News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #50 on: May 28, 2009, 04:45:21 PM »
David,

I agree that  discussion between us is pointless but that's the way it is with anyone and everyone who has disagreed with your theory for years now.

I'll look forward to seeing if the measurements shed any light.

Disagree with my theory?   You aren't disagreeing with any theory of mine.   You are disagreeing with a well established factual record, and rehashing old arguments that have discussed for years.  The 10th at Merion was intended to be an Alps hole, and that big CBM-style mound was part of that.   If you cannot even understand this then we truly do have nothing to discuss.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #51 on: May 28, 2009, 05:09:04 PM »
David,

According to Far & Sure, CBM's role in Merion was of an advisory nature. I have a hard time interpreting from this that CBM came up with the hole concepts and their placements.

Far & Sure was also critical of the template holes. So if CBM actually did have his fingerprints on those holes, they were not among the better holes of Merion at this time. The holes that stood out where the ones that were not based on templates.

May I say that I think there is also a difference between building template holes, and building holes on principles that had their origin abroad.

I also think that there was a better awareness of those principles than you might think, and that what we understood here about those principles was sufficient, from journals, conversations, books, diagrams, and attempts at replicating those principles here at exisiting clubs, discussions with visiting players from abroad, agronomic advice from men like Beale etc.,so that one could confidently build great holes on those principles without actually seeing them. But you seem to think that one could not do that without first seeing them?

My thinking is that one could set out with the intention of seeing them, preferably before his project begins, but if circumstances change and you are not able to see them until the project is already underway, you could still say that you incorporated those principles successfully, even if your examination of those holes came later in the process than you originally intended. And you could say that with as much integrity as the one who examined those holes in person before beginning such a project.





Rich Goodale

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #52 on: May 28, 2009, 06:11:26 PM »
Dave

I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion.  Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.

And, again, I agree with Bradley above.

Vis a vis Raynor, my question was to Pat who questioned whether or not it was possible to understand the Redan concept without visiting North Berwick.  You seeem to agree with me that it was possible.  Thanks.

Rich

Mike_Cirba

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #53 on: May 28, 2009, 06:13:26 PM »
David,

My issue is you just constantly throw out conjecture and opinion as if it's established fact and then fault others for the same.

For instance, what exactly is a CBM-style mound??

Better yet, please provide an example of any 15 foot high mound Macdonald ever built behind any green, anywhere!

How do we know Findlay didn't give Wilson the idea??

You fault others for not sticking to the facts yet let flow with torrents of conjecture and obvious presupposition.

I wish it were easier to engage in productive dialogue with you because we are both obviously interested in the topic.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 11:47:42 PM by MCirba »

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #54 on: May 28, 2009, 06:57:42 PM »
David

You said: "I think the facts point to M&W as the creative forces most responsible for this, (the hole concepts and their placements) one way or another. Either they did it themselves in rough form and helped the committee work out the details, or they instructed and guided Wilson and his committee throughout the entire process, or somewhere in between. But this is a distinction without much of a difference, don't you think?"

David, I just don't see how all of this could have escaped the general knowledge of so many people? That is the question that I am most interested in. If that is what happened, then why wasn't it reported that way? And what motive would Wilson and Committee have in hiding this or in taking credit for someone else's work?

David, for me it all comes down to this: historical narrative, when told by more than one party, is always inconsistent with the facts. But that doesn't mean that the story is wrong. You can drive yourself mad trying to construct a theory based on how the various accounts don't match up with perfect consistency. So you just have to trust what the people who were closest to the events believed about what really happened.

David I admire the work and passion you have put into this. And I do hope that you make good discoveries. So good luck with it.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #55 on: May 28, 2009, 08:29:47 PM »
Bradley.

out much of a difference, don't you think?"
David, I just don't see how all of this could have escaped the general knowledge of so many people? That is the question that I am most interested in. If that is what happened, then why wasn't it reported that way? And what motive would Wilson and Committee have in hiding this or in taking credit for someone else's work?

First and most importantly,  so far as I know Wilson never took credit for planning the routing or for coming up with the hole concepts, and I don't think he ever claimed to have designed the original version of Merion East.

Second, I don't think that this escaped the general knowledge of anyone in a position to know. 

H.J. Whigham was there, and he credited CBM with designing the course.

Hugh Wilson himself said that M&W taught them how to apply the underlying principles of the great golf holes to Merion's natural conditions.

Robert Lesley was on Merion Board and head of their site committee, here is what he said:

The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.

The ground was found adapted for golf?  Who adapted it for golf?    (Notice, Rich, how he used the phrase "laid out.")   The committee was made up of members of Merion, the advisors were not, but given who these men were and the extent of their involvement, I don't think we can diminish their role simply because they were called advisors. 

Here is what Tillinghast had to say  on May 14, 1911 in the Public Ledger (posted by Joe Bausch)



He "was very active in working with the committee," so much so that Tillinghast thinks his level of involvement would make it "only natural" to brag about the course.   Keep in mind this was CBM we are talking about; wasn't the theory supposed to be that if he designed Merion he would have been bragging about it?  Well, he was bragging about it.   Also note that this is less than a month after the course was approved, but Macdonald is familiar enough with the holes that he can describe them to Tillinghast. 

Third, at the time golf course architecture was still in its infancy in America, and those in charge of laying the course out upon the ground were the ones who often received the majority of the credit for creating the course, especially if those individuals were club members, and the initial planners were not. 

Quote
David, for me it all comes down to this: historical narrative, when told by more than one party, is always inconsistent with the facts. But that doesn't mean that the story is wrong. You can drive yourself mad trying to construct a theory based on how the various accounts don't match up with perfect consistency. So you just have to trust what the people who were closest to the events believed about what really happened.

Bradley, I think Merion's historical narrative is largely a modern creation.  In another thread there was a link to Merion's website and their abbreviated history, and I was amazed at how different the story was than what actually happened, and that is not even considering what it still reasonably in dispute (like the degree to which M&W were involved in coming up with the holes.)   I've focused almost totally on what was written at the time, and can sort of see how the Merion legend grew and where the misunderstandings occurred, but the story they were telling then is different than now.

Plus, Bradley, how can you or anyone else just throw out the words of someone like H.J. Whigham, who was there and who told us that Merion East was a CBM course? 

________________________________

Dave

I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion.  Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.

Absence of evidence?   Hmmm.   Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the evidence.   

If not M&W, then who?  I've seen no verifiable evidence that Wilson had a thing to do with the original routing or even that he was involved in the project at the time the original routing was most likely considered.  And once he did become involved I am not so sure that the did much of anything until he consulted with an expert or three.  It wasn't his nature to have resource like CBM and not use it.    CBM chose the final routing.  That's evidence of something, isn't it?

Are there some facts that I don't know about?   Or are you just sticking with the old legend even though substantial portions of it have been disproven?

________________________________

Mike,

The facts to which I refer are the facts indicating that 1) Wilson built the hole to be an Alps hole, and 2) that mound behind the hole was part of the Alps hole that Wilson built. 

As for the mound, see M&W's 1914 article on Alps holes and you will understand why an embankment in back of the green (whether or not  artificially built) was a component of his Alps hole concept. 

How do we know Findlay didn't give Wilson the idea??

What?  Do you think about this stuff before you write it, or does it just flow out of your fingers?

Was Findlay involved in the project before the course was initially built and seeded?    Because the mound was already there in November 1911.   Did Findlay have a time machine?

Mike, as I said, the facts indicate that the hole was built to be an Alps, and the mound was part of the Alps concept.  Accept it or don't, but it has been discussed to death, so no use going on about it.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2009, 08:39:30 PM »
"  Also note that this is less than a month after the course was approved, but Macdonald is familiar enough with the holes that he can describe them to Tillinghast."


Seeing as Macdonald had spent a single day (April, 6, 1911) at Ardmore reviewing the five plans the Wilson Committee created I don't see any reason why Macdonald wouldn't have been familiar with it and its holes. I spent a day here and there reviewing the holes of Friars Head and Hidden Creek before they were built with Bill Coore and talking over a lot of things about them with him but that doesn't mean I deserve routing or design credit for them.    ;)

TEPaul

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #57 on: May 28, 2009, 08:50:57 PM »
"First and most importantly,  so far as I know Wilson never took credit for planning the routing or for coming up with the hole concepts, and I don't think he ever claimed to have designed the original version of Merion East.

Second, I don't think that this escaped the general knowledge of anyone in a position to know."



Wilson never took credit for designing Merion with his committee? Why say that? Because you've never read anywhere that he wrote that?  ??? ::) Maybe he never did write that. So what? That certainly doesn't mean or prove he wasn't in the main responsible for the architecture of the course. Richard Francis said the only contribution he made was that land swap. I seriously doubt THAT was the only contribution he made in his months or years with the Wilson Committee.

Whigam was at Ardmore for only two days in ten months. There were about 300-400 members of MCC who all seemed to give Wilson credit, at least as his brother said; "In the main." To think that H.J. Whigam knew more about what went on at Ardmore in 1910 and 1911 than Hugh Wilson's brother Alan is definitely the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Particularly seeing as they worked together it would've been virtually impossible for Alan to miss what Hugh was doing at Merion all those years. The others who gave Wilson the primary credit for the East and West courses where those four other men who worked for a couple of years on that committee with him (Lloyd, Griscom, Francis and Toulmin). Frankly it just doesn't get much more indicative than THAT!

Things really don't get much more conclusive than that and it really matters not if someone comes along a century later and contends it's just not true because they all must have been mistaken or engaging in hyperbole.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 08:56:56 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2009, 08:54:56 PM »
Dave

I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion.  Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.

And, again, I agree with Bradley above.

Vis a vis Raynor, my question was to Pat who questioned whether or not it was possible to understand the Redan concept without visiting North Berwick.  You seeem to agree with me that it was possible.  Thanks.


Rich,

Here's your question and here's my response.


I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan."  

Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?

Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication



By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.

How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?

Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.

Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.

No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.




Patrick_Mucci

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2009, 08:58:46 PM »
David Moriarty,

When you and Tom MacWood first put forth the premise that # 10 was an "Alps" hole, I disagreed with you.

However, after reflecting on the body of evidence you put forth, I changed my mind and agreed with you.

The original 10th was clearly intended to be an "Alps" hole, irrespective of it's failure to mirror it's more famous predecessors.


And people think that I'm stubborn and inflexible, they must be kidding  ;D

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #60 on: May 28, 2009, 09:07:38 PM »
Patrick,  if we can change your mind, anything is possible!

But how'd you come down on the original 3rd was a Redan discussion?   I seem to recall discussing it with you, and I don't think we were patting each other on the back in agreement . . . yet when you were demanding apologies yesterday I don't recall seeing your name on the list . . . .

My memory must be going I guess. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #61 on: May 28, 2009, 10:31:40 PM »
So by May, 1911, Macdonald was actually conversant in the golf holes he had just seen in planning a month prior.   Tillinghast even said he was happy about some of them. 

Ok...I was wrong.   Macdonald designed the course.    I give up.   ::)

See, I can change my mind too, and I haven't written about NGLA directly or indirectly in 80% of the posts I've started over the past decade, nor have I praised Macdonald in every way but loose.   I'm not even constantly at odds with Tom Paul just to enjoy some vigorous debate.   ;)

Big convert there with Patrick, David.  ;D

At some point, we need to send this script to Larry David.   This is way beyond satire.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 11:48:30 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #62 on: May 28, 2009, 10:44:34 PM »
Mike,

The facts to which I refer are the facts indicating that 1) Wilson built the hole to be an Alps hole, and 2) that mound behind the hole was part of the Alps hole that Wilson built. 

As for the mound, see M&W's 1914 article on Alps holes and you will understand why an embankment in back of the green (whether or not  artificially built) was a component of his Alps hole concept. 

David,

Is this the CBM-type Mound?    I can't say I've seen a lot of them before, anywhere, from CBM or others. 

It's sort of awful, don't you think?   No wonder Alex Findlay seemed to be so unimpressed.

That thing better have been protecting something like the 10th green, because it's shaped like some trapezoidal fortress!   Remember that the first tee was on the far side of the clubhouse in this picture, and that original first hole doglegged left around that green at about 250 yards.

Remember also that land was squeezed so tight with the routing that 3 of the holes in a row had to cross Ardmore Avenue, including that 10th hole.

But back to our purported "driver" of the routing and design.   Can you point us to anything on any Macdonald course anywhere even remotely looking like that?



What I find even more telling in the photo is how there is almost nothing but a field of grass, with some low profile tees and greens. 

If not for the monstrosity in the middle of the picture, one would never tell it's a golf course, would they?

I'm kind of betting that most of the strategies of the holes beyond the natural attributes were going to be determined and implemented later, don't you?

How do we know Findlay didn't give Wilson the idea??

What?  Do you think about this stuff before you write it, or does it just flow out of your fingers?

Was Findlay involved in the project before the course was initially built and seeded?    Because the mound was already there in November 1911.   Did Findlay have a time machine?

Mike, as I said, the facts indicate that the hole was built to be an Alps, and the mound was part of the Alps concept.  Accept it or don't, but it has been discussed to death, so no use going on about it.

David,

We KNOW Alex Findlay had more golf course design, construction, and overseas experience than anyone in America at that time.

He was living in Philadelphia.

We KNOW he talked to Hugh Wilson sometime before Wilson went overseas, and it's extremely likely they knew each other for years prior.

Why couldn't the inspiration for an Alps, or any other template hole at Merion have come from Findlay iinformally?

After all, I bet he was over there more than one day in June 1910, and then not again until April 1911!    ::)

Some freaking primary driver of the project!!  ::)
« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 11:01:35 PM by MCirba »

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #63 on: May 28, 2009, 11:01:31 PM »
David,

Would you not agree that everything that happened in the past comes to us by varying accounts, and that those accounts rarely line themselves up in perfect consistency?



Mike_Cirba

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #64 on: May 28, 2009, 11:23:16 PM »
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about in terms of first building 18 tees and greens, and then adding the strategic "principles" later.

This is an early 1916 photo taken of the 17th hole, prior to some significant changes done by Wilson for the 1916 US Amateur, which included rebuilding the green, creating a Valley of Sin feature in the front of it and creating an entire bunkering pattern around it.

Before then, it was just a tee on a cliff top, and a low-profile green set out beyond the quarry.

I'm sorry...I forget...was this supposed to be an eden, a redan, a short, or a biarritz? 

Also, anyone asking about the daunting carry that is so much more terrifying than the 16th approach, per yesterday's diversion, can see that 1) this part of the quarry was hardly terrifying in terms of lost balls, etc., and 2) it is so downhill it hardly matters.



Here's the 17th in modern times, but sporting the exact changes implemented by Wilson in 1916...



Here's looking from green back to tee in 1911, showing the elevation change.   Again, notice the low profile green in the foreground..

« Last Edit: May 28, 2009, 11:40:25 PM by MCirba »

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #65 on: May 29, 2009, 12:07:31 AM »
Dave

I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion.  Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.

And, again, I agree with Bradley above.

Vis a vis Raynor, my question was to Pat who questioned whether or not it was possible to understand the Redan concept without visiting North Berwick.  You seeem to agree with me that it was possible.  Thanks.


Rich,

Here's your question and here's my response.


I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan."  

Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?

Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication



By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.

How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?

Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.

Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.

No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.




Patrick,

I am not aware of any good alps hole in America save the one at NGLA, and even that hole has it's share of detractors. Colt thought it was a horrible golf hole. But regardless of what he thought, you have to admit that that is the hardest hole concept to mimic. You could become so intimate as to get laid at Prestwick on the 17th green and still get that one wrong.


 

TEPaul

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #66 on: May 29, 2009, 12:55:27 AM »
"Let me break it down for you.

1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad."



David Moriarty:

HOW long has Wilson been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroard?   

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #67 on: May 29, 2009, 01:04:59 AM »
Mike Cirba. 

As I said above, I believe the facts have established that the 10th was meant to be an Alps hole from before it was built.   i'm done discussing it with you.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Rich Goodale

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #68 on: May 29, 2009, 01:22:48 AM »


Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?

Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication



By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.

How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?

Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.

Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.

No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.



[/quote]

Pat

Since you are so obsessed by sex today, here's some evidence that at least one seemingly respected celibate believes he is qualified to do sex counselling.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8049853.stm

As for Merion's "Alps" hole (NLE), none of us have played it and most of us (seemingly including you) seem to think that the pictures of it we have seen are hideous.  You call it Hugh Wilson's hole, and yet I thought that Macdonald designed Merion.  Am I as confused as you seem to be?

Rich

PS--Mr. Anderson is on a roll today.  He is right that NGLA's "Alps" is at best a pale and inferior intimation of the 17th at Prestwick.
PPS--now how about the guy who designed/found the original Alps hole (Old Tom Morris).  Who advised him on how to do that?  How did he ever manage to build a design career without help from CBM? ;)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #69 on: May 29, 2009, 01:31:16 AM »
David,

Would you not agree that everything that happened in the past comes to us by varying accounts, and that those accounts rarely line themselves up in perfect consistency?

I agree but only to a degree.   In my experience, when I come across an inconsistency from an otherwise reliable and verifiable source,  then it is usually a pretty good indication that I have made a mistake somewhere.  Either I have made an erroneous assumption, misunderstood one of the sources, missed an important fact, or otherwise created an inconsistency where there wasn't necessarily one to begin with.  At this point, I need to go back and recheck and rethink everything to see if there is really an inconsistency or if it just my lack of understanding or flawed reasoning.   If after going back and rechecking I still have an inconsistency, then I try to go forward considering both, and seeing if something comes up that resolves it.  It is almost always a mistake to simply dismiss or discount otherwise reliable evidence just because you cannot see immediately how it fits in with everything else.  

In this case, I don't see nearly as many inconsistencies as most do.  In fact, all of those who were there and in a position to know tell the same general story, and the only inconsistency is how we've chosen to emphasize or de-emphasize certain aspects of those stories.  

In contrast, the Philadelphia crew sees inconsistencies everywhere, because they already have the answer they want and so they'll simply throw out solid evidence and ignore, mock, and denigrate those in the best position to know.   No matter what, they stick with the story they started with, facts be damned.    All an inconsistency means is that someone has got it wrong and it cannot ever be them.

So that is my approach to inconsistencies.   But again, I don't see nearly as many here as others do.  

_________________________

Rich,  once CBM chose the final layout plan at Merion, I think his involvement diminished greatly.   Wilson and his crew built the hole, and in that sense it was very much Wilson's hole. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #70 on: May 29, 2009, 01:40:30 AM »
David,

Validity in interpretation of history is found in what the common man believed, and in the common story that the common man told. It is rarely, if ever, found from what was implicit in history at the expense of what was explicit in history.

But let me hasten to add, that the common account is more often as not fraught with inconsistency. That is to say that elements of chronology may be expressed with words that are incongruent with other accounts of chronology, but if the stories come to the same conclusion, we are at negative capability when we try to reconstruct them.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 01:48:34 AM by Bradley Anderson »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #71 on: May 29, 2009, 01:44:27 AM »
Be careful Bradley,  some around here won't take kindly if you call the great men of Merion "common."
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Rich Goodale

Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #72 on: May 29, 2009, 01:46:09 AM »

Dave

I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion.  Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.

Absence of evidence?   Hmmm.   Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the evidence.   

If not M&W, then who?  I've seen no verifiable evidence that Wilson had a thing to do with the original routing or even that he was involved in the project at the time the original routing was most likely considered.  And once he did become involved I am not so sure that the did much of anything until he consulted with an expert or three.  It wasn't his nature to have resource like CBM and not use it.    CBM chose the final routing.  That's evidence of something, isn't it?

Are there some facts that I don't know about?   Or are you just sticking with the old legend even though substantial portions of it have been disproven?


David

I've spent far too much time on theses threads hoping to find some "evidence" for all the dogs in this fight, and I have seen nothing which leads me to believe that Macdonald was anything other than an advisor to the Merion Committee.  Sorry, but your work, while impressive in its scope and passion, is just not convincing to me.

As to the question, "If not M&W, then who?", the obvious answer is "The Committee."  This is the best way to describe the design credit for many of today's great golf courses, including Portmarnock, Pine Valley, Dornoch (and as some of the recently presented evidence implies) NGLA.  There is always, of course, someone on any effective Committee who is the driving force:  Macdonald at NGLA, Sutherland at Dornoch, Pickeman at Portmarnock, Crump at Pine Valley.  We have the word of the Committee at Merion that their driving force was Hugh Wilson.  That is enough evidence for me to think he deserves more of the design credit than anyone else.

Rich

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #73 on: May 29, 2009, 01:50:45 AM »
David,

Those guys were Americans.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Merion Memories" by Richard S. Francis
« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2009, 02:06:47 AM »
David,

Those guys were Americans.

My goodness you are confused.  They were Philadelphians.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back