[TEPaul]

Dan:

Thanks anyway for those links but unbelievably the appropriate one of those PRR land maps have been in the so-called Sayres Scrapbook from the beginning. Sayres was the secretary of MCC during these goings-on in 1910 and 1911 and he would become MCC's president around 1914 or so. If you get the right one from around 1908 you can see what that land of Merion that was once the so-called Johnson Farm and the surrounding properties looked like before the move of MCC to Ardmore.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul and Mike.

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful responses to my questions.   I hope I am not being presumptuous if I thank Wayne as well, as I think I recognize some of his stylistic tells sprinkled in your detailed post, Tom.

I have started to review and consider your posts, but as luck would have it, real life calls so it may take me a bit of time to consider your posts, and prepare a thoughtful response.   

Also, before I respond, I need to clarify a few things in answer to a question asked above by Jim Nugent, hopefully before his question slips to far away.

Thanks in advance for your patience.   

David.



TEPaul,  Were those Atlases really in the Sayres documents?   I recall that I provided some of them to Wayne or at least pointed him to them.   I think one appears in Merion's history. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

You are a sick, twisted, and masochistic freak!   Of course, that's why we love you! 

David,

I'll look forward to your thoughts as you're able.   Thanks.

[TEPaul]

David Moriatry:

You're very welcome. I don't think it would ever be presumptuous to thank Wayne but no he has nothing to do with this thread or the site. The opportunity to come back is there but he feels it's just not worth it on here. I think that's a real shame and a loss to the site certainly with Flynn and Merion but that's life I guess. The reality of this website with some private clubs is apparently just not what some on here think it is or think it should be. It has nothing at all to do with hiding club histories or anything like that but the fact remains everyone has feelings and others need to understand and respect that if it's cooperation they want and are looking for. Wayne and I continue on with a lot to do with Flynn and Merion but it has nothing to do with this now.

Were those PRR atlases in the Sayres Scrapbook? I guess they were but I have no idea if what you have from the Sayres Scrapbook is all the same stuff I have in a file on my computer that is labeled "Sayres Scrapbook." I think I have 3-4 of those PRR plat maps in my file that show the way all that land was before the idea of moving a course there and also one that essentially shows the arrangement that was presented to the MCC membership in Nov. 1910. That one is not a PRR plat map though, at least I don't believe it is---it was done by another surveyor. I know you have that one because it was in your essay. That's the plan or plat from which you assumed Francis had already had his late night idea and why that Nov 1910 plan or plat showed that triangle at the northern end of the property. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think you will come to see that the over-all Time-line will prove it's impossible that Francis's idea created that triangle. It was that way anyway, and for pretty obvious reasons many months before Francis' idea for #15 and #16. But don't let's worry about that now. We can get to that some other time down the road somewhere.

[TEPaul]

When it comes to David Moriarty's questions in Post #133 that a few of us responded to at great length and in much detail, I would just suggest and recommend that even if his question basically related to interpretations of what Findlay meant in that article, particularly when he mentioned "others laid out by CBM that are really great," that we all take special care to consider the context in which we view that Findlay article.

What I mean is, if that Findlay article was all we had to determine what Macdonald may've done at Merion then it probably would be worth parsing the hell out of what he wrote and what he meant by that remark we are analyzing and about which David Moriarty is asking us about his interpretation of it.

But that article is not all we have by any means so the better context to analyze what Findlay meant in that article is to weigh it and consider it against all the other information available from Merion that shows us pretty clearly what would have been even possible for Macdonald to be able to do. In that vein, I think anyone can easily see given the extent of the recording of what Merion did with Macdonald which only involved essentially four days over ten months that it pretty much all boils down to a single day when he would've had the opportunity but a very serious limitation of time to actually create a routing and design plan for Merion.

That of course was April 6, 1911. Merion's committee and board records prove he and Whigam were only there that single day and they never came again to offer Merion there help and assistance. Matter of fact, we don't even know if they were there the entire day just that they only came that one day. So, if anyone thinks it was even possible for them to create their own routing and design plan for that course or even some of its holes in a single day (and considering Merion presented them with five of their own plans to consider on April 6, 1911) I would suggest the realities of golf course architecture would make that truly impossible for Macdonald/Whigam to do.

Not to even mention Macdonald was never known to draw routings for any course he was ever involved with. If someone thinks he did perhaps they should speak first to George Bahto.

And this all presupposes Merion even asked them to do such a thing, at any time. I find nothing at all relating to the history of Merion that the club ever asked them to do such a thing. I think all Merion asked them for was some help and advice with how Merion (and the Wilson Committee) could do it themselves.

This has been the story of the creation and history of Merion from everyone from then until 2003 when this suggestion was made on this website that perhaps Macdonald/Whigam did back then what everybody back then and through the years always said Wilson and his committee did.

But we also need to ask ourselves where did that suggestion or question even emanate from in 2003 and why? It emanated from a couple of newspaper articles from back then that said Macdonald/Whigam gave Merion some help and advice. It should be instructive to all that those two articles have been in Merion's archive likely from the day they were written. If the people involved in creating Merion East back then actually thought that article meant to say that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed their course I'm quite sure Merion would have gotten in touch with that newspaper or magazine and asked them where they got that idea. 

The truths and the facts are not going to be found in parsing the hell out of that Findlay article; the truth will be found in weighing it and considering it in light of the meaning of everything else that is available and certainly including from Merion itself. And we have provided here a very reliable syllabus of what has always been available from the two clubs of MCC and Merion GC that was formed in 1941 out of the structure of MCC and the MCC Golf Association which was what the club was when they moved their course from Haverford to Ardmore.

Again, a reliable Time-line that can show what was possible and pretty much what wasn't at almost any point in time is a truly beautiful and remarkably useful thing in this kind of analysis and in this kind of business.   

[Mike_Cirba]

I've heard through the grapevine that one David Schmidt is developing the hots for teacher Miss Rawlings given what I've described of her stern, authoritarian, rigid, demanding, catechismal, style of educational enforcement.

Don't be taken in by that description Dave.

In reality, Miss Rawlings was the WASP version of Blessed Sister Corporal Punishment of the Good Order of Angry, Frustrated, Unmarried Harpies.
 
If he tried to pass off that type of grammatical writing in her sixth grade class, she would have beaten the young Alex Findlay to a pulp and the poor fellow would never have lived to a ripe old age, much less designed any golf courses during it.
 
He likely would have become some type of voluntary Neutered Eunuch, singing in the Castrati Choir, and praying for an early death.   
 

[DMoriarty]

Can some one refresh my memory.  Did Findlay ever say Wilson designed Merion? 

Jim.   Good Question. 

The short answer is No.  I am unaware of any such article.

TEPaul not only disagrees with me, he is incredulous:

The mincing of words and definitions on these threads has gotten out of control. It looks like Moriarty in response to Cirba actually claimed when Findlay said in one of those articles that Wilson and his committee "mapped out" the course that Findlay must have meant those five men merely measured the golf course.

I guess he is referring to the Nov. 24 1910 article found on the first page of this post, because this article contains the “mapped out” language. 
1.   TEPaul believes that Findlay wrote this article.
2.   He also apparently believes that the “mapped out” language is strong evidence that Wilson and Committee were the designers of the course. 

He is mistaken on both counts.   

First, Findlay was NOT the author of this article.    The article was not attributed. 

Second, the article appears to be a second hand recitation of earlier articles, and likely adds little to what we know about the creation of Merion East.
  -  The portion describing the golf course reads as if it were a crib of an earlier Findlay review, also on the first page of this thread.   
  - While it does contain some of the same information as the Findlay article,  the derivative article is abbreviated, awkward, and none too accurate, as if the author had been sloppy or knew little about golf, or both.   For just one example, while the Findlay article describes the 8th hole as "plain," the derivative article describes it as “at the end of a plain."
- While it is an entertaining read, it is difficult to figure what this derivative article adds to the discussion.

Third and most importantly, while the Findlay article praises Wilson and his Committee for building the best course in PA, Findlay did NOT write that Wilson and Co. "mapped out" the course.    That language only appears in the derivative article.

Fourth,  TEPaul is taking the unattributed article out of context.  A closer look reveals that the "mapped out" language is used in the context of providing the total course distance, and is not necessarily identifying those who routed the course and created the hole concepts.  Here is the passage:

”The length of the course is is 6, 245 yards, as mapped out by [the Committee,] but there is room for tee space to the extent of 2[xx] yards.”

Maybe I am crazy, but it seems to me that the derivative article is describing the length of the course, and is not necessarily discussing design attribution.

With that said, the long answer to your question is also a resounding NO.  Despite TEPaul's post the contrary,  I am unaware of any article where Findlay wrote that Wilson designed Merion East.   


Here is TEPaul's post in its entirety:

"Can some one refresh my memory.  Did Findlay ever say Wilson designed Merion?"


Jim:

Just go back and read the couple of articles on the first page by Findlay and the letter and such by Baily (board member of MCC) on the first page of this thread and I think you can answer that question for yourself. If Wilson and his committee weren't out there physically digging and shoveling and shit (which clearly they never did) then what do you think everyone back then meant when they said they "laid out" or even "mapped out" Merion East? 

The mincing of words and definitions on these threads has gotten out of control. It looks like Moriarty in response to Cirba actually claimed when Findlay said in one of those articles that Wilson and his committee "mapped out" the course that Findlay must have meant those five men merely measured the golf course.

Jim, if the board report states that Wilson and his committee spent a couple of months in the winter and spring of 1911 creating "numerous plans" and following their visit to NGLA they honed it down to "five different courses" and one of those course plans was approved of in April by the MCC board of Directors with a course plan attached to the report the board was considering to begin the construction of the course, do you really think ALL THAT actually meant all Wilson and his committee did was MEASURE the golf course once someone else routed, designed it and then built it for them?   

Analyzing this course's architectural history and who did what even in the very beginning is definitely not rocket science to figure out what it means; and spending four pages on here analyzing the shit out of what this one single Findlay article means about "others" is definitely not even 1% of the way to go about it.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I think Tom Paul made a mistake in assuming that article was Findlay's, as well.   I think something I wrote might have given him that impression.  I was hoping we might find a copy where the headline was readable, and where perhaps a byline appeared, but no luck to date.  So yes, that article to date is unattributed.

In any case, I would simply note one correction, and make one remark.

The Findlay opening day article does not give credit to the Committee for "Building" the course.

It says the "course was constructed under the direction" of Hugh Wilson and Committee.    Subtle, but very important distinction, I believe, and I'd also note that the Findlay opening day article makes absolutely no mention of Charles B. Macdonald, which seems extremely odd and even negligent if one also interprets Findlay's article from just three months prior as giving Macdonald credit for laying out "many great holes" at Merion.   Findlay also lived and worked and built numerous courses in the Philadelphia area for the next 30 years, while scads of news accounts credited Hugh Wilson as the designer of Merion, which by then had hosted 2 US AMs, 1 US Open, and many other tournaments of note yet never once raised any voice of objection or dissention as to the true architect of Merion.

Also, you ask if you're crazy for believing that the unattributed, opening day news article giving credit to Hugh Wilson and Committee for "mapping out" the course, was actually applying a definition essentially meaning that Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis deserved much credit for essentially measuring the course from end to end?   

Please take this in humorous and kidding spirit, but if that's what you truly believe, it may be time for that pill.   

Unless the Merion Committee all were practicing members of the Monty Pythonesque "Silly Walks Brigade", I would imagine that was something even their under-developed, golf-infantile minds could have comprehended and accomplished simply by measuring their respective strides and then walking around the course!    I'm thinking that being Captains of Industry and all, they might just have been able to pull that admittedly difficult task off with some extra desire, some deep thought, and lots of personal ooomph!    

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think Tom Paul made a mistake in assuming that article was Findlay's, as well.   I think something I wrote might have given him that impression.

In any case, I would simply note one correction, and make one remark.

I guess I could have made one remark, but I doubt Jim or anyone else wants to dig through the thread to try and understand what I was talking about, so I wanted to set it out exactly. 

Plus, crediting the article to Findlay was not TEPaul's only mistake.  In my opinion, TEPaul also took the article out of context.   Moreover, he failed to mention the derivative nature of the article or to consider how the this diminishes the value of the article as a source of new and unique information. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be uncivil or o imply that TEPaul is attempting anything underhanded.  I am sure his mistakes were innocent.  But I did want to set the record straight.   

You wrote:

The Findlay opening day article does not give credit to the Committee for "Building" the course.

Mike,  Please see your post No. 24, and the Findlay article you posted.    In the last paragraph, Findlay wrote that they "built" the course. 

_______________

While I was posting you added:

Unless the Merion Committee all were practicing members of the Monty Pythonesque "Silly Walks Brigade", I would imagine that was something even their under-developed, golf-infantile minds could have comprehended and accomplished simply by measuring their respective strides and then walking around the course!    I'm thinking that being Captains of Industry and all, they might just have been able to pull that admittedly difficult task off with some extra desire, some deep thought, and lots of personal ooomph!    

I guess you are trying to be funny and all with the absurd descriptions of what I must mean by "mapped out."  Nonetheless, I am not sure what the caricatures of my position add to the conversation, especially when you guys treat them as accurate. 

I didn't write that "mapped out" means they personally walked the course to measure it (although given that Francis was an engineer, they may have.)   Likewise, I have never said that "constructed" meant that they were the ones out there with shovels.  Yet you guys repeatedly write that these are what I truly believe.

While I am sure that your caricatures are easier to deal with than my actual position, misrepresenting my position gets us no closer to the truth.

[Mike_Cirba]

David and Others,

I sent this to a friend in a private email and he encouraged me to post it because he thought it sort of encapsulated what I think happened, and I hope it's helpful here:

Six months after the June, 1912 Alex Findlay article, both Tillinghast and "Far and Sure" (I believe they were the same person but Philip contends otherwise) both stated that the course was so unfinished that they didn't want to venture a "critical analysis" of the course at that point.

I do know the course routing was determined and approved in April, 1911, and having seen the minutes of the Merion Cricket Club, I also am certain it was based on one of "five different plans" developed by the Merion Committee after their visit to NGLA in early March 1911.   Macdonald came for a single day on April 6th and walked the property with them and helped them select their best plan.

However, I also believe that all that was actually in place when the course was originally routed that first year were locations of tees, fairways, and greens, and then grass was planted in the fall of 1911, and in the early spring of 1912, Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas of hole "strategies" he could use to develop hole "internals" on the Merion course.

Initial articles upon opening noted very few bunkers or "mental hazards" were yet in place.   It's also why early articles mentioned that Wilson went abroad before the course was built, because in the minds of those early pioneers, building the course was an ongoing task.   Many of the earliest courses underwent constant evolution and improvement, and all of the main courses in Philadelphia at that time...Philly Country Club, Philly Cricket, Huntingdon Valley, Springhaven, etc., went through almost annual change as bunkers were added, entire holes were changed or added, and the entire mindset seemed to be focused on staying up with the changing times.

I think their methods were very, very different from what we think of today with a new course opening, where literally everything down to the shapes, depths, locations of bunkers and greens and all other features are first mapped out before-hand to the letter, and then built by shapers and other craftsmen.

I think some of our mistakes and confusion in trying to figure out who did what, when, and where is applying modern thinking and especially modern terminologies to early course architecture and construction, when the chief goal at first was just to get grass growing on something playable where one could tee a ball on the ground and direct it to a hole in the distance.

Most of the rest came later, and it was in fact determined to be good and sound practice to play on the course at first for some time and then determine the appropriate locations for bunkers and such.   

It was a method advocated heavily in early Philadelphia writing by Tillinghast and others like Findlay.

David,

Yes, you're right.   I think perhaps we have too many Opening Day articles floating about! 

Findlay did say once the course was opened that Wilson and Committee did what Leeds did at Myopia...built the best courses in their respective states.

Would you say that by 1912 H.C. Leeds would have been well known and lauded for having "built" Myopia Hunt Club to someone else's design? 

You also tell me I'm misinterpreting your opinion when I perhaps poke fun at Hugh Wilson sweating moving boulders, or stepping off the distance of each hole, but let me ask you a serious question.

What exactly and specifically do you believe that Hugh Wilson and his Committee actually did up to and including 1912?

They had Fred Pickering onsite...a man who by that time according to accounts had already "built" hundreds of courses out there supervising construction and bringing agronomic and construction expertise.

What do you believe that Hugh Wilson and the  Merion Committee were responsible for specifically, and why do you believe they were given so much credit and contemporaneous celebration once they were finished?

My lord...Tillinghast stated that they deserved the thanks of "all golfers".

If they just ordered some laborers around, don't you think Tillinghast was a lunatic?

[DMoriarty]

Mike, 

I really do not think that yet another debate about the meaning of terms like "built" and "constructed" would be at all productive at this point.

Let's just say that the usage is similar to what one might mean if they wrote that Mike Kiser built Bandon Trails.  Perhaps we can leave it at that.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

In your post #157 and in your interesting examples in that post about newspaper articles in your #1, #2, #3, #4 points, what they are and how hard it is to interepret them and certainly how hard it is to have a modicum of faith in their accuracy about the real facts about architecture and architects you make my on-going point about the lack of reliabiltiy of newspaper information a lot better than I have or ever could! Thank you for that.

And all that is precisely why I'd rather rely on the internal administrative records of golf clubs then second-hand information from newspaper reports!

[TEPaul]

"David,
I think Tom Paul made a mistake in assuming that article was Findlay's, as well.   I think something I wrote might have given him that impression.  I was hoping we might find a copy where the headline was readable, and where perhaps a byline appeared, but no luck to date.  So yes, that article to date is unattributed."


Mike and David Moriarty:

Well, hell, shoot me for it if you want to but the fact is I just don't put the faith in the reliability of information contained in newspaper articles that you and others might. As I think I've explained many times in the past, I prefer to go to the direct, not indirect, source of information on the subjects I'm interested in and I think that is the clubs themselves and their own records!

[TEPaul]

Are you guys still quibbling over what "laying out" or even "mapping out" actually meant and referred to back then? Man, that is pretty pathetic, particularly as the old "Timeline" application can both solve and explain that one too.

Here's an historical trivia question for you two argumentative birds:

"When was the first time anyone or any article referred to the "Laying out" process as "routing" or "designing?"

Knock yourselves out guys, if you ever do figure that out, I think you'll be very surprised. 

[Rich Goodale]

Ah, the shoots of a new Spring.  The birds are singing, the bulbs are bursting out of the ground in uproarious colors and so is a new Merion thread!

As a Libran married to a Gemini with only enough stamina to skim the latest reincarnation, I have concluded that the answer is "Both!"  Consider this:

1.  New golf club is formed, founded by serious golfers
2.  Grizzled old veteran designer(s) called in to help on both land selection and basic routing
3.  Land chosen for the task, and acquired, over time, in bits
4.  Young stud from the new club is chosen to oversee the building and development of the course, using very rough, 36 stakes in the ground sort of routing
5.  Very early in the process, fast-learning young stud realises that within the general routing concept, much works but much also must be changed, and makes those changes
6.  Young stud also realises that agronomic excellence is a crucial element for course greatness, so he learns voraciously and hires great people to work with him on this aspect of design
7.  Together, the team dynamically creates a course which is soon and continuously recognised as one of the very best.

This is my best guess as to what happened at Royal Dornoch, beginning in 1886, with the grizzled veteran being Old Tom Morris, and the young stud John Sutherland, who was 22 years old at that time.  Substitute Macdonald for Morris and Wilson for Sutherland, and I think there is a more reasonable description of the history than the either/or arguments in this and previous posts.

Good night, Gracie and Mrs. Calabash.....

[Jim Nugent]

Rich, excellent ideas. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Rihc,

It's even simpler than that, as I'll explain.

David,

I agree that it's non-productive to argue semantics once again related to built, constructed, laid-out, etc, but I'm not sure I'd ever say that Mr. Keiser "mapped out", or "layed out", or even "laid out plans" for any of the courses at Bandon so I'm not sure he's a good example.

All,

Last night I outlined what I thought the "state of the course" was when Findlay wrote his article, and I think there is enough evidence from Tillnghast and Findlay to support that understanding.   "Far and Sure", whoever he was, supports that as well in his writing.

But last night at about 4am I woke up and something pretty  fundamental occurred to me that I don't think I realized prior;

I think we've made a collective mistake in believing that if there was an Alps hole, or a Redan, or any of the template holes built in the first iteration of Merion East, that it was clear direct evidence of the routing and planning of one Charles B. Macdonald.   That isn't so, and now when looks at the timelines, and the supporting evidence, the whole thing comes pretty sharply into view.

Let's consider the timeline;

June 1910 - The landowner Mr. Connell brings HH Barker to the large plot of land he wants to sell to Merion (Lloyd acting as the angel), and Barker sketches a routing that gets sent in what is essentially a prospectus package packet to Merion.

Later June 1910 - At the invite of Griscom, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham visit the proposed site for what seems to have been a single day with the intent of determining if the acreage proposed, the site specifics, and the inland soil would be appropriate to build a first class course.    In July, their very general recommendations are sent via letter to Merion, recommending a 6,000 yard non-specific course, the purchase of 3 additional acres along the creek and mostly concerned with agronomics.

July - November 1910 - Not much written record, but one can reasonably assume that properations to purchase the land and to setup committees to deal with purchasing and possible construction is being done.   

December 1910 - Mr. Lloyd purchases the 117 acres for Merion's use as a new golf club.

January - early March 1911 - Hugh Wilson and the newly formed Construction Committee work on putting together various plans of how to use the new land.   They report later to the Merion board;

""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course.....", which we now know happened around the end of the first week in March.

March 1911 - Wilson and Committee visit Macdonald at NGLA.   The Merion minutes, and later Wilson writing in 1916, make clear that the first day was spent going over Macdonald's sketches of the ideal holes abroad and the second day spent going over the course at NGLA.

to be continued

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Interesting analogies to OTM and Sutherland at Dornoch. In that vein, have you any idea how long OTM was at or on the project at Dornoch---eg how many days or weeks or months or whatever he was on the land? How about the same for Sutherland?

When one begins to consider, which some on here don't really seem to be doing, these kinds of things, then what is even possible as well as what isn't tends to become a bit clearer!  

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I don't know how long Old Tom Morris was at Dornoch, but I doubt it was more than a few days, which seemed to be his MO.  Maybe if Melvyn is lurking he can add something here.  Sutherland was Secretary at Dornoch for nearly 58 years (1883-1941).  He hired Old Tom.

Rich

[TEPaul]

“However, I also believe that all that was actually in place when the course was originally routed that first year were locations of tees, fairways, and greens, and then grass was planted in the fall of 1911, and in the early spring of 1912, Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas of hole "strategies" he could use to develop hole "internals" on the Merion course.”

MikeC:

When you make a statement like that, it very much does need some clarification as to the details and specifics of what was involved here in both the designing and evolutionary creation of Merion East, particularly as it involved pre and post seeding and the growing in phase which lasted a year with Merion East.

Again the old timeline and the realities and practicalities of parts of it can show us the way. This subject is probably worth another thread because it is highly unlikely that we will ever find these explanations of the practicalities and realities of these kinds of things in any newspaper articles.

They are much more available to us by considering and analyzing the meaning of the correspondences of the people involved with the problems and solutions that were happening out there at that early time.

It certainly can be a good thread for numerous reasons. It would be much less about the question of Wilson or Macdonald and much more about how things happened back then and how they almost had to happen if approached the way Merion approached that project. I think it'll also be a thread that will bring in the likes of Bradley Anderson because the details and specifics of those practicalities and realities back then are pretty much right in his research wheel-house.






“You also tell me I'm misinterpreting your opinion when I perhaps poke fun at Hugh Wilson sweating moving boulders, or stepping off the distance of each hole, but let me ask you a serious question.

What exactly and specifically do you believe that Hugh Wilson and his Committee actually did up to and including 1912?”


This most certainly is the question isn’t it? When it comes to what the terms they used to describe what they were doing, we can pretty easily figure out what they meant by a term such as “laying out” by again using the realities of the old timeline to determine with conclusive proof at least what they couldn’t possibly have been doing when they used that term at particular times!

[henrye]

Rich, your analogy to Dornoch is interesting.   I don’t think any would dispute that both MacDonald & Wilson had a part in the design of Merion.  The arguments revolve around how much influence each of them had, and it is likely that there will always be some discrepancy based on differing interpretations.  There appear to be two main contentious issues, however.

1.   Does MacDonald deserve any formal design attribution?  Truthfully, the individuals that have had access to and have thoroughly reviewed the historical record are probably the most qualified to determine the extent of each of MacDonald and Wilson’s contributions.  That would be Wayne, Tom Paul, etc.  It would appear that based on their review, they do not think any further recognition of MacDonald’s contribution is warranted and the historical record should stand that Wilson was the primary designer of the course.  I have no issue with any of that and don’t think others should either.  The contentious issue here is that there is a lack of trust between the differing parties and that critical information has been deemed to be proprietary preventing one of the parties from reviewing it.  Perhaps, one day, the information will be shared, but if the club decides against it,  so be it.

2.   The second contentious issue has been the tone and disrespect shown towards fellow GCA posters.  A number of nasty and personal things have been said and once said, it is difficult to forget, even after numerous apologies.

I, for one, think David’s essay is nothing short of excellent.  While he may have drawn the wrong conclusions and misinterpreted some of the historical record, it is without question that he has brought to light numerous interesting and important facts about the early creation of Merion Golf Club.  I think that had there been a minimum amount of respect shown, followed up with constructive rather than destructive criticism of his original essay, that none of this animosity would have occurred.

Unless there are any new articles or information that others would like to share, I doubt anyone will find further insights on the matter.

[TEPaul]

"I don't know how long Old Tom Morris was at Dornoch, but I doubt it was more than a few days, which seemed to be his MO.  Maybe if Melvyn is lurking he can add something here.  Sutherland was Secretary at Dornoch for nearly 58 years (1883-1941).  He hired Old Tom."


Rich:

It may not be possible to know how long OTM was at Dornoch or at what time but my point is if it is possible to know and it turns out it was for only a day or two then that most certainly tells us some of the things it would be pretty much impossible for him to do for the simple reason he didn't have the available time there to do some of them. As the creation of golf course architecture definitely works on a fairly understandable and inevitable progression of events some of which must follow others this kind of thing (time on site and when) is very important to know, and if it is known it can be remarkably telling as to who may've done what.

Obviously if Sutherland was there all the time for 58 years well then that tells us most anything was possible from him.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

On your post #167 I think I pretty much went through that whole "Merion" timeline in detail in post #136. My intention was to get this thread away from parsing the hell out of the meaning of just a couple of words in a newspaper article or newspaper article writers and to take it right into the recorded material fom Merion itself. Face it, the only possible place any credible newspaper article could ever come from anyway would be from the place and people from the place who were working on the project that was being written about.

[Rich Goodale]

"I don't know how long Old Tom Morris was at Dornoch, but I doubt it was more than a few days, which seemed to be his MO.  Maybe if Melvyn is lurking he can add something here.  Sutherland was Secretary at Dornoch for nearly 58 years (1883-1941).  He hired Old Tom."


Rich:

It may not be possible to know how long OTM was at Dornoch or at what time but my point is if it is possible to know and it turns out it was for only a day or two then that most certainly tells us some of the things it would be pretty much impossible for him to do for the simple reason he didn't have the available time there to do some of them. As the creation of golf course architecture definitely works on a fairly understandable and inevitable progression of events some of which must follow others this kind of thing (time on site and when) is very important to know, and if it is known it can be remarkably telling as to who may've done what.

Obviously if Sutherland was there all the time for 58 years well then that tells us most anything was possible from him.

Correct, Tom, but what I'm pretty sure Old Tom did was:

1.  Move the focus of the course from the lower links to the much better golfing land of the higher links where it sits today.
2.  Identify and choose some of the greatest greensites that exist in golf today, particularly #3, 4, 5, 14 and 15 and 17

Not bad for a couple of days of work!

[TEPaul]

That could be Rich but do you have any idea if he stuck around to oversee something if it took some time to make it?

Obviously, another question involved in this would be whether or not OTM actually did some fairly comprehensive drawings for whoever was left behind to follow?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()