[Tom MacWood]

The point is the MCC minutes were not a depository of all activities taking place at the time so its not entirely surprising when they fail to mention Barker, or whomever.

What new projects were there in Philadelphia in the spring of 1911 that might have prompted a Barker visit?

[TEPaul]

"The point is the MCC minutes were not a depository of all activities taking place at the time so its not entirely surprising when they fail to mention Barker, or whomever."


Tom MacWood:

No, that really is not the point, at least not in the context of an HH Barker. Had he actually designed their course or taken some significant part in it as CBM/Whigam did, there is virtually no question at all that he would've been not only mentioned in the Board Meeting minutes and in some committee's reports but prominently mentioned. MCC's meeting minutes and records are actually remarkably comprehensive. Perhaps you're not aware of that because that does not seem to be an area you research or ever have. Rich people like those ones generally kept comprehensive records of their activities, particularly their financial activities. Ever hear the old adage----"No wonder they got so rich?"

The MCC minutes are certainly a depository of all activities that the club viewed as significant. A special project taking place in 1911 was certainly the routing, design and construction of Merion East and it was most certainly reported to the board and mentioned in the board meeting minutes. There is absolutely no question about that.

I can certainly understand both why and how someone not familiar with how a board and committees of a club like that one operates might not understand how or why these things were done as they were and even why some names were not mentioned. It was simply not necessary for them to mention the names of the people on various committees as the board knew who they all were, not to even mention that some on the board and on some of those committees were required to attend board meetings anyway.

Again, board and committee meeting minutes are not produced to be some chronicle of the club's history; that is not their purpose. If they wanted to do that generally they invite their own historian to attend board meetings. I once served in that capacity at my own club for about 2-3 years and until a particularly significant project for us came to an end.

Have you ever belonged to a club like that Tom? If so have you ever been on its board or any of its committees? If not I can certainly understand why this might be confusing to you. It would probably be just as confusing to me too if I'd never done it before.

[DMoriarty]

Jim

Most of what is above regarding Wilson and is Committee is incorrect.  

The Special Committee on New Golf Grounds was NOT Wilson's Construction Committee.  In 1910 the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds was made up of Robert Lesley, H.G. Lloyd, Samuel T. Bodine, Fredrick Baily, and E.C. Felton.  I don't have the minutes so stating exactly, but it looks like this committee had significant overlay with the "Golf Committee" and may actually have been the Golf Committee.
 - Apparently in either very late 1910 or early 1911 Hugh Wilson and Rodnam Griscom were appointed to the Golf Committee, so that it consisted of Robert Lesley, H.G. Lloyd, Edgar C. Felton, Rodnam Griscom, and Hugh Wilson.  
 - Also in 1911, the Minutes list Dr. Toulmin and R.S. Francis as members of the six member "Greens Committee" chaired by W. Sargent.
 - Whenever it was formed Wilson's Construction Committee appears to have combination of the Golf Committee, along with two members of the Greens Committee.
-  Lesley's April 1911 Report to the Board was on behalf of the GOLF COMMITTEE, not Wilson's Construction Committee:
"Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley report as follows on the new Golf Grounds"
    Your committee desires to report . . ."
-   The Board confirmed this immediately after the report.  
  "Whereas  the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the New Golf Ground . . ."

The description "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" was used into November of 1910, when the purchase was agreed upon and Wilson was not on the Committee during this time period!  
________________________________________________________

Tom MacWood,  I wholly agree that the MCC minutes are not a depository of all activities. What I object to is when they are read as a strict depository for everything CBM and Barker did, but then ignored when it comes time to figure out what Wilson and his Committee did.  If we stick to the Minutes, Wilson and his Committee were not involved at all.

As for April 1911, that is a good question.   Somewhere Tillinghast wrote about other courses being changed around Philadelphia at approximately this time, but I can't remember exactly what he wrote.

[TEPaul]

"The description "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds" was used into November of 1910, when the purchase was agreed upon and Wilson was not on the Committee during this time period!"


Yes it was. I completely agree with that. At that point after MCC had informed the membership they were in the process of buying the ground another board meeting minute explains that Lesley is stepping down from that committee (the committee that had previously been referred to in committee reports and board minutes as the "Special Site or Search Committee for New Golf Grounds."). Obviously, at that point, the job of and responsibility for finding a site for a new golf course was done and completed.

Would you agree with that or disagree with that for some reason?

If you agree, would you at least admit to that?

And further to that, do you even have that Board meeting minutes where Lesley stepped aside from that committee and Hortio Gates Lloyd took his place as its chairman?

And in additon to that, do you have board meeting minutes from say June or July of 1911 when the golf course was under construction?  

[TEPaul]

"I don't have the minutes so stating exactly, but it looks like this committee had significant overlay with the "Golf Committee" and may actually have been the Golf Committee.
 - Apparently in either very late 1910 or early 1911 Hugh Wilson and Rodnam Griscom were appointed to the Golf Committee, so that it consisted of Robert Lesley, H.G. Lloyd, Edgar C. Felton, Rodnam Griscom, and Hugh Wilson.  
 - Also in 1911, the Minutes list Dr. Toulmin and R.S. Francis as members of the six member "Greens Committee" chaired by W. Sargent.
 - Whenever it was formed Wilson's Construction Committee appears to have combination of the Golf Committee, along with two members of the Greens Committee.
-  Lesley's April 1911 Report to the Board was on behalf of the GOLF COMMITTEE, not Wilson's Construction Committee:
"Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley report as follows on the new Golf Grounds"
    Your committee desires to report . . ."
-   The Board confirmed this immediately after the report.  
  "Whereas  the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the New Golf Ground . . ."





These are the very things I have been trying to explain for days or weeks now. Is anyone actually interested in why it was this way at MCC and at Merion GC?

If people on here are not interested then why is that? Are they not interested in understanding the way MCC operated? Or would you all on here just prefer to speculate about it?

There is only one realistic and credible way to determine this for any researcher or historian! They must go to the subject itself-----MERION----and ask those who actually know---eg past and present presidents, past and present board members and past and present committee members who have served on various committees of differing types such as PERMANENT committees and or---or perhaps opposed to---SPECIAL OR AD HOC committees? Obviously another way of confirming any of the opinions of those above is to simply refer to the By-Laws of either Merion or MCC before it.

Is there anything at all unreasonable or unproductive about determining this history and its facts and details this way???

If there is please tell me why.

Thank you any or all.

[DMoriarty]

Yawn.
_____________________________________


TomM

Old York Road Country Club is one possibility.  They reportedly opened their "new" 18 hole course in around the same time as Merion opened the East Course.

[TEPaul]

Jim Sullivan:

Let's continue to discuss this, as there is definitely a whole lot more to be learned about how to interpret most all of it. If one participant is tired of it and only wants to post a "yawn" then perhaps he should simply stay off this thread altogether and go take a nice long nap!

Merion's history is Merion's history and ultimately it is to them to interpret it correctly. In doing that they can call on anyone who wants to  help them with it and who they want to help them with it, and they have done that.

Merion's history is not just for a couple of people on here who want to interpret it their way for some reason and who have yet, and after all these years, not even been to Merion to research its own history and archives.

I've even seen a few on here state or at least imply that nothing is presented or even proven until it is published? Oh Really?!? I believe Merion approaches it as a matter of when they find significant things of importance and become aware of it themselves and also place it into their club's archives from which any serious researcher or historian can make an appointment with them and come see it all for himself and with of course the expectation of their help and collaboration and the help and collaboration of those they recognize as their own historians in the pursuit of his task!

The last bit alone, that the most vocal participants on here have not even darkened Merion GC's door after close to ten years is frankly just shocking and should inform any observers of pretty much all they need to know about this long playing Merion saga on this website.

[JESII]

Tom,

Along the line of Ad Hoc Committees, why did the name of The Special Committee on New Golf Grounds become know and not The Wilson Committee (or its more formal name)?

Also, This idea of Ad Hoc Committees operating within and under the board representation of a permanent committee, are there any examples ongoing right now in dealing with the US Open (or the last couple USGA events for that matter)?



David,

If the Wilson Committee was formed in late 1910 or early 1911 what does that tell you about any particular individuals contributions?

[DMoriarty]

David,

If the Wilson Committee was formed in late 1910 or early 1911 what does that tell you about any particular individuals contributions?

Jim,

That is a big "IF" and one not even supported by Merion's own internal documents.  Why do you want to pretend that this committee was yet formed when there is nothing in Merion's minutes indicating that this was the case?  

Or perhaps you misread what I wrote above.  It looks like Wilson and R.E. Griscom were added to the "Golf Committee" (not the Special Committee or the Construction Committee) in early 1911 or perhaps near the turn of the prior year.  (The Minutes I have seen aren't even clear on this issue, but I am trying to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt given he was working on behalf of that Committee in February 1911.)   But the "Golf Committee" was not the "Construction Committee" and neither was the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds.  

The latest theory seems to be that the Special Committee on New Golf Grounds miraculously morphed into the Construction Committee, but that the Construction Committee somehow wasn't allowed to report directly to the Board, so the Golf Committee had to. This is not only far fetched on its face,   it is also betrayed by Merion's Records. In 1910 the "Special Committee on Golf Grounds" was reporting directly to the Board  Yet we are to believe that in 1911 this same Committee (albeit with a new name) could no longer report directly to the Board?  Ridiculous.

Finally to answer your question, even if Wilson's Construction Committee had been appointed when you suggest, it would change very little about the design.   All that it would do is put a slightly different cast of characters forward at a slightly earlier date.  CBM and HJW would still have made their same contribution.  

[TEPaul]

"Also, This idea of Ad Hoc Committees operating within and under the board representation of a permanent committee, are there any examples ongoing right now in dealing with the US Open (or the last couple USGA events for that matter)?"


Jim:

That's an excellent question and an excellent analogy to old special committees of MCC in the past like the "Special Search or Site Committee for New Golf Grounds" and its apparent morph into the next MCC special committee that became known as the "Committee on New Golf Grounds" (that was obviously what we and others now and in the past once referred informally to as The Wilson Committee or the Wilson Construction committee or whatnot. The board of MCC in 1911 according to meeting minutes apparently referred to it as the "Committee on New Golf Grounds."

There most certainly are today a few of those very same "special" or AD HOC committees at Merion GC which operate for special projects and when their job is done they go out of existence. As you might imagine Merion GC has a couple of them for the upcoming 2013 US Open.

[TEPaul]

Jim:


Actually, you will see that in Francis's single significant letter to Piper or Oakley in April 1912 (oddly Francis's dated that letter 1911 ) that proved that Wilson was abroad at that time, you will see that under his signature he says it is coming from the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association (he specifically said; 'For the MCC Golf Association'), which makes a lot of sense as that entity at that time had actually had an "aegis" entity put on top of it or to administer it financially called the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association CORPORATION! It was a Delaware County, Pennsylvania registered corporation set up by MCC counsel and MCC board member T. DeWitt Cuyler, a fascinating man in his own right for different reasons). Horatio Gates Lloyd for probably fairly obvious reasons at the time was the president of it! When the author of "The Missing Faces of Merion" wrote that essay in 2008 he had no idea of any of the details of any of this. At that time for other and interesting reasons there was no conceivable or possible way he could have! 

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

What you are being told about Wilson's Committee is just not true.  It is not supported by Merion's Minutes.

[TEPaul]

"Jim,
What you are being told about Wilson's Committee is just not true.  It is not supported by Merion's Minutes."




It is supported by the June 21, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes. Do you have them? If so I will let you be the one to post a copy of them on here, and then take all the credit you want to for it, because I'm not going to do that (frankly, as I have said in the past, I don't even know how and if I did I would definitely check first with Merion GC for their permission). But I will transcribe precisely in my own typed words what they say on this matter if you and participants on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com do not know what they say and would like to know!

If you want to check on my accuracy after the fact you can find them and study them in Merion GC's archives if you accept their protocol and make an appointment and visit them in person! It's funny; how many years has it been now that we have been telling you this, and they have been telling you this, and you still haven't done it? What's the problem there, really?  

[DMoriarty]

Jim

I hope that you and others know by now to ignore the various foolish statements made here about my dealings with Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club.  As always, I don't discuss the matter here or on any public website, but I will say that the representations in the post above are, at best, ill informed.  I don't know why anyone would want to embarrass himself by pretending to speak for a club to which he is not even a member.

[TEPaul]

Re: the post above about being a member has nothing to do with anything when it comes to me and my decades long relationship with Merion but the author of that post would have no way of knowing that. How or why would he know that? He wouldn't and if he claims to I would challenge him to tell you why and who he spoke with. He has spoken with both Merion's historians and I'm aware of it all because one is my decade long friend I wrote a book with and the other is my decades long friend fpr many other reasons. One knows him the other has never met him. The latter asked me long ago who this person was! In reality for reseach he has never been there although for some years he has contacted them in some attempt to send him material rather than following their archive protocol, which is simply to make an appointment, come to Merion in person and the historians will meet you, unlock the Archives room door and stay there and help you wiith anything you want to research. Why is that this man hassss never done that in ten years while having that explained to him the entire time? Does he actually think for some reason he should be treated differently than anyone else?

How do I know this. Well, how the Hell do you think I know it? These people have been my friends for 10 and 30 years; they are not his friends; in fact they have never even really met him.

What does that say?

This man is playing ya'll on the Internet who don't really know the score at Merion this way.

As far as what I say on here and its accuracy, I would encourage ANYONE interested in any of this to check it all out with Merion. If any of you want the contact information for Merion, their telephone # or whatever or their appropriate people to speak with about historical or architectural research, I'll give it to you. Merion is actually a remarkably accommodating place if one simply has enough respect for them and enough common sense to follow their protocol that they are more than happy to explain to anyone who asks them!

Tom MacWood actually began arguing with them on here and even somewhat with them about why they are that way and act that way. He even called their forty year primary historian unethical on this website.

I'm sorry but to me that is completely unacceptable!

[TEPaul]

Jim Sullivan:

If you have any more questions let's deal with them. With these other couple of fellows on here, why don't you do the talking and if you have any questions of me or of Merion you do know where to find me and you know where to find them.

We have now turned into the year of the next US Open in 2013----Merion GC. They will be ready with their own presentation of their history----all of it---I guarantee it. If any of you have any interest in it and you want to know any of it I think you all know where to find them! And you know where to find me. I've been working with them on their architectural history for over a decade. Maybe that isn't important to a couple on here with an obvious agenda but if it's important to you, please be in touch!

[DMoriarty]

1. Unlike the "gentleman" above, I won't pretend to speak for either MCC or MGC.  I will say that what he has written above inaccurately depicts my dealings with both clubs, and inaccurately depicts the policies and procedures as explained to me by each respective club.

2. I have been informed by MGC that the club has only one "Historian" who is authorized to speak for the club on these matters, and that Historian is neither the "gentleman" posting above nor his writing partner, despite false claims of authority by both of them in the past.  

[TEPaul]

Then please contact that "historian" you mentoned again and ask him to explain to you what Wayne Morrison and I have done and do for Merion and its historical research and presentation and its historical archives.

Do you at least have the guts to do that and actually report back on here what you heard from that "historian" or anyone else at Merion GC in a position to know or are you going to try to talk around that or avoid that too?  

[DMoriarty]

Then please contact that "historian" you mentoned again and ask him to explain to you what Wayne Morrison and I have done and do for Merion and its historical research and presentation and its historical archives.

Do you at least have the guts to do that and actually report back on here what you heard from that "historian" or anyone else at Merion GC in a position to know or are you going to try to talk around that or avoid that too?  

TEPaul is really cracking me up today.  This one is good enough to save.

[Tom MacWood]

TomM

Old York Road Country Club is one possibility.  They reportedly opened their "new" 18 hole course in around the same time as Merion opened the East Course.

Another possibility I thought of was Seaview, although obviously Atlantic City is not Philadelphia, and I don't think the timing is quite right. Clarence Geist was a big fan of GCGC, and you can see elements of that course at both Whitemarsh and Seaview.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:


All,
 
When I read on one of the threads that Hugh Wilson’s new 11th hole created in 1922 wasn’t “universally accepted”, I recall Mackenzie’s dictate that a hole isn’t worth much if it doesn’t create controversy among some.   Although I’ve never read any criticism of the hole by those there at the time, I can’t imagine that every single member liked having to play a difficult approach to a tight, guarded green over the powder-puff hole that was the original 11th.   Still and all, I would like to see any specifics in that regard, but doubt any are forthcoming.
 
Instead, the articles I’ve read at the time the new holes were built in 1922 fall more along these lines;
 




 


Also, on a related recent topic, I contended that four greens were completely rebuilt in time for the 1916 US Amateur and included today's 6th (old 3rd), the 8th, the 9th, and the 17th.   Along with other sources I produced earlier backing that claim, here's another one.   I'd also like to know the source that claimed that the 8th hole at Merion was based on the "Leven", as represented earlier by David.  


  
With now multiple threads going, one needs a wide broom to cleanup the amount of misinformation being provided, as well as the amazing amount of speculation based on a speck of evidence and/or no evidence whatsoever.   It would be almost comical when we see things like speculation that Barker designed the new 18 hole course at Olde York Road, because he might have been in Philadelphia in April 1911, but perhaps that was really Herbert Berher….    
 
In any case, rather than cleanup them all, I would ask for those who believe Merion was routed by mid-November 1910 why in the following article datelined November 22nd, we are told that Barker has been retained to lay out the new course at Merion?   Was he going to pound stakes in the ground?   To someone else’s plan?   Was he going to construct the course?   Or route/design it?   What do you think the author meant to imply here?
 
This is the article that Tom MacWood lays out as his entire foundation for the Barker designing Merion enroute to Atlanta on a train theory.   I’d really like to hear what he thinks was done in terms of design or routing for Merion prior to November 15th of that year, and why Barker would be needed to do it again if he was already supposedly part of routing it prior?   And I’d really like to hear David Moriarty tell us if he thinks this article has any validity, and if so, why the need for Barker to route the golf course after November 15th?   Barker certainly wasn’t going to construct it, was he?   Why the use of the terminology “lay out”, which clearly means here to design?   Anyone?
 
 
 
In any case, the article is obviously the author's misinterpretation of the following July letter from Joseph Connell, which was sent out to Merion members as part of a mailing about the planning for the new course, sent in November 1910.   The article even misinterprets that there is going to be a railroad station at each end of the course, as well as places Merion in Lakewood , NJ !
 
Careful readers will also note that there is no mention that the paper routing plan Barker sent to Connell in June of 1910 ever made it to Merion, in any form.   There is no reference to it attached in any of the other accompanying items that were mailed.
 


And once again, for those who missed it, the one who proved that Hugh Wilson's 1912 trip abroad was his first in conjunction with the creation of Merion East was Joe Bausch, who found and posted the Alex Findlay article talking with Hugh Wilson in April of 2009.   Before then, David had found the manifest, Wayne had found Wilson's daughter's letter to Charles Price, but many here including me did not believe that 1912 could have been Wilson's first trip abroad, and we were wrong about that.   So all this fussing and fighting about who found what when really is moot, in my opinion.
 
Thanks,
Mike

[TEPaul]

If it is good enough to save it should be good enough to actually ask Merion, right? So, why don't you? Merion's door and archive door is still there and like everyone else making an appointment will get you in it.  

And yes, Merion GC does indeed have "ONE" historian who officially speaks FOR the club on historical issues. It has been that way for years and he is the very same "one" we have worked with, worked for and worked through for many years. He is also the very same one that Tom MacWood labeled on here as 'unethical' for some reason a few years ago.   

Would you like to retract that statement here and now, Tom MacWood? I think that might be appropriate, don't you?

[Tom MacWood]

 
With now multiple threads going, one needs a wide broom to cleanup the amount of misinformation being provided, as well as the amazing amount of speculation based on a speck of evidence and/or no evidence whatsoever.   It would be almost comical when we see things like speculation that Barker designed the new 18 hole course at Olde York Road, because he might have been in Philadelphia in April 1911, but perhaps that was really Herbert Berher….    
 
In any case, rather than cleanup them all, I would ask for those who believe Merion was routed by mid-November 1910 why in the following article datelined November 22nd, we are told that Barker has been retained to lay out the new course at Merion?   Was he going to pound stakes in the ground?   To someone else’s plan?   Was he going to construct the course?   Or route/design it?   What do you think the author meant to imply here?
 
This is the article that Tom MacWood lays out as his entire foundation for the Barker designing Merion enroute to Atlanta on a train theory.   I’d really like to hear what he thinks was done in terms of design or routing for Merion prior to November 15th of that year, and why Barker would be needed to do it again if he was already supposedly part of routing it prior?   And I’d really like to hear David Moriarty tell us if he thinks this article has any validity, and if so, why the need for Barker to route the golf course after November 15th?   Barker certainly wasn’t going to construct it, was he?   Why the use of the terminology “lay out”, which clearly means here to design?   Anyone?
  
In any case, the article is obviously the author's misinterpretation of the following July letter from Joseph Connell, which was sent out to Merion members as part of a mailing about the planning for the new course, sent in November 1910.   The article even misinterprets that there is going to be a railroad station at each end of the course, as well as places Merion in Lakewood , NJ !
 
Careful readers will also note that there is no mention that the paper routing plan Barker sent to Connell in June of 1910 ever made it to Merion, in any form.   There is no reference to it attached in any of the other accompanying items that were mailed.
 
And once again, for those who missed it, the one who proved that Hugh Wilson's 1912 trip abroad was his first in conjunction with the creation of Merion East was Joe Bausch, who found and posted the Alex Findlay article talking with Hugh Wilson in April of 2009.   Before then, David had found the manifest, Wayne had found Wilson's daughter's letter to Charles Price, but many here including me did not believe that 1912 could have been Wilson's first trip abroad, and we were wrong about that.   So all this fussing and fighting about who found what when really is moot, in my opinion.
 

Dan
Could you please clean up your post and remove all the crap not relating to Barker?

No one is suggesting Barker designed Old York Road. I asked what projects were in progress in Philly April 1911. Old York Road does not match Barker's usual high-profile club project.

The part about the plan not being attached sounds like wishful thinking to me. IMO it is ludicrous to believe Lloyd & Co would go to the trouble of bringing in one of the top architects in the country, if not the top architect, have him inspect the site, have him produce a plan, report this to the membership, give this information to the press, and then throw it in the can. That is as ludicrous as believing they would tie their horse to inexperienced untested insurance salesman.

I'm prety sure the chain of events was David first finding the ship manifest, which confimed what Far & Sure had written in 1913. Its not important who was second, but I'm pretty sure the next event was me finding the little blurb about Wilson visiting the UK in a British mag, and then Joe finding his article. Right after I discovered my article I recall Mike accusing me of hiding evidence, because at that point he had made a complete ass of himself with the Wilson trip to Argentina and all.

His latest tirade to discredit is also par for the course. This is the same guy who told us with conviction that Barker had done practically nothing by June of 1910. Basically what he was telling us is the people at Merion were idiots to engage him in the first place. IMO his attempts to disparage Barker have actually had the opposite effect. A lot of good information has been discovered as a result of his character assassinations.

IMO the course was routed some time in December, around the time it was reported Barker was on his three week design tour. A layiing out of the course probably prompted Cuyler's letter the third week of December.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I think HH Barker might have designed the really good "middle era" iteration of Shinnecock that preceded the Macdonald/Raynor iteration of Shinnecock.

Do you know anything about that?

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:


Tom MacWood,
 
I'm not sure why you would object to the presentation of facts in lieu of continued speculation.   It's interesting and informative to pose the November 22nd article and the July 1st letter side by side, and I think it explains much of the newspaper writer's confusion about the matter, don't you?
 
As regards Barker, there is no effort at "character assasination", but merely the presentation of historical realities.   For instance, you've avoided the question for a long time now, but once again I'll ask exactly which 18 hole original designs of Barker's were open for play in June 1910 that would have inspired Merion to consider using him?   You lay out a laundry list of courses, most recently throwing Philmont, Atlantic City, and Bedford Springs into the confused mix, but without any context about what work was done on these (previously existing) courses or the timeframes involved.
 
For instance, arguably his greatest work was Columbia, but that didn't open until 1911.   Most other courses of his opened in the 1911 to 1913 timeframe, wouldn't you agree?   Which were open for play by June 1910?  
 
Your most recent idle speculation now involves Seaview and Whitemarsh Valley, all because of something you found (that you're seemingly uncertain about) that you believe might indicate Barker left from Philadelphia in April 1911.   You might be interested to know that the planning for Seaview didn't occur until early 1913, and that Whitemarsh Valley was open for play well before 1911.   Yet, you throw around these courses in some seeming attempt to find a problem to fit your predetermined solution.
 
I'd also ask this very pertinent question.   Walter Travis, as Barker's mentor, used his position as editor of "American Golfer" to promote Barker as an architect, and basically gave his running itinerary of his comings and goings.    If Barker indeed had anything to do with the routing of Merion East, wouldn't Travis have trumpeted that achievement in his magazine?   Yet, he never saw fit to mention it, despite profiles on various courses by Barker in that magazine, stimulated by Travis's constant promotion of his friend.
 
All,
 
I find it interesting in the McCracken article above that along with the creation of 4 new holes and other changes in 1922, the 15th green had a "drastic reconstruction", which I find both timely given recent events, as well as historically interesting.
 
By my count by 1934 Merion had significantly altered or replaced 2/3 of the greens on the original course, most happening in the 1916 and 1922 timeframes.   Those greens include 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17.  
 
All of this to me begs the question...if one is intent on designing some "template" holes, does one need to consider that fact before routing a golf course?
 
I ask because to my surprise, David still seems to be insisting that the November 1910 Land Plan indicates that the course was fully routed by that time, due to the inclusion of something looking like a triangle north of the Haverford College boundary.  I guess he still sees that as evidence that Richard Francis had his brainstorm that routed the five holes which completed the routing prior to November.   I don't agree with him, but let's assume for discussion purposes that he's correct.
 
Well, by November 1910 Merion had precisely one visit from CB Macdonald, and not a single hint of communications between his generic June letter to the club and mid-November when the property was secured and if one believes that the course was routed prior to November 10th, it would have been without the benefit of CBM's involvement in that routing.   If I'm missing something here, someone please point it out, because clearly the November mailing to membership would have mentioned CBM designing the course at that point if it had been the case.   It doesn't; it only mentions his one day visit and doesn't publish his letter.
 
No, instead Hugh Wilson tells us that it wasn't until his early March visit to NGLA when Macdonald provided all of his information about the great holes abroad and showed them his sketches and the course at NGLA.   It was that visit that the MCC Minutes tell us had the Committee go back and come up with "five different plans" subsequent to that visit, and FIVE MONTHS after the property was secured and supposedly after the routing was completed.
 
So, the question remains.   Does one need to know in advance that a hole is going to be based on a template hole before routing it, or can one build virtually any routing and then create template holes after the fact, particularly based on bunkering schemes?   Particularly if one assumes that the creation of bunkers and/or the re-building and re-desigining of greens is part of the equation, I think the answer is fairly self-evident.
 
Thanks,
Mike  
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()