[Mike_Cirba]

Shivas,

You've been reading Moriarty so long it appears your brain has exploded to come up with that logic! 

Seriously, do you see anything of significance in the fact that 5 of the top 6 golfers at Merion by handicap (out of 300 or so golf members) were assigned to the committee?

Any statisticians want to tell us the random odds of that?

[Tom MacWood]

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.

Phil
How many articles did Tilly write on the progress of Merion project?

[Phil_the_Author]

He mentioned the work a number of times; that is as close as I can say off-hand. I honestly don't have the time to look them up, so accept that answer or not, the point is that he definitely kept up with the project.

Is it your contention that UNLESS he SPECIFICALLY WROTE about it that he DIDN'T talk about it with his friends or visit the site? That would be a ludicrous stance.

[Tom MacWood]

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

No, reflected in the fact Oakmont was not considered a top echelon course until the late teens/early twenties, or almost two decades and several redesigns after it opened.

[Tom MacWood]

He mentioned the work a number of times; that is as close as I can say off-hand. I honestly don't have the time to look them up, so accept that answer or not, the point is that he definitely kept up with the project.

Is it your contention that UNLESS he SPECIFICALLY WROTE about it that he DIDN'T talk about it with his friends or visit the site? That would be a ludicrous stance.

Phil
I could be mistaken, but I do not believe he followed the progress at Merion closely. I have all the articles he wrote on the subject in American Golfer and there aren't many. He devoted very little coverage Merion, especially in comparison to his coverage of PV.

[JESII]

Tom,

Is the point of this line of questioning about Tillinghast that you believe he should not be held as a credible source on the events at Merion?

[Phil_the_Author]

"Phil, I could be mistaken, but I do not believe he followed the progress at Merion closely. I have all the articles he wrote on the subject in American Golfer and there aren't many. He devoted very little coverage Merion, especially in comparison to his coverage of PV."

Tom, you are. He wrote more about Pine Valley for a variety of reasons, the main one being his OWN INVOLVEMENT in the design of several holes. Remember, he wasjust establishing his own credentials as an architect from 1910-1913 and so made MANY mentions of projects that he was working on or had hopes of becoming invovled with.

Again, he followed Merion very closely for ALL of the reasons that i mentioned earlier, including the times that he did write about it.

[Tom MacWood]

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.

Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

There are others in the Philly Press including wher he writes in spring 1911 that he has "seen the plans" of the new Merion course and another where he discusses his conversation with Macdonald saying he was working closely with the committee.

If Joe is lurking and has them handy perhaps he can post them or I'll do it later.

[Tom MacWood]

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!

I agree completely, it is ridiculous. When you starting posting articles written in 1896 that describe 'experts' you know you don't have a very good case. I can't believe anyone is actually arguing the point.

[JESII]

Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?

I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).

[henrye]

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 was thinking along the same lines.  Experts could have also included the engineers or surveyors working on the contour maps of the property.[/size]

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?

I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).

Jim
To believe that you must believe Lloyd & Co suspended their well documented standards, in other words you believe they were dumb asses. .

[TEPaul]

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


Sully:

You're joking right? Who would have heard of HH Barker in 1910 and 1911?? Well, only all of American golf, that's who! Did you not know that at that time HH Barker was considered to be the second greatest golf architect in America right behind C.B. Macdonald? And that fact is incontestable too because we all learned that last year from America's greatest present day golf architecture expert researcher/writer/historian, Tom MacWood!

Sully, was it you Rich Goodale called an ignorant slut on here the other day? I thought it was Cirba but it should've been you for not knowning this.

And I'm so glad we have a world class gammarian who doesn't even read this thread but can tell us it is incontestable grammatically that if MCC did not actually name Wilson when they mentioned "experts at work planning the course" that it could not have meant him.

What a relief it is to finally know that once and for all.

By the way, the essay author is on me again on every post for altering or doctoring or recanting or whatever documents, including  the "we" and "they" in the so-called Wilson report. I just don't know what to say about that but I counted them up and in that report I find "we" used at least twice, "our" used at least twice and "they" used 4-5 times. I can tell that with one "they" the report was referring to Johnson & Co contractors. Who the twice used "we" refers to I am not completely clear nor with the two uses of "our" and at least three remaining uses of "they".

But since it seems to have been Lesley doing the speaking----eg he was apparently verbally reading the Wilson Committee report to the board, and since I think it is fairly incontestable that Lesley was a know letch that with one of the uses of "they" he was referring to the two incredibly fondleable jugs on that really hot waitress with the gorgeous chassis from Tallahassee who just left the boardroom after serving them all their tenth glass of champagne of the evening.

Hope that helps,
 
 
 

[JESII]

I am sure you have some document of what Lloyd & Co said immediately after the fact...what did they say about the creation of the course? Did they say Wilson was, in the main, responsible for it? If so then you must believe they were liars. Do you believe they were liars?

[TEPaul]

"Jim
To believe that you must believe Lloyd & Co suspended their well documented standards, in other words you believe they were dumb asses."


To think that someone on here might be actually saying that seriously or might be expecting this website and all those who view it to take him seriously basically has me rolling on the floor with laughter.

If the person who wrote that remark really is serious about it----Oh My God---talk about dumb!

Mr Jeffrey Brauer Sir, I didn't answer you the other day when the question was asked "Do you think he is dumb as a stump?" came up. I do think he must be dumb as a stump after that remark. But I think we should start a thread about how dumb a stump really is and which is dumber, a Texas, Pennsylvania or Ohio stump.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Can you provide us with a list of Barker courses that were open for play in June 1910?

[Tom MacWood]

I think, if it were ever possible for all the facts to come out...we would all recognize that CBM was more influential than WE thought...but that is not to say he was more influential than MERION thought. 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.

TEP
Is this question you wanted answered?

The 1976 history written by Richard Heilman starts by quoting HW Wind comparing Wilson to CBM. Wind says it is debatable whether CBM understood some of the fundamental principles of modern architecture as well as Wilson. After the Wind quote, the history continues:

"Actually Macdonald & HJ Whigham of NY gave advice and assistance so Merion had the benefit of their experience was well as the skill of their own committee. Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems laying out a golf course and stressed the advice received from Macdonald & Whigham"

There is no mention of the existence of CBM's pet features or holes in the original course.

The more recent history written by Desmond Tolhurst has a slightly different take:

"In 1910, the Committee decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course. Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA, America's first modern golf course, then under construction in Southampton, NY. While there he discussed an itinerary with CBM, the designer of the National and winner of the first US Amateur in 1895. Macdonald made a similar journey for the same purpose some eight years earlier. Wilson spent seven months abroad...When Wilson returned from England, both Macdonald and his son-in-law HJ Whigham freely gave him their advice. So the Club has the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the committee"

Tolhurst's history acknowledges the existence of the Redan and Valley of Sin, but goes on to say, "It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design and conveyed them in his work better than Charles Blair Macdonald did. However, to compare Merion to the NGLA is somewhat of an 'apples and oranges' proposition. CBM set out to 'model each of the 18 holes (at the National) after the most famous holes abroad,' that is, to duplicate those holes. Wilson never intended to design Merion under such constraints. His objective was to build a course that would rival the finest British parkland course in beauty and shot values."

[JESII]

Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?

I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).

I am sure you have some document of what Lloyd & Co said immediately after the fact...what did they say about the creation of the course? Did they say Wilson was, in the main, responsible for it? If so then you must believe they were liars. Do you believe they were liars?

Jim
To believe that you must believe Lloyd & Co suspended their well documented standards, in other words you believe they were dumb asses. .

Tom M,

I would like you to address this please.

[JESII]

Shivas,

Don't you think the membership would know CBM as well?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Can you provide us with a list of Barker courses that were open for play in June 1910?

These are the courses Barker had designed or redesigned prior to Nov. 24, 1910 when it was announced Merion had hired him: Garden City, Waverly, Spokane, Newport, CC of Virginia, Rumson, Arcola, Columbia, Mayfield, Youngstown, Williamsport, Springhaven, CC of Atlantic City, Skokie, and Detroit. I'm still trying to confirm Whitemarsh Valley and Victoria (BC). That is seventeen courses if you count the last two; in his letter Barker stated he had upwards of twenty courses on his resume.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
I'm still unclear on how you read the Club's statement that said experts were at work planning the golf course. Are you saying that Wilson and his committee were considered experts or are you saying the Club just BS-ing the membership and golfing public?

I am saying the club viewed the committee as THEIR EXPERTS...and that they would, and continue to, fully acknowledge the advice and guidance of CBM (a proven expert).

I am sure you have some document of what Lloyd & Co said immediately after the fact...what did they say about the creation of the course? Did they say Wilson was, in the main, responsible for it? If so then you must believe they were liars. Do you believe they were liars?

Jim
To believe that you must believe Lloyd & Co suspended their well documented standards, in other words you believe they were dumb asses. .

Tom M,

I would like you to address this please.

I don't believe Lloyd, or anyone else in the club hierarchy, stated Wilson was responsible in the main for the original design of the East course.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Is this question you wanted answered?"


Tom:

Yes it is; thank you very much. I'd say that perhaps the next time the club does a history book they may want to include the fact that Macdonald/Whigam were asked by Griscom to come down and they came down for a day in June 1910 and submitted to Lloyd a letter of their impressions of the land MCC was considering buying and that Wilson and Committee went to NGLA in the second week of March 1911 and Macdonald/Whigam returned to Ardmore on April 6, 1911 went over the ground again and helped them select one of five plans to be submitted to the board two weeks hence that was approved for contruction.

Unfortunately most of that material was apparently unknown to Tolhurst or Heilman as it had been in the attic of MCC unseen and unconsidered for about a century until Merion GC's historians found it about a year ago.

But both Tolhurt books do include the fact that Wilson went to NGLA to see Macdonald and that Macdonald and Whigam freely gave their advice and help so I would have to say that the two recent Merion history books did not minimize Macdonald/Whigam's contribution to Merion East in 1910 and 1911 as you have apparently been implying for over six and a half years now.

On the other hand I was shocked by a particular part of the most recent Merion Tolhurst history book (2005) because it actually quotes ME!! That makes it no doubt a complete sack of suds and because of that I think the world of golf should push that another one be done immediately!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
What is the source for the January 11, 1911 date for the formation of the Wilson committee. In the past you've maintained the minutes don't mention when the committee was formed.

[Tom MacWood]

"Phil, I could be mistaken, but I do not believe he followed the progress at Merion closely. I have all the articles he wrote on the subject in American Golfer and there aren't many. He devoted very little coverage Merion, especially in comparison to his coverage of PV."

Tom, you are. He wrote more about Pine Valley for a variety of reasons, the main one being his OWN INVOLVEMENT in the design of several holes. Remember, he wasjust establishing his own credentials as an architect from 1910-1913 and so made MANY mentions of projects that he was working on or had hopes of becoming invovled with.

Again, he followed Merion very closely for ALL of the reasons that i mentioned earlier, including the times that he did write about it.

Phil
I count two articles in American Golfer between 1910 and 1912. The first is December 1910 when he announces the project, and says M&W had recently visited the site (June is recent?). The second and last article was May 1911 when he said the planning stage was nearing completion, and noted M&W had visited and were assisting the committee. The course opened September 1912. That is not a lot of coverage and tells me he was not observing the progress closely.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()