News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #200 on: April 17, 2009, 12:39:43 AM »
"He could not possibly mean (to) {sic} include anything about routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!"

David Moriarty:

Yes, that's true, and particularly considering that Findlay's article was written June 1912, a good thirteen and a half months after Merion's routing and design was approved by MCC and taken into the construction (and seeding) phase.

I hope that statement does not mean you still actually think and are suggesting that says anything at all about who routed and designed it or that you're suggesting that Macdonald/Whigam did? If you are still suggesting that, at this point, I surely would like to know why!? And please try not to give me the very same reason you did in your essay---eg Wilson and his commttee were too much the novices to have been able to do it on their own in the winter and spring of 1911 and so that somehow logically must mean Macdonald/Whigam (or Barker  ::) ) HAD to HAVE done it for them!

I have felt and am hoping we have all come a long way since then to a better understanding of the Merion timeline of events and of Wilson and committee's roll in the routing and design of Merion East and Macdonald/Whigam's roll about the originally recorded "help and advice" they offered MCC in June 1910, at NGLA in March 1911 and for that single day at Ardmore in early April 1911. 

I really hope I can say and feel that with some assurance now, because if I can't then that would mean you are also suggesting that Merion's committees and its Board of Directors were in error with their own records or that they were lying about what they said they were doing and who did it.  

« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 12:54:56 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #201 on: April 17, 2009, 01:36:25 AM »

I really hope I can say and feel that with some assurance now, because if I can't then that would mean you are also suggesting that Merion's committees and its Board of Directors were in error with their own records or that they were lying about what they said they were doing and who did it.  

I am not suggesting any such thing. Why would they have lied?  The truth is that I haven't seen those documents so it is impossible for me to begin to develop a complete understanding of everything they might mean. 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you and Mike providing your interpretations of what you think is important about the MCC documents, but as you have said repeatedly, the documents themselves are the best evidence, not the second-hand accounts.  And your second-hand accounts raise more questions than provide answers, and appear to have many missing pieces and incomplete or missing details. 

Moreover, even based on what you have represented about the MCC documents, I don't think they mean what you think they mean.  In other words, I do not think that the facts you've listed support your conclusions.  Plus, your descriptions seem to be missing plenty of information.  Plus plenty is based not on direct facts, but on what you have assumed based on what you have read.  All that being said, it doesn't make sense for me to get into a detailed debate about what documents mean when I have no access to those documents.

Bottom line is that, while I have no intention of being uncivil, I have serious doubts that those documents mean what you think they mean.   I am more convinced than ever that I am still on the right track, and that M&W were the driving forces behind Merion's original routing and hole concepts. 

Of course I could still be wrong, and there may be source information out there that does change my mind, but I have not seen it yet. 

« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 01:38:44 AM by DMoriarty »
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 #202 on: April 17, 2009, 06:57:58 AM »
2.  As for the second point, you may want to take another look at the article.  He does not equate their work product, but rather their study abroad: 

"Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country as 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."

He could not possibly mean to include anything about Wilson's routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!


David,

Aren't you also aware that Findlay's opening day article wrote that Wilson and Co. did the exact same thing as Leeds did at Myopia...built the best courses in their respective states?

Findlay was very, very aware of what Leeds did at Myopia, which he called the best course in the US, even after the National was built.   

Do you think he'd make this comparison lightly, or do you think he's saying that HC Leeds simply laid the course on the ground to someone else's plans as you claim Hugh Wilson did?

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #203 on: April 17, 2009, 09:55:55 AM »
"I am not suggesting any such thing. Why would they have lied?  The truth is that I haven't seen those documents so it is impossible for me to begin to develop a complete understanding of everything they might mean. 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you and Mike providing your interpretations of what you think is important about the MCC documents, but as you have said repeatedly, the documents themselves are the best evidence, not the second-hand accounts.  And your second-hand accounts raise more questions than provide answers, and appear to have many missing pieces and incomplete or missing details. 

Moreover, even based on what you have represented about the MCC documents, I don't think they mean what you think they mean.  In other words, I do not think that the facts you've listed support your conclusions.  Plus, your descriptions seem to be missing plenty of information." 




David Moriarty:

Thanks for that response; it more clearly confirms what we've been through on here for over a year. What are the many missing pieces and incomplete or missing details you're referring to above? What is it about our descriptions you think are missing plenty of information? What information? If you've never seen those documents what leads you to believe something is missing from them on here? Would it have anything to do with your tendency to try to fit some preconceived conclusion on Macdonald's roll in Merion East into the history of a club's golf architecture before you've even seen what's made up that history for about a century now?

I can certainly understand you don't like or don't appreciate our interpretations of that material if it doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas and conclusions. Believe me, I'm sure anyone can understand that on here with the way this Merion/Macdonald/Wilson saga has gone on for over a year or a few.

But it's a free country, you know, and anyone is more than capable of just picking up the telephone and calling Merion Golf or MCC, explainng their burning interest in analyzing their golf architectural histories and attempting to establish a good working relationship with them on it.

I'm pretty sure both clubs have a telephone and a telephone number, as I recall using it in the past and somehow they miraculously appear in my address book. Perhaps you may care to explain to the viewers and contributors on here why you haven't done that yet and if you have what the problem is.

I'm all ears on that one and believe me I have as little idea on that aspect of your on-going analysis of Merion East's course as I'm sure the rest of these GOLFCLUBATLASers do. I've always assumed that anyone interested in writing an in-depth opinion essay on a golf course's architectural history would like to feel comfortable they have analyzed everything extant BEFORE writing their opinion essay rather than attempting to analyze a good deal of it AFTER the fact of making their essay and its assumptions, premises and conclusion available to a ton of people on the World Wide Internet.

But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe the new way is to just keep changing your essay as you learn more and hopefully get the thing semi-right someday.

Would you care to please answer some of those questions of mine on this post as I think they might be very interesting answers for our contributors and viewers on here?

Thanks, I appreciate it.

 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 04:53:32 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #204 on: April 17, 2009, 10:00:55 AM »
2.  As for the second point, you may want to take another look at the article.  He does not equate their work product, but rather their study abroad: 

"Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country as 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."

He could not possibly mean to include anything about Wilson's routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!


David,

Aren't you also aware that Findlay's opening day article wrote that Wilson and Co. did the exact same thing as Leeds did at Myopia...built the best courses in their respective states?

Findlay was very, very aware of what Leeds did at Myopia, which he called the best course in the US, even after the National was built.   

Do you think he'd make this comparison lightly, or do you think he's saying that HC Leeds simply laid the course on the ground to someone else's plans as you claim Hugh Wilson did?

Yes, Mike, I do recall the article.  In it Findlay seems to be following up on a few things he mentioned in the earlier one.  Namely, in the earlier he wrote that Wilson's object was to make Merion the 'king-pin' course of Pennsylvania, but Findlay was not ready to make this pronouncement yet as they were still working on the course.   In the latter article he follows up, noting the Construction Committee had built the nicest course in PA same as Leeds did fo Mass.

But Mike, you read way more into this than is there, especially given the parallels between the two articles.  You say that Findlay says Wilson did exactly what Leeds had done, and then read this as a pronouncement about the routing about both courses.  What he says is that they both built the best courses in their states, no more no less.   Nothing about who originally routed either course.  

Compare the articles:  Findlay was not yet willing to to say that Wilson had built the best in state in the first article, because it wasn't grown in and they were adding the finishing touches.   Had he really been talking about routing, this wouldn't make much sense.  



« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 10:20:20 AM by DMoriarty »
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 #205 on: April 17, 2009, 11:53:03 AM »
Is it not possible that Findlay was one of the early adopters of what has become the grand tradition of "new-course-hyperbole", which has evolved today into the likes of Donald Trump, Gary Player, et al., to whom every new course they're involved with is the greatest thing ever created.    ;)

Dave,

If he were not Alex Findlay that would likely be very true.   However, I don't know if you're following the Myopia thread but Findlay was extremely versed in the goings-on at Myopia...he's evidently the one who brought Herd and Kirkaldy to play there in 1906 and later brought Vardon and Ray there (according to a golf course historian who used to participate regularly here). 

At the time, Kirkaldy called Myopia the best course in the world, and it was widely reported.

For Alex Findlay to compare Merion and what Wilson did there to what Leeds did by 1912 at Myopia is a huge deal.

EDIT**  - I'm putting it on the Myopia thread, but I thought I'd just place it here as well for convenient reading;   It's from a former contributor here...if he wishes me to identify him he can just let me know.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 02:46:48 PM by MikeCirba »

henrye

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #206 on: April 17, 2009, 01:51:06 PM »
Guys,

I'm not saying that Macdonald laid out Wilson's itinerary in a literal sense.


And I'm saying that in that one hour walk, Wilson told Findlay that but for CBM laying out a bunch of other other holes he should see in GBI, the ultimate success of the course might be up in the air (especially given that the ultimate success of the Alps concept remained questionable at that point.  I'm saying that Wilson credited CBM in that conversation for giving him a whole bunch of hole concepts to see in addition to the Alps, and thank God he did... and that Findlay reported as such.

David, in the sentence, But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.; are you suggesting that this is Wilson's opinion or Findlay's?  I ask, because I took it to be Wilson's (as both the sentence before and after also reflect Wilson's opinion).  Most everyone else seems to interpret it to be Findlay's opinion.

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #207 on: April 17, 2009, 06:07:07 PM »
"Plus plenty is based not on direct facts, but on what you have assumed based on what you have read.  All that being said, it doesn't make sense for me to get into a detailed debate about what documents mean when I have no access to those documents.

Bottom line is that, while I have no intention of being uncivil, I have serious doubts that those documents mean what you think they mean.   I am more convinced than ever that I am still on the right track, and that M&W were the driving forces behind Merion's original routing and hole concepts.

Of course I could still be wrong, and there may be source information out there that does change my mind, but I have not seen it yet."



David Moriarty:

Plenty is based not on direct facts but what I have read (of those direct facts?)?

I see. Pretty interesting take on your part then. You have NOT read them yourself and yet you seem to know they do not mean what I think they mean?!? That's a pretty neat trick; how did you determine that? ;)

You're more convinced than ever you're on the right track? OK, but what makes you say that since you've seen no more material than when you wrote your essay and you now have everybody who has seen those documents you haven't seen saying your essay reaches the wrong conclusion if that conclusion happens to be Macdonald/Whigam routed the course and designed its holes.

I do recognize that you have backed off from that or perhaps you've claimed you never meant that. You have said you're more convinced then ever that Macdonald/Whigam were the driving force behind Merion. I'm quite sure that in a golf architecture, routing, designing and construction context none of us on here have much idea what you mean by "Macdonald/Whigam were the driving force behind Merion." Would you care to elucidate and perhaps supply a few details about what that might mean?

There's also the small matter of Wilson's report to the Board in April that says we laid out numerous courses (in the winter of 1911 before going to visit NGLA) and then following the visit to NGLA we laid out five different plans. There is also the small matter that the only other time Macdonald/Whigam were at Merion after perhaps a day in June 1910 was that single day in early April 1911, ten months later.

Those are the facts (perhaps you will read them yourself someday and you will see. If at that point they do not say what we've told you they say then I could certainly understand your concern but that's not possible since they say just that---we laid out numerous courses and then five different plans and the fact is Macdonald/Whigam just weren't there to work with them on it before April 6, 1911, the single day they were at Merion, and not to return again for the purpose of helping and advising Merion) and it isn't very hard to understand what it means when you read it.

One thing they definitely don't mean is "laying out" as Wilson's report was using the term did not mean they were building the course on the ground to someone else's plan. As they were using the term "laying out" it could not possibly have meant that because at that point the course wouldn't go into the building phase for a few months and the board had not even approved a plan to build for the course at that point; they approved one of the five plans that had already been laid out (on paper---eg a survey map of the property) in the middle of April 1911 following the presentation of Wilson's report and one of the five plans was attached to that report that would be approved by the board as well as approved by Macdonald/Whigam with their description that in their opinion its last seven holes equaled any in the world inland.

If you still actually think Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed the holes of the East course there is also that question (well let me call it "problem" instead) of how they could've possibly done that in a single day!  ;)

Maybe it would help you to understand these kinds of things better if, preparatory to your reviewing any additional documents from Merion's 1910-1911 architectural history, you spent a couple of weeks out on some site with some architect attempting to route a course on a site.

But just remember if they are using a CAD system that Macdonald/Whigam and Wilson and his committee didn't have such a thing in 1911.   :-X

Oh yes, one other thing; I'm not aware that Macdonald ever drew a routing himself for any course he ever did. Are you? Have you ever spoken to George Bahto about that? I suppose he and Whigam could've just taken a bunch of stakes and routed a course themselves on the ground in that single day but what about the rest of the design? How did they do that in a single day? ;)

The other thing to consider is that at no time during those day each visits spread out by ten months did anyone ever say that MCC even asked Macdonald to route and design a course for them but they most certainly chronicled the fact that they asked him a number of questions about how they could do it themselves.

One of the things that I believe is the real fact of Macdonald's advice to MCC which actually continued in a letter he wrote to Wilson in June of 1911 is that the majority of what he advised them and particularly Wilson on was agronomy. You will note that most of that letter Macdonald wrote to MCC in June 1910 (a year before his last letter to Wilson on June 1911) had to do not with golf course architecture but with the problems of growing grass and establishing good turf. On that he even encouraged them to go to Baltusrol for advice as they, like Merion, were inland. However, even if those are the facts it doesn't play very well on this website---eg apparently most on here aren't very interested in agronomy, only architecture. Good thing the same isn't said about Hugh Wilson! ;)

And last, I'm very glad you do not wish to be uncivil. Either do I and I hope you don't think I'm being that.

Thanks, I hope you're somehow able to finally give some considered responses to those points made above why my (our) interpretation of the events of Merion in 1910-11, after having read all the material available to me, is that Macdonald/Whigam had neither the time nor the opportunity (a single day) to route and design Merion East even if someone asked them to do that which, from all available evidence, noone ever did; and apparently because they didn't have to; they had a number of their own routing and design plans they had developed in the previous 3-4 months to be presented to their Board of Directors for approval to actually build and for Macdonald/Whigam to review, advise on and hopefully approve one of them, which it is recorded he in fact did during that single day in early April, 1911.      :)

By the way, assuming you have never seen that June 1911 letter from Macdonald to Wilson, I would be happy to supply it for you. It is in the public domain and not considered to be the private property of Merion Golf Club or MCC, and for that reason I would be glad to supply it to you or help you find it.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 06:16:16 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #208 on: April 17, 2009, 06:57:02 PM »
Here's a legit question:  is this article the first published news report of CBM's involvement or were there others prior to this? 

The reason I ask is that if it was the first, that'd be a pretty big scoop, don't you agree?  And don't you think a scoop like that - design by the biggest name in golf at the time - would have warrranted more than a vague midsentence reference?

Shivas,

CB Macdonald was mentioned in Philadelphia news reports in June 1910, when he and Whigham toured the property and gave their blessing to the purchase of the land.   None of the article suggested anything in the slightest about a routing or "laid out", much less "mapped out"  by Macdonald. 

Wilson and Co. went to NGLA in early March, 1911, and the MCC Minutes reflect that they spent the first night going over Macdonald's drawings of famous holes abroad and the next day walking and touring NGLA.  This is mostly corroborated by Hugh Wilson's 1916 account.

Macdonald came back for a day in early April, 1911 and as Alan Wilson stated, "advised as to our plans", helping Wilson and Committee to pick the best of their "five different plans".

Tillinghast reported in the May 1911 "American Golfer", writing as Hazard;



About a year later Tilly wrote again in a Philly newspaper.



Finally, after the course opened, "Far and Sure", who many of us think is TIllinghast, wrote the following in American Golfer;

"Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald,
who had been of great assistance in an
advisory way, told me that Merion
would have one of the best inland
courses he had ever seen, but every
new course is "one of the best in the
country" and one must see to believe
after trying it out. I had hoped that
it was as good as reported, for it appeared
to be the one great chance to
provide Philadelphia with a real championship
course...It is too early to attempt an analytical
criticism of the various holes for
many of them are but rough drafts
of the problems, conceived by the con-
struction committee, headed by Mr.
Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited
many prominent British courses last
summer, searching for ideas, many of
which have been used. For example,
an attempt to reproduce the Eden
green at St. Andrews has been made
on the fifteenth and, in my opinion, it
has resulted in one of the few failures
The hole in question is a two-shotter
and the sloping green is so keen and
barren of undulations that the player
is practically forced to "skittle" his
approach in fear of getting above the
hole. Many of the imported ideas of
hazard formation are good, and the
grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have
been well introduced. On some of the
sand mounds I noticed the growing of
something which looked suspiciously
like the bents of Le Touquet. However,
I think that the very best holes
at Merion are those which are original,
without any attempt to closely follow
anything but the obvious."

Now, the only other person I know who wrote about Macdonald at Merion is Alex Findlay, in the article that spawned this thread.

Curiously, some find this one sentence stating that Maconald "laid out others" as some type of proof of his design, yet dismiss a slew of news articles stating that Hugh Wilson and Co. "laid out", "mapped out", "conceived of", "constructed", "built", "helped largely in the planning", "responsible for", and then also dismiss the Alan Wilson article where he tells us who designed Merion as well as Tillinghast articles upon course opening when he says that "Hugh Wilson and Co. deserve the thanks of all golfers", or Max Behr when he stated that Wilson did at Merion what Leeds did at Myopia and Macdonald did at NGLA, or when Alex Findlay said the same thing, or in any of the other following accounts;

Philly Inquirer – 9/15/12 – “Clubs & Clubmen” column

“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans

“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course.  Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect.   Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 11/1/14 - William Evans

“Then comes Hugh I. Wilson of Merion, whose word ought to count for a great deal, for he laid out both the Merion courses and the Seaview links.   He has this to say.. "
 
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker

“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned.  He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “

Philly Inquirer 1/24/15 – Joe Bunker

“Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses…have laid out the golf course in Cobb’s Creek Park.”

Philadelphia Public Ledger – 1/31/15 – William Evans

“A Committee made up of Hugh Wilson, the man responsible for the two Merion and new Seaview courses…will aid the park engineers in laying out the course (at Cobb’s Creek)”.

Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker

“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) so that in another month or two it will resemble a really excellent championship course.  Hugh Wilson is the course architect and Winthrop Sargent is chairman of the Green Committee.  These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements.  Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture.  It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.

Philly Inquirer 1/14/17 – Billy Bunker

“Hugh Wilson built both the Merion courses and the course at Seaview.”

Philly Inquirer 1/28/17 – Billy Bunker

“Both the Merion Cricket Club courses were built under the direction of Hugh Wilson who also laid out the Seaview course.”

Philly Inquirer 4/22/17 – Billy Bunker

“An expert like Hugh Wilson, who built the two fine courses at Merion believes every club would have better putting greens if not for the craze for lightning-fast greens.

USGA Greens Section report – February 1925 (after Wilson’s death)

“The mature results of his studies in golf architecture are embodied in the East Course at Merion, which was remodeled under his direction in 1923-24.  It is safe to say this his course displays in a superb way all the best ideas in recent golf course architecture along the lines of its American development.  For a long time to come the East course will be a mecca to all serious students of golf architecture.” 

George Thomas – Year unknown (quoted by Geoff Shackelford)

“I always considered Hugh Wilson of Merion, Pennsylvania as one of the best of our golf architects, professional or amateur (note the early need for distinction).  He taught me many things at Merion and the Philadelphia Municipal (Cobb’s Creek) and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them.” 

Geoff Shackelford – “The Captain”

“Thomas spent considerable time studying Hugh Wilson’s work during the construction of Merion Cricket Club’s East Course in 1912, its West Course in 1914, and at a municipal course in Philadelphia, now Cobb’s Creek.”

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

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

...yet argue that because Alex Findlay wrote that "others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald are really great" is ready to assign design credit wholly at his feet.

Don't you find it a bit odd that three months later, this same Alex Findlay...one of the most knowledgeable and well-travelled men in the golf world an an architect himself...wrote an opening day article about Merion that didn't even mention CB Macdonald yet compared Wilson and Co. with Leeds and Myopia...a course he knew quite well?


Sometimes, as much as we all love a good mystery, common sense and the words of the people who were there and told us clearly what happened has to inevitably rule.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 07:15:31 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #209 on: April 17, 2009, 08:23:32 PM »

You know, I keep coming back to this quote.

"The problems, conceived by the construction committee."


Shiv,

I believe a more correct interpretation of that sentence would read;

"The problems of the holes, conceived by the construction committee..."

I agree that in and of itself, it may not be absolute proof.

However, when one considers that A.W. Tillinghast also wrote in May 1911 that he had "seen enough of the new plans" to be truly excited about the course, that he wrote in the "American Cricketer" in January 1913 after the course opened that Hugh Wilson and Committee "deserves the congratulations of ALL golfers", and when we consider that TIllinghast wrote in 1934;

"It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture.  Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”

...Then I think that is more than proof and is borne out as well by the MCC Minutes.

All the rest is just ignoring the truth and semantic shenanigans.   ::) ;D
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 08:40:16 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #210 on: April 17, 2009, 08:39:32 PM »
Shivas,

I think it may help to re-read what Tillinghast wrote when the course opened in his January 1913 "American Cricketer" review.

Note that even a half-year after Findlay's article, the course is still very unfinished, yet does refer to the "builder's plans".   

Also note that not a mention is made of Macdonald, yet somehow Hugh Wilson and Committee "deserve the congratulations of all golfers."




Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #211 on: April 17, 2009, 08:46:18 PM »
Mike - where do you and Joe find this (great) stuff?  American Cricketeer from 1913.  Wow!

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #212 on: April 17, 2009, 09:28:32 PM »

Of course they do.  Michael Jackson deserves the congratulations of all music fans for "Off the Wall" but that doesn't mean he wrote every song on it...

Dave,

If you truly believe that statement about "Off The Wall" you've lost all credibility with me.  ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #213 on: April 17, 2009, 09:33:52 PM »
Shivas,

This exercise in parsing news accounts does become sort of silly and pointless, don't you think, especially when everyone in these guys time on earth credited Hugh Wilson and not a single soul credited CB Maconald.   I mean, what's the point?   Please tell me why what Tillinghast wrote in 1911, in 1913, and in 1934 isn't dispositive.

Tom Paul thankfully "laid out" exactly what the MCC Minutes have to say on these matters, and it's clear that Wilson and the Committee created the plans, and Macdonald helped them select the best one.   

We are redundantly flogging a deceased equine.  ;)  ;D
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 09:35:36 PM by MikeCirba »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #214 on: April 17, 2009, 10:12:40 PM »

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #215 on: April 17, 2009, 10:53:54 PM »
"Tom Paul thankfully "laid out" exactly what the MCC Minutes have to say on these matters, and it's clear that Wilson and the Committee created the plans, and Macdonald helped them select the best one.   

We are redundantly flogging a deceased equine."


MikeC:

A deceaded equine? Perhaps and thank you DanH for the caricature example of it. I just spoke to Shivas, and honest to God, you know I don't like and don't want any part of this endless parsing of the words of a bad writer like Findlay meant or what he MAY'VE MEANT to say when he said in that article---eg "Others......blah, blah, blah."

But with Shivas, tonight, on the phone, I speed-read the minute meeting text (prefacing that no one, NOT even a great "quick-study" lawyer could "audio-remember" the thing word for word. Shivas allowed previous and after to the fact that EVEN HE couldn't do that but he did, in fact, pick up and explain what he felt was the most important point of all or word----and most interestingly it was indeed, at least to me the most important point and word (AFTER I asked him to explain why a couple of time! ;) )---I ain't no lawyer and never wanted to be but nevertheless this is why we pay those guys as much as we do! It all revolved around the meaning and essential reality of the word "APPROVED" and what it means and couldn't mean in this Merion "laying out" and "plan" and "courses" Wilson report context----at least how it all pertained to what the reports and records say Macdonald did----ie "approved."

I'll let Shivas (UBER Chicago lawyer and word-expert, that he is ;) ) explain the rest himself!

Will Moriarty agree?? In my opinion, OF COURSE NOT, but that's what you PAY lawyers for---RIGHT----to argue your case as you sit back and watch it all with MIXED EMOTIONS?!  ;)

Does this explain the architectural history of Merion? No, not really, because we've already done that and so have they at Merion and MCC, years and decades ago----but what I think this does do is put the preconceived historical revisionist David Moriarty in his place which now logically should be, could be, and in fact is----the corner, facing inward with a Dunce-cap on.

Thanks, Shivas, you earned your fee tonight and guess what----I ain't even gonna pay you!! 

Well done, Pal! ;)

I'll just sit back now and watch. If I get bored I may fall asleep, I warn you I snore-----just give me a nudge and I should stop it. 
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 08:04:39 AM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #216 on: April 18, 2009, 10:40:55 AM »
Shivas,

Your post reminds me that there are really only 2 reasons someone in business brings in an outside consultant;

1) They are responsible for an area and want to find out what the hell is really going on.

and

2) They already know what they want to do but need the force of a respected outsider to help them sell it! 

Of course, the men at Merion chose the latter, and thanks for your common sense approach.

Also, in light of all those news articles I cited earlier, can anyone name any occurrance, ever, of any golf course anywhere on the planet where the people who simply "constructed" a golf course received glowing press reviews for years afterwards?!   

Or any press reviews?!?! :o ::) ;D

As I said, sometimes common sense has to apply.

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #217 on: April 18, 2009, 11:04:37 AM »
Dave:

Thanks for that comprehensive post that pretty much centers around the meaning of "approval" or "approved" in this kind of Merion "plan" situation.

Again, interesting take on your part. It makes sense to me (sort of---eg I'll explain more about that later) and it certainly was something I'd never thought of before. But like all things said on these Merion threads, I'm quite sure others will probably disagree somehow and somewhat with your interpretation of what "approval" means in this particular case. Matter of fact, I think we can count on that, as it always has happened on these Merion threads and certainly by David Moriarty to what many others have said and interpreted to do with this Merion course move situation.

There're a few fairly minor corrections that need to be made in your post as to the details and technicalities of the Wilson Committee report to the board that was delivered at the Board meeting in mid-April 1911 by Robert Lesley, MCC's Golf Committee Chairman (who was not on Wilson's committee).

But when it comes to someone or some board asking someone to approve of essentially their own product, I should explain to you something that happened to me in that vein which was actually scarely similar to Wilson, CBM and the Merion course move situation from Haverford to Ardmore.

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #218 on: April 18, 2009, 11:13:21 AM »
"Also, in light of all those news articles I cited earlier, can anyone name any occurrance, ever, of any golf course anywhere on the planet where the people who simply "constructed" a golf course received glowing press reviews for years afterwards?!   

Or any press reviews?!?!    :o ::)"



Yes, Mike, actually I can. Not necessarily a man who literally constructed the course himself but a man who surely oversaw all the construction of the course (and perhaps even paid for a good deal of it) and later had his name alone connected to the course and he got the attribution as its designer (router and hole designer). It was Frederick Hood of Kittanset. It took about 75 years to clear that one up (by the finding of design material of who actually did it) but now the club is just fine with attributing the design of the course to the man who actually did it (with perhaps a bit of help from his friend and mentor Hugh I. Wilson).

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #219 on: April 18, 2009, 11:32:47 AM »
Shivas:

A bit of pretty minor fact-correcting in your post.

I don't think Wilson and his committee presented five different plans to the board for their consideration (and approval of one). They only presented one plan after consulting with Macdonald/Whigam on that single day in early April 1911 about which the Wilson report (to the board) says Macdonald/Whigam approved the plan that they (Macdonald and Whigam) described as having a last seven holes equal to any inland course in the world.

Clearly by that time (likely right around that time) Richard Francis had had his late night idea and bike ride to see Lloyd to resolve the issue on #15 and #16. That fact is reflected in a resolution on the board to swap land to accommodate Francis's idea as well as to purchase that so-called 3 acre railroad tract that Macdonald has suggested TWICE be used for the course (once in June 1910 and again on April 6, 1911).
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 11:35:56 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #220 on: April 18, 2009, 11:33:37 AM »
Mike,

I am not going to re-debate all of the old articles with you again.  You read way too much into these things while ignoring those that you do not like, and nothing I write will change this. 

Shivas. 

-  M&W returned to the site and chose the best one of the five iterations of the routing; this tells you "game, set, and match;" he had nothing to do with choosing how the course was routed?  Fascinating.    (And here I thought choosing the final routing would have something to do with . . . errr . . . choosing the final routing?!?)

-  And you take no pause to the fact that you know nothing about the genesis of the plans M&W chose between; nothing about M&W's prior input into the planning or process?

- And it makes no difference to you that, as for as you know, the plan and iterations could well have been their efforts at putting M&W's ideas onto paper and/or the actual land?

-  And it doesn't matter one bit that TEPaul has admitted above that Macdonald might well have ultimately approved something different than their five iterations of the plan!


Shivas,

Your post reminds me that there are really only 2 reasons someone in business brings in an outside consultant;

1) They are responsible for an area and want to find out what the hell is really going on.

and

2) They already know what they want to do but need the force of a respected outsider to help them sell it! 

Of course, the men at Merion chose the latter, and thanks for your common sense approach.

For once I agree with Mike.

Shivas, TEPaul's phone call to you had nothing to do with getting to the truth.  You were brought in to make a sale.   Your job is to convince us that he is correct, whether he is or not.  And you have no idea whether he is or not because you have not seen or considered all of the records. 

You should be getting paid.  Not as a lawyer, but for shilling TEPaul's tonic.

The truth of MCC's records will speak for itself.  But until we can see the records, then all this is just static and games.   Ask yourself, if these records mean what we are being told (sold?) then why cannot we see them?   Why the ruse?   Why not let them speak for themselves? 
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)

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #221 on: April 18, 2009, 11:48:59 AM »
"Tom, that's even more best practices.  The Construction Committee reported to the Golf Committee, and then the Chairman of the Golf Committee reported to the Board?  That just tells me that the whole process was structured properly by men familiar with best practices to avoid ill-thought out decisionmaking.  That, to me, makes it even more impossible to believe that in the end, the Board would have merely ignored their responsibilities and had CBM approve his own plan.  That simply makes no sense to me practically, procedurally, legally, socially, reputationally or  rationally."


Shivas:

Yes, that seems to be the way it was structured. Wilson's committee (that was clearly not a permanent or "standing" committee within the MCC club structure but a form of an "Ad Hoc" committee (therefore Wilson may not have gone to board meetings which also includes the fact he would not become a board member until June 1912 (that also involves a most interesting story)) reported to Robert Lesley who was the chairman of the Golf Committee (a permanent and standing committee in MCC's club administrative structure). Wilson was on the Golf Committee too but as you might know generally only the chairmen of the permanent or standing committees attend Board of Director meetings of most clubs like a Merion (and mine).

But talk about smart guys and thinkers on how to easily resolve any future course plan (or land) problems just wait until you fully understand the roll of Horatio Gates Lloyd in this whole process, that even includes a guy we had never before heard of, T. DeWitt Cuyler, apparently MCC's primary lawyer (member) and perhaps one of the most powerful men in the country in regard to the American railroad system! 

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #222 on: April 18, 2009, 11:51:04 AM »
Shivas:

Are you fully aware yet who Horatio Gates Lloyd was? How about Rodman Griscom? Both of them were on Wilson's committee, among other things.

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #223 on: April 18, 2009, 12:06:42 PM »
"-  And it doesn't matter one bit that TEPaul has admitted above that Macdonald might well have ultimately approved something different than their five iterations of the plan!"


David Moriarty:

I did mention that as at least a possibility, in my mind, even if I've never seen an iota of actual evidence of it. When I mentioned that it was merely total speculation on my part. But I see that as at least a possiblity of what Macdonald/Whigam may've been able to do in a single day there with advice.

On the other hand, there is no conceivable way, in my mind, that Macdonald/Whigam either would have or could have come up with a routing and hole design plan of their own in just that single day and that was all the time they had there. There is simply no way anyone could've done something like that and if someone on these threads is suggesting such a possiblilty I have no compunction whatsoever in stating on here that they obvioiusly have no actual or practical experience in the field with golf architectural planning, routing and hole designing!  ;) No one has ever questioned that because there's never been any reason to considering the events that were all recorded throughout that time by the club.

I can see the possibility of a bit of routing and hole design switching up in the perhaps #10-#13 sequence (I can explain how that could've quite easily worked as a single day alteration), particularly if none of the five Wilson Committee plans considered on April 6, 1911 included that railroad tract for holes. But I certainly think it is pretty likely that at least one of the five plans by Wilson and his committee did use that land for holes as we certainly do know that Macdonald mentioned that in June 1910 and that the so-called "Searvh Committee" recorded that fact back in their July 1 1910 report to the board. So I see no reason in the world why Wilson and his committee weren't aware of that suggestion when they worked on their 'numerous courses' and 'different plans' through the winter and spring of 1911.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 12:14:31 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #224 on: April 18, 2009, 12:27:56 PM »
"5 go the golf committee, which picks one and presents it to the board saying that this is the one that CBM approved."

Shivas:

The records aren't specific on that kind of thing but it looks to me like Wilson's Committee selected one of the five plans themselves and presented it to Lesley to take to the board meeting. But we can never really know stuff like that for sure because those kinds of minor details were never recorded by MCC. They generally aren't on any golf architectural project, and that is the inherent dilemma with subjects and threads like these Merion ones.

Back in 2003 Tom MacWood started all this off, in my opinion, with a thread he posted entitled something like "Re: Macdonald and Merion?"

He started it because he'd found two articles somewhere which said Macdonald and Whigam had helped and advised MCC on the East course and he wanted to know what that meant in detail. I guess he thought he had found something theretofore never known by Merion about Macdonald and Whigam (of course it goes without saying that those articles MacWood found had been part of the Merion record since the beginning and were reflected in their history book (which apparently Tom MacWood had never seen either)).

So he put that thread on here back in 2003 and we told him Merion had always recorded Macdonald/Whigam's help and advice at three times---eg a day in June 1910 at Ardmore, the Wilson committee visit to NGLA (which at that time we did not know the date of) and again for a single day in April, 1911 (the exact day we on here did not know at that time).

Tom MacWood asked who specifically had done what and where such as on what holes and so forth and we told him noone knows that because that kind of detail was never recorded. It is just as true today as it was back in 2003 when both me and Wayne told him that.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2009, 12:31:57 PM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back