[TEPaul]

“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.”


Kirk:

First of all, have no compunction whatsoever about stating and asserting that Hugh Wilson, in the main, was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses of Merion. They have always been attributed in the main to him, particularly in the beginning and nothing has ever come up legitimately to question that. The only thing that was not well enough known about Merion East and West is the extent of the architectural contribution to those courses somewhat later by William Flynn. But extremely convincing drawing material has now been provided to the club in the last few years and Merion seemingly now attributes the design as Wilson/Flynn and will continue to in the future. As for anyone EVER questioning the extent of Hugh Wilson’s roll or as for anyone EVER trying to promote a more significant roll for Macdonald such as the fact that he routed and designed the original Merion East course, believe me, that notion was contributed by just two people on this website in the last few years, one of which has never even been to Merion and who admitted he knew little of the details of its architectural history and the other one perhaps once. The likelihood of Merion taking what their illogical assumptions indicate as anything even remotely worth considering as greater architectural attribution for Macdonald is about a gnat’s whisker larger than zero.



“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 !”



Definitely it was. I don’t know that I would say “less” exactly, just very different, and the words or Hugh’s brother Alan on that score are as accurate as you will find anywhere. Alan was intimately connected to everything going on around Merion from the beginning at Ardmore and before (after-all he was one of the founders of what was know as the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association (1909)) and Alan described the East course as intended by the club and Wilson to be a championship golf course design (despite the advice from Macdonald to the contrary) and the West course was intended to be designed for what Alan Wilson appropriately described as “The Nine and Ninety.”

It was a good question of yours, and it shows Hugh Wilson’s design talent flexibility.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kirk,

Hope this is helpful;




THE NEW OR WEST COURSE
This course, as has already been said, presents many features that differ from the old or east course. Where in the former the greens are large and slightly rolling, in the new the greens are much smaller and very markedly rolling, with hillocks, and in some cases deep hollows in them. They are in wonderful condition, though, as already stated, not as large as those found at the east course. This was done for the purpose of making a   variation in the two courses and for the further purpose of assuring accurate iron shots and a greater variety of playing to those using both courses.

The beauties of the new course have to be seen to be appreciated, for even the best of photographs cannot do justice to some of the wonderful views that stretch themselves before the golfer on hole after hole. - Robert Lesley 1914

………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.” - Alan Wilson 1926

As far as Cobb's Creek, I'd have to go through about 200 articles to find proper verbiage, but it was built for two reasons;

1) To provide a difficult challenge to good players, so that they could improve their games, making Philly a more competitive city in golfing competitions (similar to Pine Valley in that regard)

2) To provide a test that even beginners could get around.

In case anyone is doubtful that if it met those twin goals, I'd point you to about another 100 articles that clearly prove that it did in spades.

[TEPaul]

From another thread but on Hugh Wilson nonetheless:




"As to your other statement, It's a shame that Wilson did not put more of his thoughts on the subject in writing. It's funny how his nonchalance about recording his own design ideas is inversely proportional to the desire of contemporary design aficionados to read them."


CharlieG:


I most certainly don't want to just assume Hugh Wilson did not put many of his thoughts on golf architecture in writing. It could be that we've just never found it. He did say a few times that he didn't really want to write articles and books on any subject because he felt he was a pretty bad writer (which I took to be more self-deprecating than anything else). It has always been totally amazing to Wayne Morrison and me that a man like that could write so many letters on the subject of golf course agronomy (we have hundreds and hundreds if not a thousand of them) for close to fifteen years and nothing commensurate on golf course architecture which he was also so involved in while also balancing a full time business as the president of his and his brother's insurance business.

It's funny how when you read so many letters from someone you feel you really know them and what they're like. It's that way with us with Wilson through those numerous letters we call the "agronomy letters."

To me Wilson was an immensely curious man about a whole lot of diverse things and he seemed to me to be a man who sort of wanted to get what he was doing done yesterday. From the extent of his agronomy letters it would not surprise me if he wrote 10-20 letters a day on all the things he was involved in and with the people he was involved with in his short life (he died at 45).

But I have the distinct sense that because he was the way he appears to us to have been he probably compartmentalized his life and the various things he was doing at any time pretty well and that would probably explain why he just crossed out that interesting paragraph on his thoughts on how to get the inspiration to make what he considered to be natural looking bunkers.

So maybe he did write as much about architecture in the form of letters and such as he did about agronomy and it's just lost now or we've just not found it yet. It is also not true to say that he never mentioned golf architecture in those numerous agronomy letters because he did but not in any philosophical way, pretty much only as it related to cost efficiency of architecture and how to make it less expensive over-all, and I definitely do mean over-all, as in nationally.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Building a business is an ongoing effort, one that usually takes a lifetime.

I like my lottery winner analogy, so, I'm going to stick with it.

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...

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether or not the one hit wonder is a great architect, or, if he just produced one great golf course.

Absent a body of work that extends beyond one production you can't expand his solo effort to a universal categorization and declare him a great architect.

Fownes, Crump and others produced a great golf course.
While they had assistance, you can't decree that they themselves were great architects.  Hence, I think they have to be removed from the list and put into a seperate category, like Christopher Cross.

[Mike_Cirba]

[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.
Ciao

Sean,

Wayne and I have a bit of a friendly, good-natured disagreement of sorts here in terms of where responsibility lies overall, although it's impossible to know exactly because William Flynn was at Merion with Wilson very early on.

From all indications, the two of them seemed to work like hand in glove, and various articles from that time describing the two major period changes, in 1916, and again in 1924, had both men clearly involved in the design changes and other improvements with Wilson being in the main responsible by virtue of his position.

If time permits, I'll post a few related articles tomorrow.

After Wilson's death in 1925, the only "significant changes" I'm aware of are the changing of the 1st hole from what seemed to be a friendly handshake to a demanding, character-filled, precise opener, as well as some bunkering changes, changes to the 14th green, and a possible move of the 2nd green if memory serves for the 1934 US Open.

I'm sure Wayne will let me know privately if I've forgotten anything critical.

In any case, I think it's inaccurate to say that "significant" changes occurred to Merion after Wilson's death, no matter how granularly you use the term.

I think you'll get a good sense for that after I post a few related articles, hopefully tomorrow.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where would you put CB MacDonald?

Certainly in the top 10, probably top 5 or higher due to him being the fulcrum for GCA in America

There are only a few courses that are fully attributed to him - and many, many more that were attributed to Raynor.

But, he has a body of work and those course attributed to him are worthy of merit.
In addition, you can't ignore that he was Raynor's mentor.
He took someone totally unfamiliar with GCA and made him a star.
That didn't happen by accident, it happened because Raynor merely extended CBM's design principles.   And, if we extend his influence further we have to include Banks.

So, I believe CBM rightfully belongs in the top grouping.

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 disagree.
You can't decree that an architect with 100 mediocre courses and 2 great courses is a great architect.  There has to be a relationship between the overall volume of his work and the percentage of his work that's outstanding.   It's a quantatative and qualitative analysis.

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.

As I've said before, I consider Pine Valley and Oakmont to be superb golf courses, however, you can't ignore the fact that the design imput wasn't solely from the declared architect.  You have to acknowledge and weight the collaborative effort responsible for the finished product.

While Crump and Fownes may have done the heavy lifting or lion's share of the work, the contributions from others appear to have been considerable.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

So because William Flynn became a star, we should also give Hugh Wilson bonus points?

Guess you have to make room for Hugh Wilson...in your words, "You can't ignore that he was Flynn's mentor". 
 

Who at Oakmont besides Fownes deserves design credit?

Did someone start a thread stating that long-forgotten Scottish pro Angus McDingleberry laid out a three-hole routing on the site for private financier Loomis Steelhead in 1894 that formed the backbone of the Oakmont we know today and I missed it?   

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick just wrote:

"The issue is whether or not the one hit wonder is a great architect, or, if he just produced one great golf course. Absent a body of work that extends beyond one production you can't expand his solo effort to a universal categorization and declare him a great architect."

I find that paragraph fascinating. It's as clear a vote for valuing the artist over the art as I've ever read around here. It says that which is rarely said out loud, but that nonetheless serves as the backdrop for/underlying assumption of so much of what we discuss.

I don't know if I agree or not…but it's one of the BIG questions, that’s for sure

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

So because William Flynn became a star, we should also give Hugh Wilson bonus points?

Guess you have to make room for Hugh Wilson...in your words, "You can't ignore that he was Flynn's mentor". 
 

Mike,

I feel your pain  , but, I don't think you can make the same analogy.

The CBM - SR - CB pedigree is well established, in the number of great courses CBM produced, his active role as mentor and at a critical time in American GCA.

Who at Oakmont besides Fownes deserves design credit ?

Those who Fownes consulted with in order to bring his product to fruition.

Did someone start a thread stating that long-forgotten Scottish pro Angus McDingleberry laid out a three-hole routing on the site for private financier Loomis Steelhead in 1894 that formed the backbone of the Oakmont we know today and I missed it?   

Louis B. Alquippa, who lived not far from the property.
His work was rewarded when they named the farmland he lived on, as a town bearing his name.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I think you mentioned the idea of a collaborative effort with Oakmont. What collaborative effort was that? Do you mean both H.C. and W.C Fownes? Other than them I've never really heard anyone claim there was any real collaboration with others on that course, although I think it's pretty well known that throughout the first half of the 20th century the club did have some pretty talented greenskeepers, some of which such as the well known Emil Loeffler got into architecture on other projects around there from time to time.

Other than that I don't think the Fownes', father and son, collaborated with other architects, they pretty much did it all on their own spanning just about fifty years.

W.C. had some very strong opinions about architecture and you can see that again in some of his opinions on what to do with a few holes at Pine Valley when he served on that so-called "1921 Advisory Committee."

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Are you saying that Hugh Wilson did not mentor William Flynn, who among designing many other great courses, thankfully took the wreck of a course that CB Macdonald and Seth Raynor built at Shinnecock and turned it into something special and everlasting for the ages?  

Pretty special routing using all of the natural features there at Shinnecock that M&W did, wasn't it?   Or was that simply an exercise to see how many parallel holes they could design along a railroad track? 

Also, could you name for me at least one or two of the people who you imply routed or otherwise contributed greatly to the design of Oakmont and taught Fownes?  

[Peter Pallotta]

Off my last post, and surprised at myself for saying this, but: "A golf course, even a single one,  is the Real; talent, in and of itself, is an Abstraction".  Valuing the latter unduly is why, in my necessarily humble opinion, we rate architects like Donald Ross and Stanley Thompson too high, and architects like Herbert Fowler and Herbert Strong too low. (Or maybe it's just because Herbert is kind of a funny name)

Peter 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Are you saying that Hugh Wilson did not mentor William Flynn, who among designing many other great courses, thankfully took the wreck of a course that CB Macdonald and Seth Raynor built at Shinnecock and turned it into something special and everlasting for the ages?  

In the words of John McEnroe, "you can't be serious"

As to SHGC, different property was used and I believe some of CBM's work remains intact.

Pretty special routing using all of the natural features there at Shinnecock that M&W did, wasn't it?   

Flynn must have liked some of CBM's work since he left it there.

Didn't Dick Wilson claim that it was his work at SHGC that made the course what it is today ?

Or was that simply an exercise to see how many parallel holes they could design along a railroad track? 

Also, could you name for me at least one or two of the people who you imply routed or otherwise contributed greatly to the design of Oakmont and taught Fownes?  

First, I never implied that anyone other than Fownes routed Oakmont, that's an inferance on your part.

Second, you've now used the plural "Fownes", whereas I had used the singular in previous posts.  Certainly, you now acknowledge that a joint effort took place.  That's a collaboration.

As to others who influenced the Fownes', It's hard to imagine that they operated in a vacuum for 50 years.  I'd have to look to Oakmont's history to see who may have provided advice and/or assistance.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()