News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

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


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #175 on: January 26, 2010, 02:52:00 PM »
My mistake, I didn't realize you had spliced two attachments together. So that is the same Evan's article where he mistakenly reports Wilson had made a trip abroad some years prior? I also see where Evans says construction began in June 1913.

There were a good number of men with impressive resumes in America or visiting America in 1913, even the most ardent Wilson supporter would have to admit his experience was limited in comparison.

Why do you think it is almost certain Colt stayed with Wilson? Why did Colt come to Philadelphia in May 1913...what was the purpose of that trip?

Here is Oakley's responding letter:
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 02:55:24 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #176 on: January 26, 2010, 02:59:04 PM »
Sully:

Regarding that gap in time between the letters of Wilson to Piper and Oakley on salt marsh reclamation questions at Seaview (whether they were questions on the same set of circumstances or not), that kind of gap wasn't particularly unusual between those men. First, Piper and Oakley not infrequently took very extended trips (generally never together) not just in this country but around the world in the interest of botanical research for the US Dept of Agriculture. For instance, when Hugh Wilson first wrote C.V. Piper of the US Dept of Agriculture on Feb, 1, 1911 on the advice of C.B. Macdonald, Piper did not actually begin corresponding with Wilson until almost a year later because he was on an extended trip to the Phillipines. But Oakley stood in for him at that time.

Second, the gap in those letters from Wilson happened to be in the dead of the winter of 1913-1914 and I'm pretty sure not much more work would go on around here in those months back then than it would in those months now. Generally in the winter months this far north golf architectural and construction projects pretty much shut down and believe me I know that from personal experiences.

Also regarding gaps over the years in their correspondences, there was a pretty remarkable similarity with all three men in that they tended to get sick apparently from over-work and consequently take extended periods of time off that could run into some months. When that happened, though, they could be and often were covered by some of the other US Dept of Agriculture botanists and grass experts such as the highly accomplished Lymon Carrier.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 03:09:46 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #177 on: January 26, 2010, 04:01:08 PM »
"Why do you think it is almost certain Colt stayed with Wilson?"


I've put the specific reasoning behind that belief on this website maybe a good half dozen times over the years and including I think in the last week or two. For those seemingly interested in those kinds of details it's pretty amazing how little they must actually read these kinds of things and this kind of information.

The thinking behind the belief that Colt probably stayed with Wilson while around Philadelphia in 1913 has to do with the fact that it may've been the one and only single opportunity that Mrs Wilson and Mrs Colt could've ever met one another which is obvious that they did know one another from a letter from Colt to Wilson many years after 1913.

It also seems quite obvious from that particular letter from Colt to Wilson that Wilson stayed with Colt in England for a time when he went over there in 1912 and apparently not with Mrs. Wilson.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 04:03:12 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #178 on: January 26, 2010, 04:41:45 PM »

My mistake, I didn't realize you had spliced two attachments together. So that is the same Evan's article where he mistakenly reports Wilson had made a trip abroad some years prior? I also see where Evans says construction began in June 1913.

There were a good number of men with impressive resumes in America or visiting America in 1913, even the most ardent Wilson supporter would have to admit his experience was limited in comparison.


Tom,

I've already stipulated that there were men with more experience designing golf courses than Hugh Wilson at the time Lesley, et.al. selected him for Merion and at the time Geist selected him for Seaview.

Your incredulity over why those rich, influential men saw the value in using Hugh Wilson to create their golf courses is understood and you've previously communicated that you don't understand how they could have done that many, many times here previously.  

However, being in denial gets us no closer to actually understanding these events clearly as they happened and as everyone who documented those events at that time understood them to happen.

For instance, your attempt to cast doubt on William Evans as a messenger because you don't like his message is really not valid, because "Joe Bunker", "Billy Bunker", and other writers for other local papers also said Hugh Wilson designed Seaview.   What's more, I think we need to look a little deeper at what these men actually wrote about Wilson's trip abroad, particularly in light of the article Joe uncovered that started this thread that shows us clearly that not much was actually done when Merion was originally grassed except that tees and greens were located and grassed, essentially.

Evans wrote;

Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new Merion course was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect."

Before attempting to devalue Mr. Evan's opinion, perhaps you can tell me how that differs from what others at the time said and how they said it.

For instance, in February 1916, A.W. Tillinghast wrote;

"Certainly a reference to the Merion Course over which the championship of 1916 will be played, must be of interest. The course was opened in 1912, and the plans were decided upon only after a critical review of the great courses in Great Britain and America."

Later that year, in April for the Philadelphia Inquirer, author "Joe Bunker" wrote about Merion;

"Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result being that Merion's East course is the last word in course architecture.   It has been improved each year until it is now nearly perfect from a golf point."

Earlier, in December, 1914, Joe Bunker wrote;

"Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned.  He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “

In January 1913, right after the course opened, "Far and Sure" wrote for American Golfer;

"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee ,headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson.   Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used."

And thanks to an article you found that was reproduced here, we all know what Richard Francis wrote in 1950 about Wilson's trip abroad and its purpose;




So, I think in light of the fact that William Evans and many of these other authors seemed to be talking about "constructing" as creating the man-made golf course features that define the strategies (problems) of the holes, or the "mental hazards" as Alex Findlay termed it, then there is nothing erroneous at all about what William Evans wrote.  

These accounts, and others of the time, seem to have given credit to Wilson for the basic "laying out" of the holes in their raw state, as a location and physical placement of tees, fairways, and greens, as well as the design and creation and "construction" of the "mental hazards" over time as play on the course was closely observed and determinations made on how best to challenge the top golfers, while still remaining playable and fun for the average club member.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 04:51:32 PM by Mike Cirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #179 on: January 26, 2010, 05:09:23 PM »
Tom MacWood,

This is what I think happened;

Let's go back to the Alex Findlay article that Joe posted some months back and start there. 

“I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick,  which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot”. – Alex Findlay, talking about Hugh Wilson in May 1912 after Wilson’s return from overseas

What do you think Findlay means when he says that it will take a lot of making in this context?   As we already know, the golf course and the holes have already been routed, the basic tees and greens were placed on the ground, the greens and tees shaped and seeded, and now growing in.   That all happened over the previous year and now the course is months from opening so why would some hole concept still “take a lot of making”, or require much more work to be anything resembling the original?   

Let’s examine some previously stated assumptions as stated by the author of the Merion whitepaper published here;

1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.   
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.   
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.   
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad. 

You may be very surprised to learn that I agree with almost everything written here with the exception perhaps that the first point is an overly broad generalization and oversimplification but the second point is where I’d like to get more specific because I’m not sure it’s a valid assumption.

I want to be sure I address this comprehensively, and I guess we have enough generally agreed examples to work with using Merion holes 3 (redan), 10 (Alps), and 15 green (Eden Green) that consensus concurs that were based on some overseas principles. 

Let’s start with the redan hole, the third.   

Richard Francis tells us directly that this is one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that “the location of the hole lent itself to this design”.

You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole.   He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.

This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad.  Francis also tells us clearly that the idea all along was to “incorporate their good features on our course” AFTER Wilson returned in May of 1911.

How could this be?   Weren’t the holes already “designed” before Wilson went abroad, as you rightfully ask?

The simple answer is, no, they weren’t designed.    Eighteen tees and greens were fitted into the property in a routing, again using the natural features and conditions at their disposal on the property that had been selected as their canvas.

None of these tasks required Wilson to go abroad to study first because all they were using at this point was their own carefully studied knowledge of the property, their understanding of good golf holes in the U.S. through their own individual experiences playing golf at a high level nationally for over a decade, as well as what knowledge Macdonald had imparted regarding agronomics and construction techniques, as well has his knowledge of the great holes abroad that he communicated during their visit with him at NGLA.

All of the early accounts mentioned that what was built at first was incomplete, that there were very few bunkers and pits, and that “mental hazards” and additional strategies would be added later.   THAT was the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad…to see in person the type of great hole strategies they had discussed with Macdonald and now wished to apply to their evolving golf course.

Some months ago,  we had a great debate here re: whether the 3rd hole was indeed a redan, because it does not have the characteristic green sloping front to back, and tilted severely to the low side.  In fact, the 3rd green at Merion slopes back to front, the opposite of what you would expect.

If you think about the definition of the great holes abroad, almost every one of them are self-defined by a few key attributes, and in almost every case it’s not due to some natural feature that needs to be present, but due instead to the placement of artificial hazards which determine strategy.   THAT is what makes them somewhat repeatable.   Almost every template hole is self-defined by its bunkering pattern which defines the hole strategy…the road hole, the redan, the eden, the short, the alps…

I would contend that when the Merion course was first routed, shaped, and seeded, the 3rd hole was simply a tee in a valley, and a green located on a plateau hilltop, much like probably hundreds of uphill par threes in existence, although that barn-top abrupt rise does make it admittedly a bit special.

If nothing else was done to the hole after that it would still be a very good hole…it could even be bunkerless and would be a very good hole.

Yet, to apply some of what they saw as “redan principles”, the Wilson committee decided to build the key “redan bunker” into the face of the hill diagonally to one side (which Francis tells us was the basement of the barn), and also put some “high side” bunkering in on the left to catch the golfer playing a bit too cautiously away from the visually obvious front-right hazard.   

I would contend that those bunkers, and thus the entire hole strategy as a “redan” were added AFTER Wilson’s return from abroad.   The green design doesn’t exactly fit the redan concept because as you mentioned, that was already done and in place.   But we already know they weren’t looking for exact copies…they were simply looking to implement specific features and principles of great holes abroad and apply them to their natural inland conditions.

So it goes with the other examples.   Robert Lesley tells us the “principle” of the Alps Hole they wanted to copy was the large crossing bunker in front of the green, and possibly the large mound behind.    Well, we already know that when Wilson returned from his trip abroad and spoke with Findlay, he admitted that to create anything like the original Alps, “it would take a lot of making.”

But what about the “Eden Green” on the 15th, I’m sure you’re thinking.    Didn’t that require previous intent?   After all, it was built with a large back to front slope and we know that it was roundly criticized as too severe, as was the 8th, which Francis tells us “originally…took the contour of the hillside so that players had to play onto a green which sloped sharply away from them.”   The 8th green was rebuilt before 1916.

In the case of the 15th, we know that Tillinghast claimed it sloped so much from back to front that players had to “skittle” their approach shots up to the front.

But, was it an Eden green because of the back to front slope, which on the uphill 15th also probably originally took much of “the contour of the hillside”, or was it the typical Eden bunkering pattern, where a large front right bunker cut into the face of the upslope is only matched in challenge and difficulty by the “Hill bunker” to the left, where those playing away from the more obvious frontal attack often end up?

Once again, I’d contend that the bunkering created the strategy of that approach, and defined the principles they wanted to copy from overseas on the 15th.

There was also some previous speclation that the 6th hole had some characteristics of a Road Hole, and I agreed.   What made it a road hole?

Well, we know it had a property boundary on the right but that was simply happenstance of the routing.   However, Merion CHOSE to utilize that boundary and you told us that they created a tee area that required a carry over the corner, built some large mounding in that corner, and then build a large hazard left of the green to challenge those playing too cautiously away from the boundary on the drive.

Once again, these are/were all artificial touches that created the hole strategies, and that were added AFTER the course was routed, based on what Wilson learned abroad, and based on how the Merion committee determined to apply them to the natural conditions at their disposal.

So, to draw an alternate timeline,  this is what it looks like to me;

Jan – early march 1911 – Wilson and Committee create many golf course layouts, none of which they are completely satisfied with.

March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some great insight.

March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts.   Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, helps the committee select the best routing.

April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.

Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.

Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.

March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.

May 1912 – Sept 1912 – Wilson puts the first “overseas touches” on the golf course, almost certainly in the form of bunkers and mounding influence play and creating internal, artificial hole strategies that he emulates based on great holes he has now both seen and discussed with Macdonald through sketches and Mac’s NGLA versions, as well as the originals he’s seen with his own eyes.  Some of it was termed "experimental".

Sept 1912 – Sept 1916 – This work continues slowly because the natural hazards make the course difficult and challenging enough for the average member.   Work accelerates in mid 1915 when Merion is awaded the US Amateur of 1916.


TEPaul

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #180 on: January 26, 2010, 06:21:17 PM »
"I've already stipulated that there were men with more experience designing golf courses than Hugh Wilson at the time Lesley, et.al. selected him for Merion and at the time Geist selected him for Seaview.

Your incredulity over why those rich, influential men saw the value in using Hugh Wilson to create their golf courses is understood and you've previously communicated that you don't understand how they could have done that many, many times here previously.  

However, being in denial gets us no closer to actually understanding these events clearly as they happened and as everyone who documented those events at that time understood them to happen."





Mike:

I feel the foregoing by you today is very well put----very well said. And it is certainly not in the slightest confrontational or argumentative with anyone else's point of view that disagrees with it or disagrees with your opoinon of what Wilson or his inherent talent was about with architecture, at any point in time, particularly towards the beginning of his career in golf architecture.

But I think we have gotten to the point, perhaps long past the point, of efficacy or understanding by continuing to argue over the same points and the same questions.

As I see it, it surely is a question of why the men of Merion or Geist or anyone else that Wilson provided his architectural involvement with turned to him as they did or when they did. But the logical answer seems to be before us and it always has been even if noone specifically gave their reasons for doing so back then. Obviously those men of MCC and Geist and others saw something in Wilson that they had confidence in even in the very beginning with Merion to turn to him as they did, otherwise why would they have done it? Just because noone specifically explained for our benefit in specific or minute detail what they saw in him by no means obviates the fact that they sure saw something in him and right from the very beginning.

And even if unrecorded the proof is in the pudding very much by what he actually accomplished, including early on. This notion or assumption or far worse some conclusion that he was so much the novice at one point that he was incapable of doing what he did even early on and therefore had to turn to someone else to do it for him or did turn to someone else to do it for him (without ever having that somehow reported or admitted) basically just doesn't cut it, in my opinion, in anything remotely resembling an intelligent analytical excercise or inquiry.


I really don't know why this seeming "legend investigation" keeps going on with Wilson with one or two on here but given the wealth of evidence supplied to the contrary, it seems like it really doesn't have that much to do with curiosity over Wilson himself, his talent, his accomplishments or his legend. It seems like it has more to do with a number of other reasons that basically have either very little or nothing to do with Wilson himself and what he actually did do at any particular point in time.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 06:26:25 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #181 on: January 26, 2010, 07:00:29 PM »
Do you think added script in the letter Tom Macwood posted from Wilson to Oakley in November 1913 which discusses rebuilding the greens with turf from the old course was referring to Merion? Would it matter anyway?

Also...why again couldn't CBM, in the summer of 1910, suggested a route around the property to best facilitate a couple of his ideal holes?

TEPaul

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #182 on: January 26, 2010, 07:15:07 PM »
"Do you think added script in the letter Tom Macwood posted from Wilson to Oakley in November 1913 which discusses rebuilding the greens with turf from the old course was referring to Merion?"


Sully:

There's no question at all that postscript (in handwriting) at the bottom of that letter referred to Merion East and not Seaview. First of all, contrary to the belief of some on here MCC kept the old Haverford course open for play a year and more beyond what they first said they would do or even reported they would do in 1912 (when they opened the East course). Secondly, Merion East had real agronomic problems with a few greens Wilson described as the low greens and to fix them they regrassed them with the sod they brought over from the old Haverford course that they were shutting down for good in the late fall of 1913.

This wasn't the only time Merion did something like that. Perhaps towards the end of the teens Merion actually trucked enough old green sod over to Pine Valley to fix one of their greens. I think it might have been the 8th.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #183 on: January 26, 2010, 08:19:45 PM »
There were four major golf magazines in 1913 - Golf Illustrated, American Golfer, Golf and Golfer's Magazine. Each magazine covered the opening of Seaview. Here are the articles from Golfers and Golf, both unattributed.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 08:27:34 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #184 on: January 26, 2010, 08:24:21 PM »
Here are the article that appeared in American Golfer and Golf Illustrated, both written by Tilly.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #185 on: January 26, 2010, 08:26:54 PM »
I'd be interested to hear the different theories as to why no golf architect is mentioned.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 08:29:02 PM by Tom MacWood »

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #186 on: January 26, 2010, 08:39:38 PM »
I'd be interested to hear the different theories as to why no golf architect is mentioned.

Tom, the list of new courses that I've read about in early Philly newspapers that do not mention the architect is more than a few.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure how much people cared back in those days who was the architect of a golf course (and perhaps not much has changed since!).

Joe
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #187 on: January 26, 2010, 08:44:20 PM »
Tom MacWood,

I'm on my blackberry right now and can't see the articles you posted but a lot of early articles about golf courses frustratingly didn't include archie attribution, as I'm sure you and Joe Bausch can attest.

I don't think it was as important back then as we make it out to be today.  I think most of these guys were just looking for places to play the rapidly growing game and many reporters were just learning it themselves.

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #188 on: January 26, 2010, 08:46:55 PM »
Oops...Joe just beat me to the correct answer.

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #189 on: January 26, 2010, 08:49:19 PM »
And...I think the odds of an article sans attribution dramatically increased when the archie was a relativerly unknown local guy like Wilson who most didn't know then at a national level.

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #190 on: January 26, 2010, 08:56:58 PM »
Jim Sullivan,

CBM could have done a routing for Merion as you suggest.

However, no one who was there ever said that he did, including comittee member Richard Francis, Hugh Wilson, AW Tillinghast, or Robert Lesley among others.

One would think in the many years and plaudits that followed someone would have thought it might be important to mention, if only to give proper credit and set the record straight.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 06:01:03 AM by Mike Cirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #191 on: January 26, 2010, 09:16:26 PM »
I'd be interested to hear the different theories as to why no golf architect is mentioned.

Tom, the list of new courses that I've read about in early Philly newspapers that do not mention the architect is more than a few.  Quite frankly, I'm not sure how much people cared back in those days who was the architect of a golf course (and perhaps not much has changed since!).

Joe

Thats true, but the other high profile Philadelphia courses, that opened around the same time (PV & Merion), had those involved in the design mentioned in those same major magazines. What made Seaview different? Of all people you would think Tilly would be sensitive to the crediting of an architect, or architects.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 09:18:25 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #192 on: January 26, 2010, 09:20:40 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Perhaps Wilson as an amateur architect was perfectly happy to keep a low profile, for multiple reasons?

« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 06:00:30 AM by Mike Cirba »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #193 on: January 26, 2010, 09:22:25 PM »
Tom,

Tilly wrote about many, many new courses being built and opened without mentioning who the architect was.

You asked, "I'd be interested to hear the different theories as to why no golf architect is mentioned..." If the lack of mention of Wilson means he wasn't the architect, then by the same token, since NO ARCHITECT was named, does that mean that NO ONE designed it?

All it really means is that no architect was named...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #194 on: January 26, 2010, 09:23:20 PM »
Tom,

Tilly wrote about many, many new courses being built and opened without mentioning who the architect was.

You asked, "I'd be interested to hear the different theories as to why no golf architect is mentioned..." If the lack of mention of Wilson means he wasn't the architect, then by the same token, since NO ARCHITECT was named, does that mean that NO ONE designed it?

All it really means is that no architect was named...

Which courses?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #195 on: January 26, 2010, 09:32:15 PM »
Tom MacWood,

Perhaps Wilson as an amateur archotect was perfectly happy to keep a low profile, for multiple reasons?



What reasons?

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #196 on: January 26, 2010, 09:43:19 PM »
Disclaimer: I have only read page 1 of this thread.   ;)

But I do have a question that I therefore can't know has been answered during the intervening pages:

Are the wicker baskets still red for the outgoing nine and yellow for the incoming?

Is the course out and back, or two loops.  Wait, I'll pull out the World Atlas for that one!

I love the UK tradition of colored flags for in and out so find that a very cool tradition at Merion!

Phil_the_Author

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #197 on: January 26, 2010, 09:52:34 PM »
Tom,

You asked me, "Tom,

Tilly wrote about many, many new courses being built and opened without mentioning who the architect was.

You asked, "I'd be interested to hear the different theories as to why no golf architect is mentioned..." If the lack of mention of Wilson means he wasn't the architect, then by the same token, since NO ARCHITECT was named, does that mean that NO ONE designed it?

All it really means is that no architect was named...

Which courses?


Tom, there are too many courses to name. Tilly mentioned many, many new courses without listing the architect doing the design. Here is an example of just one:


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #198 on: January 26, 2010, 09:57:47 PM »
What is the date of the article and where did it appear?

Phil_the_Author

Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #199 on: January 26, 2010, 10:02:40 PM »
Tilly writing as Hazard in, The American Golfer, October, 1909, No. 7, p. 429-435, in Middle Atlantic Notes...

Just keep readinh his Hazard articles and you will find many, many more, ranging from new courses to complete redesigns of existing ones...