____________________________
I am surprised this debate popped up again. Like David, I think the weight of evidence still points toward Wilson as the man responsible for the creation of Merion.
Sean, glad to have your input. Good timing,as I was recently thinking about some of your posts from long ago, shortly after my essay came out. But before I get to that, let me say again that I have no doubt that Wilson deserves a huge amount of credit not only for creating Merion in 1911-1912, but also for overseeing it and improving it for many years to come. However, as you may recall, I have always focused on trying to determine who is primarily responsible for the routing and the hole concepts. It was in this regard that I was thinking of your old posts.
If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others,
the design was ultimately their decision. Your statement above echos your past posts;
"I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience." Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation. Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.
If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan? Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design. Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?
___________________________
To the Findlay Article:
Still, when I read the sentences below I don't know how they can't be open to interpretation.
This thread proves that the language is open to different interpretations. That said I think we need to be careful our threads are consistent with both the text and the facts as we know them. You wrote:
Findlay is asking Wilson to take a close look at Prestwick's Alps. Why? Because there is a disagreement between the two if what exists at Merion (be it rough layout, plan, sketch or just idea based on land forms) is really suitable in creating a good Alps. I don't read that an Alps exists, only that that the idea of a Alps exists, hence the use of the word "imagined". Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort.
As I understand the facts, while the hole may not had all the "finishing touches," it was not a "rough layout, plan, sketch or idea based on land forms." It had been built and seeded, and it had been built as an Alps Hole. He wasn't merely considering abstract ideas and possibilities "based on land-forms." To the contrary, he had tried to build an Alps hole, including the requisite land forms on a CBM Alps hole such as the large berm behind the green. Moreover, Findlay indicated that Wilson really imagined that an Alps such as Prestwick's "existed" at Merion. It existed, it just wasn't like Prestwick's.
Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort. Findlay then ends by backing up the general idea of a template Alps because he knows CBM has created some good examples.
But CBM had not created enough Alps holes for Findlay's statement to make sense as you read it. CBM had built NGLA's Alps, but I don't even think that the few others he had designed by then were even open. [I have seen nothing that indicates that Findlay, a professional, had even been to NGLA at this point in time.] And there is nothing in the text about "the general idea of an Alps."
I don't read that one was created at Merion by CBM, only that an Alps has been thought about and possibly CBM chose the land where one might exist. If anything, I think these three sentences point toward a rejection of CBM's input, at least on this one issue, if indeed it was CBM's idea in the first place.
With all due respect, I think your understanding of what happened with this hole is mistaken. Given all the negative comments Wayne and others have made about Merion's original 10th, one might get the wrong idea that is was immediately identified as folly and scrapped at the very beginning. The reality was that the hole was praised, and was played as an Alps hole for over a decade. It is my understanding that the Alps was scrapped because Merion no longer considered it safe and prudent to play over an increasingly busy Ardmore Avenue. Even Findlay ultimately liked the hole.
After seeing Alps hole seeing Prestwick and realizing that Merion's Alps "will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot" Wilson did not reject the Alps at Merion. To the contrary, he got to making it equal that of the famous old spot, and Findlay was very appreciative of the result. Three month's later Findlay praised Merion's Alps, noting that the second shot at Merion closely resembled the second shot on Prestwick's Alps.
________________________
Sean,
What "other player" do you believe altered so much of the original design? Thanks.
Mike
According to Wayne, what we have today is mainly a Flynn course.
Ciao
I don't want to get into it on this thread, but I am very curious as to what Flynn had to do with designing the Merion, particularly when it comes to the routing of the course? I have read that he flipped the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, but what else did he do? Is he responsible for moving the second green, or was that under Wilson's watch?