[Tom MacWood]

Jim
The statement was evidently also released to the press; it was reported in newspapers and magazines.

Based upon the expert advice they used to persuade the membership, the two premier golf architects in the country, and the fact they hired the premier contractor in the country and used one of the premier grass experts in the world, is it your opinion that Lloyd & Co were well aware of who were the experts in golf architecture and construction at the time?  

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
Would you agree the term expert, when applied to expertise in golf architecture, had a different meaning in 1911, then it did in the 1890s or even the early 1900s?

[JESII]

Tom,

Here's what I think of your insistence on these guys recognizing talent and expertise and utilizing it at Merion...

I think they recognized that you could go really wrong if you used an inferior builder of the course...just like an actual building, if you have the money you're going to find the best in the business to build it for you so you don't have to come back three years later to do it again.

I think a similar sentiment holds with regards to grass selection and cultivation. I am taking your word for this that they chose the best, but the point remains, in a process like this you want the best start possible.

As far as laying out and modifying the course however, CBM had shown a model of patient, diligent hands on work to create his course. I guess Leeds had as well...but more importantly it was becoming very common for these type of men to want to "OWN" the creation of their course and mold it over time into their vision. CBM was likely more than happy to help in any way asked, but the key is that he was not paid and so had no obligation. Barker was a quick turn around router (probably including many features/hazards), if you were Horatio Gates Lloyd, why would you settle for someone coming in for a day-to-three telling you where to put your holes and then leaving town? Why wouldn't you demand a long-term, on-site committment from your most important person to solve the problems that arise all the time in this type of job?

The answer lies in what actually did happen...Hugh Wilson was that guy. He received a tremendous amount of tutoring from CBM, the extent of which we may never exactly know...I think the one thing you and David have inadvertantly done throughout this argument is dismiss the character of Charles Blair Macdonald. For your theory (I am only recognizing the CBM theory because Barker is so far afield) to really hold water we would have to accept that CBM demanded obedience from these men...is that how you think he operated?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jim-Jeff: a couple of good posts there; sensible, and things like that.

Has any one mentioned, by way of analogy, that Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane at 26 years old, and that it was his first ever film? And if so, has anyone also mentioned that the legendary cinematographer Gregg Toland provided invaluable assistance to Welles through his mastery of lighting and techniques such as deep focus? (And how do I know this? Because Welles and others publicly thanked Toland for his assistance at the time; and because Toland's talent and technique were clearly evident in the film.) Some rare people, like Welles, are just remarkably gifted and talented; maybe even geniuses. (Other remarkably talented people come to create their great works through more traditional and understandable means: Frank Capra, for example, had made dozens of short films and two-reelers before his first feature length movie, and then made several award-winning comedies before he got to that magical run that included Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Meet John Doe.) Some people, like Toland, are master craftsmen, even experts in their fields; and I think it is one mark of the truly gifted that they turn to (and know to turn to) other experts for advice and guidance. But it is not myth that Orson Welles made/directed Citizen Kane, or that he later directed The Magnificent Ambersons and A Touch of Evil.



 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I haven't researched the era as extensively as you have.  I do think you are smart to realize how much things did change in those 20 years. In many cases, I think we tend to think of "the old days" as sort of all happening at once, but in reality, there were more changes in gca in those 20 years than there have been circa 1989-2009 because the craft was just developing in the US.  And, that level of understanding might make a difference in our modern interpretations.

I actually haven't got a clue if the meanings were different in 1890 and 1910.  But, I don't think anyone else really does either.  Basically, DM and Mike C have both presented contemporaneous examples of the word being used in the ways they support as its basic meaning.  It appears to me that people used the word in many ways so we can't rule out just what MCC meant.

Nor do I think parsing words like that means much in this context, other than the basic facts are going against you.  Basically, it is the nature of lawsuits and disagreements of any kind.  When there is a disagreement, the argument will eventually go to areas that are the least defined as each side makes their points.  

That is what is happening here.  You and DM want to prove the MCC history is wrong. (yes, I know, you want to find the truth)  The basic timeline according to meeting minutes shows one thing.  So you start picking around the edges, like parsing every frickin word someone used, including blueprint, expert, etc.  You elevate those kinds of incidences - a choice of words - to prime importance in the argument over other documents.

Probably the biggest argument you could use is the old "An expert is a out of towner with a briefcase."  That alone makes Barker a bigger expert than anyone at MCC.  I am surprised you haven't pulled that one out of the hat yet!  Of course, TePaul and Mike C would argue that this saying really impllies that many realize that they know as much as the experts and refuse to pay for expensive advice when they can do it themselves.  And so it goes on.

Jim Sullivan is right - we simply don't know. It is getting a lot less fun to be on golfclubatlas.com because of this endless arguments.  As a friend of mine says, "when its not fun anymore, its just not fun anymore".  Obviously, he is channeling Yogi Berra.  But, he is right.  The biggest question for me right now is not what expert means, its whether this site is even fun anymore and worth the time.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rather than post a bunch of 1913 Philadelphia articles stating that the coming Pine Valley course was going to simply be a course for "experts", starting with Tillinghast's initial announcement, let's try something else instead.

We all generally agree that both AW Tillinghast and Alex Findlay knew the inside scoop and also knew very much the nature of CB Macdonald's involvement at Merion.

Tilinghast went so far as to tell us that he had seen the plans prior to construction, that CBM was advising the committee, and we all know his 1934 article where he tells us in no uncertain terms that Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion, having "planned" the course.

But, rather than have me tell you what they said upon the opening of the course at Merion, let me just post them in their own words.

At this time, both Tillinghast and Findlay were versed in everything and almost everyone in golf.    Also, by virtue of the just opened NGLA, CB Macdonald was the most famous man in golf in America.

Does anyone on the planet really believe that neither of these men would have mentioned CB Macdonald if he had actually designed Merion??   

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Here's what I think of your insistence on these guys recognizing talent and expertise and utilizing it at Merion...

I think they recognized that you could go really wrong if you used an inferior builder of the course...just like an actual building, if you have the money you're going to find the best in the business to build it for you so you don't have to come back three years later to do it again.

I think a similar sentiment holds with regards to grass selection and cultivation. I am taking your word for this that they chose the best, but the point remains, in a process like this you want the best start possible.

They recognized expertise was required in building the course and growing grass, but they concluded no such expertise was needed to design the course? Why do you believe they would engage experts in construction and grass, but then rely an inexperienced novices to design the golf course, arguably the most important task? Their stated goal was to build a golf course that would rival the best in the country. The real estate project was also dependent on the golf course.  

As far as laying out and modifying the course however, CBM had shown a model of patient, diligent hands on work to create his course. I guess Leeds had as well...but more importantly it was becoming very common for these type of men to want to "OWN" the creation of their course and mold it over time into their vision. CBM was likely more than happy to help in any way asked, but the key is that he was not paid and so had no obligation. Barker was a quick turn around router (probably including many features/hazards), if you were Horatio Gates Lloyd, why would you settle for someone coming in for a day-to-three telling you where to put your holes and then leaving town? Why wouldn't you demand a long-term, on-site committment from your most important person to solve the problems that arise all the time in this type of job?

You are projecting future events on our situation. In 1911 CBM had not been tinkering with the NGLA for decades. When did the course open for play? To my knowledge he hadn't even begun tinkering. And Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow engaged CBM to design their golf courses around the same time. Were they concerned with CBM's wanting to own their courses? In 1911 golf courses were laid in a matter of days, in fact in the 1920s golf courses laid out in a matter of days. Again your projecting future developments on our situation. Regarding Barker if his process was good enough for Columbia, Mayfield, CC of Atlantic City, Detroit, Skokie and Rumson, why wouldn't it be good enough for Merion? His results were pretty darn good in no small part due to skilled constructors, who Merion hired. And if Barker was such an undesirable, why would the Club use his expert opinion so prominently?

The answer lies in what actually did happen...Hugh Wilson was that guy. He received a tremendous amount of tutoring from CBM, the extent of which we may never exactly know...I think the one thing you and David have inadvertantly done throughout this argument is dismiss the character of Charles Blair Macdonald. For your theory (I am only recognizing the CBM theory because Barker is so far afield) to really hold water we would have to accept that CBM demanded obedience from these men...is that how you think he operated?

Hugh Wilson was the guy? Hugh Wilson was the chairman of the construction committee, and he described the committee's level of expertise at the time its formation: "...early in 1911 the Club appointed a committee consisting of Messrs. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson to construct a new course on the 125 acres of land which had been purchased. the members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member." Does that sound like the qualifications that Lloyd & Co. typically sought?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I haven't researched the era as extensively as you have.  I do think you are smart to realize how much things did change in those 20 years. In many cases, I think we tend to think of "the old days" as sort of all happening at once, but in reality, there were more changes in gca in those 20 years than there have been circa 1989-2009 because the craft was just developing in the US.  And, that level of understanding might make a difference in our modern interpretations.

I actually haven't got a clue if the meanings were different in 1890 and 1910.  But, I don't think anyone else really does either.  Basically, DM and Mike C have both presented contemporaneous examples of the word being used in the ways they support as its basic meaning.  It appears to me that people used the word in many ways so we can't rule out just what MCC meant.

Nor do I think parsing words like that means much in this context, other than the basic facts are going against you.  Basically, it is the nature of lawsuits and disagreements of any kind.  When there is a disagreement, the argument will eventually go to areas that are the least defined as each side makes their points.  

That is what is happening here.  You and DM want to prove the MCC history is wrong. (yes, I know, you want to find the truth)  The basic timeline according to meeting minutes shows one thing.  So you start picking around the edges, like parsing every frickin word someone used, including blueprint, expert, etc.  You elevate those kinds of incidences - a choice of words - to prime importance in the argument over other documents.

Probably the biggest argument you could use is the old "An expert is a out of towner with a briefcase."  That alone makes Barker a bigger expert than anyone at MCC.  I am surprised you haven't pulled that one out of the hat yet!  Of course, TePaul and Mike C would argue that this saying really impllies that many realize that they know as much as the experts and refuse to pay for expensive advice when they can do it themselves.  And so it goes on.

Jim Sullivan is right - we simply don't know. It is getting a lot less fun to be on golfclubatlas.com because of this endless arguments.  As a friend of mine says, "when its not fun anymore, its just not fun anymore".  Obviously, he is channeling Yogi Berra.  But, he is right.  The biggest question for me right now is not what expert means, its whether this site is even fun anymore and worth the time.

You've never hesitated to share historical knowledge in the past, I'm not sure what to make of your avoidance in answering my question.

[Dan Herrmann]

Peter P - good metaphor with Orson Wells.  I've always though Fownes and Wilson were GCA "brothers" in that they did their best work first.  And they happen to have designed the best two courses in Pennsylvania.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
When did Findlay move to Philadelphia?

Did Tilly follow the progress of Merion very closely? If I'm not mistaken he was involved in the design and construction of Shawnee-on-the-Delaware at the time Merion was being built, which is not exactly in the same neighborhood.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

Not sure how I didn't answer it - I don't know from all the documents presented.  Didn't I say that?

[Mike_Cirba]

CB Mac purchased the land for NGLA in 1906 and took MONTHS to layout the course he wanted before turning a spade of dirt.

Rodman Griscom had experience with one-day wonders Willie Campbell and Willie Dunn as the first head of the Merion Green Committee when they built and opened their very first course back in 1896.

The "sporty" course was a bit of a monstrosity, with 3 of the nine holes slogs between 500 and 600 yards replete with cross bunkers.

Is it any wonder that Griscom is the one who brought in Mac and Whigham after Connell proposed Barker's one-day routing??

THAT is why HH Barker was good enough for Rumson and Mayfield and NOT good enough for Merion.

[TEPaul]

Jim Sullivan Jr said:


"Tom Paul makes an interesting suggestion about correcting what is in the Merion history books...what is in the Merion history books regarding CBM? What if it already acknowledges his role in full? I wouldn't expect it agrees with David's..."CBM was calling all the shots...", but it may well recognize the full scope of what we can agree on."


Sully:

I do indeed make that suggestion, for about the fourth time now, and I'm glad to see you reiterate it. But have you noticed that this suggestion is always ignored by the two on here who have always claimed that Merion somehow minimized CBM's contribution to Merion?

Why do you suppose that is? Perhaps they didn't even know what the Merion history books had to say on that score when they began all this over six years ago. Perhaps they still don't know. If they still don't even know what Merion's history books say about Macdonald's contribution it would be a bit more than a little embarrasing to them at this point, don't you think?

But I have a feeling Tom MacWood may be able to come up with what those Merion history books say about Macdonald's contribution. He may have to go over to Mike Hurzdan's office and copy what it says and then email it to Moriarty though.

Both history books do get it wrong when they say Wilson went to see Macdonald and NGLA in 1910 and then went abroad for seven months in 1910. But we know both when and how and why they got that wrong. But they do get right what he did for them and I believe and I think Merion does too that that part treats Macdonald very appropriately considering what he and Whigam really did do for them n 1910 and 1911.

I doubt those two will even acknowledge this point, but luckily you are. I hope they do but I'm sure not going to hold my breath about it.

It's too bad really because what we are all talking about in the end is Merion's own history and they and their own historians are the ones who report it and will continue to in the future. For this thread to finally get to this very important point, I believe could settle this whole thing once and for all but it just could be that the primary participants on this thread don't really want to settle something that important----ever!

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
It was not a difficult question. Anyone with a basic understanding of golf architecture history knows the answer. They would know the story of Huntercombe, Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Princes, Swinley Forest, Worplesdon, NGLA, Garden City, and Myopia, and would be well aware golf architecture made rapid strides from the 1890s to 1911.  

[Tom MacWood]

CB Mac purchased the land for NGLA in 1906 and took MONTHS to layout the course he wanted before turning a spade of dirt.

Rodman Griscom had experience with one-day wonders 1illie Campbell and Willie Dunn as the first head of the Merion Green Committee when they built and opened their very first course back in 1896.

The "sporty" course was a bit of a monstrosity, with 3 of the nine holes slogs between 500 and 600 yards replete with cross bunkers.

Is it any wonder that Griscom is the one who brought in Mac and Whigham after Connell proposed Barker's one-day routing??

THAT is why HH Barker was good enough for RuMson and Mayfield and NOT good enough for Merion.

Mike
If that was the case why did Merion use Barker's report so prominently when they were trying to persuade the membership (his report appears on two different occasions in the minutes, July & November 1910)? His name was also used prominently (with M&W) in all the articles announcing the project. His quote about Myopia and Garden City appears in quite a few of those articles.

I believe your lack of historical perspective is evident when you compare architects operating in the 1890s with the architects of 1910s - apples and oranges.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Here was your question:

Jeff
Would you agree the term expert, when applied to expertise in golf architecture, had a different meaning in 1911, then it did in the 1890s or even the early 1900s?

Here was my answer:

I actually haven't got a clue if the meanings were different in 1890 and 1910.

You are correct. It wasn't a difficult question.  And my answer was that I didn't know, and then I admitted I hadn't done as much research on that era as you.  I think I was the one who mentioned the succession in gca, not you, although I am aware that you understand it.

In short, I don't understand the purpose of your post above, and I admit that even without DM telling me I don't understand!

Just as I am always wary of DM telling everyone they don't understand, I am wary of you saying "Anyone with a basic understanding of golf architecture history knows the answer."  Perhaps it was defending golf courses against environmentalists whose arguments usually started with "everyone knows......" and then went on to spout off a bunch of stuff they believed to be true, but which wasn't necessarily borne out by fact.  No, the "everyone knows" and its variants is a good arguing technique because it sort of puts many people in the defense mode and sets the bar, but IMHO, it is not good historical research and interpretation.  

If everyone knows, what is the point of interpretation?  (and yes, I understand the irony that this is exactly what you are saying about your role in interpreting MCC history)

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
When it comes to golf architecture history you have never hesitated in giving us your opinions, theories and speculations. Why the hesitation now?

The reason its become an issue is because Mike and others are of the opinion Wilson should be considered an expert in 1911.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "Did Tilly follow the progress of Merion very closely? If I'm not mistaken he was involved in the design and construction of Shawnee-on-the-Delaware at the time Merion was being built, which is not exactly in the same neighborhood..."

Yes he did and we know this for a number of reasons. First he did write about it during that time. Secondly, for several years now Tilly had been writing about the extreme need in the Philadelphia area for a true championship course that would test the players and enable and inspire them to improve and so he had a vested interest in following it. Third, he was close friends with MANY of those invovled in the project and associated with them regularly. Fourth, and a point that is forgotten by most researchers, Tilly's father was also deeply invovled in all things Philadelphia golf and was already supplying his son local stories and information for his writings. he would do so until he died.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I doubt those two, MacWood and Moriarty, are ever going to answer or even acknowledge your question in red in post #2995 which is the same one I've suggested four times now and which has been ignored each time as has yours. I think they do understand it just wouldn't do their increasingly tenuous arguments and agenda any good at all to even touch it. And even if they did acknowledge it they will just talk around it or rationalize it away somehow as they always have with fundamenal questions and points to this subject about Merion.

Just watch and you and the rest of us will see for ourselves. I think it's pretty indicative of what has been going on here for over six and a half years and why.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom M - Was Fownes an expert when he designed Oakmont?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tillinghast not only wrote that he had "seen the plans" for Merion pre-construction, he also wrote that he talked to Macdonald about his role at Merion in depth, so he would have known exactly who did what.

[JESII]

Tom M,

The men making the decision on a designer had multiple reasons for choosing one of their own to take the leading role in designing the golf course. One of them was the allure of doing the job themselves. That Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock chose not to is a different matter and totall unrelated. Another is the fact that the very nature of building a golf course asks for a consistent and steady eye on what is happening so adjustments can be made when required. The strategic and aesthetic theme of the course should be developed by a single source so there are no "assumptions". How much time does Tom Doak spend with an unknown shaping crew before letting them go to work? There is a very real comprimise to the end result when the subcontractor has no connection to the designer. The men that created Merion East knew that...very likely from CBM at NGLA and chose to avoid that circumstance in favor of patiently creating their course over a number of years...

...beginning in the summer of 1910!

I had to get that last part in to maintain my independence as well as to reiterate my belief that it is the most logical process...and to have a little fun.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

You know even though we have seen that article by Tillinghast before it really does underscore just how ridiculous these Merion threads are and for so long about the issue of the original architect of Merion East. Given who Tillie was in this town and given that he wrote about the golf and architecture and architects from here for so long and that he knew the likes of Wilson and Crump so well, under anything remotely close to normal researching that article of his should lock down once and for all Merion East's architect attribution (Hugh Wilson). But apparently not with these two rabid revisionists on a never-ending mission to prove Merion's architectural history wrong somehow.

And to think there are so many other sources who were there at Merion then who said the same thing Tillie did in that article.

That first paragarph is just about as explanatory as an architectural attribution article can get but I do find one thing very interesting that Tillie said in that paragraph about Merion East and Wilson-----eg that apparently at that time (1934) Tillie felt so few actually knew that Wilson was Merion East's architect.

Perhaps that was a reason HWW wrote nationally what he did about Wilson some years later.

[JESII]

Mike, your avoidance of my questions is pathetic, and your arguments on this issue have been foolish, ridiculous and disingenuous.  Remember your ridiculous but repeat claims that before 1910 "hundreds" club members designed their own courses, and that they were considered "experts" and designing courses merely because they were good but not great club golfers?  You have changed your positions on this issue almost as often as TEPaul has changed what he tells us the source material says.  

You are wasting our time so, let's agree to disagree.   You obviously have nothing to add to a real conversation.  
  

That's fine.

I'm sure you don't want to answer questions related to my direct, contemporaneous proof that Hugh Wilson was called a golf expert before you admit he was a golf course architect, both in 1901 and again in spring 1913.  

I understand how you wouldn't have an answer that fits with your theories that you'd want to discuss.

Tom,

It's back a page or two, near a picture of Wilson and Ab Smith with Clarence Geist and Ellis Gimbel and others.   I'm sure you can find it.

Guys, I don't have the patience to read all of this anymore, but if you're arguing that Hugh Wilson was the "golf expert" referenced in that Merion letter to the members about the land being secured and golf experts working on constructing the course, I will only say this:

There is no way in hell that the person or persons referenced in that letter as golf experts were members of the club.  No Fricking Way.

It is riduculous to take a position that assumes that a person would be referrred to with a descriptive phrase without a name like that when his name was known to the membership and many of them were friends of his.  You just don't address your audience that way in formal written English.  You only use a description without a name like that when the actual name of the person means nothing to the reader and the description is the only thing of importance to them.  Guys, this is one of the most obvious pieces of this whole thing that is really not contestible.  

Well then that certainly supports the Barker train stop theory because who would have heard of him?

[Jeff_Brauer]

It occurs to me that the experts referred to could be Oakley and Piper, as well as CBM in an adivsory role, no?  Nothing in that letter says exactly how the experts are working.

I find it odd that press release or letter to members would refer to a course that ranks in length, character and "soils" would be sent out.  With modern agronomy, no gca mentions soils as a selling point.

I think the whole slew of Oakley letters just goes to show that they knew NGLA and most other courses were struggling with turf and how important it was to them.

Tom Mac,

As I have stated before, I don't think any of the word parsing arguments (although I just participated in it!) are worth a hoot, because we are basing conclusions of word selection, which isn't always careful, or understood from 100 years in the future, no matter how hard we try and think we may be right.  Its hard to remember that this thread was a timeline thread by Mike, devoted originally to verifiable (or fairly easy to conclude) points along the way.

Diverging from the actual letter that shows when the work began to interpreting it in many different ways goes way beyond the timeline fascination.

I am glad we are all interested in this stuff. It can be fun to a point.  But, no one should take themselves all that seriously!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()