or argued that I am aware in those threads."


ahughes:

This is probably where misinformation that gets perpetuated comes from. There are a few early photos of Merion East but in no way are they comprehensive of the whole course. And there are no aerials for the course either until the early 1920s. There are also no drawings or plans left that we've ever seen for this first stage (about 1911-1915 when Flynn began to make hole drawings).

So, the point is, I doubt anyone on here really knows just how many bunkers were constructed on the course in that first phase of constrution (from about April 1911- Sept. 1911).

Frankly, most anyone who's spent time in the field watching architectural construction knows that in most cases bunkering, particularly around greens is something of a matter of "form follows function". In other words, to generate fill for various aspects of construction (greens ?), the way to do it is to make cuts which very often become the bunkers!   

[Mike_Cirba]

"Tom, see below from MikeC.  This was commonly mentioned in the Merion threads. If it is not true, please say so. But it was never refuted or argued that I am aware in those threads."


ahughes:

This is probably where misinformation that gets perpetuated comes from.

Tom,

I feel like a National Enquirer reporter!   


Seriously, I think my comments are being taken to an extreme here, perhaps due to some of my more hyperbolic blasts from the past.   

I never said there could only be one routing....I know there were several.   My point is that the constrained, oddly-shaped property limited how the holes could be routed, at least in terms of general direction on each side of the road.   This differs considerably from, say, a 120 acre symmetric, "square" property without a public road, an existing clubhouse, a large quarry, etc.

In terms of the bunkering and the "work in progress", "rough draft" nature of the course upon opening, I'm simply iterating what "Far and Sure" wrote, as well as Finegan's summary of Tillinghast's "American Cricketer" reference to bunkering.

[TEPaul]

"Seriously, I think my comments are being taken to an extreme here, perhaps due to some of my more hyperbolic blasts from the past.    "


Mike:

That very well may be but I'm quite sure you've noticed, as I have, that on this website people tend to take one's meaning about various things in ways that was not exactly intended by the one who said them. Hell, you can even see that some on here put all kinds of meaning and even words on some of the things said that aren't even close to what that person said. 

For instance, someone on here said I've been recommending that certain historical information should be "CENSORED". I never said anything like that---not even close. All I said is I do sometimes question the relevance of using some historical information with some subjects, particularly if the implication or inference is it's far more important to that subject somehow than basic commonsense can pretty much tell it is.