[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff guys.

David...regarding the Merion 36 hole date...and let's try to make this a general point and not specific to Merion.  If someone has access to a clubs records, minutes that details a clubs history and provides specific dates when things occured would you think that was verifiable evidence?

As always, I am not arguing either way...I am just curious as to what is the end all be all definitive fact source for golf historians.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

You are about to enter where ‘Angles fear to tread’ going into the history of Merion. Please do not ask who the designer was or when did Wilson go to GB&I as this whole site might just self-destruct after 5 seconds.

Have you ever seen the film ’The Duellists’ (1977) re French Officers life long duel with each other over the late 1790-1815 period with Carradine & Keitel. Well we have our own GCA.com version with TEPaul & D Moriarty, but don’t ask me who is who.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Mac:

Here are the exact facts of Merion as a 36 hole club and when from Merion's archives (board and committee meetings);

1. Merion (MCC---Merion Cricket Club) played golf on an 18 hole course in Haverford from the late 1890s until Sept. 14, 1912. The land of this course had nine holes owned by prominent Merion member C.A. Griscom (his son Rodman Griscom served on Wilson's committee that began in 1911 and created the East and West courses). The other nine holes of the old Haverford course were owned by the Pennsylvania RR. Both nines were leased by MCC.

2. The East course at Ardmore was opened for play on Sept. 14, 1912 and the Haverford course was closed at the same time.

3. Play on the East course was remarkably crowded in the fall of 1912 and so MCC requested from C.A. Griscom and the PRR that the old Haverford course be used again in 1913 which it was. The old course was finally shut down for good at the end of 1913.

4. In late 1912 and/or early 1913 MCC secured the land for the West course which was built in 1913 and opened for play in the spring of 1914.

And so that would mean that in the year 1913 Merion was apparently the first golf club in America to have 36 holes of golf with their use of the new East course and the old Haverford course. In the following year they had 36 holes in play with the East course and the new West course.

[TEPaul]

"Because Tom, Wayne, Merion, whoever, are sequestering the key information from those of us who are in a position to actually understand and vet that information."


Mac:

Neither Wayne Morrison nor I nor Merion is sequestering any key information or any information that we have permission to physically release copies of. Merion G.C. has an awesome historical archives facility as of about five years ago and it truly is an example for all clubs interested in cateloguing and preserving their history. The Merion archive is open to all serious researchers and parties provided they abide by Merion's process to research and analyze Merion's archive and its voluminous material. At this point, it is my understanding that any researcher must go to Merion after arranging access to the archive through the club and Merion's historians. At this point, I do not believe Merion's historians regularly just send out copies of Merion materials for obvious reasons of manpower shortage or otherwise. I am told that eventually most all of Merion's archive material will be digitized and put on Merion's website. I have no idea, at this time, if that will mean anyone from anywhere in the world will be able to access it over the Internet (some to most clubs actually require PINS and such to access club websites).

Is it possible for Merion to deny access to someone? Frankly, I don't know about that but the fact that Merion is a private organization I suppose they could and may if someone did not abide by their process or even if Merion or any other private club or organization like it felt they did not want to provide access to someone for whatever their reason----such as perhaps viewing someone as a total pain-in-the-ass or someone who they felt did not deserve access to the club's historical material! If you would like me to speculate for you privately why that kind of thing might happen or to whom I would be glad to do that for you for your edification. I say that as I feel you seem to be such a good and commonsensical and objective and polite researcher and interested objective analyst who does not seem to have any interest or any inclination of being rude or obnoxious or demanding or adverserial on an Internet website towards any golf club or its members, historians and friends. The latter, in the realm of private clubs, is probably no different for someone regarding archive access as it would be for someone to play their golf course or use their club. In other words, in the world of private organizations in America not anyone can access these organizations simply because they demand it if they claim they are interested in a private club, its course or its history.

You should also understand something else about Merion, Mac. That is that for approximately 40 plus years golf at Merion operated under a Golf Association (actually a separate corporation known as "The Merion Cricket Club Golf Assocation" that owned the land of Merion East and West and leased it to Merion Cricket Club) within the larger club of Merion Cricket Club. On December 7, 1941 (the date that will live in infamy---eg Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese beginning WW2 for the USA) MCC and the MCC Golf Association voted to take the golf and golf courses of MCC into a separate entity that in 1942 became another corporation known as Merion Golf Club.

Therefore, there is certain historical and documentary material that is not now in the possession of or belongs to Merion Golf Club, it belongs to Merion Cricket Club that is a separate organization from Merion Golf Club and that is why some of us who have access to MCC's material do not feel we should release actual documents without the permission of Merion Cricket Club, not Merion Golf Club.

Hope that helps, Mac.

[Mac Plumart]

Totally...thanks Tom!

[DMoriarty]

Great stuff guys.

David...regarding the Merion 36 hole date...and let's try to make this a general point and not specific to Merion.  If someone has access to a clubs records, minutes that details a clubs history and provides specific dates when things occured would you think that was verifiable evidence?

No.  Unless the information is available for those interested to review, vet, and challenge, unverified gossip has no place in this discussion.

The clubs can do whatever they want with their information within the privacy of their own walls, but when it comes to public discourse, there can be no double standards.  They must play by the same rules as the rest of us.   If I made a claim contrary to the commonly understood history of one of these clubs, my views would likely be politely challenged  and I would be asked to make my case and produce the factual basis for my claim.  That is the way it should be as has to be.  Otherwise my "claim" would amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip.

The truth seeking process is a dialogue, not a monologue.  For it to work properly there must be a back and a forth.  It is not enough for someone just to tell us what to believe, we've got to be able to examine the facts and challenge them, see how they hold up to scrutiny in the daylight.   Allowing clubs or their representatives to tell us what to tell us what to believe amounts to dictate, not discourse.   And what we are left with then is legend, not history. 

In this particular case we have a 1914 article written by the person who was likely in the best position to know exactly what happened regarding the two courses.   Now maybe he was mistaken or lying, but we ought not to come to that decision lightly.  We should carefully review and discuss the facts before discarding the words of a man like Robert Lesley. 

As for the policies of these particular clubs, there is no need to get into that here except to say that I strongly disagree with what has been represented above. 

Bottom line is that if Robert Lesley was wrong or lying, and the Merions and/or their representatives want to set the record straight, then great. Let's see the documents.   If they are not willing to show us the documentation, they have no business in this conversation.   

[TEPaul]

"In this particular case we have a 1914 article written by the person who was likely in the best position to know exactly what happened regarding the two courses.   Now maybe he was mistaken or lying, but we ought not to come to that decision lightly.  We should carefully review and discuss the facts before discarding the words of a man like Robert Lesley."


Mac:

The above is a good example of how distortions of fact and distortions of interpretation happen on this website, and lead to misunderstandings on here.

Above, you have the remarks of a contributor to this website suggesting someone might be implying Robert Lesley was mistaken or lying in the statement from Lesley this same contributor to this website posted above.

Lesley mentioned in that statement referred to that the old Haverford course was closed to play at the same time the new East course in Ardmore was opened for play (Sept. 14, 1912). That is a true statement from Lesley, it is factually correct and the club records reflect it.

What Lesley did not say in that statement is that the old course was used again in 1913 due to overcrowding on the new East course in the fall of 1912 and that the old course was shut down for good at the end of 1913 and before the new West course in Ardmore was first opened for play in the spring of 1914.

Lesley was not mistaken or lying about anything he said in his statement above as this contributor on here is apparently suggesting some on here might be implying. Lesley simply did not mention the old course was used in 1913, at least not in that particular statement this contributor posted on here above! That he did not mention it is certainly not indicative that Lesley was mistaken or lying, it's merely just a matter of the fact that he didn't mention it as he was essentially talking about the new West course and when it opened (spring of 1914).

And yes, Lesley was most certainly in a position to know all about all of this since Lesley served as the chairman of the committee that looked into the securing of land for the new West course in 1912 and 1913 and he would mention in other Merion documents that the recommendation was to be made that C.A. Griscom and the Pennsylvania RR be asked to keep the old Haverford course open during the year of 1913 despite the fact it had been shut down to play in the fall of 1912.

[Mac Plumart]

As always, interesting and fascinating. 

Earlier, I made the point that you guys might be discussing point X, but I learn about x, y, and z during your debates.

Here is an example…

In post 186, I mentioned I would like to put in some courses with specific architectural breakthroughs on the list.  I did this because Tom Macwood kept asking things like, what impact did Course X (specifically Bethpage) have on golf course architecture.  Frankly, I thought he had a great point so I started the discussion on that topic.

Here is a direct quote from that post regarding architectural breakthroughs…

“Biarritz green at Biarritz golf course in France...is that right?”

Jim Nugent responds in post 195 that know one knows for sure that there was a Biarritz green in Biarritz, France.

My internal response was “how could that possibly be?!?!”  But discussion ensues and I learn that some of the “requirements” of a Biarritz hole is a carry over a “chasm” like feature.  And it actually appears to me that this is an essential feature of a Biarritz hole.  Furthermore, David M. points out a distinction between a feature on a hole and an entire concept of a hole.  Like the “Valley of Sin” feature in contrast to the Biarritz concept…carry the chasm to a green with a swale like feature and two flattish landing areas on either side of the swale…perhaps both landing areas are maintained like greens…but perhaps only one side in maintained like a green.

Fascinating and educational.

Then we begin talking about Piping Rock, Merion, etc.  It comes out that although Wilson is given credit for being the designer of Merion, others helped him and/or consulted with him.  This makes good sense and provides good background for why Tom MacWood was adamant that Pine Valley was not the first great “collaborative” golf course.

Also it makes common sense, especially if you look at today’s architecture practices.  Didn’t Tom Doak work for Pete Dye prior his launching his solo career?  If so, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Doak didn’t add any value or opinions to Dye’s creations.  Furthermore, it is my understanding that Alice Dye adds significant ideas to the Dye courses.  Add in his work with Jack Nicklaus, etc, etc, etc and you’ve got nothing but collaborations. 

This would have had to occur throughout time as “golf nuts” seem to come together to discuss the game…even if they don’t see eye to eye.

And now we are debating if I should put down whether Merion had 36 holes in 1912, 1913, or 1914.  And again, I totally get why that is important…so it must be discovered.

Anyway, I could put a lot of posts like this one detailing what I learned while people were discussing something else entirely…but I think you get the point.

The knowledge and information thrown around on this site are extra-ordinary.  And even when you guys don’t think I am listening or taking notes…rest assured I am.  Take the two nuggets I got from Tom Macwood…even though he dropped out of here awhile back…perhaps thinking I wasn’t listening or caring.

In closing, I think the work being done here it truly amazing and I am very happy to be a member of the site.

Thanks…again!!

[DMoriarty]

Mac, I don't give a damn whether Merion closed their old course in 1912 or 1913, or both.   My point is a more general one about the nature of our discussions and what should and should not pass for fact.  Surely you realize this, don't you?  

For the record, I don't think Lesley was a liar.  To me he is perhaps the most interesting and compelling character on the Merion side of the drama, and certainly the one I can relate to most.  So far,  everything I have read from him and about him has checked out.  

So I take him at his word when he reported that:
1.  The old course was closed on September 14, 1914.
2.  On that same date, the membership celebrated the final curtain falling on the old course.
3.  Declaration Day (July 4) of 1914, was the date on which the members could play both courses.

Lesley did discuss the overcrowding of the course in the article, but made no mention of the course reopening in 1913, and as you can see that is rather inconsistent with what he said about the course closing, the final curtain, and two courses being available beginning Declaration Day of 1914.

Now if for whatever reason this isn't the full story or is otherwise inaccurate or misleanding, then all TEPaul needs to do is provide the information proving differently.  

To clarify my position, Mac, I am not saying for sure when the other course was closed.  I wasn't there, so I have no basis for saying one way or another.    All I can do is analyze the available evidence and base my conclusions on that evidence.    But TEPaul's claim as to what between what evidence says and means CANNOT substitute for actual, verifiable evidence.   The same goes for what I might declare some source material might say or mean.

Let me give you a few examples.  

1.  If I told you I had a photograph of the hog's back, swale, and green that served as the inspiration for CBM's concept, and then I proceeded to tell you what the hole looked like, would you take my word for it or would you want to to see the photograph.   If I were you, I'd want to see the photograph.   Likewise, if I were you I'd want to see whatever it it is that TEPaul is basing this current claim on.

[By the way Mac, this may not be a hypothetical.  I do have a photograph that may well show the original inspiration for the Biarritz, at least the area from the "hog's back" on, but I am still looking into it.]

2.  [Second Example Removed and text below slightly modified.]

But the problem isn't that document's are misinterpreted.  As I said, this is to be expected and is part of the process.  The problem is when POSTERS REFUSE TO BACK UP THEIR CONCLUSIONS WITH THE SOURCES.  The related problem is that MOST HERE D0 NOT CHALLENGE UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OR DEMAND THAT THE CLAIMS BE BACKED UP WITH FACT.   It may seem the polite thing to do, but it is a recipe for shoddy history, mistakes, and the continuation of unsupported and unsupportable legend.  

There are dozens of real world examples) of what can and will happen when we rely on those with relationships with these clubs to simply tell us what the records mean instead of examining the documents and figuring it out for ourselves.   Haven't you noticed the number of official club histories that have their own information wrong?  This could all be avoided by an open discourse and vetting process.  

In fact, that is the real beauty of an open discourse and vetting process.   It works.  Relying on another's word for it, no matter how well meaning, doesn't work.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

That last post of Moriarty's is exactly why those so-called hugely adverserial "Merion threads" began and why they continued, and apparently vis-a-vis that last post why he would like to see them continue.

I'm not interested in that on this DG anymore. The way both me, Wayne, a number of people here and at Merion look at all this is very different from the way Moriarty just described it. This whole thing with MacWood and Moriarty goes back close to seven years on here, particularly with Moriarty in recent years.

If you're interested in understanding my take, Wayne's take and the take of some people here and at Merion, including those who run the place and are responsible for its history then we can talk about it on the phone. OK?

[DMoriarty]

Mac,

While it was entirely true and accurate, I thought better of my second example above and deleted it, and slightly modified the text thereafter.   TEPaul is correct that we shouldn't be getting into that now.  (Athough he seems to think that his constant shots at me regarding Merion and my essay are somehow exempt from this.  Go figure?)

This is a pretty simply situation.    If Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, or whoever wants to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913, then all they have to do is produce the documents that prove this up.   That way we can vet the information and see how it holds up to scrutiny.   That is exactly the same as I would expect from you if you came up with a novel take on the history of one of these clubs, and that certainly has been expected of me when I have.   In these conversations, Merion and its self-appointed representatives have to play by the same rules we do.  Otherwise it is no longer a discussion but instead a dictate.   I don't like being told what do believe.  Do you?

[TEPaul]

"(Athough he seems to think that his constant shots at me regarding Merion and my essay are somehow exempt from this.  Go figure?)"


Not really. I don't look at it in the context of any exemption. Your essay is simply massively wrong both interpretively and historically. Of course if you would consider massively altering it to reflect the factual and historical accurate events of Merion during that early time I doubt there would be anyone who would think to take any shots at you or your essay. But if you do that perhaps this time you should become as familiar with ALL the material involving Merion as we are, and not just portions of it as you are. It's too bad you never went there for that purpose over 5-7 years ago. We've been doing this there for close to a decade even if our first efforts only involved Flynn's part in it because that was the subject of the book

Oh well, maybe the next time you decide you want to understand the architectural history of some significant American golf course.

[TEPaul]

"If Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, or whoever wants to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913, then all they have to do is produce the documents that prove this up."

Again, neither TEPaul, Wayne or Merion feels the need to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913. That fact is not exactly interpretative and plenty of good architectural analysts have reviewed it, vetted it, scrutinized it and analyzed it. None of us, including Merion feels that any of this stuff must be put on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com so a David Moriarty can review it and "vet" it and scrutinize it carefully to confirm its accuracy and the bona fides of the documents that explain it. If he wanted to do that he should have done it years ago when he first proclaimed on here how interested he was in understanding the architectural history of Merion. 

[DMoriarty]

"(Athough he seems to think that his constant shots at me regarding Merion and my essay are somehow exempt from this.  Go figure?)"


Not really. I don't look at it in the context of any exemption. Your essay is simply massively wrong both interpretively and historically. Of course if you would consider massively altering it to reflect the factual and historical accurate events of Merion during that early time I doubt there would be anyone who would think to take any shots at you or your essay. But if you do that perhaps this time you should become as familiar with ALL the material involving Merion as we are, and not just portions of it as you are. It's too bad you never went there for that purpose over 5-7 years ago. We've been doing this there for close to a decade even if our first efforts only involved Flynn's part in it because that was the subject of the book

Oh well, maybe the next time you decide you want to understand the architectural history of some significant American golf course.

"If Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, or whoever wants to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913, then all they have to do is produce the documents that prove this up."

Again, neither TEPaul, Wayne or Merion feels the need to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913. That fact is not exactly interpretative and plenty of good architectural analysts have reviewed it, vetted it, scrutinized it and analyzed it. None of us, including Merion feels that any of this stuff must be put on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com so a David Moriarty can review it and "vet" it and scrutinize it carefully to confirm its accuracy and the bona fides of the documents that explain it. If he wanted to do that he should have done it years ago when he first proclaimed on here how interested he was in understanding the architectural history of Merion. 

Mac,

Are you starting to see what I mean with regard to the double standard regarding the Merion issue?    I remind you again that you shouldn't assume I agree with TEPaul just because I don't respond to him.

I should have mentioned above that one thing that I am sure has happened and will continue to happen is that TEPaul and Co. will take the discussion offline, via phone calls, messages, etc., continuing to bash me behind my back and try to convince you of the correctness of their position. 

This is another example of how they think this process ought to work-- they cannot bare to have their ideas scrutinized so they take it to the back channels.  I guess they are afraid that their claims are like Vampires  which will shrivel up and blow away if they are ever exposed to he light of day.   

You won't get this from me.   I prefer all discussion about these things be out in the open.   My interest is the truth and a little light never hurt. 

[TEPaul]

"This is another example of how they think this process ought to work-- they cannot bare to have their ideas scrutinized so they take it to the back channels.  I guess they are afraid that their claims are like Vampires  which will shrivel up and blow away if they are ever exposed to he light of day."


Mac:

I know you're pretty new here and don't remember those so-called Merion threads but that remark is really amazing. Our ideas were scrutinized for about six and half years on here on multiple threads on Merion that probably total a couple of hundred pages and literally thousands of posts.

If you want my take on how it began and why it played out as it did let's talk about it on the phone. I think this website has had more than it can stand of that subject.

[Mac Plumart]

Hello...just got back from Cavalia...awesome show...think Cirque de Soleil on horse back...totally awesome...was with my 5 year old son, 7 year old daughter, wife, and mother-in-law...got a tour of the stables afterwards...met some of the performers...it was cool.

Tom...I think you are correct on Merion.  I have actually read David's "Missing Faces of Merion" and some of the old threads on this website discussing it.  The bottom line is that there is plenty of material for people to read regarding it.

Additionally, concerning this thread the only thing up for debate now about Merion is whether it had 36 holes in 1913 or 1914.  David said he doesn't care about that, so we are good.  Moving on.

I would repost my last post, but since that was a more detailed rendition of a prior post detailing what I've learned from you guys as you've debated other points...I don't think I need to.  Simply re-read it.

I have learned a whole heck of a lot during throughout this thread.  I currently have a lot of follow-up reading and researching to do...thanks Jim!!!!

If new things come up I will re-post the updated list.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP is absolutely correct , David's essay on Merion was scrutinized like no other essay on GCA, and take my word for it that is saying something. Of course when TEP and Wayne were encouraged to write their own counter essay they refused. Actually at one point they indicated they would present their own account and then backed down as usually. And I hope they change their mind regarding their Flynn book on CD, and offer it to anyone interested as opposed to their plan to offer only to those deemed friendly.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

It's true, "The Missing Faces of Merion," was scrutinized on here almost like no other essay on this website. That scrutiny took place over a number of years and a number of threads now sometimes labeled "The Merion Threads." I would say there was all that scrutiny for a few primary reasons;

1. Many people felt the essay was incomplete in its research, highly specious in its reasoning and speculative in its analyses.
2. For various reasons the scrutiny in those numerous threads was also adverserial amongst its participants.

It is true that we, probably Wayne and I (or probably more accurately just me), did consider, a few years ago, writing a "counterpoint" essay to it and putting it on here. However, on reflection, I'm glad I didn't do it as I don't think that essay ("The Missing Faces of Merion") really deserved a counterpoint essay on here or anywhere else.

I feel Merion's architectural history is more than capable of standing on its own to anyone's scrutiny as Merion has arranged it now and as researchers may want to analyze it both at and with the actual comprehensive and very impressive archives of Merion GC (for instance, there is a lot more architectural material in Merion's archives than is reflected in Merion's latest history book by Desmond Muirhead which you have been critical of for being somewhat incomplete or misleading). I think Merion's archive itself is where any competent researcher or essayist on Merion's architectural history of any time or period should begin, as I have always said the researcher/essayist of "The Missing Faces of Merion" should have done (or yourself, for that matter), but never did.

[Tom MacWood]

If it didn't deserve a counter essay, why did you spend so much time addressing it (and continue to spend time addressing it)? I reckon you personally have contributed close to a thousand posts addressing the essay, or the equivalent of several counter essays. I think it boils down to not having the courage and/or conviction to present your own case.

[DMoriarty]

If it didn't deserve a counter essay, why did you spend so much time addressing it (and continue to spend time addressing it)? I reckon you personally have contributed close to a thousand posts addressing the essay, or the equivalent of several counter essays.  I think it boils down to not having the courage and/or conviction to present your own case.

They don't have the courage or conviction, but they don't have something even more important-- The facts.    In particularly, they don't have the facts to support their apparently ceaseless and substanceless attacks on me and my Essay.   

To openly address my Essay, they'd have to come forward with the information and records they have been hiding from us.  They'd also have to address my actual essay instead of just throwing out blanket insults and baseless pronouncesments.  They'd also have to give up control of the record, and we all can see how important that is to them.  This isn't even getting into the fact that, far from trashing my essay, the information they have obtained since my essay came out confirms every major point in my essay, as well as the vast majority of the minor points.  It would be pretty difficult to continue to try and portray us as idiots, charlitans, fools, and villlians, when in the end we have been pretty much right about just about everything we have argued with them about over all these years.  You and I know that being proven correct isn't the point, at least not to us.  But it would too much for them to bare if their promised but never forth-coming "point-by-point-counterpoint" proved the essay to be largely correct.  So TEPaul will stick to launching baseless grenades while Wayne continues to hide the remainder of the source material.  Until Merion wises up to them, at least.   

I've got to hand it to Wayne, though, for he apparently realizes that attacks on the essay can have no merit until and unless the supporting facts and analysis are made available for vetting, scrutiny, and critcial review.   Or perhaps Wayne, more than TEPaul,  just better grasps the old adage:   

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than to speak up and remove all doubt. 
 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Your questions are good ones on post #343 about why we didn't just write a counterpoint essay instead of spending the time to post hundreds or thousands of posts on here on the subject. Obviously, at the time, we felt a direct discussion or dialogue or even debate on the subject on the DG of this website was a good idea and fairly inclusive on here with others. In retrospect, because of the entrenched positions, it probably wasn't a good idea. Would just a "counterpoint" essay have been the best way to go about it? Perhaps it would have but as I said on here above, in retrospect, probably neither would've been the best way for us to deal with that essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" because (again, as I said above) the Merion archives on all this can stand on its own as to what the truth is and what the Verifiable Facts are of Merion's architectural history of that particular time and who architectural attribution for it should go to.

And as you may or may not remember, the architectural attribution back then was given to Hugh Wilson and his committee with some help and advice from those two good and kindly amateur sportsmen gentlemen, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam (recorded as such in MCC committee and board meeting minutes from 1910 and 1911).

I realize you did not know that Merion recorded it that way back then when you found that article about seven years ago that mentioned CBM and Whigam and the help they gave MCC on Merion East back then (prompting you to post the thread "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" back in Feb. or 2003) but MCC and Merion sure did know it from from their beginning and so did we for some years before you ran across those articles that have probably been in the Merion archives now for close to 95 years. And what we did not know that remained at MCC, it was Merion's historians who found that material in the last few years, and certainly not either of you two. Apparently your researching compatriot on this subject, the author of the essay in question, didn't have that information either that Macdonald/Whgam had advised MCC (back in 1910 and 1911) before 2003 or even before 2007.

And so now what are we left with on this subject on the DG on this website? After all these years we are only left with the constant responses like the following one from the post just above this one:

"They don't have the courage or conviction, but they don't have something even more important-- The facts.    In particularly, they don't have the facts to support their apparently ceaseless and substanceless attacks on me and my Essay."  

We have the facts alright, all of them that anyone we know of is aware are extant, and we've had just about all of them for many years. If either of you two wanted to know what we had or have or what Merion had or has, you should have begun all this back before 2003 by just coming to us first or at least going to Merion and its archive----SOMETHING, I should add, neither of you has done YET!  

[Matt MacIver]

Gentlemen - I'm in a pissy mood today so bear with me. 

Why must every thread devolve into The Great Merion Debate?  The rest of us deserve better than the on-going pissing match; as another Page 1 thread indicates, others pay to support the site too. 

Earlier in this thread someone commented that the Groundbreaking/Revolutionary discussion was engaging and reminicent of the old days.  I agree.  Take it over to one of the other many threads please.  Rant over. 

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...I'm with you!!!  Here is something I've been thinking about, please comment as y'all see fit...



The Architects of the Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses…



Architects who had 3 course which made our list…

CB MacDonald/Seth Raynor
The Chicago Golf Club; Mid-Ocean; and Yale


Architects who had 2 courses which made our list…

CB MacDonald-- National Golf Links and The Lido(should the Lido be MacDonald and Raynor or just MacDonald)

William Campbell--The Country Club and The Machrie**

Donald Ross--Franklin Park and Pinehurst

RT Jones--Peachtree and Dunes

Pete Dye--The Golf Club and Harbour Town

Coore and Crenshaw--Sandhills and Bandon Trails

David Mclay Kidd--Bandon Dunes and Machrihanish Dunes


Architects who had 1 course which made our list…

Seth Raynor--Mountain Lake

Mother Nature; Old Tom Morris legendary greenskeeper--St.Andrews

Robert Chambers and George Morris--Hoylake

Tom Bendelow--Van Courtland Park

Willie Park, Jr.--Sunningdale (old)

Ida Dixon--Springhaven Club

Charles Huthings--Princes Club at Sandwich

D. Emmet--Garden City Golf Club

Herbert Leeds--Myopia Hunt

Hugh Wilson (and others)--Merion

HS Colt--St. George’s Hill

Henry Fownes--Oakmont

George Crump (and others)--Pine Valley

Neville and Grant--Pebble Beach

Stanley Thompson--Jasper Park

Charles Alison--Hirono

K. Ohtani--Tokyo

Alister Mackenize--Augusta National

AW Tillinghast--Bethpage

Red Lawrence--Desert  Forest

William Bell--Victoria

Tom Fazio--Shadow Creek

Tom Doak--Pacific Dunes


Courses in which I don’t know who the designer/architect was…

Royal Blackheath

Royal Calcutta

North Berwick

Westward Ho!

Le Phare in Biarritz France

Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point

Kelvinside


Interestingly enough as a tandem…Raynor and MacDonald have 6 courses on our list.  Way more than anyone else.  Are they the most groundbreaking/revolutionary architects in the history of the game?

Are they any architects who are not on the list that should be?  If so, what courses have they designed which should be on our list?

As always, any and all comments are welcome.

** I think I might have a mistake on this list...is William Campbell the same as Willie Campbell?  I am thinking "no" but I am unsure.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac
I can't seem to find an architect for the original course at The Hotel Champlain, but AWTillinghast did the one that's there now.

Somehow the Belleair courses should make the list. Possibly as the first Florida courses with grass greens.

That's how it always seems to go with Macdonald/Raynor/Banks, check out the list of classic courses and you'll always find 10 to 15 of their works on it......and don't forget, Macdonald's vision is still being used as a catalyst to this day. Impressive.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks for the private and public posts helping me with this list...

Jim...two things...I will get the Belleair courses on there on the next rendition...but your comments on CB MacDonald are really interesting.  It does seem to all come back to his work.  Hmmm.



The Architects of the Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses...


Architects who had 3 course which made our list…

CB MacDonald/Seth Raynor
The Chicago Golf Club; Mid-Ocean; and Yale


Architects who had 2 courses which made our list…

CB MacDonald-- National Golf Links and The Lido(should the Lido be MacDonald and Raynor or just MacDonald)

William Campbell--The Country Club and The Machrie**

Donald Ross--Franklin Park and Pinehurst

RT Jones--Peachtree and Dunes

Pete Dye--The Golf Club and Harbour Town

Coore and Crenshaw--Sandhills and Bandon Trails

David Mclay Kidd--Bandon Dunes and Machrihanish Dunes

Old Tom Morris… Kelvinside and Westward Ho!

AW Tillinghast—Bethpage and Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point


Architects who had 1 course which made our list…

Seth Raynor--Mountain Lake

Mother Nature; Old Tom Morris legendary greenskeeper--St.Andrews
(should I simply attribute this to Old Tom Morris?)

Robert Chambers and George Morris--Hoylake

Tom Bendelow--Van Courtland Park

Willie Park, Jr.--Sunningdale (old)

Ida Dixon--Springhaven Club

Charles Huthings--Princes Club at Sandwich

D. Emmet--Garden City Golf Club

Herbert Leeds--Myopia Hunt

Hugh Wilson (and others)--Merion

HS Colt--St. George’s Hill

Henry Fownes--Oakmont

George Crump (and others)--Pine Valley

Neville and Grant--Pebble Beach

Stanley Thompson--Jasper Park

Charles Alison--Hirono

K. Ohtani--Tokyo

Alister Mackenize--Augusta National

Red Lawrence--Desert  Forest

William Bell--Victoria

Tom Fazio--Shadow Creek

Tom Doak--Pacific Dunes


Courses in which I don’t know who the designer/architect was…

Royal Blackheath

Royal Calcutta

North Berwick

Le Phare in Biarritz France



Interestingly enough as a tandem…Raynor and MacDonald have 6 courses on our list.  Way more than anyone else.  Are they the most groundbreaking/revolutionary architects in the history of the game?

Are they any architects who are not on the list that should be?  If so, what courses have they designed which should be on our list?

As always, any and all comments are welcome.

**Can someone confirm or deny that Willie Campbell and William Campbell are the same person?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()