News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Tom Huckaby

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #500 on: April 29, 2009, 03:25:23 PM »
For us innocent bystanders, much of this whole Merion stuff does show a lot of wit.. as obviously contentious as it all is also.

And to that end, fair is fair.  Outstanding wit must be noted.

THis had me absolutely rolling....

No train of thought? No agenda?  No axe to grind?   Then you are obviosly on the wrong thread.  I rescind two-thirds of the 20% I took back of the bad things I previously said about you behind your back, but because of the suprising novelty of your open-mind approach here, I also take another 15% of the bad things I previously said about you  behind your back back, notwithstanding and not including the two-thirds of the the 20% of the things I had said behind your back and then rescinded taking back.  Back.   Plus I just said a couple bad things about you because of your bizzare  infatuation with sentence structure.  I still think you come out ahead, but am not sure.  Could you diagram it and get back to me? 

Well done, David.   ;D ;D ;D

Now back to the peanut gallery.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #501 on: April 29, 2009, 03:26:10 PM »
In the hand drawn sketch of #10 posted a couple time earlier in this thread it looks like a pretty significant turn to the right, any explanations as to why, or how? It doesn't seem to jive with any of the pictures or the orientation of the road (being perpendicular to the line of play).

Phil_the_Author

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #502 on: April 29, 2009, 03:26:54 PM »
Shiv,

I think it might make more sense if you look at the sentence this way:

Through [sketches] and [explanations of the right principles] of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.

There are two distinct items that refer to "the holes that formed the famous courses abroad..."

Each are separate and distinct and shown in that they can be used to form an independent sentence with the phrase. These two sentences would be:

Through [sketches] of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad...

and

Through [explanations of the right principles] of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad..."

It is therefor apparent that he showed them actual sketches of the great holes they were speaking about...

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #503 on: April 29, 2009, 03:36:23 PM »
This is taken from the Merion website:

Quote
In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.

Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Peter Pallotta

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #504 on: April 29, 2009, 04:12:19 PM »
My .2 cents

Macdonald was famous and highly regarded for two things, and justly so -- his promotion in America of the great British golf holes (and the underlying principles of same), and his design and creation of NGLA, the ideal golf course based on those holes and principles.   It makes sense, then, that a Committee comprised of respectful men would spend part of their time looking at and discussing Macdonald’s sketches of the great British holes and/or of his American homage to those holes, and the next day walking NGLA to see what Macdonald's hand had wrought. 

David M – in several posts recently you’ve been linking together hole concepts and hole placements, as if to suggest that if Macdonald had a hand in one he must’ve had a hand in the other; but that seems to me a tenuous link (of course, I guess that’s what all the disagreements are actually about, so never mind…)

Peter

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #505 on: April 29, 2009, 04:53:46 PM »
"Either that, or (2) he really, really needed Pickering to put the bottle down and get focused..."



My Dear Mr. Schmidt:

Get FOCUSED?? Apparently you're not aware what really good "Flask architects" and really good "Flask" architecture" is all about. Focused?? Oh My God, it's like being focused normally but at a factor of about 77 or 78!!

Pickering was some kind of focused alright via his usual "Flask Architecture". That wasn't his problem at all, matter of fact when he was really into his "Flask Architecture" and truly focused Wilson reported through his secretary Fred Kortebein that Pickering was so damned focused he almost 'blew up' and they had to let him go for awhile for his own health and welfare.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #506 on: April 29, 2009, 04:55:09 PM »
I'm aware what he said they learned.  I made a conscious decision not to recite that, and stick to my narrow topic.

While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that he says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been.   (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).

He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."

1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.

"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course CONSTRUCTION than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."

How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here?  Honestly.

How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??

How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a  ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back",  "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??

How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?

It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.

Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??

Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??

Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??

Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?

If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??



« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 05:10:38 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #507 on: April 29, 2009, 05:11:31 PM »
Hey Cirba, would you and Bausch quit dicking around electronically with some of our best old photographic evidence?! That solid vertical white line running through #9 and right up through the 10th fairway and into the sky that shows up in the photo on your post #531 was done on the suggestion of Macdonald!! He thought that was one of the best suggestions he made to MCC on April 6, 1911. Didn't you realize that you dickheads?! He was still sort of into some ultra engineered looking stuff in his architectural principles in 1911. That thing had to be damn hard to conceive of and design; and that's one of the very reasons Macdonald was such a friggin' genius. It was a massive clear tube filled with sand that was around fifty feet high. It was considered to be one of the most innovative and novel strategic hazards the history of golf course architecture ever heard of.

Trouble was, unfortunately the power hitting Merion and US Amateur champ, Max Marston hit it with a smokin' stinger drive one time and snapped it in two. Greenkeeper Flynn said he never saw an instant fairway and green topdressing quite like that one in his career.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 05:19:42 PM by TEPaul »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #508 on: April 29, 2009, 05:16:21 PM »
  Which greensites were a given at Merion which predetermined the routing? Regardless of who was involved it seems certain green sites were inevitable. Could this have emboldened the amateurs to go it alone? I assume the extra land they purchased created even more determinism.


    My amateur take is that #3, #4, (possibly #5) ,#7, #9, #11, #15, #16 pretty much were obvious greensites and that the remainder of the course was fleshed out after that. Interestingly, this means none of the changed greensites were essential to the routing including #10.


   BTW,  I apologize for asking an architecture question ::)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 05:25:40 PM by mike_malone »
AKA Mayday

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #509 on: April 29, 2009, 05:30:30 PM »
AKA Mayday:

Those "bunch of guys" as the essayist calls them were such a bunch of novices they put the 11th green on property they didn't even own, that's why Lloyd who was a bit perturbed about it had to eventually cough up some more green.

Lloyd:
"Hey Hugh, the property I bought for you wet-ears ended about a 100 yards short of where you put that 11th green."

Wilson:
"I'm sorry Hor, it just looked like a really jake green-site to us and we knew you'd probably buy it for us eventually if we didn't own it. Please, please buy it for us Mr. Lloyd, you old Big Daddy Captain of the Universe, you."

Lloyd:
"OK, kid, but cut out this kind of KaKa from here on out; I've had about enough of your committee member bike rides waking me up in the middle of the night and putting greens on someone else's property I have to buy for an inflated price."

 
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 07:02:16 PM by TEPaul »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #510 on: April 29, 2009, 05:34:24 PM »
 Tom,

   That is a true definition of "genius"
AKA Mayday

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #511 on: April 29, 2009, 05:40:40 PM »
 I don't think terrain had much to do with the placement of the following greens---#1, #2,#6,#14, #18 (if that greensite is artificial). They just link the other holes in the routing.
AKA Mayday

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #512 on: April 29, 2009, 06:03:07 PM »
Dale Jackson:

You said above you're having a hard time following all this and you asked what's going on. I think the answer is this subject is the essayist's "day-in-the-sun and he refuses to let it end by continuously denying the obvious. He actually thinks there is something to get onto here---like "the real purpose." He even wants to write Part II of his essay on Merion's architectural history. What a hoot that will be don't you think? I think "the real purpose" is about not much more than the fact he likes to argue with people constantly. That's probably why Patrick is still sort of supporting him. Patrick likes to argue all the time; Pat LIVES to argue! Patrick LOVES to argue! ;)

If you really want to see what SHOULD HAVE happened on this subject just go to Eric Smith's post #17 on the "Why so much talk on Merion" thread and click on the red hyperlink in that post. That was a thread made by Tom MacWood back in 2003, and when it comes to HIS QUESTION on the subject of Merion's architectural history and Macdonald and Wilson and who specifically did what on what hole and such----well what we told him in a page or two was the truth of it all and this entire subject should've ended RIGHT THERE over six years ago.

There was and is no more to it than basically that but we unfortunately had a couple of guys who wanted to make mountains out of very small molehills and not to find the truth about the architecture or architects of Merion but clearly for other reasons that didn't have much to do with that. What they are still doing six years later doesn't have anything to do with that either.

It's about that simple, Dale.

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #513 on: April 29, 2009, 07:04:47 PM »
What makes this question so controversial anyway that otherwise quite intelligent folks are trashing each other over it?

Is it just about the extent of CBM and HJW's involvement in the routing and design of Merion East? I don't think anyone denies they were involved in some capacity. I don't think anyone disputes that CBM mentored Hugh Wilson and basically got him started in golf architecture.

The only contentious issue seems to be the extent of their involvement. Is it enough to get a "co-design credit" or is it just some "Sunday afternoon advising" as done by many of the leading figures at that time?

Frankly, if that is all there is to this discussion, then why is the whole thing totally blown out of any proportion? Even if one of the two sides were found out to be entirely wrong, what would that really change? It would certainly not change our general understanding of how the Merion course came to be.

I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #514 on: April 29, 2009, 07:12:41 PM »
Ulrich,

Please stop making sense and being so perceptive.  ;)

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #515 on: April 29, 2009, 09:09:29 PM »


This photo, which Mike Cirba posted, taken close to the 10th green, clearly shows the fronting bunker complex, elevated well above the putting surface. 

Does anyone refute that point ?

When an elevated feature lies between two points, B and A, with B being the green and A being the DZ, the closer the feature lies to B, the more it will obscure Point B from point A.

Does anyone refute that point ?

The physical evidence presented by the above  photo is irrefutable as is the following conclusion.

The elevated bunker complex obscures the view of the green below it from the DZ.

Does anyone think that any of the spectators are standing at an elevation equal to that of the golfers on the green ?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #516 on: April 29, 2009, 10:23:25 PM »
Patrick,

The back edge of that front bunker is raised up a foot or two.

That might make some very front hole locations blind in the sense that the bottom of the flagstick might not be visible.

On the other hand, what do you have to say about this?



The bottom line of the back bunker is completely visible from WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (in Matt Wardspeak ;)) below the either the landing zone of the 10th hole or the green surface itself, and it's also clear that you can see that from about anywhere on planet earth, so where my friend is the NGLA, "CBM Alps-Like Hole" in all of that?

The unintentially funny thing is that you just criticized Hugh Wilson for not building a Alps hole as good as Macdonald yet still cling to that cold, frozen, stiff, and bloated piece of driftwood as you float aloft in MacdonaldDesignedMerion Neverland.   ;D

Hop in the life raft...there's still room.

Trust your eyes and your brain and get over your provincialistic prejudices.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 10:30:19 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #517 on: April 29, 2009, 10:25:47 PM »
[While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that he says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been.   (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).

He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."

1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.

"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course CONSTRUCTION than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."

How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here?  Honestly.

How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??

How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a  ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back",  "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??

How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?

It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.

Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??

Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??

Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??

Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?

If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??



Must be an out-of-town lawyer's convention leading to a delay in your normally scheduled programming...   ;D

Mike_Cirba

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #518 on: April 29, 2009, 10:51:33 PM »
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in CONSTRUCTION and GREENKEEPING was only that of the average club member. "

While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that Hugh Wilson says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been.   (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).

He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."

1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, looking for advice on soils, grasses, insects, fungus, bacteria, practices, forces of natures, etc....I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.

"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course CONSTRUCTION than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."

How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here?  Honestly.

How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??

How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a  ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back",  "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??

How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?

It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.

Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??

Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??

Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??

Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?

If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??


« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 10:56:35 PM by MikeCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #519 on: April 29, 2009, 11:09:21 PM »
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in CONSTRUCTION and GREENKEEPING was only that of the average club member. "

While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that Hugh Wilson says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been.   (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).

He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."

1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, looking for advice on soils, grasses, insects, fungus, bacteria, practices, forces of natures, etc....I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.

"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course CONSTRUCTION than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."

How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here?  Honestly.

How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??

How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a  ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back",  "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??

How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?

It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.

Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??

Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??

Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??

Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?

If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??

You need to give it a rest Mike.  There is nothing in here we haven't covered repeatedly, and I am not going to cover it again, as I have lost all confidence in your ability to carry on any sort of reasonable conversation.  I am not going to keep spinning my wheels with you. 
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 #520 on: April 29, 2009, 11:22:41 PM »
I disagree, David.

You've made great hay in seeking to portray Hugh Wilson and his Committee as "a bunch of novices" by his simple omission that they, much like every other club in America at that time, were confronted with the challenges of how to grow healthy and consistent golf course turf on inland clay-based soils.

In fact, you've tried to turn this simple, humble admission into something almost infantile on their parts...that men who had played at the highest competitive levels and had seen any golf course of worth in America during the previous FIFTEEN YEARS, were somehow now like two year-olds in their understanding of what made a golf hole strategically or tactically interesting.

Instead, as a true reading of Hugh Wilson's words finally make clear once and for all, they were talking strictly about construction techniques and agronomic practices...not about whether a redan had a fronting bunker at the low end or an Biarrtiz had a deep dip in the middle, or the Eden green slope and bunkering scheme, or whether the strategic challenge of a hole had most and foremost to do with having to challenge a hazard for advantage...things that a 5-year old could learn in a couple of hours of deep study.

YOU were right all along, David.

These men went to NGLA to learn how to build and grass their golf course.

Not how to design or route it.

Every single word in Hugh Wilson's account in 1916 rings true to that reading and now, once the truth is obvious, suddenly you ask for a truce...for me to "give it a rest".

Convenient of you, isn't it?

Some weeks ago, and then again recently I told you I was tired of arguing these points, and that I felt it unfair of me to have this discussion with you while I had read the MCC minutes and you didn't have that opportunity, but when I've tried to just "give it a rest" you took that as some type of strategic advantage and went on a flurry of propaganda that I just couldn't ignore.

I agree that it's time we give it a rest.

However, it's also time we let Hugh Wilson deservedly have the last word.

The man clearly earned it by all accounts of those who knew him, and I'm pretty certain he's tired or your abuse and disrespect.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 11:47:16 PM by MikeCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #521 on: April 30, 2009, 12:02:36 AM »
Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before. 

A factual question:

Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings?   If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip?  From the construction of NGLA?  From something else?
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 12:15:16 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)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #522 on: April 30, 2009, 01:32:00 AM »
Answering some posts I missed . . ..


If David Moriarity can interpret Alan Wilson's letter as crediting more of the design of Merion to CBM then to Hugh Wilson then I believe you guys should just stop responding to him until he brings more facts to the table.

Fascinating approach and obviously from the TEPaul school of debate;  pronounce the final answer based on a quick read and incomplete knowledge of the surrounding facts, then insist that the conversation is over.   

Quote
His proving that Wilson went overseas later would be an example of some fine work. But, that still doesn't eliminate the Alan Wilson letter as definitive on the design credit for Merion.
   

But if the letter is indeed definitive, then I am wrong on this issue as well.
__________________________________

Quote from: David Moriarty
Wilson improved Merion's 10th and by the opening Findlay thought it worthy of comparison to Prestwick's Alps.

If that were true, then I would give your interpretation (Findlay hated the 10th and convinced Wilson to make it more like the original, so that it would be of the same standard as the other CBM holes on the course) some credibility. Is there is any evidence that Wilson came back from Prestwick and immediately set out to work on the 10th?

Ulrich, 

As to your last paragraph,  a number of courses reported that Wilson continued to work on the course up to the opening (and after.)  Far and Sure reported that he added featuers such as bunkers, mounds, and grass, between his trip and the opening.

But the best source is Findlay,  In June he didn't think Merion's Alps was comparable to Prestwick's.   In September he did.   Something changed.   

As to the rest, whatever his real purpose, I think Findlay wrote that CBM "laid out" Merion, as he uses the term.

______________________________________________

In the hand drawn sketch of #10 posted a couple time earlier in this thread it looks like a pretty significant turn to the right, any explanations as to why, or how? It doesn't seem to jive with any of the pictures or the orientation of the road (being perpendicular to the line of play).
 

I've tried to figure this out as well by using the buildings in some of the photos as reference, and while I am not certain I think that the line of play may have been angled to the right of the current line of play, so that the centerline would have just left of or bisecting the left bunker.     Note that in one of the photos post changes there is a bunker left of the hole and it looks to be out in the middle of nowhere.  It seems well left, but I wonder if it was in play?? 

Remember that this was supposed to be a 380+ yard hole (it wasn't) and putting it at a slight angle so the approach would be over the left corner of the green would have bought them a few yards.

_______________________________

This is taken from the Merion website:

Quote
In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.

Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?

Ulrich

If it means what it seems to mean, then it has been disproven.   

_____________________________________________________

This Alan Wilson report unfortunately loses some credibility due to its fabrication of a timeline that happens to promote a "hero story" about the author's brother.

This is really unfortunate, because otherwise the report is pretty clear about the roles of Wilson, committee and CBM / Whigam. As it is, it must be taken with a grain of salt.

Ulrich

While the letter is interesting and I don't really doubt much in it, there are some other issues as well.  I've never read anything indicating that Alan Wilson was involved in the initial design or construction, so there is at least an issue of the basis for his knowledge.  The timing issue you point out raises further questions.   Plus, regarding the creation of Merion East, some of the information was no doubt second-hand-- A. Wilson said it was.   And the rest of the rest of the factual information could be.  In As far as factual information, I don't think there is anything new in the letter.   Most or all the factual information could be found by quickly perusing Merion's records.   

TEPaul's claim that we do not know for certain whether Wilson had previously gone over to study is factually incorrect.   

Wilson himself notes that he went abroad to study "after" the NGLA trip.

Findlay confirms that in June 1912 Wilson wished he and gone over earlier.

Timelining Wilson's whereabouts makes a 1910 trip  virtually impossible. 

Ulrich, this is the answer to your question as to why these things are so contentious and drawn out.   No matter how many times a point is proven, it is never conceded. 

_______________________________________

My .2 cents

Macdonald was famous and highly regarded for two things, and justly so -- his promotion in America of the great British golf holes (and the underlying principles of same), and his design and creation of NGLA, the ideal golf course based on those holes and principles.   It makes sense, then, that a Committee comprised of respectful men would spend part of their time looking at and discussing Macdonald’s sketches of the great British holes and/or of his American homage to those holes, and the next day walking NGLA to see what Macdonald's hand had wrought. 

David M – in several posts recently you’ve been linking together hole concepts and hole placements, as if to suggest that if Macdonald had a hand in one he must’ve had a hand in the other; but that seems to me a tenuous link (of course, I guess that’s what all the disagreements are actually about, so never mind…)

Peter,

Your first paragraph ignores both the text and the context of the meeting. 

I guess that one could split hole concepts and placements, but I don't think that is what happened or how CBM worked.  CBM had seen the site and Merion had a contour map.   You don't think he'd have offered his opinion on where to put a Redan?   You don' t think they'd want to know where to put it?    Why do you suppose they discarded their preliminary plans when  they went to NGLA? 

That being said,  I am glad you accept that the holes at Merion were CBM's concepts, but many do not.   

________________________________________________
What makes this question so controversial anyway that otherwise quite intelligent folks are trashing each other over it?

Is it just about the extent of CBM and HJW's involvement in the routing and design of Merion East? I don't think anyone denies they were involved in some capacity. I don't think anyone disputes that CBM mentored Hugh Wilson and basically got him started in golf architecture.

The only contentious issue seems to be the extent of their involvement. Is it enough to get a "co-design credit" or is it just some "Sunday afternoon advising" as done by many of the leading figures at that time?

Frankly, if that is all there is to this discussion, then why is the whole thing totally blown out of any proportion? Even if one of the two sides were found out to be entirely wrong, what would that really change? It would certainly not change our general understanding of how the Merion course came to be.

I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.

Ulrich

There is absolutely no good reason it should be contentious at all.    But it has been this way around here for years.   There is a strong pull to stick with the Merion legend and every step away from the legend, no matter how small, has been fought and resisted to the extreme.    For example even what you put forth as being beyond dispute was hotly disputed, and not that long ago.   

You mention design credit, but for me at least, my goal is just to figure out what happened. 
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

Ulrich:

I hate to say it at this point because I really don't think it's very important due to all the rest of the material we've found fairly recently about what the Wilson Committee did in the beginning of 1911 but there isn't exactly any thing dispositive (as these lawyers on here like to say) that proves Hugh Wilson was not abroad at some point towards the end of 1910 and despite what it says in that vein in Findlay's article.

I think the essayist in question believes that because neither he nor anyone else has found some ship passenger manifest for Wilson earlier than 1912 that that proves he was never abroad earlier. For a guy like that there were definitely ways of getting over there that may not show up NOW on some ship passenger manifest that is findable.

We definitely aren't claiming that but who is really to say it isn't possible, particularly when you have a man in the wings like Clement Griscom who was the chairman of the famous "Shipping Trust" and there were a couple of MCC members and friends who had transatlantic private yachts the size of small commercial ocean liners?   ;)

This is just flat out false for reasons that have been discussed many times before. 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 01:39:54 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)

TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #523 on: April 30, 2009, 07:08:30 AM »
Mike Cirba said above:

“How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here?  Honestly.

How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??

How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a  ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back",  "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??

How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?”





Mike Cirba:

If you or anyone wants to apply some of your questions to the various Wilson and Merion records here’s how I’d suggest doing it via a Timeline of event records:

First:

“"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course CONSTRUCTION than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."



That passage was written by Wilson in 1915 or 1916, 4-5 years AFTER Merion East went into construction. So in that case it is more than possible that he also meant building the course when he used the term “laid out” or “laying out.”



HOWEVER, when the Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911 used the term “we laid out numerous different courses on the new ground” in the winter of 1911 BEFORE visiting NGLA and Macdonald that could mean they staked out holes on the property AND/OR they submitted those staked out “courses” on the ground to a paper topographical contour survey “plan” of the property (courses drawn on those paper plans). I know they had topographical contour survey maps of the property that was now in the possession of Lloyd because Wilson mentioned the plan and enclosed it to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C. in his first correspondence on Feb. 1, 1911.

In that case we KNOW that when they used the term “laid out” to describe what they HAD BEEN DOING in the PREVIOUS months in that report (winter months of 1911 and before visiting NGLA) there is no way at all they could’ve meant they were BUILDING or actually CONSTRUCTING a golf course on the ground because WE KNOW from the Merion TIMELINE that was an event (the actual BUILDING of a course) that would NOT TAKE PLACE for a number of months HENCE!

In that Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board Meeting on April 19, 1911, it also said they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” FOLLOWING their visit to NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. One can certainly logically assume that by “laid out” at that point they meant submitting a routings and perhaps designs to their paper topographical contour survey plans which Macdonald and Whigam would review on April 6, 1911, help them select one to be submitted to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911, and which “plan” was reported to have been ATTACHED to the Wilson Report and which was reported to have been approved and which would be built in the coming months.





The “Missing Faces Of Merion” essayist then asked you the following question in the next post:


“Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before. 
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings?   If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip?  From the construction of NGLA?  From something else?”


Do you know the specific answer to that question Mike? Because if you don’t I believe I will put it on here from Wilson’s report and get AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all. What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear and it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA. I have explained what it said on here many times and so have you but apparently this essayist is not willing to believe it and just continues to argue against our point!

Matter of fact, I don’t know that NGLA even used comprehensive topographical contour survey map plans for the construction of NGLA. If they did they’ve been lost over time. George Bahto informed me some time ago that the only contour plans of NGLA that survived were only a few contour line drawings of some holes apparently for the purpose of some localized earth-movement or adjustment as needed.


TEPaul

Re: Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson
« Reply #524 on: April 30, 2009, 07:22:21 AM »
Mike Cirba:

You've mentioned a few times that you believe it very logical that some of what was spoken about and done between Macdonald/Whigam and the Wilson Committee during that two day visit to NGLA involved discussions on golf agronomy and not just architecture. This is the case indeed.


To Wit:


"March 13, 1911

Dear Mr. Oakley:

                     I have just returned from a couple of days with Mr. Macdonald at the National course. I certainly enjoyed have an opportunity of going over the course and seeing his experiments with different grasses. He is coming over in a couple of weeks to help us with his good advice.....
                    .......Mr Macdonald showed me several pamphlets in regard to grasses and fertilizers.....

                                                                                                                          Very Truly,
                                                                                                                           Hugh I. Wilson"





So, I think we can see from that letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley referencing the NGLA visit that there certainly was more talked about during that two day NGLA visit in the second week of March 1911 than just golf course architecture or their principles or how to design or build a golf course. I've said for years now that perhaps 50% or more of the advice Wilson and his Committee got from Macdonald/Whigam in their only two visits together (NGLA and April 6, 1911 at Ardmore) or even that MCC got from Macdonald/Whigam in June 1910 was about agronomy and how to grow grass, particularly on an INLAND site. Macdonald's own letter to MCC (Lloyd) that is recorded at Merion shows the same thing if one bothers to read the whole thing.

I realize that startling fact  ;) probably doesn't interest most on this site including the essayist on here because it's not about golf course architecture but nevertheless it certainly was of interest to those men back then for fairly elementary and obvious reasons and the records from them show it loud and clear!

That probably also means that perhaps 50% or more of the the time and the advice and help Macdonald/Whigam offered to Merion on their single day and final visit to Ardmore (April 6, 1911) was about agronomy and how to grow good golf turf on an inland site and not about golf course architecture. That would therefore certainly shorten the time and opportunity available IN A SINGLE DAY for Macdonald/Whigam to actually execute this insane notion at least one on here has that they could've or even would've actually routed a golf course and "designed up" its holes in a single day, assuming MCC even ASKED them to do something like that which not a scintilla of evidence anywhere has ever suggested they did.

I feel that MCC most likely would've felt even ASKING them to do something like that would have been a bit PRESUMPTOUS (certainly considering they weren't paying them for their time and help and Macdonald/Whigam weren't asking them to do that), and certainly considering the Wilson Committee had been doing that very thing themselves WITHOUT Macdonald/Whigam for the previous three months!
« Last Edit: April 30, 2009, 07:38:35 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back