CBM & Merion - a short poll

[John Mayhugh]

The design attribution of Merion seems to be a large and often controverial topic on GCA.  I have always been somewhat confused by this, as it seems to me that more design credit for CBM hardly hurts the reputation of the course.  But that's only my opinion, so I thought it would be interesting to post a short poll. Sorry, but I had to post it as a link rather than embedded into the topic. Couldn't figure that out.

Feel free to add comments in normal posts as well.

http://www.surveybob.com/surveybob/s/d2a39e5b-c806-4559-8af4-b01e158b19fc.html

[Mike_Young]

John,
I think an even better poll would be see how many of the people that argue regarding Merion have ever seen it or played it.
Happy 4th.

[Carl Nichols]

This strikes me as adding fuel to the fire....

[John Mayhugh]

John,
I think an even better poll would be see how many of the people that argue regarding Merion have ever seen it or played it.
Happy 4th.

Haha.  I know of a pollster who has not.

[Mike_Young]

John,
no harm intended....

[John Mayhugh]

This strikes me as adding fuel to the fire....

Fuel to the fire how?

I may be completely off-base here, but I think much of the controversy on the Merion threads comes from the idea that the mere discussion of the course's origins in some way damages Merion's reputation.  That has never made any sense to me, and I've never talked to another GCA guy whose opinion of the course has been harmed. I'm genuinely interested in learning what others think and that's why I created the poll. 

If people get upset by me simply asking these opinion questions, what does that say for their participation on a message board dedicated to FRANK discussion of golf architecture?

[Carl Nichols]

This strikes me as adding fuel to the fire....

Fuel to the fire how?

I think it's going to result in endless discussion of what the results mean (with the respective entrenched sides claiming something from the results) -- were the questions phrased well, what does it mean if 20% answer yes to the last question, etc., etc. 

[Tom_Doak]

I have played Merion a bunch of times -- most recently, ten days ago.

To me it does not matter who built it -- what matters is what they built, and how good it is.

[Joe Bausch]

I have played Merion a bunch of times -- most recently, ten days ago.

To me it does not matter who built it -- what matters is what they built, and how good it is.

Amen!

[Jay Flemma]

I don't see how not playing it sets you back in evaluating the stories of who didn't or did design it.  

I'm just confused about it, but I agree...I don't think that if Moriarty's story turns out to be true that it hurts Merion.  Likewise, if he's wrong, then he might want to redact the story a bot.  I thnk the backbiting and character assassination got out of hand on that argument.  I also think we forget that newpapers opften get things wrong and that we somertimes read too much into stuff. I remember people were reading incorrect articles about leatherstaocking and got it completely wrong, saying the guy who designed the course across the lake actually designed leatherstocking when he didnt.

We can't judge who built or didnt build on secondary sources like newspapers, and should be careful what we read into them

I also agree with tom d, sometimes we focus a little too much on esoteric stuff.

[DMoriarty]

I have played Merion a bunch of times -- most recently, ten days ago.

To me it does not matter who built it -- what matters is what they built, and how good it is.

I agree as far as a golfing experience goes.   But didn't you post last year that perhaps Merion's maintenance might be less than ideal considering the qualities of the underlying course?    Is it possible that thoroughly understanding the origins might give us all a better understanding of the true merits of the underlying course?

For example, Robert Lesley and others wrote about the natural  bottleneck feature of the 7th hole, where in order to maintain the best angle at the green the golfer had to keep it on the right side between the out of bounds and the slope to the left, with the space narrowing as the golfer approached the green.  The longer the drive, the straighter it needed to be to avoid going out of bounds or rolling down the hill.   Or the golfer could play the safer shot to the right (intentionally or unintentionally,) but this golfer would be left with a much more difficult angle up the slope to a tricky green, with serious trouble short, left, and beyond.

Various reports note that this was an excellent hole because of this subtle tax on shots that were not daringly and accurately placed.   Yet for the hole to function as it was meant to be played, one would have to maintain it so that there was something other than thick and deep rough on the left, wouldn't they?   Also, do the trees interfere with the angle from the right side?

Here is a photo of Chick Evans approaching from the right side (but not too long a drive) on his way to the 1916 US Amateur Championship.

[Jay Flemma]

Hey david!  Good to see you contributing!  great photo of evans.

[Mike_Young]

I have played Merion a bunch of times -- most recently, ten days ago.

To me it does not matter who built it -- what matters is what they built, and how good it is.

Amen!

Amen again...

[Jim_Kennedy]

The golf course doesn't have an ego.

[Mike Sweeney]

John,

Growing up in Philly my view was:

Hugh Wilson designed Merion East and West, along with Cobb's and Phoenixville and George Crump designed Pine Valley.

Now my view is:

A Committee led by Hugh Wilson designed Merion. George Crump in collaboration with a number of architects before and after his death designed PVGC.

David Moriarity and Tom MacWood were a piece of why my views changed, but it would diffcult to say how much they influenced my altered views. I enjoy history so I followed the Merions threads at times.

When Old Macdonald opens, it will be interesting to hear how the collaboration worked. My guess is there will be differing views similar to Merion, and these views will be from the LIVING collaborators rather than the living historians.

[John Mayhugh]

Mike,
Thanks for your thoughts as a local guy.  As far as Old Mac goes, that's a pretty funny prediction.

Poll results so far.  Not as much participation as I thought there would be, but it's not that scientific either way.

[DMoriarty]

John,

Growing up in Philly my view was:

Hugh Wilson designed Merion East and West, along with Cobb's and Phoenixville and George Crump designed Pine Valley.

Now my view is:

A Committee led by Hugh Wilson designed Merion. George Crump in collaboration with a number of architects before and after his death designed PVGC.

Mike Sweeney,

I agree with you that Merion was designed by a "committee" but my "committee" would have a small "c" not a capital, because Macdonald and Whigham were certainly involved in all aspects of the design, but they weren't members of Merion so they couldn't possibly have been members of MCC's "Committee" could they have been?  Did you mean to exclude them from having been involved in the design, or include them?

I'd also disagree with who was really calling the shots on this committee.  MCC's Site Committee recomended purchase and MCC purchased the land based largely on CBM's recommendation.  Wilson's Committee travelled to NGLA so that M&W could help them plan the layout of the course, and M&W determined the final routing.   Plus Macdonald was advising Wilson on other matters. 

This is pretty strong evidence that CBM was calling the shots, and MCC's board was interested what he wanted, not what Wilson wanted.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? 

What evidence is there that Wilson was in charge?    What evidence is there that MCC ever appointed him to do anything at all with the design?   

_____________

Mike Cirba,  given that you have posted around 800 times in the Timeline thread, I'd appreciate it if you'd let Mike Sweeney or anyone else answer this question.  Thanks. 

[John Mayhugh]

David M,
How about making this a debate-free Merion thread?

I started this one with the intent of understanding the perceptions of other people, not starting another interminable thread of arguments.  Mike was only stating what he believes and how his beliefs have evolved.

[DMoriarty]

That's fine John, although I am not sure why anyone would mind being asked to clarify his comments on a discussion board.   I'd start a new thread, but would hate to seem to be calling Mike Sweeney out or making too big a deal out of what I thought were just a few simple questions. Seems like overkill to me.  

You asked for comments, and lauded Mike Sweeney for his.  I didn't quite understand what he meant, and offered my own comments in comparison and contrast.  Would you prefer that I just not participate or offer my own comments?

[John Mayhugh]

That's fine John, although I am not sure why anyone would mind being asked to clarify his comments on a discussion board.   I'd start a new thread, but would hate to seem to be calling Mike Sweeney out or making too big a deal out of what I thought were just a few simple questions. Seems like overkill to me.  

You asked for comments, and lauded Mike Sweeney for his.  I didn't quite understand what he meant, and offered my own comments in comparison and contrast.  Would you prefer that I just not participate or offer my own comments?

I'm not sure saying thanks to Mike would be defined as "lauded."  He seemed to understand what I was looking for when I created the post (i.e. show the impact of all these Merion threads and discussion of CBM's role on individual perceptions about the course). 

Your comments and questions to Mike sounded like a start to more debate, and I just didn't want the central point of the thread to be lost in pages of argument.

Of course you're welcome to post wherever & whatever you wish.  I was hopeful that by clarifying why I created this topic you would understand the value of just looking at perceptions w/o too much argument.

[DMoriarty]

You're right.  "lauded" was not the right word.   And I have no interest in a discussion like what has gone on, so I understand your your concern.

[Mike Sweeney]

In Mucci-like fashion!

I agree with you that Merion was designed by a "committee" but my "committee" would have a small "c" not a capital, because Macdonald and Whigham were certainly involved in all aspects of the design, but they weren't members of Merion so they couldn't possibly have been members of MCC's "Committee" could they have been?  Did you mean to exclude them from having been involved in the design, or include them?

By acknowledging you, I thought I was acknowledging them.

I'd also disagree with who was really calling the shots on this committee.  MCC's Site Committee recomended purchase and MCC purchased the land based largely on CBM's recommendation.  Wilson's Committee travelled to NGLA so that M&W could help them plan the layout of the course, and M&W determined the final routing.   Plus Macdonald was advising Wilson on other matters.  

This is pretty strong evidence that CBM was calling the shots, and MCC's board was interested what he wanted, not what Wilson wanted.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?  

No, or none to add here.

What evidence is there that Wilson was in charge?    What evidence is there that MCC ever appointed him to do anything at all with the design?  

My different view of Pine Valley versus Merion comes from the fact Merion Cricket Club has and had a variety of sports. It is a "sporting club". Golf was just one of many sports played at MCC. As is typical  of any sport played at MCC, they formed a Committee to build the golf courses. Thus at MCC, golf was just another sport. When they built their squash courts, I would guess they formed a Committee which then hired experts to build the courts/facility.

Pine Valley was a golf only club with no membership or infrastructure to support it. It was George Crump and friends.

Somewhere in between is Winged Foot. The members of the NYAC went to the Board to start a golf club. The NYAC was still paying a big nut for Travers Island (its summer home on Long Island Sound in Westchester), so the Board said no and those NYAC members started WF.

David, where I think you get stuck is you try to apply a model to Merion. I just view it as a unique model at Merion and I credit you with giving me the knowledge that Macdonald was involved. As has been stated by a number of us in a number of these threads, I just have not seen compelling evidence that Macdonald should be credited with the design of Merion as the "name" on the scorecard (taking a simple view).

I am asking the question, has there ever been another cricket/sporting club that has started a golf club that then went its own way. I can only think of Century around here but I don't know the club at all. In addition it is really a city eating club and not a sporting club.

[JESII]

I'd also disagree with who was really calling the shots on this committee.  MCC's Site Committee recomended purchase and MCC purchased the land based largely on CBM's recommendation. 

This is pretty strong evidence that CBM was calling the shots, and MCC's board was interested what he wanted, not what Wilson wanted.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? 

David,

This is a question I'd be curious to hear your answer to...do you have any evidence that Merion showed CBM any land other than the Ardmore land?

[Tom MacWood]

John,
I think an even better poll would be see how many of the people that argue regarding Merion have ever seen it or played it.
Happy 4th.

I've never played it, nor have I played Pine Valley, or any of Alison's courses in Japan.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I think it boils down to the difference between those who have a casual interest in history and those who are consumed with discovering the whole truth.

I can relate to both sides...I believe George Washington had one hell of an arm.