[Sean_A]

Tom P

None of this means much - thats where we differ.  For me its entertainment.  For you and some others it seems to be life and death.  That said, if you have evidence that CBM couldn't have had significant input into Merion by all means do tell.  Just saying CBM didn't have time because he was only on site two days doesn't cut it for me.  I think one heck of a lot of planning can be accomplished in two days - especially given the time lapse between visits.  CBM could easily have been pondering "solutions" for design for many, many hours before his return visit.  I am not saying this is what happened, but its possible.  As I say, do tell.  It would end a bit of entertainment for me, but then we could move onto what Flynn did - tee hee.

Ciao

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I slightly disagree about time for a routing.

We know that HH Barker put together a routing for Joseph Connell of the Merion property during a day's visit.   We also know Merion dismissed it and for reasons I'll mention later, they were probably insulted, as well.

We also know EXACTLY what CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham RECOMMENDED for the property during their one-day visit in June 1910 and they did in fact "lay it out" for the Merion Committee.   They recommended a "sporty" 6000 yard course with rote, formulaic hole lengths and they put it in writing.    They also recommended purchase of an additional 3 acres because they weren't sure that the property looked at was quite big enough for their pre-fab 6,000 yard course.  I'm sure someone sitting down could place those pre-defined, hole-length jigsaw puzzle pieces somewhere on the map of the property for better or worse, so that would evidently make them the architect of Merion in David's eyes..but evidently the Merion Committee didn't think too much of this stupid idea either, as they shortly started to lay out "many" possible plans for the new property on their own.

We also know that various early "architects", mostly Scottish professionals, would lay out "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" for another set of starry-eyed novices, each believing they were going to get a first class course, the very best of its type, and those professionals would receive about $25 for their "services".  Of course, this always happened when members of a club hadn't the slightest idea or intent of how to begin on their own, ESPCIALLY and almost solely when a club was just getting started in golf, which was not the case with Merion.

However, THIS is now what David and others are now boiling their arguments down to....that Macdonald and Whigham did an "18 stakes, single-day" routing of Merion in some sudden flash of arrogance and inspiration!

This of course ignores several important facts.

Although there were many one-day early routings, none of them were very good, or seem to have lasted the test of time.   In fact, there were all sorts of problems with them, including drainage, lack of interest, agronomy, etc.

Perhaps Macdonald's sterling "out and back" routing at NGLA was done in a day, because they moved heaven and earth to create the holes there and it's almost "anti-minimalist" in construction and wholly different from Merion in that regard.  

This theory also ignores the fact that Merion never asked Macdonald and Whigham for a routing.

It ignores the fact that there is no record or mention of a Macdonald and Whigham routing, layout, plan, construct, or anything else meaning authorship not only in the Merion minutes, but in any news accounts of the time or for the next 25 years Macdonald was alive.

It ignores the fact that the Merion Committee themselves had laid out many plans over the winter of 1911, and also ignores the fact that they "rearranged the course and laid out 5 different plans" of their own after visiting NGLA, and it morevover ignores the fact that the only other mention of plans in the MCC minutes says that Macdonald "reviewed" their plans, and approved one.

It also ignores the fact that for Macdonald to suggest "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon", he'd be dealing with a whole bunch of more important people than the starry eyed novices just starting clubs that most of the early Scottish pros dealt with.   Here he was dealing with Captains of Industry, men of HUGE import, and men who had already built a 15 year old very successful, highly respected golf club that had hosted major championships on their original course and he was dealing with men who had played all over this country for a decade and had travelled abroad and who knew a ton about the early game.

He'd also be telling them that the work they had done for the previous 4 months wasn't worth a damn, and that he could do better in an afternoon!     Think about that!

For him to come in there in the few hours of early April daylight, between meals and reviews of plans and other social niceties, presuming to do a half-assed job of routing a golf course for this well-established, highly respected club in a single day, a practice that was already regularly criticized severely by a maturing and more knowledgeable US Golf world, after he himself had just spent FIVE YEARS trying to get NGLA right, would have been an insulting societal slight of the highest order, and the height of arrogance and stupidity.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

You make some good points in about the first four paragraphs of your last post. It is possible, of course, to sort of run around some site in a single day and produce a basic routing. God knows a lot of early architects did that and apparently most all the early ones who called themselves professionals. Bernard Darwin actually described in a most revealing way that particular one day process of 19th century "laying out" in a single day.

Why did they do it that way? Obviously because that's all they were asked to do, that's all they were paid to do for a single day, and most all of them in that era that preceded NGLA and Merion East had to get back to their real wage earning day jobs.

But the entire modus operandi, the entire structure and process of C.B. Macdonald's golf course architecture approach was about as much the polar opposite of that one-day stick routing approach of H.H. Barker's effort at Ardmore as it was possible to be. Macdonald/Whigam did not put anything on paper in June of 1910 and Macdonald's own words in his letter to MCC's Search Committee virtually indicates WHY!

And why was his approach so different? Well, he said it himself in crystal clear terms in his own book. Merion was obviously paying some attention to the vastly different way he went about it at NGLA which actually wasn't novel on his part because others (Leeds, Fownes, etc.) had done before them what he with NGLA and Wilson and committee with Merion was to do later.

But given all that I feel you are completely right with what you say about the way Moriarty is trying to cast all this to somehow try to fit a round peg into a square hole (that Macdonald somehow routed and designed Merion East or was the 'driving force behind it.'

By trying to do that he totally missed the point of all the likes of Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Fownes, Leeds were and how differently they went about GCA compared to some club professionals who sidelined in architecture at that time like H.H. Barker. The MCC Search Committee in their report to the board even described him that way----a professional at GCGC and they mentioned his plan had been solicited by and was "on the account" of land developer Connell and not theirs. Not at any time or in any place did they indicate they were going to use Barker in any way in what they were going to do at Ardmore in the coming months and years.

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

TEPaul and Mike have told us that it was M&W who chose the final routing of the five draft plans.  

______________________

Mike Malone,   I suggested to Sean that we should agree to disagree on the Findlay reading, and you wonder whether I'd send him to prison for disagreeing with me?  We'll have to agree to disagree on your approach, Mike.
____________________________________________

DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer?  Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?

I think you might have missed my answer above.

David,
Question for you - If you thesis is correct, why do you think Merion would have buried the involvement of M&W?  Wouldn't a course designed by them have had a better cachet than one designed by a member?

Dan, you (and everyone else) would be better off if you ignored the caricatured versions of my opinion offered up by others.  They tend to misrepresent and vilify my theses while ignoring what I have written.

Merion did NOT bury M&W's involvement.   To the contrary, while they did not list out specifics (I wouldn't have expected them to) those who were there- including Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley- lauded M&W for their involvement.   Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible.  Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so.

Over the years, M&W's important contribution has come to be misunderstood and minimized, although I doubt Merion has ever done anything to intentionally mask or misrepresent what really happened.  Even now, I doubt most of those at Merion have would have any problem fully acknowledging M&W's contributions.  It is but a few overzealous individuals (at Merion and not) who have taken it upon themselves to protect and preserve the Merion legacy, whether it be the full and accurate story or not.  While I am sure they think they are helping Merion, I cannot understand how their efforts are viewed as anything but an embarrassment to anyone following along, including Merion.

In today's terms, it's almost like having a Doak-designed course, but not telling anybody, and insisting that the designer was, say, the Green Committee chair.

You might be surprised.  I have heard (second-hand) that occasionally a designer will provide a preliminary routing to a prospective client, only to later see that another has built a course suspiciously following the identical routing.   More directly, it was not uncommon around this time for someone within the club to get credit for the creating the course, whether or not they planned the routing.   This was at the very beginning of American golf course design, and our understanding of the process was in flux and the terminology to describe it was inconsistent and ambiguous, and the they did not necessarily emphasize or value the same things we do now.  When the person who planned the routing was an outsider, that person would often only be involved for a relatively brief period of time (often not more than a day or two) and the value of the routing plan to the final product was not always fully understood or appreciated.  In contrast, someone affiliated with the course (such as a chairman of the green committee) would often put substantial time, thought, and effort into a creation of the course, and that insider was often given the lion's share of the credit for its creation.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

TEPaul and Mike have told us that it was M&W who chose the final routing of the five draft plans.  

______________________

David

I must have missed this.  Where did Mike and Tom state this?

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 David,

   I wasn't referring to Sean but rather alluding to the fact that you are a lawyer. I imagine you wouldn't build a case on such an unclear piece of writing.

   I believe that your comments on this thread depend on your reading of this murky article. If Findlay was not referring to other holes at Merion then it seems your premise is gone.

[henrye]

"First, Shivas seems to imply that it's somewhat absurd for MacDonald to approve his own plans, as his approval would appear redundant."


henryE:

Whether or not Macdonald approved his own Merion East plan is sort of beside the point.

 Actually, if that were proved to be accurate, it would be the most critical point in this entire discussion.  However, I'm not suggesting at all that is what occurred.  I'm merely suggesting that what Shivas thought to be a critical observation is really not a conclusive issue.

What the real point is, is when would Macdonald have had the opportunity and the time to do his own routing and hole design plan for Merion East?

Can you shed any light on that, henryE? I'd love to know because even after having been asked on here a number of times it appears David Moriarty isn't even capable of considering the question?  

 It's a fair question and I doubt with my limited knowledge of the subject I could "shed any light" on the matter.  You have made the general assertion many times that MacDonald just didn't spend enough time at Merion to route and design the course.  I am just not as comfortable suggesting that his little amount of documented time on site is sufficient evidence to suggest that he definitively could not have had a major role.  One thing that would be good to know was whether or not a topographical contour map of the property was ever provided to MacDonald.  I think I remember him asking for one at one time?

DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer?  Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?

Dan, I think this is a great question that some have tried to explain, but that no one has answered .

[TEPaul]

"David
I must have missed this.  Where did Mike and Tom state this?"


Sean:

There you go---eg a very good question indeed! Where did we say that? Nowhere! We didn't say that and certainly not the way Moriarty said it!! That's Moriarty's interpretation of what we said which isn't specifically the same thing we said and consequently can potentionally vastly change the meaning of what we said!

If you'd like to know what I said specifically on this point, just read my post #281 above---it's all there in real detail.

We went into considerable detail with what we did say on this very point but Moriarty has admitted on this thread that he doesn't even bother to read my posts all the way through so how in the world could he ever possibly understand what I am saying? The correct answer is he can't and he doesn't.

As I said to you on an IM, Sean, I'm more than willing to have a good discussion with you on Merion but not with Moriarty distorting our discussion.

[Mike_Cirba]

Uh oh...does anyone else see a slight problem here? 

I guess we'd better file this one under the category of "How many men does it take to supervise Construction of Merion to CB Macdonald's design plans?"   

I'm beginning to think that ignorant slacker Hugh Wilson didn't do a dad-gummed thing! 

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

TEPaul and Mike have told us that it was M&W who chose the final routing of the five draft plans.   

______________________

David

I must have missed this.  Where did Mike and Tom state this?

Ciao

Sean, for the past year, Tom and Mike have repeatedly acknowledged:
1. After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.   
2. Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), Merion brought M&W back to Ardmore 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.)   
3. After reviewing all the draft plans and going over the grounds, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
4. In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
5. 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, chose and "approved" of the version presented.

Mike and TEPaul cannot now seriously dispute that this is what they claim happened.   They have the documents and I invite them to correct me where I am wrong.

Tom' s post 136 is one place where he admits that M&W chose the routing from the five draft plans.  Given the volume of their posts it would take me a Month to find a decent sample size set of places they have written this, but here are a few places they have:

Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.

In early April Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day and went over the plans created by Wilson and his committee, they toured the grounds, they then selected one of those plans that they described as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world (later reported in the newspaper). The committee gave that plan to the board and it was approved and construction began.

Shivas,

My limited understanding is the Committee after returning from NGLA "had laid out five different plans" and then said that M&W came over for a day on April 6th and reviewed the plans and stated that if Merion laid it out according to one of the plans they approved that Merion would have the best seven inland finishing holes in the country.

I would think that means that M&W made the selection of the best plan, which Lesley two weeks later presented for approval to the board for the committee with the recommended plan attached.

______________________________

Henry,

Only looking at the two days on site is very misleading.  Among other things . . .

- We know that CBM was in contact with Merion and advising them between June 1910 and April 1911. 
- We know Macdonald told them that he could not know for certain if a first class course would fit on their land without a contour map.
- We know Merion got a contour map and it is difficult to believe they kept it from CBM
- We know that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for help and that M&W met with them for two days.

So there was plenty of opportunity to plan the lay out at Merion, even had M&W not returned to the site.

[Mike_Cirba]

There is not a shred of evidence that M+W altered any of Merion's "plans" in the least.  In truth, the fact that nothing at all is mentioned of their contribution other than the fact they "approved" of at least one of the plans speaks volumes when read in context of the repeated mentioning the numerous plans that had been created by the Merion Committee pre and post the NGLA visit which makes the omission of any mention of M+W revisions all the more striking.

Also, I have no idea who selected the best of the five plans.  The Merion Committee could very well have narrowed it down to their best effort or two prior.  What you quoted of mine above is clearly labelled as my inferred speculation.

Also, there is absolutely no record of any ongoing commubications, much less collaboration between M+W and Merion between July 1910 and March 1911.

[TEPaul]

"Mike and TEPaul cannot now seriously dispute that this is what they claim happened.   They have the documents and I invite them to correct me where I am wrong."


David Moriarty:

No problem but how many times do you expect us to answer the same question before you get it?

First of all, take a look at what you said I said in your post #281 compared to your post #315. Do you notice that the word "substantively" is in your post #281 describing what you say I said, and it isn't in your post #315 when you describe what you say I said?!

You're a lawyer, aren't you Moriarty? Lawyers work with words and the meaning they convey, right? Do you think the meaning changes when you USED the word SUBSTANTIVELY (different) compared to when you didn't?

Well I think the meaning can change and quite dramatically. The point is you said on here that I said "substantively" different. I never said that, as I'm sure you know. I don't believe that is just sloppy thinking and writing on your part either (although given the fact you have said you don't even bother reading some of my posts, that certainly is possible). I think it is all preconceived and by design on your part to distort and mislead. And that is not exactly what I'd call someone trying to get to the truth about something! 

That is one good example of both when and how you are wrong on here not just that time but most all the time.

There's no point in trying to deny it----how could you----there it is in black and white on those two posts for all the world to see.

All I did is just point it out.

[DMoriarty]

I left out the word "substantively" because you objected to it, and I wanted to accurately convey what you have said in the past.   I think you misunderstood what I meant by the word, but it doesn't matter to my point and is not worth arguing over, so I took it out.  By my understanding and use of the word, adding three acres for two new green sites would certainly qualify as a substantive change.   

But as I said, it doesn't matter.   

What does matter is finally getting this straight.  As I understand you, you agree that the MCC minutes indicate that:

1. After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.   
2. Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), Merion brought M&W back to Ardmore 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.)
3. After reviewing all the draft plans and going over the grounds, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
4. In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
5. 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, chose and "approved" of the version presented.

You have the documents and I invite you to correct me if i am wrong. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Again, there is not a shred of evidence that M&W altered any of the Merion plans in the least.

When one considers the context which refers to the committee laying out many plans prior and "rearranging the course and laying out five different plans" after returning from NGLA, the clear omission of any mention of design input or suggested changes or any other contributions by M&W is very telling.

All we know for certain is he approved of at least one of the existing five Merion plans.

[henrye]

I agree that it is not uncommon for a member of a board or on a committee to vote for, alongside the other members of such board or committee, a plan that the member proposed (particularly where there's no self-dealing involved).  After all, what's he supposed to do - vote against his own idea?  However, CBM wasn't on any Merion committee.  He was an outsider.  And that's a crucial factual distinction.   For CBM to approve his plan, in this context, would mean one man's approval of his own plan.  Note the singular.  That's what's redundant and makes no sense.  I find that hard to believe.   I would not find it hard to believe that CBM approved somebody else's plan.  I would not find it hard to believe that the Committee approved CBM's plan.  I would not find it hard to believe that the Committee approved a plan done by one of the Committee members, including the vote of the Committee Member that drew the plan.  But I would find it hard to believe that CBM approved his own plan.

Just so you don't hang your hat on this not making any sense, there are other examples (numerous) outside of a board meeting context where this occurs regularly.  For example, building architects & engineers will often develop plans/blueprints and send them off to a client for input.  Those plans often get altered/updated based on client feedback.  In the end, the architect/engineer approves the plan and yes, the bulk of the plan is generally their own, even if they didn't do the drafting or schematics themselves.  That approved plan then goes forward to the powers that be.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

I think we are outside the meeting process.  M&W weren't on a meeting.  They were out on the grounds considering various possible routing.

[Mike_Cirba]

I think we're out of our minds! 

The April 6th date was the date M+W came down and reviewed the committee's various routing plans.

I believe the board meeting was two weeks later wjth Lesley reporting for Wilson's committee in report form (which by definition was communicated sometime prior to the meeting).

[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

I laughed.  I think we need a helluva lot more humor around these threads! 

[henrye]

Henry,

Only looking at the two days on site is very misleading.  Among other things . . .

- We know that CBM was in contact with Merion and advising them between June 1910 and April 1911. 

  Agreed, but to what extent?

- We know Macdonald told them that he could not know for certain if a first class course would fit on their land without a contour map.

  Agreed.

- We know Merion got a contour map and it is difficult to believe they kept it from CBM

  Are we certain they got a contour map?  If they did, I would agree that it's likely they would have shared it with CBM, particularly due to his suggesting one be acquired/developed.

- We know that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for help and that M&W met with them for two days.

  Agreed.

So there was plenty of opportunity to plan the lay out at Merion, even had M&W not returned to the site.

  This I cannot comment on, other than to say that if all your others statements and inferences above are true, it would appear more plausible.

[TEPaul]

“This I cannot comment on, other than to say that if all your others statements and inferences above are true, it would appear more plausible.”


HenryE:

Except they are all nothing more than David Moriarty’s speculations!




“- We know that CBM was in contact with Merion and advising them between June 1910 and April 1911.”

What the record shows and is not speculation is that after visiting Ardmore in June 1910 Macdonald wrote MCC a letter dated June 29, 1910 about his visit with Whigam to Ardmore. We have that letter, it was found this year by Wayne at MCC and made available on here. Other than that letter I don’t know of any communication with Macdonald and MCC until early March, 1911 when Wilson and apparently his committee went to NGLA for a two day visit.
 
“- We know Macdonald told them that he could not know for certain if a first class course would fit on their land without a contour map.”

That’s true and that would pretty much kill any notion that Macdonald could’ve come up with some routing or design plan on paper in 1910 which David Moriarty’s essay implies he did and also implies that Lloyd and Francis who were not even appointed at that time to the committee to create the course somehow helped Macdonald create that routing in 1910. Apparently, the reason Moriarty tried to create that premise in his essay was to explain how that survey map of the proposed course that was sent to the membership in Nov. 1910 had that triangle in the north corner. Moriarty assumed Francis’s late night idea had to have occurred before Nov 1910 so that triangle in the North corner could be created on that survey sent to the membership in Nov. 1910. But what Moriarty apparently did not know or understand and has still refused to admit is that triangle was always part property configuration on the north side of the old Johnson Farm that MCC used for most of their golf course. That very same triangle shows up on PRR plat maps of the Johnson Farm and surrounding properties going back years.


“- We know Merion got a contour map and it is difficult to believe they kept it from CBM.”


We do know MCC got a contour map at least by early 1911. The first evidence of that is in a letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley on Feb 1, 1911 in which he mentions he is enclosing the topo contour map of the property for the US Dept of Agriculture to analyze for agronomic reasons. It may be difficult for Moriarty to believe they kept it from CBM or did not show it to him but the fact is it has never been mentioned anywhere at any time that MCC showed CBM any survey contour map or plan of the property or “plans” they had done until April 6, 1911.



“- We know that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for help and that M&W met with them for two days.”


We do know that and it was recorded twice (both times seemingly by Wilson himself) specifically what they did both days while at NGLA and there is no mention whatsoever that a MCC survey contour map or any plan for the Ardmore property was produced or discussed at NGLA. Wilson’s report is specific on what they did during those two days at NGLA----eg they studied Macdonald’s drawings and plans done of holes abroad in preparation for NGLA and the next day was spent on the golf course (NGLA) studying it with Macdonald and Whigam.

That is what was recorded and the rest is just speculation.

[TEPaul]

"Has anybody looked into the records to see where the members of the Construction Committee were on April 6, 1911, or are we sure that they were all there?"

Shivas:

No, in both cases. This meeting thing analysis of yours is hilarious and highly entertaining, by the way, even if there is nothing from the record that talks about any of this.

I've taken the minutes for my green committee for years and this has inspired me to do them quite differently from now on. If some issue comes up about which I must speak up to make the point it is entirely the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to go about it I might even be able to fit in some reference in the minutes in that vein about David Moriarty.

[Peter Pallotta]

Since there's been a lot of long posts and thinking out loud, I'm hoping more of the same won't hurt all that much. So, for what it's worth, here goes my view/recap of this:

Years later, Hugh Wilson is still publicly thanking CBM for his teaching and guidance.  ("Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings.")   I imagine most of that teaching happened during those amazing two days the Committee spent with Macdonald at NGLA, walking the course and looking at/discussing his sketches of the great British golf holes.

Some months after the NGLA visit, Macdonald came to Merion. The Wilson Committee had in the meantime put to great use all they had learned and developed 5 different plans for the course; I imagine that means 5 different routings (which seems to me the product of much hard work and effort, i.e. to get five different routings out of that smallish Merion site.)  Regarding this visit by CBM, the Committee later reports that Macdonald "advised us on OUR plans", helping them chose the best one.  (That makes sense: I don’t believe that CBM routed the course, but even if I did believe it I’d find it hard to understand why he'd route it FIVE different ways].

Next, the Wilson Committee lays and builds the course according to their routing, and Wilson then goes to the UK to see and study things for himself, to prepare himself to turn this one routing into the best golf course he can.  When he returns, there is work to be done – in his opening line, Findlay tells us that he has to defer his judgement of the course’s quality until a later date because it’s not quite ready/finished yet.  Wilson agrees with Findlay that what he thought was going to be a fine Alps template hole isn’t yet up to par (with the original), but Findlay suggests that the other template holes that Macdonald had discussed with and explained to Wilson (and with everyone else in the golfing world) –- and that had been made manifest in the best of the five Committee plans/routings –- had the potential to be really great…if/when Wilson could do all the work and fine tuning over the several months before the opening to make those golf holes and all the others work in inland America like they did in the UK.   This Wilson did the best he could, and then turned his attention to another key issue - agronomy (and in that context he may be the true unsung hero of American golf).

Wilson seems to have been a stand-up guy. That's the crux of it for me. He praises CBM for his teaching, he thanks him for his advice, he shares with everyone (including Findlay) that Macdonald had helped him to understand the concepts behind the great holes of British golf.  What he doesn't do is suggest anywhere, at any time, that CBM routed the golf course.  I think that if Macdonald HAD done so, there wouldn’t be any question at all about it in the history books; it would’ve been stated clearly – Wilson would’ve made sure of it. 

Macdonald provided wonderful and valuable advice.

Peter

[Mike_Cirba]

Peter,

It really is that simple.

Thanks for the refreshing breath of cool fresh air in this hot, smoke-filled room.

[henrye]

HenryE:

Except they are all nothing more than David Moriarty’s speculations!

True, but you are also speculating.  Also, you have had access to far more documentation and in my opinion have failed to provide evidence that definitively refutes David's speculations.

[DMoriarty]

I'll throw this out there for comment:

If April 6, 1911 didn't generate a committee meeting, with at least a quorum of the Construction Committee members present, then considering who these guys were, barring most of them having massively important (and historically documentable, BTW, hint, hint...) prior engagements, the fact that they did NOT have a meeting would lead to certain conclusions:

1. CMB coming down for the day wasn't that big of a deal because his role was minor.

I don't suppose you are joking again, are you?    Didn't think so.   You need to get out more, you've got boardroom on the brain. 

First, I think you may not yet be fully comprehending what is going on here.  My understanding is that  Wilson's Construction Committee was an ad hoc, temporary committee that did not necessarily stick with the formalities one might expect from the board.  How would we know if they had a meeting or not?   I don't have the documents, but from what has been leaked,  I am unaware of any minutes from their ad hoc Committee meetings, or even any formal reports.   TEPaul suggests that Wilson wrote a report and that this report was presented to the board by Leslie.   I have a sneaking suspicion that this is speculation on their part, and they have no such report and/or cannot say for certain whether Wilson drafted any such written report.   

Second, even ignoring this, I think your analysis is seriously flawed.   Your basis seems to be "who these men were . . . .;" and that seems to be a bit of a sub-theme around here; who these men were.   In a recent thread TEPaul referred to those who appointed Wilson as  "those men of Merion who were essentially the Kings of the Universe."   This seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I doubt anyone is surprised that he found the Kings of the Universe around Philadelphia.  In fairness to TEPaul, not doubt these were very important men, especially those on Merion's Board.   As for the Construction Committee they were also impressive, and some were very important and came from very important families and they were distinguished in their own arenas.  That being said I am not sure I would put the Construction Committee as a whole on a much higher pedestal than Macdonald and Whigham.

In fact, if you throw in Macdonald's and Whigham's reputations as golfers and golf course experts, then the opposite argument makes much  more sense than yours.   Given who Macdonald and Whigham were, the two of them would necessarily have been calling the shots when it came to the final hole concepts and routing at Merion, and Merion's Construction Committee would have been thrilled to have them and would have hung on every word.    

Not that this is necessarily what happened, but if you want to throw around speculation based on "who these men were" then let's look at the other side of the coin, as well. 

But more seriously, "who these men were" does give us a few things to consider:
- If M&W were not at Ardmore to finalize the lay out plan, then why did Merion bring them all the way down there?   
- And if they were not there to finalize the lay out plan, why would M&W bothered to make the trip, which at the time wasn't all that simple?     
- And if M&W were not there calling the shots and finalizing the routing, then why would Lesley have given them such a prominent role in his report to the Board?  (Or at least in what we have been told about it?) 
- And if W&W did nothing but rubber stamp plans created wholly independently of them, then why did H.J. Whigham write that CBM planned the course?

_______________________

What the record shows and is not speculation is that after visiting Ardmore in June 1910 Macdonald wrote MCC a letter dated June 29, 1910 about his visit with Whigam to Ardmore. We have that letter, it was found this year by Wayne at MCC and made available on here. Other than that letter I don’t know of any communication with Macdonald and MCC until early March, 1911 when Wilson and apparently his committee went to NGLA for a two day visit.
. . .
We do know MCC got a contour map at least by early 1911. The first evidence of that is in a letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley on Feb 1, 1911 in which he mentions he is enclosing the topo contour map of the property for the US Dept of Agriculture to analyze for agronomic reasons. It may be difficult for Moriarty to believe they kept it from CBM or did not show it to him but the fact is it has never been mentioned anywhere at any time that MCC showed CBM any survey contour map or plan of the property or “plans” they had done until April 6, 1911.

TEPaul,

So by your reasoning, if the meeting minutes do not document it, then it did not happen?   Were all of the day-to-day activities of the Construction Committee recorded in the minutes?  How about each letter between Wilson and the turf guys?  Surely you wouldn't expect the Board meetings to cover this kind of minutiae, would you?   Surely those "King's of the Universe" were not concerning themselves with Hugh Wilson's preparations for the golf course, were they?

By the way, Tom, you suggest that the Francis Land Swap occurred just prior to Macdonald's visit.   What do the minutes say about the Land Swap?     

We do know that and it was recorded twice (both times seemingly by Wilson himself) specifically what they did both days while at NGLA and there is no mention whatsoever that a MCC survey contour map or any plan for the Ardmore property was produced or discussed at NGLA. Wilson’s report is specific on what they did during those two days at NGLA----eg they studied Macdonald’s drawings and plans done of holes abroad in preparation for NGLA and the next day was spent on the golf course (NGLA) studying it with Macdonald and Whigam.

Really?   I mean rrreally?   Are you really suggesting that while Wilson and his Committee were busy trying to plan the course they traveled all the way to NGLA so they could meet with M&W for two days and see his course and his drawings from Scotland?   Really?   And they didn't  bother to discuss what they should do at Merion?  Oh, realllly?   And Wilson did not bring even a contour map?  Really? No contour? None?  Reeeally? That's really what happened?   And really, let me guess; they left their preliminary plans at home as well??  Rrreally?   Really really? Really really really?  I mean, come on, REALLY?!?

More seriously, you mention Wilson's report.   Are you referring to the chapter published in the P&O Turf book?   What do the meeting minutes say about the NGLA meeting? 

____________________________________________________

Peter.   

- "Some months" did not pass between the NGLA meeting and M&W's course visit.   It was around three weeks. 
- Your description of what happened at NGLA is inaccurate and incomplete.   Hugh Wilson and common sense tell us so.  Given that they met with CBM for two days and that he had already seen the site, do you really think they never bothered to discuss what he thought would the best plan for Merion?
- I wouldn't assume that the course was routed 5 completely different ways.  I've seen no evidence of this, at least.  More likely the plans shared much in common, and they were drafting potential solutions to resolve one or a few unresolved issues.
- Maybe Wilson did tell us, and we just have to read it carefully. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()