[Kirk Gill]

I think it is clear that Hugh Wilson was an interesting fellow. He was a good golfer, he was the president of an insurance company, and in his time he was considered one of the top experts in the field of agronomy for the purpose of grassing golf courses. He was an impressive enough individual that, at the relatively young age of 32, he was made the head of a committee at Merion charged with the creation of the club's new golf course. The product of that committee's work has been hailed as one of the great American golf courses, and Wilson has long been credited with being the committee member who did the most work on the course. He suffered from health problems, and passed away at the young age of 45.

While being a golf course architect may never have been at the center of his professional life, he continued after the creation of Merion to be the architect of record at a small number of other courses. While none of those earned the acclaim of Merion East, Wilson was held in high enough regard to be brought in to work on finishing the final four holes at Pine Valley (I’d love to learn more about his role there).

Now, years later, the question that comes to mind is, how good WAS Hugh Wilson as an architect? Let's say, for the sake of argument (and believe me, I know how much argument this assertion might cause), that the initial iteration of Merion East was, in the main, his work, especially the routing. How much of what is currently on the ground there can be attributed to him? How much was the work of other Committee members? How much was William Flynn? Did Flynn document his changes, or did they happen one bit at a time, over the course of years, to the point that it isn't specifically known what he did, and what was there before his influence began to be felt?

Ian Andrew listed Wilson at 20 on his list of the all-time greatest golf architects, ahead of Herbert Leeds (also known primarily for one course), and Robert Trent Jones, a very prolific architect.

So what do you all think? He is certainly a pivotal figure in American golf, and a most interesting person. But specifically, as an architect......How good WAS he? Ultimately, do we really know?

[Dan Herrmann]

Kirk,
I'd expand your question to include Fownes.

I've always thought it wonderful that Pennsylvania's two greatest courses were both designed by nouveau architects.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kirk,

I'm typing from a blacberry so I can't link to the thread but I believe a thread I started a few years back titled "Hugh Wilson - an ongoing investigative journey" includes contemporaneous articles and many other relevant bits that will help answer your questions.

In particular, there are some really good articles discussing the changes to the course for the 1916 and 1924 US Ams that should provide some good info.

Joe Bausch could probably point you to others that might not be posted in that thread.

Please let me know any followup questions.  Thanks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kirk,
I thought some folks might like to see Ian's Top 25, so here it is:

25. Mike Strantz
24. Herbert Leeds
23. Henry Frownes
22. Max Behr
21. Herbert Strong
20. Hugh Wilson
19. James Braid
18. Walter Travis
17. Old Tom Morris
16. George Crump
15. Herbert Fowler
14. William Langford
13. Tom Simpson
12. Willie Park Jr.
11. Charles Alison
10. William Flynn
9. Perry Maxwell
8. Seth Raynor
7. Stanley Thompson
6. Donald Ross
5. George Thomas
4. Charles Blair MacDonald
3. A. W. Tillinghast
2. H. S. Colt
1. Alister Mackenzie
.......the 'homey' is showing at #7  , and I don't know why he tosssed RTJSr. off this version, his 'final draft', but this is a good list.
 
Ian's blog:
http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/07/final-list.html
 
There is also an explanation of how and why he chose that begins here:  http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/05/top-25-golf-course-architects-25-mike.html   ......and continues on through to #1.

Ian also has top 25 list of who missed, and a 'rating' of living architects.

As to Wilson, I think he 'deserves' his spot if for no other reason than that Merion East is considered the first thoroughly 'American' golf course.

[DMoriarty]

Kirk,

I think that whoever routed and came up with the hole concepts at Merion East was a brilliant golf course designer.  If this was Hugh Wilson, then he was a brilliant golf course architect whether or not he ever routed any other course. 

That being said, I'd suggest that if he was a brilliant architect, then his brilliance ought to show up in courses other than Merion East. 

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Did Fownes' brilliance show up in courses other than Oakmont?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

What other courses did Fownes design ?

As to Ian's list, I don't know that "one hit wonders" should be included with those who have a substantive body of work.

I would therefore question Crump's inclusion.

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick - that's my point.  Fownes did Oakmont and stopped.

[TEPaul]

You would question the brilliance of the so-called "One hit wonders" because they only did one golf course???

That is without question the stupidest statement to ever be seen on GOLFCLUBALTAS.com!!

That completely misses the point of what brillance really is and what it takes in GCA. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of golf course architecture but that does not surprise me at all considering who said it on here.

Fownes with Oakmont, Wilson with Merion East, Crump with Pine Valley!!! I guess they all just got lucky, right guys? Or else you birds think it's worth trying to imply that they couldn't have done what they were given credit for and so somebody must have done it for them who's contribution was minimized for some reason! You guys think it's worth trying to distort and revise GCA history only because you don't understand it a lick.

[TEPaul]

"He was an impressive enough individual that, at the relatively young age of 32, he was made the head of a committee at Merion charged with the creation of the club's new golf course. The product of that committee's work has been hailed as one of the great American golf courses,"


Kirk:

As I said to you in the IM, most of these people on here want details or they can't understand much. Look at that remark of yours above. Read it a couple of times and think about it. Read it again and think about it some more.

Why do you think Hugh Wilson was given that position by those men of Merion who were essentially the Kings of the Universe?

[Kirk Gill]

David, I get your point, but I don't think it's necessarily a compelling one. It's sort of like a first novel, or a first album. You have your whole life to come up with that one, and not nearly so much when you move on to the next few. And as I said, for better or worse, I'm granting Hugh Wilson principal design credit for the original iteration of Merion East, for the purpose of this discussion.  

Patrick, I find your point to be an interesting one - that you can't consider someone a great golf course architect based on one course. This is essentially the opposite of what David is saying. What's interesting about that is with one stroke you're basically casting aside those who were not professional architects and gave the overwhelming majority of their attention to only one course. Arguable. You are saying that neither Pine Valley nor Merion East constitute a "substantive body of work." How many courses does THAT take?

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe Bausch will tell you how badly that the original routing of Merion West sucks.   

Ask him.   

He thinks it might be the best routing he's ever seen.   Had David played Merion West?

Perhaps David also played the original routing of Cobb's Creek sometime before it was drastically changed in 1954 to have such strong comments on the other thread.

For 20 years prior to Bethpage it was considered the best public course in the country and even after revision it was deemed good enough to host the pros in the latter 50s in a PGA tour event.

Despite neglect over the years and the loss of 15% of the original property, some of us even think the course is pretty damn good today, almost 100 years later.   

Perhaps David can describe the original routing for us and insightfully let us know where it was a failure?

Perhaps David can also tell us why Donald Ross never changed one hole of the routing at Seaview despite having access to Clarence Geist's untold millions, or what he might have done differently on dead-flat land, or tell us why it wasn't monumental that Hugh WIlson was likely the first person, pre-Lido, to develop golf land from marsh.   Had David seen or played the original Seaview?

[Patrick_Mucci]

 

Patrick, I find your point to be an interesting one - that you can't consider someone a great golf course architect based on one course. This is essentially the opposite of what David is saying. What's interesting about that is with one stroke you're basically casting aside those who were not professional architects and gave the overwhelming majority of their attention to only one course. Arguable. You are saying that neither Pine Valley nor Merion East constitute a "substantive body of work." How many courses does THAT take?

I don't find that hitting the lottery makes you a financial wizard despite the wealth it may bring.

Likewise, designing ONLY one course shouldn't qualify any individual as being a great GCA.

I believe that you can say that they produced a great work, but, I don't think you can extend their solo effort and annoint and classify them as a great architect.

Their body of work is too small, too narrow.
Was it the architect or the land that produced greatness or failure ?
And, what weight should be attached to each ?

I'd exempt one hit wonders from any list of great architects.

[Carl Nichols]

Pat:
Was F. Scott Fitzgerald a great writer? 

[Mike_Cirba]

You know, this would be almost hysterical if it weren't simply besmirching the great reputation of a dead man everyone acknowledged IN HIS OWN TIME was a great architect.

CB Macdonald must INDEED have been God-like, because in the 2-3 days with Hugh Wilson where he imparted his wonderful, never-previously-seen-or-mentioned routing to Hugh Wilson for him to shovel and rake to Charlie's plan, Wilson somehow magically received enough knowledge to route and build Merion West and open it in 18 months, and route and build Seaview for Clarence Geist and have that open for member play in 1914, and route and build an expanded new course for Franklin Meehan (with Ab Smith) at North Hills and have that open in 1915, and route and build new holes for Elllis Gimbel at Philmont and add all the bunkering there by 1915, and then route and build Cobb's Creek with other experts which opened in 1916...he also made numerous changes and improvements to Merion east for the 1916 US Am.

All of these captains of industry lined up to utilize the services of the man who simply dug dirt at Merion to Macdonald's "18 Stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" plan.

Priceless.

[JESII]

Pat,

The lotery winner is a bad analogy, the guy that starts and builds his own business and retires very wealthy and secure is the better analogy...is he a "financial wizard"? Maybe not. Is he respected for what he accomplished? I hope so.

I would certainly prefer the resume of a "One Hit Wonder" to that of the guy that throws it all against the wall hoping something sticks...

[Ian Andrew]

 

Patrick, I find your point to be an interesting one - that you can't consider someone a great golf course architect based on one course. This is essentially the opposite of what David is saying. What's interesting about that is with one stroke you're basically casting aside those who were not professional architects and gave the overwhelming majority of their attention to only one course. Arguable. You are saying that neither Pine Valley nor Merion East constitute a "substantive body of work." How many courses does THAT take?

I don't find that hitting the lottery makes you a financial wizard despite the wealth it may bring.

Likewise, designing ONLY one course shouldn't qualify any individual as being a great GCA.

I believe that you can say that they produced a great work, but, I don't think you can extend their solo effort and annoint and classify them as a great architect.

Their body of work is too small, too narrow.
Was it the architect or the land that produced greatness or failure ?
And, what weight should be attached to each ?

I'd exempt one hit wonders from any list of great architects.

Where would you put CB MacDonald? There are only a few courses that are fully attributed to him - and many, many more that were attributed to Raynor.

I don't believe you can draw the line on amount of work - quality work is the only thing that matters in any art form. I do agree that a larger body matters and that's why I rated the so-called one hit wonders lower despite their superior work.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  I noticed you edited out the part where you jump down my throat for a harsh criticism you simply imagined.  Thanks.  Still, I am not sure your hysterics add much to this (or any other) thread.    I don't think that Merion West or Cobb's Creek were brilliant.  Based on what I have read, I don't think Seaview was either.  Disagree if you like, but your righteous indignation about such benign statements (on an entirely different thread) is proof that you are well past the point of being able to discuss any of this in an adult manner.

Kirk, sorry this mess followed me to your thread.   I'll leave this thread alone and maybe the mess will follow my lead. 

[Kirk Gill]

David, I knew when I posted this thread that it could become divisive, but it certainly wasn't my intent. And I certainly don't feel like my intent was to have Hugh Wilson "besmirched," and I don't know that he HAS been besmirched on this thread. I'm asking the question (without having an answer myself already picked out) about Hugh Wilson as an architect because I feel like, regardless of the "answer," that it is an interesting question to explore.

If it is true, as Patrick is saying, that Hugh Wilson amounted to a "one hit wonder," it's interesting to explore how that particular lightning got caught in that particular bottle. Tom Paul's comment regarding the fact that the "Kings of the Universe" chose Hugh Wilson cannot be ignored. This wasn't a throwaway project, to be taken lightly. The success of the project and it's place in history can't be ignored either, when assessing Wilson's legacy as an architect. Seems to me that a lot more effort over a lot more time goes into the creation of a great golf course than into purchasing a winning lottery ticket. I could be wrong about that, as I've never won the lottery.

But as Mike Cirba asserts, Wilson DID create other courses that achieved their own sort of acclaim. It is possible that the design intent behind those courses made them something "less" than Merion East? In other words, in the creation of Merion West, say, was the brief from the club the same as when creating the East course? Again, I don't know.....I'm asking !

[Mike_Cirba]

Kirk,

You're precisely correct.

I'm not at my desk right now but the recent Merion West thread clearly states the purpose of that course in the words of Robt. Lesley.

Similarly, earlier threads on Seaview and Cobbs Creek did likewise.  If you need me to list specifics, I'll be happy to do so later today.  Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Kirk,

author=Kirk Gill link=topic=39487.msg828087#msg828087 date=1240337513]
Tom Paul's comment regarding the fact that the "Kings of the Universe" chose Hugh Wilson cannot be ignored. This wasn't a throwaway project, to be taken lightly. The success of the project and it's place in history can't be ignored either, when assessing Wilson's legacy as an architect.

This is getting a bit stretched for me.  You ask us to assume that Wilson designed Merion.  Fine.   Now you are extending this to "the Kings of the Universe" chose him to design Merion so he must be great?   I don't think the "Kings of the Universe" chose him to route Merion or come up with the golf holes, and cannot quite get my mind around simply assuming this, so as I said I will step aside.  

It is possible that the design intent behind those courses made them something "less" than Merion East? In other words, in the creation of Merion West, say, was the brief from the club the same as when creating the East course? Again, I don't know.....I'm asking !

If I told you what I think based on the sources I have read, this would undoubtedly turn into another disaster thread.  I have no interest in another one of those so again I will bow out.  

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Which Hugh Wilson courses have you played?

[mike_malone]

  I don't see how anyone can say the original routing of Cobbs was not brilliant. If you have played it in its current form and imagine the old routing you see that the difference is dramatic. As a public course, I find the original Cobbs routing , in particular ,  to be arguably the best public routing ever seen from the classic era!

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Which Hugh Wilson courses have you played?

Let me try again...

David,

Which Hugh Wilson courses have you played or walked or rode in entirety??

Thanks.

[Sean_A]

 

Patrick, I find your point to be an interesting one - that you can't consider someone a great golf course architect based on one course. This is essentially the opposite of what David is saying. What's interesting about that is with one stroke you're basically casting aside those who were not professional architects and gave the overwhelming majority of their attention to only one course. Arguable. You are saying that neither Pine Valley nor Merion East constitute a "substantive body of work." How many courses does THAT take?

I don't find that hitting the lottery makes you a financial wizard despite the wealth it may bring.

Likewise, designing ONLY one course shouldn't qualify any individual as being a great GCA.

I believe that you can say that they produced a great work, but, I don't think you can extend their solo effort and annoint and classify them as a great architect.

Their body of work is too small, too narrow.
Was it the architect or the land that produced greatness or failure ?
And, what weight should be attached to each ?

I'd exempt one hit wonders from any list of great architects.

Where would you put CB MacDonald? There are only a few courses that are fully attributed to him - and many, many more that were attributed to Raynor.

I don't believe you can draw the line on amount of work - quality work is the only thing that matters in any art form. I do agree that a larger body matters and that's why I rated the so-called one hit wonders lower despite their superior work.

Ian

Using your logic we can conclude that if a chap built one great hole he is a great architect.  I tend to lean with Pat here.  Especially when it comes to Wilson and Crump because we know those two had a lot of help and/or significant changes were performed when the principals were no longer involved.  I do think a certain minimum amount of great work needs to be part of the resume before we lump archies with the real greats of the field such as Colt and Dr Mac.  If we don't, words like great are just cheapened to mean next to nothing. 


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()