[Jeff_Brauer]

Howdy Mr. Paul,

I feel mighty terrible to possibly be offending the Merion community by posting on these here threads.  I sure as shootin don't want to offend the Italian American community, or at least certain members of it.......

I have even changed my internet persona just in case I need to throw them off the cattle trail!

Jeff Brauer, Cattle Rustler

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Thanks for consolidating this material.  Could you edit your post to put a date on item 2, the Lesley report to the board?  I'm sure I could search and find it in the detritus of these threads, but it'd be nice to have all the information consolidated here in one or two posts.

This is the timeline from Merion (MCC) that the entire record now available speaks about Macdonald/Whigam’s involvement with Merion East.


1. In apparently the second half of June 1910 Macdonald/Whigam make a site visit to Ardmore, Pa. to inspect land MCC has begun considering buying from real estate development company Haverford Development Company (HDC). Rodman E. Griscom, a prominent MCC member, very good golfer (former Philadelphia Amateur Champion) and member of NGLA was the one who asked Macdonald/Whigam to visit the site according to the MCC administrative record of the time. The following is the letter from Macdonald to Horatio Gates Lloyd summarizing his and Whigam’s June 1910 visit.



“New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinion that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.”



2. The following is Robert Lesley, the chairman of the “Search Committee, ” report to the board about Macdonald and Whigam.

“The committee through Mr. R. E. Griscom as fortunate enough to get Mr. C. B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam to come from New York and give us the benefit of their experience. These gentleman, besides being famous golfers have given the matter of golf course construction much study and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils etc. It was Mr. Macdonald assisted by Mr. Whigam who conceived and constructed the National course at Southampton Long Island.”

It continues:

“Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course, at $825.00 an acre, which we understand is about one-half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put into shape for a Golf Course.

Mr. Whigham estimated that the cost of putting the ground into condition for play would be $25,000.00, and the introduction of water $5000.00, making a very liberal estimate, as Mr. Heebner, in the construction of the Whitemarsh Club, about $12,000.00 the first year, and he believes that it will require an expenditure of $8000.00 over the next two years, making a total of $20,000.00 over a period of three years.  An outside estimate of the cost of  all the work required to put the property in condition for our needs, including the work to be done on the Club House, road building, etc., would be between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00, and we believe nearer the former.

It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we believe it would be a wise purchase.

It may not be within the province of this Committee to propose any financial plan for carrying out this matter through, but we venture to suggest the following, namely:

That an effort be made to organize a Land Company to buy the property and lease it to the Club in its present shape on a practically perpetual lease.  The rental until January 1, 1912, to be at the rate of five per cent per annum on the cost price and taxes, with an option to the Club on or before that date to buy at cost; the rental and optional purchase price to increase by an amount equal to ten (10) percent on the original cost every five years after January 1, 1912.

This would leave open the question of how the Cricket Club would raise the $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 necessary to put the property into shape for use as a Golf Course.  This might be done by the organization of a new corporation, to be known as the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, to which the lease of the new property should be assigned, and all or a majority of the stock of which Association would be owned by the Merion Cricket Club;  the new Association to borrow the Improvement Fund, the payment of which, together with the payment of the rental and taxes for the grounds would have to be guaranteed by the Merion Cricket Club, and would constitute a valuable consideration for all the capital stock of the Association which the Club would receive; all golf dues go to the Association, and the Association to pledge to whoever advances the Improvement Fund a certain proportion of the dues of each member of the Golf Association as a Sinking Fund to gradually extinguish the loan.  Of course it would be necessary for the Golf Association to charge higher dues than the present charge to Golf members of the Cricket Club, and for every member of the Golf Association to be a member of the Cricket Club.

We particularly desire to impress upon the Board the fact that if the opportunity to acquire a permanent golf course is to be taken advantage of, prompt action is necessary.

Respectfully submitted for the Committee,
(signed)  Robert W. Lesley,
Chairman”

The board meeting minutes continued:

“Mr. Lloyd moved as follows:

“Resolved, that the board of government extend their sincere thanks to Messrs. Macdonald  and Whigam  for their kindness and courtesy in assisting the Special Committee on Golf Grounds with their inspection and opinions upon the new golf grounds. Carried
            On motion, the meeting then adjourned.”
                                                                         Edward Sayers
                                                                              Secretary”




Next post will include the next mention (by MCC) about Macdonald by Wilson on Feb. 1, 1911 in a letter to Russell Oakley of the U.S. Dept of Agriculture, The Wilson report to the Board meeting of April 19, 1911 and a final letter in June 1911 to Wilson by Macdonald mentioning lime and fertilizer application to greens.



 

[TEPaul]

Bryan:

The "Special" board meeting of MCC of which Lesley's report and Macdonald's letter to Lloyd and Barker's letter to Connell were a part took place on July 1, 1910. It was called essentially to consider the work to date of what was known as the "Search Committee." It was also the meeting at which that committee laid out their suggestion of the financial structure that was to manage things to do with the golf course over the next year at least. On July 21, 1911 Horatio Gates Lloyd would turn over to the Merion Cricket Cub Golf Association Corporation (MCCGA, of which he was the chairman) ownership of the land which they would lease to MCC for the forseeable future after he had held ownership for approximately seven months through the entire routing and design phase of Merion East.

[JESII]

Tom,

In the past you've implied that Lloyd recapitalized HDC from about $100,000 up to $300,000...is there evidence of that?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,

In the past you've implied that Lloyd recapitalized HDC from about $100,000 up to $300,000...is there evidence of that?"


Sully:

Yes, interestingly the actual corporate recapitalization document is in an old Merion file. Lloyd also referred to it in his Nov. 1910 letter to the membership the same day as the new Merion Course proposal circular was sent by the president to the membership.

[JESII]

Are you able to elaborate a bit?

When did he make his cash infusion?

Is it impossible for Lloyd to have owned at least a share of HDC well in advance of the CBM visit in June 1910?

[DMoriarty]

Niall Carlton,

I apologize for not addressing your post earlier.  I thought I had but was thinking of a  similar question on another thread.  Unfortunately, these posts come at me fast and furiously, and sometimes the most worthwhile questions get missed.  

I've been dipping in and out of the various Merion threads and while I wouldn't pretend to follow all the discussions, am I right in saying that you believe MacDonald and possibly Whigham were involved in the design of Merion ?

Yes, they were involved in the design, but were certainly not the only ones.  For just one example of their involvement in the design, they determined the final routing.  This alone indicates they were involved, don't you think?

That is to say, designing the routing and possibly individual hole designs based on models of other holes such as the Redan etc, rather than merely passing on generalknowledge about course design and his thoughts on specific model holes.

While a good question, it is also an incredibly broad question and goes well beyond what I can answer here.  That being said, I'll outline a few main points off the top of my head.  .

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.  

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.  


Again, Niall, this is just a brief oultine of the answers to your questions.  There is more, and much more detail, but that should start to give you an idea of where I am coming from.  

[DMoriarty]

.

[TEPaul]

"Again, Niall, this is just a brief oultine of the answers to your questions.  There is more, and much more detail, but that should start to give you an idea of where I am coming from."


Niall:

That post actually should give you a good idea of where David Moriarty is coming from on Merion.

Unfortunately, other than his point #4 there is not a factully supported point in all of it. The rest of it is nothing more than conjecture and speculation that he has tried to pass off as looking like fact but it isn't. Just about his entire essay is the same way. Other than his point in the essay about Hugh Wilson's trip abroad in 1912 there's hardly a factually supported point in that essay either; it is just one conjectural and speculative point built on another to reach what is a totally fallacious and very likely totally preconceived conclusion. Again, he just tries to make what he says look like fact but the truth is it isn't even close.

Read the Francis story in his essay and when he gets to the part about Francis being out there in 1910 and having his idea for a land swap before Nov. 15, 1910 he never gives any factual evidence of that because there isn't any. All he does it try to make it look that way when he states "He must have been out there before that...."

That kind of thing is really transparent and is evidence of somebody trying to make something look like fact when it isn't. And of course when I've asked him about a dozen time to provide some actual fact of Francis being out there in 1910 he always totally avoids the question and the reason why is obvious----he has no factual evidence of that and I'm sure he even knows there is none and there never has been because that Francis land swap came later and probably by about four months at least.

And that is precisely why it really does take someone who is truly informed on the details of Merion's history to see how transparent both his logic on here and his essay really is. 

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

That post #128 is really good and I think a lot of people who have not had the kind of experience you did there should consider what all it really means very carefully.

An interesting question for you would be in that project that you were part of, and of course there are all kinds of people involved in these kinds of things who never get mentioned again (after all where is the space or the motivation to mention every single thing that happened?) was there any single person about whom most all involved said; "He was in the main responsible for the architecture of the course" that apparently everyone on Wilson's committee said about him?

For my own part I once had an experience like that too and it was remarkably similar to Wilson's experience had he not had his committee with him. My experience, however, was almost frightening similar to what Wilson's experience could have been with Macdonald and Whigam but with my experience it all ended right at that very time when Wilson and his committee took what they had created with Macdonald/Whigam's help and advice and put it before the board of the club for approval on that 19th day of April 1911.

I look back on that night with those people every now and again. Never having done something like that before, I admit I was not sure what to expect. Everything seemed to be going fine but all of a sudden the patriarch of the family looked at one hole and said he could not accept it. It happened to be what I considered perhaps one of the most potentially extraordinary hole I've ever heard of and on top of that not a single thing would have been needed on it other than to just grass it.

Everyone turned to me and said; "What do you want to do about that?" I guess I was so inexperienced I never even thought to ask him what his objection was. I think racing through my head was that after two or more years and about 700 hours on this place visualizing anything and everything it was about to come down to my answer to this one question. I kept thinking that my club had kept telling me that if they couldn't get what we considered the best (I guess they meant me and Bill Coore) they didn't want to move.

I can even remember how flushed I thought I was as I sat there thinking with all those people looking at me but finally I just said: "I'm sorry but I just can't give up THAT particular hole." And all of a sudden all those hours and a couple of years were over just like that. Everybody sort of hung their heads but that was it. A few moments later the patriarch's lawyer actually asked him what his objection was and when he explained it I realized quite sometime later that had I known then what I know now I could have fixed that problem in a second. But I didn't know about a HaHa then or else it just slipped my mind as a fix and so the timing was gone and even though we tried from time to time it was never started again.

Had that project been approved it would be built and in play for a few years now and it would be truly fascinating to me to see how it would have turned out on the ground compared to what I put before my board and that impressive family that night in the top of the mansion at Ardrossan Farm!  Bill and Ben would've done it and Bill was sure aware of my plan (as he looked at it one time about all the way from Hidden Creek to the Philadelphia airport) that had plenty of his ideas in it too but now I'll never know. I actually used to refer to that plan that was put before my board and that impressive family that night as "The Composite Plan."

[Ulrich Mayring]

Merion still hasn't corrected their website as to Hugh Wilson's trip to Europe. This information has been out since the "dreaded essay" was published and was corroborated recently with the Findlay article. Whatever else transpires, but this is some original research that in my mind needs to be honored and credited appropriately.

I don't think the personal problems of some contributors with some other contributors should be an issue, Merion members or not. Is this information held back from Merion's historian? Does he not accept its validity? Is he too lazy to update the website? As it is, this smells fishy.

Ulrich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ulrich,

Asking Merion to update their website according to the GCA.com timetable is a little presumptuous.
Things move very slowly at most clubs and I'm sure this isn't a high priority item on Merion's agenda.
Your request, while seemingly reasonable, is beyond the actions of any participant.

What isn't beyond the actions of any participant is TEPaul supplying of the Metes and Bounds to Bryan Izatt.

I think you should call for the production of those numbers before calling for Merion to update its website.

[TEPaul]

Ulrich:

There is no doubt it will be corrected. I don't know how often they manage that part of their website but I certainly know who to speak to. It will be done.

How that 1912 trip was presented in Merion's history book is pretty interesting. They were always aware of what they thought was a rumor that Wilson almost went down on the Titanic (April 14, 1912) and they actually mentioned it in the Tolhurst history book. 

[Niall C]

David

Many thanks for your response. Clearly M&W had some involvement (which I think everyone agrees ?) and the thrust of these discussions is (or in my view should be) the form of that involvement, was it general advice in the form of a hand holding exercise or were they involved specifically in the design of Merion.

You cited the fact (?) that M&W signed off the final plan. From memory I don't think that is a bone of contention, but for the purpose of this post lets assume that they did. In your response you suggest that the fact that they signed off on the final design indicates that they were involved in the design. Well yes, but only in so much as their involvement consisted of signing off the final plan. As far as being specifically involved in forming that plan, or part of it, I would suggest that the fact that they signed it off would suggest the opposite, that the final plan was a Wilson Committee effort. I'm not a lawyer but I believe this is what they would call circumstantial evidence, unfortunately its not conclusive one way or the other.

My question on whether M&W just gave general advice or whether they specifically designed the routing, or part, or whether they designed any of the holes, wasn't mean't to be broad it was mean't to be fairly specific. I think this question gets to the nub of M&W's involvement. Do you have anything which specifically credits M&W with doing the routing or individual hole design ?

From what I've seen the circumstantial evidence suggests that any advice M&W gave was general ie advice on how to design and build a course rather than actually doing that for them. I'm thinking here of the committee coming up with 5 different plans after meeting with M&W at NGLA. To my way of thinking they were clearly doing it for themselves, no ?

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

You seem to be asking me the same question I just tried to answer..    I listed for you above a series of reasons why it seems the information was more than just hand-holding.   If you don't accept it, that is your prerogative, it seems fairly compelling to me. 

I don't believe i wrote that they "signed off" on the plan, and I don't think that is what they did.   I don't have the minutes, but even by TEPaul's description of them (which I doubt tells the whole story) they did much more than sign off.   For one thing, even TEPaul admits that they may have made substantive changes to routing which differed from anything that the committee had come up with.  For another thing, they had just met with the Committee a few weeks before to go over what Merion should do with their land, so we cannot pretend that the 5 variations were done independently of M&W's guidance.  Plus, they did not rubber stamp anything but made a choice of (and possible changes to) one option among multiple options.   

In almost any similar pursuit, it it standard practice for the person in charge to provide his associates, assistants, or underlings with instructions on how to specifically carry out a task, then for the person in charge to review, edit, and eventually approve of the work done once it accomplishes what the person in charge set out to accomplish.    This happens all the time with various professionals including architects, attorneys, gc designers, and even doctors, and is part of the learning process.  While the person trying to carry out the plans is definitely important and has contributed something important, it would be engaging in a fiction to think that the general ideas and plans were not that of the person in charge.   

In Merion's case, all the facts of which I am aware point to CBM as the person in charge of determining the lay out plan.  And in the end, that is exactly what he did.  He determined the final layout plan, and the meeting minutes supposedly acknowledge the the plan presented to the board was of M&W's choosing. 

By the way, why don't you ask TEPaul to tell us what the MCC records say about Wilson's involvement in the process.   He has repeatedly referred to the "Wilson Report" but there is no such thing.  It was a report given by Robert Lesley.

I'd be surprised if the meeting minutes distinguish Wilson's contribution at all!   Ask and see.   

[Mike_Cirba]

In almost any similar pursuit, it it standard practice for the person in charge to provide his associates, assistants, or underlings with instructions on how to specifically carry out a task, then for the person in charge to review, edit, and eventually approve of the work done once it accomplishes what the person in charge set out to accomplish.    This happens all the time with various professionals including architects, attorneys, gc designers, and even doctors, and is part of the learning process.  While the person trying to carry out the plans is definitely important and has contributed something important, it would be engaging in a fiction to think that the general ideas and plans were not that of the person in charge.   

In Merion's case, all the facts of which I am aware point to CBM as the person in charge of determining the lay out plan.  And in the end, that is exactly what he did.  He determined the final layout plan, and the meeting minutes supposedly acknowledge the the plan presented to the board was of M&W's choosing. 

David,

This is complete and utter nonsense, not supported by a single shred of evidence except your own fantasies of how things happened.

The Merion Committee had absoultely NO REPORTING RELATIONSHIP of any type to Macdonald and Whigham, so your efforts to make it look like a modern architectural firm with a Sr. Archie and his associates is simply 100% unadulterated BS of the most purposefully manipulative kind.

I had to roll up the car windows, frankly.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

It sure is. It is really frightening the way this person's mind works or the extremes he goes to try to rationalize away the obvious. M/W are two guys who were there for a grand total of two days in ten months and he thinks they were in charge of MCC's or the Wilson Committee's plans? This has gotten funny really.

Look at the rest of the Francis story in the many hours he spent over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking!! Talking to whom?? Does this idiotic essayist think they were all on their cell phones or blackberrys or something all day and every day throughout that winter and spring of 1911 to Macdonald and Whigam so they could be in charge of all their plans?

This is really funny; and this is a man who says he actually cares about his credibility and his reputation?

[henrye]

Mike Cirba:
M/W are two guys who were there for a grand total of two days in ten months and he thinks they were in charge of MCC's or the Wilson Committee's plans?

Tom.  Are you certain that M&W were only there for 2 days in that 10 months?  I ask, because this has been repeated numerous times, and while it appears well documented that they were there on 2 occasions, is it not possible that they were there more often?  Also, it would be helpful if you could reproduce the minutes which speak to M&W approving the plans.  Perhaps it could add some clarity to this discussion.

[Niall C]

David,

Once again thanks for the response. Trust me when I say I wasn't trying to trip you up by puting words in your mouth. My phrasing is my own and based on what I understood the circumstances were.

Let me explain my thinking, as an example when Tom Doak was at University he was no doubt taught the principles of landscape architecture and maybe even something on golf course design. If his lecturer one day gave him an exercise in designing a course or part of course on a given piece of ground based on what he had been taught, and he then did so, presenting his design to the lecturer who marked it accordingly. Who would you say had done the design ? Presumably Doak or else his lecturer would still be getting joint design credit for all Tom's courses.

From what I can see that would seem to be the type of relationship MacDonald had with Wilson and his committee, with MacDonald being the lecturer eg. so many holes of such and such a length, make use of interesting features etc. For me, I think there has to be specific design input for MacDonald to get a design credit rather than giving him credit for "merely" being an influence which he undoubtedly was. As you say, its all a matter of opinion, and at the moment I don't see anything which leads me to give MacDonald design credit.

Niall

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Niall,

That teacher/student analogy is a pretty good and apt one, I believe.   Macdonald taught the Merion Committee what he had learned in trying to build NGLA, and from the commuications on record it seems the vast majority of that was related to agronomics and construction, areas of specializaton where almost everyone in the country were novices at that time and which Macdonald and Whigham had stuidied quite a bit in the previous few years in trying to get grass growing and water draining properly on their own course.   

"Guidance Counselor" might be an even better analogy. 

You have a nice way of boiling the issue down to its prime components.   Thanks for weighing in.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom.  Are you certain that M&W were only there for 2 days in that 10 months?  I ask, because this has been repeated numerous times, and while it appears well documented that they were there on 2 occasions, is it not possible that they were there more often?  Also, it would be helpful if you could reproduce the minutes which speak to M&W approving the plans.  Perhaps it could add some clarity to this discussion.

Henry E,

The only documented visits of M&W to Merion were June, 1910, and April 6th, 1911.

If they were there more often, no internal club records or contemporaneous news accounts  reflect those events.

[Ulrich Mayring]

There is no doubt it will be corrected. I don't know how often they manage that part of their website but I certainly know who to speak to. It will be done.

Tom, that would be very welcome indeed. I did already mention this glitch a couple of weeks ago, so hopefully this time something will happen.

I am not asking Merion to look at David Moriarty's essay or even consider rewriting their entire history - that is indeed a touchy matter that needs to be approached with caution, if anything good is going to come of it.

But I am asking Merion to correct this obvious mistake as soon as possible, before the false information spreads to the mainstream media, which will, for obvious reasons, start looking at Merion's history in the not too distant future. Surely no one wants Merion to end up with egg in their faces, so the time to act is now. Correct it or at least remove it.

I would have suggested this to Merion myself, if the website had any kind of contact information. As it is, they seem to be very reluctant to talk to outsiders. So I am posting here in the hopes that some folks close to Merion will tell them to, frankly, get their act together. It is inconceivable to me that a US Open course would not have a correct club history on their website. This is not about a private club and some members, it is about a course that should represent the very best of golf to the world in 2013.

Ulrich

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

Not sure what your understanding of what happened is based upon.   Could it be that you are still giving credence to the old Merion legend that CBM instructed Wilson in the general principles of golf course design when Wilson was preparing for his overseas trip?  Because that has been discredited, and I see no factual support for your speculation that CBM's advice was of a general nature.   

Yet your example portrays a situation where any advice given was extremely general . . .

Let me explain my thinking, as an example when Tom Doak was at University he was no doubt taught the principles of landscape architecture and maybe even something on golf course design. If his lecturer one day gave him an exercise in designing a course or part of course on a given piece of ground based on what he had been taught, and he then did so, presenting his design to the lecturer who marked it accordingly. Who would you say had done the design ? Presumably Doak or else his lecturer would still be getting joint design credit for all Tom's courses.

You might have a point had CBM been uninvolved in this project and unfamiliar with the specific details and possibilities of the land at Merion, but this was hardly the case. Contrary to your example of a disconnect university professor, CBM was involved and was very familiar with the specifics at Merion:

1.  Merion brought him in to inspect the specific property and to determine if it would support a first class golf course, and long before Wilson ever became involved:
  -   M&W had already inspected the land and had considered whether a first class course could fit on the property.
  -  They had also already considered using the best natural features for such a course, including the quarry and the streams.
  -  They had also considered that artifical mounds could be built to make up for the lack of those on the property.   
  -  They had specifically considered using the land behind the clubhouse for the golf course, and suggested that it was necessary if a first class course would fit. This even though this land was not even being offered to Merion!

In short, in June of 1910, M&W knew what the specifics of what the land had to offer, and they were a contour map away of routing their suggested holes to see for sure if the holes fit on Merion's land.    Yet you assume that once a contour map was created that M&W would have confined themselves to a general academic discussion of the great principles?   I don't buy it and think the evidence cuts against it.   

Not only that, but this is largely how CBM worked.  According to Bahto (and to H.J. Whigham,) once Macdonald figured out what he wanted to do, he would let Raynor work out the details, and would edit Raynor's plans off site, at NGLA.    He was even more involved at Merion, where he went back to the site and reexamined the land before he determined the final layout plan. 

Add this to these numerous facts above, and I just don't have any idea why you or anyone else thinks that CBM's was just providing general and background information.   

I've outlined my reasons for thinking the advice was of a very specific nature, in the post above and in this one.  What makes you think that CBM's teachings were of a general nature?  Was is your FACTUAL basis for so assuming?

Thanks. 

[DMoriarty]

In almost any similar pursuit, it it standard practice for the person in charge to provide his associates, assistants, or underlings with instructions on how to specifically carry out a task, then for the person in charge to review, edit, and eventually approve of the work done once it accomplishes what the person in charge set out to accomplish.    This happens all the time with various professionals including architects, attorneys, gc designers, and even doctors, and is part of the learning process.  While the person trying to carry out the plans is definitely important and has contributed something important, it would be engaging in a fiction to think that the general ideas and plans were not that of the person in charge.   

In Merion's case, all the facts of which I am aware point to CBM as the person in charge of determining the lay out plan.  And in the end, that is exactly what he did.  He determined the final layout plan, and the meeting minutes supposedly acknowledge the the plan presented to the board was of M&W's choosing. 

David,

This is complete and utter nonsense, not supported by a single shred of evidence except your own fantasies of how things happened.

The Merion Committee had absoultely NO REPORTING RELATIONSHIP of any type to Macdonald and Whigham, so your efforts to make it look like a modern architectural firm with a Sr. Archie and his associates is simply 100% unadulterated BS of the most purposefully manipulative kind.

I had to roll up the car windows, frankly.

Mike as usual, your post is full of emotion but bereft of meaning or facts.

Why'd they bring in Macdonald if they weren't planning on doing what he said?   Why'd they spend two days with him at NGLA?   If you have any doubt as who was in charge of planning the course, take a look at the supposed Minutes of the meeting in which the board supposedly approved the plan.  My understanding is that these minutes note that Macdonald and Whigham had determined the final routing.  What, specifically do the minutes say about Hugh Wilson?   Do they say that really it was Hugh Wilson?    I didn't think so. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Niall,

For actual contemporaneous evidence of how Mac routed, planned, and detailed golf courses, I would ask that you check out the NGLA thread started by Joe Bausch.

I just think it might be more insightful to research it on your own and certainly more enjoyable and enlightening than being told what you don't know and what you should think by David Moriarty. 

Thanks

David,

Why do you think Barker was able to create an "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" routing during his single day onsite yet M+W were unable to do the same if that's what they were supposedly asked?

Why would they need a topo??  They were right there!  They could have just whipped out a cocktail napkin and went to town, right?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()