John Stiles,
I think I have covered most of your questions in a few recent posts in other threads, but let me try to pull it together here.
So, in all of the early articles from different sources, why were CBM and Whigham not given more credit than being advisors ?
This was a transitional/revolutionary time for golf course design in america, and the concepts of golf course designer and golf course architect were just developing. Consequently they were all struggling to find the terms to describe what was going on. As far as I can tell, the title "golf course architect" was scarcely used back then. There are a few mentions here and there, but for the most part the concept was a not really yet defined. So I don't think we can draw any conclusions for their failure to use modern descriptions of what was going on.
Plus, at the time, those who actually arranged the course on the ground and built it were the ones most credited (especially if they were a club member.) I have no evidence that M&W were directly involved in the construction or additions that took place after the course was initially built, so it was pretty easy for the rest of the world to think of it as a Merion creation.
While they were called advisors, sources with first hand knowledge, Hugh Wilson, Lesley, and Whigham, noted that CBM was involved in planning the layout. Other second hand sources like Tillinghast and Alan Wilson did too.
So it is a mistake to assume from the word "advisors" that they did not play a crucial role, or that Merion did not recognize this in the beginning. When he announced the courses to the world, Lesley acknowledged M&W right along with the Committee. He called the members part of a "Committee" and M&W "advisors," and later generations have used this to diminish M&W's contribution, but what was he supposed to call them? They weren't members and couldn't have been part of the committee. They didn't build the course. They weren't on site. I don't think there was the phrase "consulting architect" had been invented, nor was there much use of the phrase "golf course architect" at this time. "Advisors" was not a necessarily a diminutive term, and wasn't meant as such, and we shouldn't treat it as such.
Think of all the contributions of those who undoubtedly offered advice in the way we seem to think of the term offering advice. Piper, Oakley, Beale, Pickering, Findlay and others.
Yet Lesley only listed the Committee and M&W as responsible for the course. If Lesley saw fit to include M&W in 1914, we ought to respect that and consider it carefully.
my gut feeling is that CBM/HJW advice would have been mostly about turf, construction, etc. given CBM's difficulties and learning during the actual construction and grassing of NGLA.
There is ample evidence that M&W were involved in planning the course:
1. At end of 1910 or the beginning of 1911, Merion's Board announced to the members that experts were at work preparing plans for the course.
- It is not clear that Wilson had even been appointed yet, and he was by his own admission a complete novice in this sort of thing.
- The only three experts involved up until this point were Barker, CBM, and HJW.
- While the record is somewhat ambiguous regarding Barker's potential continued involvement, the only two experts that were definitely still involved in this project at this point were M&W.
- At this point M&W had already inspected the property, noted that the Quarry and creeks had great potential for first class golf holes, provided approximate hole distances, and recommended the addition of the area behind the clubhouse. But they could not tell Merion if the course they had envisioned would fit on the land without a contour map.
- Merion got a contour map, and sometime before February 1, 1911 the there was a blueprint of the course, presumably created or recommened by the "experts" who were planning the course.
2. The timing and events surrounding the NGLA trip indicates that Merion's specific lay out and construction primary topic.
- The meeting occurred shortly before Merion was to begin building the course.
- The committee had been trying unsuccessfully to come up with precise course when they went to NGLA to meet with M&W.
- Whatever happened at NGLA allowed them to come up with five variations to show M&W a at their visit a few weeks later.
- M&W were brought back to Merion to determine the final routing.
- Hugh Wilson's 1916 essay M&W taught the committee how to apply the classic principles onto the land at Merion.
4. The RR land behind the clubhouse was used in the routing at M&W's specific suggestion (both in June and again in March) even though the land was not even part of the land first considered for a golf course.
5. The Ag letters indicate that Wilson and Macdonald were corresponding from the time Wilson became involved through the planning process.
- Given Wilson's insistence on getting the best advice possible, it is impossible to believe he did not consult with CBM (who had seen the course) about hole locations.
- Given Wilson's lack of experience and M&W's expertise, it is highly unlikely that Merion wouldn't have insisted that CBM be as involved in the planning as possible.
- The explicit mention in the Minutes that M&W were brought in to approve of the plans indicates that it was important to Merion that M&W were involved in the design.
Quote
I'm struggling to see how this could be the case given the ongoing activity of Wilson and his colleagues and the listing of M&W as giving advice rather than giving them billing as course architects/designers.
1. This was a transitional/revolutionary time for golf course design in america, and the concepts of golf course designer and golf course architect were just developing. Consequently they were all struggling to find the terms to describe what was going on. As far as I can tell, the title "golf course architect" was scarcely used back then. There are a few mentions here and there, but for the most part the concept was a not really yet defined. So I don't think we can draw any conclusions for their failure to use modern descriptions of what was going on.
2. Sources with first hand knowledge, Hugh Wilson, Lesley, and Whigham, noted that CBM was involved in planning the layout. Other second hand sources like Tillinghast and Alan Wilson did too.
3. At the time, those who actually arranged the course on the ground and built it were the ones most credited (especially if they were a club member.) I have no evidence that M&W were directly involved in the construction or additions that took place after the course was initially built, so it was pretty easy for the rest of the world to think of it as a Merion creation.
This is just a brief oultine of the answers to your questions. There is more, and much more detail.