News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #125 on: April 12, 2009, 08:51:54 PM »
MikeC:

I have the Sayres Scrapbook on my computer and I'll check but I don't recall that article Joe Bausch found is in the Sayres Scrapbook. I'll ask Wayne about it. There's a ton of old newspaper and magazine articles in the Merion Archives, like a lot of these old clubs around here including Pine Valley. When things were written about clubs like that they tended to keep them and they became part of their on-going archives.

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #126 on: April 12, 2009, 08:59:04 PM »
And Tom, don't forget the original routing according to Kittleman had the second tee right behind the first green.  Again, crossing Ardmore Ave.

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #127 on: April 12, 2009, 10:12:43 PM »
Bill:

Yes, we've always heard that. It seems hard to imagine if one happens to consider today's first green but of course the original 1st green was different and I could see players perhaps stepping behind it (since it was approached from way right of today's first green) or perhaps a bit to the left and behind it which would be impossible today given the direction players now approach the 1st green.

Nevertheless, if there was a tee for #2 in that position it must have been a pretty scary drive sort of teeing off to the 2nd fairway and playing diagonally across Ardmore Ave. No wonder it didn't last very long.

It sounds to me like some of the crazy advice that was apparently given to Wilson and his committee by those two wack-jobs from New York, Chuckie Homeboy MacCuckold and his sidekick son-in-law Herbie Joker Wigout-ham. ;)

On the other hand, it may've been Freddie Pickering's idea after he had about ten too many nips on the old flask and thought Ardmore Ave looked like a pretty fine fairway that had some pretty decent run to it!!
« Last Edit: April 12, 2009, 10:21:12 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #128 on: April 13, 2009, 06:20:56 AM »
3.   If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest.   It is not worth my time to counter.
. . . 
You seem to think that if I don't rely on article then I don't consider it germane to the topic at hand.   This is a mistake.  You are confusing the question of the article's relevance, on the one hand, with questions of credibility, persuasiveness, corroberation, etc., on the other. 

So again, the article is germane  to the topic at hand.   I just don't think it makes the case you think it makes.  And it is of little value or importance to me for the reason noted above, but as I wrote, by all means knock yourself out with it for any purposes you like.     


David,

I think this last post of your's is a perfect post to end this thread. 


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #129 on: April 13, 2009, 06:55:10 AM »
                                         -- 30 --

Jim Nugent

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #130 on: April 13, 2009, 03:48:43 PM »
I think some serious and careful study of exactly what Findlay wrote is required BEFORE simply explaining away the part that it appears he is assigning to C.B. McDonald.

Findlay clearly is refering to Wilson's & the new course when he states, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course..."

Wilson's reaction to what was created at Merion AFTER seeing the real hole? That follows immediately. "He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..."

This shows that efforts to imitate the great holes of the U.K. were being tried at Merion. It is THAT which Findlay seems to be clearly refering to next when he states, "But many of the others..."

These "others" are NOT on other courses but part of the MERION design. This means that his next statement, "as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." shows that C.B. had some definite hand in at least partially designing the original course.


That is how I read it too. 

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


Jim Nugent

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #131 on: April 13, 2009, 04:18:28 PM »
Interesting how they put down TOC, calling it a myth.   

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #132 on: April 13, 2009, 04:34:33 PM »
"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.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 04:39:53 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #133 on: April 13, 2009, 04:43:42 PM »
David,

I think this last post of your's is a perfect post to end this thread. 


While I wish you'd felt that way the first time I posted it, I nonetheless think we have a bit of unfinished business, hopefully civilly.

First, the Barker article.  Despite all the talk about what articles should and should be not be made available, I do appreciate that you did post the Barker article and, for that matter, that Joe posted the other article I mistakenly confused with another.  Thank you both for posting these.   

As Phil explained to me above, the delay in revealing the article is probably not worth getting bent out of shape over, and it is unfortunate that the discussion became so heated, and I apologize for my part in making it so. 

My concern from the beginning has been with bringing out the information for all to consider, and in this regard I have long been frustrated with how, in my experience, Wayne and TEPaul have repeatedly played games with the source material relating to Merion's history.   That being said, I shouldn't lump you in with them as long as we are in agreement that source material adddressing Merion's early history should brought to light for all to consider, even if it doesnt fit our previous understanding or or we find it uncorroborated unpersuasive, or even no better than toilet paper.

Are we now on the same page abut this? 

Second, the Findlay Article.   Again, thanks Joe for bringing it forward.   

Mike, given that I have spent much time and effort trying to address your concerns, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions:

1.  As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good.   Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?   

2.  If not then why not?    (Where is our mistake?  What have we missed?   What does not make sense?)

Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations.  You have done that above.  I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpetation.   

Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation.   For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so.     It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed somehing. 

Thanks

________________

Joe Bausch,

Since above you opined that Findlay was referring to other Alps holes built by CBM, I am curious as to what you think now, given the limited number of CBM Alps holes that existed when the article was written. 

 Do you still think Findlay was writing about CBM's Alps holes?
- If not, what to you think he meant now?
- If so, do you agree that by contrasting CBM's Alps with with Merion's 10th, then Findlay would have been implying  that Merion's 10th is a CBM hole?

To put it even more broadly, if Findlay's "many others" refer to CBM golf holes anywhere and of any type, then wouldn't this imply that Merion's 10th was also a CBM hole?

Otherwise, contrasting Merion's 10th with CBM's holes wouldn't make any sense at all, would it? 

Thanks.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #134 on: April 13, 2009, 05:15:42 PM »
David,

Thank you for your thoughtful message.  I appreciate the sentiment and hope to respond in kind as well as answer your questions as best I'm able very shortly.

I won't be home this evening but I hope to be reply by mid-day tomorrow.

Thanks,
Mike
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 05:38:33 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #135 on: April 13, 2009, 05:39:48 PM »
"To put it even more broadly, if Findlay's "many others" refer to CBM golf holes anywhere and of any type, then wouldn't this imply that Merion's 10th was also a CBM hole?
Otherwise, contrasting Merion's 10th with CBM's holes wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?"


Of course it would NOT necessarily imply Merion 10th (its original "Alps") was a CBM hole. A number of Americans went abroad back then, including Leeds, Emmet, Tillie, Crump and certainly Wilson, to analyze and look at the famous old holes over there and they were certainly all capable of essentially copying them in template form over here or parts of them over here. A number of Architects did that on their courses back then and actually still do, probably the most well known being the redan. Does that mean that all of them should be considered CBM holes?   ??? ::) :o

Mentioning CBM holes as being really good in the same paragraph as Merion's #10----Alps---a copy of Prestwick's famous #17) makes plenty of sense if Findlay was speaking about architects, particularly over here such as Wilson, doing template copies of famous holes from abroad just as CBM had done in template form over here from a number of famous holes from abroad. In June of 1912 obviously the best of them by CBM were considered to be at NGLA.


« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 05:43:20 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #136 on: April 13, 2009, 09:16:38 PM »
(I'm sorry this is so long but you asked for a really considered and comprehensive answer to your questions and it takes some space. This also took me a while, for sure. I hope this gives this complex, long running issue the understanding it deserves for all and hopefully some agreement and an end to these time consuming threads on Merion, Macdonald and Wilson).

David Moriarty:

Well, since I guess I fall into the category of the "others" who you do not think have directly explained the basis for rejecting this interpretation (that Findlay is referring to "Others" as really good CBM holes at Merion), I'll give it another shot.

And I'm also going to strive to do it very civily.

You asked:
"As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good.   Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?   
If not then why not?    (Where is our mistake?  What have we missed?   What does not make sense?)"

Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations.  You have done that above.  I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpretation.   

Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation.   For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so.     It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed something." 






1.         I’m not suggesting that the interpretation that Findlay could be referring to “Others” as CBM holes at Merion makes no sense at all to some people, just that it is not the only interpretation that makes sense and in my opinion is an interpretation that makes much less sense than the interpretation that Findlay was referring to CBM holes ELSEWHERE. Firstly, Findlay does not actually say the "others" of CBM's that he said were really good are at Merion. Of course anyone could say, given how unclear Findlay's writing and meaning is in that particular article, that he means those he referred to as "others" were CBM holes at Merion. But the fact is undeniable that he did not actually say that. The fact is also undeniable that there are other ways to interpret what he did mean by "others" that do not include an interpretation that those "others" were CBM holes at Merion or even holes at Merion. Of course, I am certainly assuming, if you are asking these questions honestly and in good faith, that you will admit there actually ARE interpretations OTHER THAN YOURS, and certainly sensible interpretations (given close consideration of the information that follows) of what Findlay meant when he said "others" in that article. If you're not at least willing to admit that then I don't see that there's any reason to discuss this with you any more or any longer and one wonders why you even bother to ask in the first place.

2.             The following just may be the most meaningful answers of all to your questions, particularly for those people who don't have a very good working knowledge of All the material DETAILS of the history of Merion East. They should be considered very carefully by you and others interested in this subject and should definitely not be dismissed, discounted and certainly not avoided. You should give a response to each and every point as to why it may seem implausible or unlikely to you. If you don’t you are simply not dealing with the realities of the material details of Merion East’s original history.
            A/        C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam spent seemingly only two days----period----at Merion's Ardmore site over a period of approximately ten months, and as far as I can tell and the Merion detailed history records they did not ever again return to Merion for the purpose of advising and helping them after April 6, 1911. It is not exactly recorded if they spent more than a day there in June 1910 but it does seem it was a day or less given what he said in his letter he noticed there at that time and what he suggested to them at that time. It is not possible that Macdonald/Whigam could have routed and designed a course on that property at that time because he even said as much when he mentioned there wasn’t much he could do to make more suggestions without a contour survey map in front of him and he also implied they should get that done for themselves.
            B/        It is probably possible that Macdonald/Whigam could have looked at Barker’s “rough sketch” of the property also done in June 1910 but that was never at any time mentioned by either Macdonald and Whigam or Merion. If they had decided to use that as a basis for a routing and design at any point in time it certainly should have been recorded by at least one of them or by the club somewhere in their very comprehensive administrative record keeping but nothing of the kind was ever mentioned by any of them about Barker and his “rough sketch” again except that he had done one for the developer George Connell for Connell’s account, meaning Connell paid for what Barker did and not Merion. After that “Search Committee” and board report in July 1910 Barker’s name was never mentioned again BY Merion. Of course that was all about a half year before Merion even bought the property. Obviously some later newspaper report (Nov, 1910) by some unknown writer from a newspaper (Philly Press or Telegram) Merion does not seem to have even subscribed to and couldn't conceivably contain anywhere near as direct or relevant information on Merion as Merion’s own comprehensive administrative records on the creation of their new golf course says that Merion hired Barker and will use him for their future course! THAT kind of report and information should be an indication and warning to all you study this stuff about what really is relevent and factual and what isn't. Obviously the information contained in that particular article came out of some five months old file (June 1910)and is not relevent to the factual history of what was going on at Merion to prepare for the routing and design of the East course and who would do it. That example should be a warning to all on here who put so much stock in the reliablity of ANY and ALL newspaper and magazine reports and information compared to a club's own administrative reports and records! In effect, H.H. Barker, at that point, was a total nonentity as far as what was about to happen about 2-7 months hence with the routing and design and construction of Merion East and who would be involved in it!
          C/       The next time Merion had any contact with Macdonald/Whigam was nine months later when Wilson and presumably most of his committee went to visit Macdonald/Whigam at NGLA. That was apparently in the beginning of the second week of March, 1911 (from a March 13, 1911 letter to Russell Oakley from Wilson stating “we” had just returned from NGLA) . What they did during those two days at NGLA was pretty specifically recorded in the Board meeting minutes of MCC in mid-April 1911 via a report Wilson apparently made up to give to Robert Lesley to report to the board about what the committee had done with the course planning to that date. That report mentions that previous to going to NGLA Wilson and his committee had “laid out numerous courses.” Wilson sent a copy of a contour survey map of the course property to Russell Oakley at the US Dept of Agriculture on Feb. 1, 1911 and so we know Wilson and his committee had a topo contour map of the property to work on course routings and hole design plans before that point. Wilson mentioned to Oakley that Macdonald had recommended MCC be in touch with he and Piper for a soil analysis and to discuss the difficult problem of preparing the course for seeding and the difficult problem of seed selections. The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there (we can discuss some other time what-all that may’ve meant in a routing and hole design alteration on the five different Merion plans or the one they took to the board for approval less than two weeks hence).
           D/      As far as I can tell neither Macdonald (nor Whigam) ever actually did a course routing drawing on paper at any time pre-construction for himself or anyone else----eg it seems Macdonald always depended upon Seth Raynor to do that for him (you or we or any of us should check with George Bahto on that but I do not believe he has ever seen an actual Macdonald course drawing and if he has noone I know of has ever seen one---even though apparently in the last year NGLA has found two Macdonald hole drawings (of NGLA apparently)). Raynor was never at Merion for the purpose of Merion East's design and if he was noone ever said so or recorded it. If the foregoing is true one needs to consider who actually did the drawing of the routing and hole designs of the course that was presented to the board only two weeks hence (I think it’s pretty obvious it was Richard Francis, their Wilson committee member who was also a professional engineer/surveyor who worked for George A. Fuller Co, a Philadelphia building construction contractor).
        E/     Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.


3.       Therefore, to address again why I think your interpretation that Findlay meant that the “Others” he mentioned in that article were holes by CBM at Merion don’t make much sense, I submit the following supplemental information and opinion:
          A/     Macdonald/Whigam did not have the OPPORTUNITY and particularly they did not have the TIME to create a routing and/or hole design plans for Merion because for all the reasons shown above they just did not have the opportunity in June 1910, and according to the specific account of what was done at NGLA in March 1911 Merion’s own design plans were not even discussed or considered at that time (again what was discussed and considered and shown to them at NGLA was reported and it all had to do with NGLA itself and Macdonald’s sketches from abroad for NGLA, and not Merion Ardmore or Merion’s design plans). Therefore that would have only left Macdonald/Whigam a single day to create their own routing and hole concepts and designs for Merion, not to mention that Wilson and his committee had clearly spent months creating their own, five of which they asked Macdonald/Whigam to consider on that single day in April, 1911. For anyone who knows even a modicum about the practicalities and logistics and the time involved of routing and hole-designing certainly understands that all that could not and does not happen in a single day. And it is irrefutable that a single day is all the time and opportunity Macdonald/Whigam had to do such a thing even if Merion asked them to try to do such a thing. As far as I know, Macdonald was only involved with Merion one other time after that which only involved a letter from him  to Wilson in June 1911 which spoke only about the amounts of manure, lime and fertilizer to use to prepare ground and greens for seeding.
         B/      It does not appear from any evidence anywhere or at any time that Merion even considered asking Macdonald/Whigam to route or design their course or any holes on it for them, not to even mention that he probably wouldn't have even considered something like that, particularly at that time before his own course was even finished or open for play. All they apparently asked them to do is to show them or advise them (apparently over a period of only four days and only two of which were spent at Ardmore by Macdonald/Whigam) how they could do it themselves, apparently as they knew he had done with NGLA with a committee of amateur/sportsmen (himself, and with Whigam and originally Travis and later with Emmet and others of Macdonald’s friends from New York).
          C/     It has never been documented, mentioned, suggested or even implied or rumored anywhere or at any time for over ninety years that Macdonald/Whigam actually routed any of Merion East or actually designed any of its holes. Nothing like that was even imagined by anyone that any of us here are aware of until both you and Tom MacWood came along on this website beginning in 2003 with that rather unusual suggestion or implication. I do not believe there is any documentary information available to us today about the original creation of Merion East that was not known by those men back then who were involved in it, including that mysterious remark by Whigam in a magazine eulogy to Macdonald in 1939 about Macdonld designing Merion, so if that doesn't say something about your Macdonald implication as to the routing and design of that course, I just can't imagine what would!

For the foregoing reasons I’ve just supplied in answer to your questions I hope you can understand why this interpretation you presented and asked about on the above post of what Findlay meant by “others” doesn’t make much sense.

I hope this answered the questions you asked and I hope it helps. There is more that supports what I’ve outlined here but this should be enough for now to answer your questions about why some of us don’t think your interpretation of what Findlay meant in that article of June 1912 makes much sense.


It also just must be considered with these kinds of questions of yours that the weight of evidence of who did route and design Merion East originally is so overwhelming and in so many places and from so numerous sources. For that reason I hope you can learn to appreciate its significance and not continue to discount it, dismiss it and certainly not avoid it when we present it to you. If you do, I’m afraid it casts significant aspersions on the integrity of not us here today but of all those people involved with and around Merion who have all virtually said the same thing about what Hugh Wilson did there back then close to a century ago now.


« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 11:11:52 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #137 on: April 13, 2009, 09:45:59 PM »
Tom Paul,

Thanks for that summary.   I'll add a bit to it tomorrow, but I'll try to speak more directly to why I think David (and Phil's) interpretation of the article is incorrect, albeit easily read that way given Findlay's less than linear prose.

I do have one question, however.    You mentioned that when Macdonald returned for a single day in April 1911, the MCC minutes reflect that Macdonald (and WHigham) went over the property and the five "different" plans they created after their return from NGLA in early March and approved one in particular that he and Whigham stated would lead to the best finishing holes of any "inland* course" in the world.

You also said that Macdonald and Whigham recommended they purchase an additional 3 acres at that time.

I don't recall seeing the second part of Macdonald repeating his earlier June 1910 recommendation about aquiring those 3 acres in conjuction with the approved/recommended plan.   Instead, I recall the minutes reading something like, "In order to accomplish this it will require the purchase of 3 additional acres..." or something similar.

Did the minutes of April 1911 actually reflect Macdonald repeating his earlier recommendation from June 1910, or is that something you're inferring from his original site visit a year prior?


* presumably to differentiate it from NGLA.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 10:00:43 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #138 on: April 13, 2009, 11:15:30 PM »
Mike Cirba:

I will bet you a 100 smackers that you are one of less than half a dozen people who have the patience and interest left in this subject to read that remarkably long post I just made. There was no way to truncate it though----eg all that info and explanation is necessary to outline that way to answer David Moriarty's apparently sincerely asked questions!  ;)

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #139 on: April 14, 2009, 12:06:08 AM »
"My concern from the beginning has been with bringing out the information for all to consider, and in this regard I have long been frustrated with how, in my experience, Wayne and TEPaul have repeatedly played games with the source material relating to Merion's history.   That being said, I shouldn't lump you in with them as long as we are in agreement that source material adddressing Merion's early history should brought to light for all to consider, even if it doesnt fit our previous understanding or or we find it uncorroborated unpersuasive, or even no better than toilet paper."


David Moriarty:

God only knows how many times I've tried to go over this particular issue with you on here. Do you have absolutely no idea what I'm saying to you or do you just not care about our reasons and perhaps the club's own reasons?

That is a question I would like you do consider very, very carefully and supply me with an answer on this thread as soon as you possibly can.

You asked a question on here today and for some considered reasons why some might not agree with you on something as inconsequential as the interpretation of what an architect such as Findlay said in some article and I took the time and effort to give you the most honest and considered response I possibly can.

I'd like the same consideration from you on what I asked you above. I'm not going to hold my breath but I am the eternal optimist you know, even with someone like you.

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #140 on: April 14, 2009, 08:49:33 AM »
"I don't recall seeing the second part of Macdonald repeating his earlier June 1910 recommendation about aquiring those 3 acres in conjuction with the approved/recommended plan.   Instead, I recall the minutes reading something like, "In order to accomplish this it will require the purchase of 3 additional acres..." or something similar.

Did the minutes of April 1911 actually reflect Macdonald repeating his earlier recommendation from June 1910, or is that something you're inferring from his original site visit a year prior?"


MikeC:

I guess I inferred that----I probably shouldn't have because it wasn't specifically reported with words I inferred and as there is so much analyzing of every word and its meaning on here. What you quoted above is what was reported. It's just that the particular plan Macdonald/Whigam approved of which the Wilson Committee report mentioned was the same plan they were attaching to their report for approval and for the club to build required a motion on the Board that the Board approve that the club purchase that 3 acres and as you know those two holes (#12 green and #13) were originally built on it although that particular land no longer contains holes even though the club owns it. By the way, even if the Board approved the purchase of that 3 acres and recorded the price they would pay, that land was never actually purchased from the railroad by the club until 1961, exactly 50 years after the fact.

I realize I'm inferring something that is not recorded in Merion GC's history but to my mind the way that particular piece of railroad land played out with MCC from beginning to end tells me just how powerful a number of MCC members were in those days in both the management and the financing of the American railroad system, particularly including the great PRR, which I understand from a completely different piece of source material had the largest capitalization around 1900 of any corporation in the world (source material---William Morrison's book, "The Great Houses of the Main Line.").

Some of the guys at MCC and to do with the decisons involving the course back around the move of the course to Ardmore, before and afterwards, were some incredibly big heavy hitters, that's for sure. That alone is an interesting separate story as it relates to MCC. It looks to me like when MCC told the railroad they would like to acquire that small piece of land, the railroad basically responded: "No problem Sirs, why don't you just tell us how you want us to handle it?"  ;)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 08:54:12 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #141 on: April 14, 2009, 09:23:03 AM »
Tom,

Thanks, that's my understanding as well.   I do believe that C.B. Macdonald should get credit for originally recommending they consider purchase of those 3 acres of adjacent railroad land back when they first visited in June 1910 because it did provide certainly more options to routing holes in that intersection where the "L" connected on the property (prior to the club buying the land beyond the creek south of Ardmore Avenue in the 20s which in effect created today's holes 1 (later), 10, 11, 12, and 13, which replaced their earlier counterparts).

As we were discussing the other day, without that land you could have probably had 12 play as a very short uphill par four, and then put a par three where 13 is today, but the net effect is that you'd have 3 pretty short holes in a row...the original 11th, the abbreviated 12th, and today's 13th.

Ironically, this would have netted out to a course closer to the 6000 yard course that Macdonald and Whigham originally recommended the club build during that June 1910 visit.   For reasons I don't understand, they seemed to think that there was no need to build a course as long as 6400 yards, and although I don't have the Macdonald letter in front of me right now, they very specifically made this point.

As it was built, and as the articles in this thread illustrate, the Merion course opened at 6,245 yards, with room to extend it to 6,500 yards as desired.

*EDIT*

I just went back and dug up Charles Macdonald's letter after his June, 1910 visit, and here's the specific section that talked about course yardage;

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "



« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 11:34:22 AM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #142 on: April 14, 2009, 10:02:06 AM »

While I wish you'd felt that way the first time I posted it, I nonetheless think we have a bit of unfinished business, hopefully civilly.

First, the Barker article.  Despite all the talk about what articles should and should be not be made available, I do appreciate that you did post the Barker article and, for that matter, that Joe posted the other article I mistakenly confused with another.  Thank you both for posting these.   

As Phil explained to me above, the delay in revealing the article is probably not worth getting bent out of shape over, and it is unfortunate that the discussion became so heated, and I apologize for my part in making it so. 

My concern from the beginning has been with bringing out the information for all to consider, and in this regard I have long been frustrated with how, in my experience, Wayne and TEPaul have repeatedly played games with the source material relating to Merion's history.   That being said, I shouldn't lump you in with them as long as we are in agreement that source material adddressing Merion's early history should brought to light for all to consider, even if it doesnt fit our previous understanding or or we find it uncorroborated unpersuasive, or even no better than toilet paper.

Are we now on the same page abut this? 

Second, the Findlay Article.   Again, thanks Joe for bringing it forward.   

Mike, given that I have spent much time and effort trying to address your concerns, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions:

1.  As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good.   Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?   

2.  If not then why not?    (Where is our mistake?  What have we missed?   What does not make sense?)

Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations.  You have done that above.  I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpetation.   

Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation.   For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so.     It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed somehing. 

Thanks


David,

Thanks again for your considerate post.   I also apologize for contributing to the tone of this discussion becoming heated.   We are both obviously passionate about this subject, and I do have to say that due to additional research largely stimulated by your original questions and White paper, we are all about as close as possible to figuring out the pertinent timelines of the creation of the original Merion course, as well as being able to strongly infer who was responsible for what, short of finding actual original drawings in someone's handwriting (which we'd likely still debate authorship of ;) ).

I also would say that I don't expect you'll agree with what I'm about to offer in way of explaining why I think your interpretation of the Findlay article is incorrect. 

As background, as I've mentioned previously, you are at a disadvantage here because some of us have seen the MCC Minutes related to the "plans" for the new course at Merion and you have not.   While in an ideal world all of this stuff would be in the public domain, I can't and won't fault Tom and/or Wayne for their decision to respect the wishes of others within those two clubs who did not want another public sideshow on here related to their organizations.

I think you have to recall that the Merion Golf Club went through basically a public trial here about their decisions to rebuild all of the bunkers by Tom Fazio;  that little debate raised to the level of a Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday First Page Sports Section feature story!  I know...I was one of the biggest dissenting voices at the time.

That was followed by a number of contentious go-rounds here based on questions about the origins of the golf course raised largely by you and Tom MacWood.

So given those public conflagarations, you might imagine that club was not looking to continue to be in the public spotlight on these issues, and that is their right.

I believe you also have to consider that Wayne and Tom are not only a historians, but Wayne is also a member of the club in question and Tom knows lots of people there.    This is their home, and they live and play with and among these folks.   

That being said, I do understand what you're saying when you say that they've used information selectively, or given out snippets of the information in the minutes.   I don't want to speak for them, but I think the acrimonious tone here over time has contributed greatly to that result.   

I can tell you, whether you believe me or not, that what they've provided on here has been accurately presented and about as comprehensive in terms of what's available on the subject as I could expect as a researcher.   

I can also tell you that based on those minutes, I no longer have any remaining doubts as to who is responsible overall for the routing and hole designs at Merion.  I also believe I have a pretty clear understanding of Macdonald and Whigham's very important role, and it's more than I originally believed.

All that being said, I'd like to move onto the Findlay article, and your interpretation (and Phil's as well as some others) in a follow-up post.

« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 10:12:37 AM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #143 on: April 14, 2009, 10:24:53 AM »
The article in question;

June 12th, 1912 - Alex Findlay

 The writer spent a pleasant hour last Wednesday afternoon with Hugh I. Wilson, wandering over the new Merion golf course, which he has spent so much of his time on.  His main object is to make this the king-pin course of Pennsylvania.  I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall.

     It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc.  Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad.  He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes.  I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.  But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.  Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality, is a myth.  Golfers simply for sake "O' Auld Lang Syne" play over it once in a while.  It is worn out, void of grass, and the only thing that will stop golf balls from running all over the place are deep pot bunkers, cruelly placed, and when at the bottom of one of these, woe betide you!  Many of them are on the putting greens.  I know my second shot to the seventeenth two or three years ago should have rested at the pin, but, instead of that, it rolled into an unplayable bunker, and instead of playing toward the hole I really had to play away from it.  I was playing Andrs. Kirkaldy at the time (old Tom Morris' successor), and that particular hole cost me the match.  My nice three at the last hole came too late to be of any use.  But the traps are as fair for one as they are for others.

     Wilson had no end of a good time, and is sorry at not having gone over years ago.  It certainly broadens one's ideas.  He now possesses golf knowledge that will stand him in good stead for many years to come.  By the way, he negotiated St. Andrews (as keen as it was) in eighty strokes and actually registered a nice seventy-seven on the x,xxx-yard course at Sandwich, and that, too, against our own Fred Herreshoff, but Fred took more than 77.  Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country, such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I.  We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf.



I'm going to try not to be redundant or reiterative here, which might be difficult because it's a challenge to question your interpretation without providing highly plausible alternatives.

I would first though reiterate, and I believe you'd concede, that Findlay's writing style is far from linear, structured, or logical.   He jumps around and seems to get carried off in different directions before coming back to his original point.

Your interpretation hinges on the premise that when he talks about "Many Others" being "really great" he is talking about other holes at Merion than the proposed Alps hole that Wilson "imagined" and that Findlay has just singled out (and Wilson now agrees) as being problematic in some unknown regard.

I think we have to look at this article in context of both when it was written, and what the main subjects Findlay's discussing are.   

It was written at such an early point that Findlay first tells us he's not even ready to discuss "the possibilities" of the new course.   In fact, he goes to great pains to explain to us why that is, what the state of the grow-in is, and when he might be able to really do a serious analysis.

We also know that even six-seven months later, the course was still in such an unfinished state that Tillinghast didn't feel comfortable giving a fair review.

What does that tell us about the "course" that they were "growing in" at the time?   To me it means that all they had done was create a routing, decide on general hole outlines, located and built tees and greens, and grassed the golf course.   Early accounts state that almost no bunkers were originally built, and "mental hazards" (re: bunkering strategies) had yet to be implemented in any real fashion beyond the use of natural terrain to create interest.

to be continued...

 
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 11:21:40 AM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #144 on: April 14, 2009, 10:59:48 AM »
...continued

The main idea of the second paragraph is that Wilson has just returned from his trip abroad where, "He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes."

One has to ask why he would have done this had the hole already been preconceived and designed in any detail by Macdonald.   The reason is simply because they hadn't been.   At this stage they were still dealing in very hypothetical theoretical ("imagined") terms, and Findlay jumps from his main point about Wilson studying the leading courses and holes abroad (that Macdonald had done previously and had recommended publicly over the past decade as "ideal") to point out that he advised Wilson to really look at the Alps hole in particular, with the implication that he's not convinced that one is desirable at Merion.

Why might that be?

Your contention is that he doesn't like the one that Wilson already built, but I don't think it was already built.   I think there was a tee built, and a green built, and Wilson probably envisioned (imagined) the uphill nature of the latter part of the original 10th hole as approximating an Alps type approach.   Macdonald may have even suggested it or concurred.

What else might Findlay have been implying?   He could be saying that he doesn't like blind Alps holes, but I don't think that's likely.   He could also be saying that while an approach shot over a large sandy mountainous dune might work well in the context of a seaside course, the application of that idea inland is less than desirable.   In any case, I do think what he's saying is that Merion doesn't really have the type of abrupt feature in front of the green that makes the Alps at Prestwick (and NGLA) such great holes, at least where Wilson showed him that his Alps was going to be placed.   

I think he's telling Wilson that without such a feature, you really are only going to end up with a second-rate hole if you try the Alps concept.

Wilson, after seeing the real thing, agrees in a way that also points out that the hole in question is nowhere near the finished product.   Specifically, he says that he (Wilson) "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal"...the original hole., because Wilson has now seen in person for himself just exactly how obtrusive and daunting that large abrupt sand dune is at Prestwick, which is even more severely abrupt than the one he saw previously at NGLA.

So, at this juncture, I think two points in the article are germane;

1) The course in question is at a very immature state with the bodies of holes really just imagined, and much too early for Findlay to even discuss "the possibilities" of the course.

2) Findlay is talking in larger terms about Wilson just returning from his trip abroad to study the famous courses and holes and his impressions after returning.

After veering into his little "aside" about the Alps hole, and his recommendations to Wilson concerning it, Wilson then interjects, "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."

So what "MANY others" might Findlay be mentioning?

Certainly, on the face of it reading the sentences back to back, your interpretation is viable.   And if the first paragraph about the course's immaturity and Findlay's reluctance to discuss the possibilities didn't precede it would have more credibility.

But what else has Charles B. Macdonald "laid out" for all of the golfing world over the past decade?

Well...he's identified and laid out for American golf the list of courses and ideal holes abroad.   He's written about them and publicized them in every available news outlet and among golf afficianados.   He's laid them out for Wilson and committee that first night at NGLA, and the MCC minutes discuss that specifically they went over Macdonald's sketches and drawings of the great holes abroad before spending the next day walking the course and seeing for themselves the physical representations of those holes as created and interpreted and laid out by Macdonald.

I know you make fun of my "laid out" Wilson's itinerary, but this is exactly what I meant and I'm sure Findlay was aware in his dealings with Wilson (he clearly talked with Wilson before his trip abroad and after his return) that Macdonald had indeed recommended that Wilson study certain courses and holes abroad before "building" the strategies of the hole intereriors at Merion.

Macdonald's revolutionary idea is that each of the leading courses abroad had perhaps a handful of "great holes" that made them special, and he  wanted to build a course chock-full of them.   Findlay starts to tell us about Wilson's trip "visting all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent to the making of good golf holes", and after veering off with his personal account of the Alps hole, he then gets back to his main point...those leading courses and ideal holes "laid out" by Macdonald, either in abstract, educational terms and/or in concrete, realized terms such as he's built at NGLA and possibly Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock by this time.

Further evidence of this is the next sentence, which does not go on to describe any of the "many really great" holes at Merion, but continues to talk about the great courses/holes abroad the Wilson visited, which he's now using almost synonomously, when he lists, Prestwick, Troon, Formby, St. Andrews, etc., etc., before veering off into another personal story of his own play at The Old Course and their mutual disappointment with it.

So I think what "many others" that are "really great" refers to either;

1) Many of the other ideal holes and leading courses that Macdonald laid out for the golfing world (and in person to WIlson and Committee) and certainly applicable for emulation by Wilson at the new Merion course.   The Alps, he clearly feels, is not, for reasons I've outlined.

2) Many of the copies of those holes already laid out by Macdonald at NGLA and in construction at that time at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock.

or

3) Both implied....many of both the originals and their emulated counterparts as laid out by Macdonald are really great and worthy of study and emulation.

Finally, the last paragraph really just continues to credit Wilson, both as a golfer and as a knowledgeable course and hole builder, who has now taken a necessary step to continue to develop the holes at Merion with the sound principles imparted to him by men like Macdonald and Findlay, and which he's now taken an advanced study course.

I hope this is what you were looking for from me and I hope it helps explain where I'm coming from. 
Again, I'd simply point out that knowing the timelines and details of the MCC minutes which you haven't seen does indeed have some impact on my interpretation of this article...it couldn't help but do so.

Thanks again for the discussion and improved discourse.


« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 11:40:29 AM by MikeCirba »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #145 on: April 14, 2009, 11:27:30 AM »
 Wilson visited leading courses with great/good golf holes. Other than Prestwick/ Alps he found courses/holes to be potentially adaptable to the Merion site. He liked many courses but was disappointed by TOC.
AKA Mayday

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #146 on: April 14, 2009, 11:32:10 AM »
Wilson visited leading courses with great/good golf holes. Other than Prestwick/ Alps he found courses/holes to be potentially adaptable to the Merion site. He liked many courses but was disappointed by TOC.

Malone,

You just managed to say in 3 sentences what verbosely took me about 300.  ;)

Nice summation. 
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 11:46:43 AM by MikeCirba »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #147 on: April 14, 2009, 11:37:09 AM »
 I could have left out "great" and it would have been better.
AKA Mayday

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #148 on: April 14, 2009, 12:29:00 PM »
"Tom,

Thanks, that's my understanding as well.   I do believe that C.B. Macdonald should get credit for originally recommending they consider purchase of those 3 acres of adjacent railroad land back when they first visited in June 1910 because it did provide certainly more options to routing holes in that intersection where the "L" connected on the property prior to the club buying the land beyond the creek south of Ardmore Avenue in the 20s which in effect created today's holes 1 (later), 10, 11, 12, and 13, and eliminated their earlier counterparts.

As we were discussing the other day, without that land you could have probably had 12 play as a very short uphill par four, and then put a par three where 13 is today, but the net effect is that you'd have 3 pretty short holes in a row...the original 11th, the abbreviated 12th, and today's 13th."


Mike:

Not necessarily. I know exactly what you mean about how necessary those three acres may've seemed to some (like perhaps Macdonald) at the time for the development of good holes for #12 and #13 but very very few (at this point) seem to understand that they certainly could have resolved all that by just going farther west along Ardmore Ave instead of into that 3 acres railroad tract.

Again, very few today understand that at that point in 1911 it was a total snap to push the boundary on the bottom of the L on the north side of Ardmore Ave. west some more. Most probably think they couldn't do that then because Golf Club Rd limited or blocked them but it didn't exist then; it was only a road on a plan that could be rerouted any way they wanted to do it. And not to even mention that at that point Lloyd (and his wife) owned the whole 140 acre Johnson Farm and the Taylor place that is along the lower left side of what is today Golf Course Rd that back then was between the Johnson Farm land on the east and the Johnson Farm land on the west was owned by the HDC which Lloyd and his 3-4 other friends from MCC controlled anyway at that point.

From the old 12th tee, the 12th hole could have played to a green along the creek over Ardmore Ave a bit to the right of the present 13th green and the 13th hole could've gone back down to the west of the present driveway and behind old #10 green or it could've even gone in along the west side of the creek that the club owned near where the old 13th once was.  If they'd pushed the 1st green to the west it may've lengthened the walk to the 2nd tee some but that wouldn't have been a real big deal.

If they'd done it that way instead of using that P&W 3 acres the only other problem would be that Lloyd and HDC would've been out some more acreage that was slated to be used for residential development but then of course the club could've just paid Lloyd or HDC the $7,500 they allocated to buy the railroad land.

The real irony here is that 3 acre old railroad tract where the old 12th green and old 13th hole once were is now completely obsoleted and not really used for anything even though Merion owns it as of 1961!  ;)

By the way, MCC allocated $7,500 in 1911 to buy that P&W three acres but they never bought it until 1961 at which point they paid the outrageous sum of $11,000 for it. Not much price appreciation for the railroad in half a century is it? Sounds to me like even in 1961 the Men from Merion probably still had a pretty good headlock on the railroad and its business, huh?   ;D
« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 12:43:14 PM by TEPaul »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #149 on: April 14, 2009, 01:18:56 PM »
Guys - does the info here help at all?  http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1900.html

It's an "Atlas of Properties Along the Pennsylvania R.R. Embracing 1 to 4 miles Each Side of the Road and From Overbrook to Malvern Station." from 1900.

Here's a map from 1881:  http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1881/1881_10.pdf

Or, even better, a map from 1913:  http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1913/1913_12.pdf

« Last Edit: April 14, 2009, 01:27:58 PM by Dan Herrmann »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back