Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins

[Jim Nugent]

Adding a little more fuel to the Merion debate: the Evans article again sets Wilson as the moving force behind Merion.  He even attributes Merion to the genius of Wilson (and perhaps Sargent).  No mention of CBM.     

[John Shimony]

"It was, in former years, considered imprudent to construct bunkers until the experience of playing revealed the proper positions, but since those days our knowledge of greenkeeping had advanced."

Alister MacKenzie, 1933, "The Spirit of St. Andrews", pg. 111.

[TEPaul]

I think it can be proved that if one looks at the projects of the most famous courses of those early American so-called “amateur/sportsmen” architects (the best working examples would be in chronological order (Myopia (Leeds), GCGC (Emmet and Travis), Oakmont (Fownses), NGLA (Macdonald & committee), Merion East (Wilson and committee), Pine Valley (Crump/Govan and numerous occasional collaborators)) that in each case bunkering was developed and done over very extended periods of time (years and even decades) by the architects listed with those courses.

Was that modus operandi just coincidental amongst that group or was there some purpose or unique reason for it amongst those men compared to the bunkering originally produced on early American courses that used professional architects who did not have the opportunity to spend the same amount of time on their projects that those named “amateur/sportsmen” architects did on those particular projects?

I think this could be a very important question in early American architecture.

I also think the look and style of the bunkering on the courses mentioned that took so much time needs to be more carefully analyzed. To analyze the look and style of the bunkering of the courses mentioned I think those courses and their sites also need to be divided into two separate categories-----sites that were basically sand or sand/loam (NGLA and Pine Valley) and those that were clay/loam Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, Merion East). I mention this because it was obviously much easier to ream out bunker shapes on sand sites and perhaps even just use the natural sand for the sand surfaces of those bunkers. On clay/loam sites obviously sand had to be imported which logically might’ve had something important to do with the shapes of the sand floors on clay/loam sites in that early era.

To take this thought further, it seems the original sand floors of the bunkers on Myopia, GCGC and Oakmont were essentially flat or flattish and they were originally constructed that way. That does not appear to be the case with Merion East. When Wilson/Flynn got around to bunkering Merion East the sand floors were constructed in a distinct and perhaps theretofore unique (on an inland clay/loam site) “dish” or "shell" shape.

Hugh Wilson appears to have had particular and specific reasons for calling for this shape and style with the bunkers of Merion East and he actually articulated those reasons. Matter of fact, to my knowledge his articulation of the reasons for this type and style of bunkering at Merion just might be the only thing extant that he ever actually wrote on the subject of golf course architecture (he called it “construction”).

Later today or tomorrow I will post what he actually wrote on that particular note.

In my mind, the question becomes-----was Merion East the first course in America on an INLAND clay/loam site that prevalently called for this particular type and style of sand bunkers throughout (this “dished” sand surface or what Wilson called “easy” sand upsweeps)?

[Tom MacWood]

Adding a little more fuel to the Merion debate: the Evans article again sets Wilson as the moving force behind Merion.  He even attributes Merion to the genius of Wilson (and perhaps Sargent).  No mention of CBM.      

Of all the Philadelphia local writers William Evans was the most consistent in crediting Wilson for Merion.

I think it can be proved that if one looks at the projects of the most famous courses of those early American so-called “amateur/sportsmen” architects (the best working examples would be in chronological order (Myopia (Leeds), GCGC (Emmet and Travis), Oakmont (Fownses), NGLA (Macdonald & committee), Merion East (Wilson and committee), Pine Valley (Crump/Govan and numerous occasional collaborators)) that in each case bunkering was developed and done over very extended periods of time (years and even decades) by the architects listed with those courses.

Thats a good point, but isn't that true with all old courses no matter if an "amateur/sportsman" was involved or not, especially if there was "benevolent dictator" involved. Some old courses where the bunkering evolved over time: TOC, Woking, Rye, Royal County Down, Hollywood, Quaker Ridge, GCGC, Ravisloe, Pinehurst #2, Inwood, etc

[Adam_Messix]

Gentlemen:

Didn't W. C. Fownes add most of the bunkers at Oakmont well after completion of the course?

[Jim Nugent]

Adding a little more fuel to the Merion debate: the Evans article again sets Wilson as the moving force behind Merion.  He even attributes Merion to the genius of Wilson (and perhaps Sargent).  No mention of CBM.      

Of all the Philadelphia local writers William Evans was the most consistent in crediting Wilson for Merion.

Which local Phillie writer was most consistent in crediting CBM for Merion? 

[TEPaul]

"......the Evans article again sets Wilson as the moving force behind Merion.  He even attributes Merion to the genius of Wilson (and perhaps Sargent).  No mention of CBM."


Jim:

We need to be aware that William Evans wrote for a long time in the Philadelphia newspapers (generally the Philadelphia Public Ledger). The Evans article you're referring to that Joe Bausch posted is from 1916. At that point Wilson et al had been working on Merion East for five years. I do not believe that Macdonald had had a thing to do with Merion since that particular day (April 6, 1911) he and Whigam visited Merion to review Wilson and Committee's plans before the construction of the course although I do have one letter from Macdonald to Wilson in June 1911 talking only about the amount of manure and fertilizer to use on greens.

This just goes to show how anyone doing research on these courses really does need to submit any article to a chronological timeline otherwise anyone might get the wrong impression of what actually happened over time. This is what happened with Pine Valley with some on here---eg they were using 1914/15 newspaper articles as evidence that Colt designed that course not realizing that Crump/Govan et al would continue working on the design practically daily in the years to come. The very same thing is true on here with Leeds and Myopia.

I also have an interesting series of coresponendence between Piper and Oakley and Hugh Wilson in early 1917 in which P&O ask Wilson if he would try to have a review of their new book on turf grass done in the Philadelphia newspapers. H.I.W. said he would speak to William Evans of the Public Ledger about it and a comprehensive Sunday editon article was immediately forthcoming from William Evans in the Philadelphia Public Ledger (Joe Bausch has posted it on here) and then the correspondence from Wilson goes on to say that even though Evans is obviously a very honorable man and tried to do a good job with his review that in fact he really hadn't (I'm not sure specifically what H.I.W. meant by that).

I'm not that sure what-all Evans was involved in around here as a particular course but apparently he was involved with some club around here as at some point later in those 15 years long correspondences Wilson asks P&O if they could spare some bent seed for Evans (I can't remember what club he was connected to).  

[J_ Crisham]

"......the Evans article again sets Wilson as the moving force behind Merion.  He even attributes Merion to the genius of Wilson (and perhaps Sargent).  No mention of CBM."


Jim:

We need to be aware that William Evans wrote for a long time in the Philadelphia newspapers (generally the Philadelphia Public Ledger). The Evans article you're referring to that Joe Bausch posted is from 1916. At that point Wilson et al had been working on Merion East for five years. I do not believe that Macdonald had had a thing to do with Merion since that particular day (April 6, 1911) he and Whigam visited Merion to review Wilson and Committee's plans before the construction of the course although I do have one letter from Macdonald to Wilson in June 1911 talking only about the amount of manure and fertilizer to use on greens.

This just goes to show how anyone doing research on these courses really does need to submit any article to a chronological timeline otherwise anyone might get the wrong impression of what actually happened over time. This is what happened with Pine Valley with some on here---eg they were using 1914/15 newspaper articles as evidence that Colt designed that course not realizing that Crump/Govan et al would continue working on the design practically daily in the years to come. The very same thing is true on here with Leeds and Myopia.

I also have an interesting series of coresponendence between Piper and Oakley and Hugh Wilson in early 1917 in which P&O ask Wilson if he would try to have a review of their new book on turf grass reviewed in the Philadelphia newspaper. H.I.W. said he would speak to William Evans of the Public Ledger about it and comprehensive Sunday editon article was immediately forthcoming (Joe Bausch has posted it on here) and then the correspondence from Wilson goes on to say that even though Evans is obviously a very honorable man and tried to do a good job with his review that in fact he really hadn't (I'm not sure specifically what H.I.W. meant by that).

I'm not that sure what-all Evans was involved in around here as a particular course but apparently he was involved with some club around here as at some point later in those 15 years long correspondences Wilson asks P&O if they can spare some bent seed for Evans (I can't remember what club he was connected to). 

TEP,  Welcome Back! All it took is a good Meron debate to bring you back to the fray There was private talk about sending the GCA corporate jet to bring you in to  Chicago for our Dinner as our featured speaker!   Good to see you,  Jack

[Mike Cirba]

"......the Evans article again sets Wilson as the moving force behind Merion.  He even attributes Merion to the genius of Wilson (and perhaps Sargent).  No mention of CBM."


Jim:

We need to be aware that William Evans wrote for a long time in the Philadelphia newspapers (generally the Philadelphia Public Ledger). The Evans article you're referring to that Joe Bausch posted is from 1916. At that point Wilson et al had been working on Merion East for five years. I do not believe that Macdonald had had a thing to do with Merion since that particular day (April 6, 1911) he and Whigam visited Merion to review Wilson and Committee's plans before the construction of the course although I do have one letter from Macdonald to Wilson in June 1911 talking only about the amount of manure and fertilizer to use on greens.

This just goes to show how anyone doing research on these courses really does need to submit any article to a chronological timeline otherwise anyone might get the wrong impression of what actually happened over time. This is what happened with Pine Valley with some on here---eg they were using 1914/15 newspaper articles as evidence that Colt designed that course not realizing that Crump/Govan et al would continue working on the design practically daily in the years to come. The very same thing is true on here with Leeds and Myopia.

I also have an interesting series of coresponendence between Piper and Oakley and Hugh Wilson in early 1917 in which P&O ask Wilson if he would try to have a review of their new book on turf grass done in the Philadelphia newspapers. H.I.W. said he would speak to William Evans of the Public Ledger about it and a comprehensive Sunday editon article was immediately forthcoming from William Evans in the Philadelphia Public Ledger (Joe Bausch has posted it on here) and then the correspondence from Wilson goes on to say that even though Evans is obviously a very honorable man and tried to do a good job with his review that in fact he really hadn't (I'm not sure specifically what H.I.W. meant by that).

I'm not that sure what-all Evans was involved in around here as a particular course but apparently he was involved with some club around here as at some point later in those 15 years long correspondences Wilson asks P&O if they could spare some bent seed for Evans (I can't remember what club he was connected to).  

Tom,

Evans was with the NLE Lansdowne CC.

As regards Crump, he already had quite a number of holes laid out prior to Colt's arrival in 1913, as you know.

A year or so back Joe Bausch published a chronological listing of Tilly's articles about PV that show exactly what happened when and he's evidently having trouble with that site right now because the links aren't working.

If I get a chance later, I'll re-publish them if it's up and running.

EDIT***Here they are with Joe Bausch's lead comments;

Below are all of the PV mentions from Jan 1913 until mid-1916.  Note:  I still don't know for many more months or years Tilly wrote for this newspaper, but I'll know that in due time.

[Joe Bausch]

Tilly wrote for this newspaper a little longer than I bet some people thought.  More on this later.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Thank you so much for that last post and that chronology of articles on Pine Valley! That is a valuable labor of organizational and "timeline" love your part, in my opinion, and I feel it is massively helpful to the viewers and contributors of Golfclubatlas.

But here's the thing that I have been trying to make clear on this website for so many years now------if ANYONE is really interested in understanding the true and historically accurate events and details of any course's architectural history and evolution, they simply MUST use all historical documentary evidence, and that includes both these newspaper articles as well as what is contemporaneously available information from those golf clubs themselves! I really do hope you and others know what I mean in toto by that last sentence.

It is why I have said for so long that if any really competent researcher wants to know the real and accurate history of the architecture of any course they must establish a good and close working relationship with the club, particular one such as Pine Valley and Merion.

Essentially there just are no shortcuts or some better way to that process, information and understanding.

The point is just about all the newspaper and magazine articles that have been producecd on this website by many of the good researchers on this website including the likes of you and Joe Bausch and Tom MacWood and others on here have been in the archives of those clubs since probably the day after those articles were published and hit the streets.

And then of course those who have established good working research relationships with these kinds of clubs and their administrative records can match and compare those articles to the clubs own records and in that way, and only in that way, come to an accurate understanding of the architectural history of these courses.

I don't care how good some of the researchers and analysts on here say they are or how good others on here think they are in what they put on here with newspaper and magazine articles, if they never bother to establish a really good working research relationship with the clubs and their club records, their analyses can never be more than half good and accurate at best. I've been saying this for so long now on here but it seems to constantly fall on deaf ears. At this point I think there isn't much reason to guess why it falls on deaf ears, unfortunately.

To put this in an understandable way for all with the chronology of newspaper articles (and more) you just posted above-----I've had all of them in my paper files in my office for over a decade now. You would be both interested and amused to know where and how and from whom I came by them all that long ago!

By the foregoing I mean exactly zero in the way of implication or insinuation towards anyone on here, and henceforth I don't want to get into any of this in any personal way at all----henceforth from me it will be just informational and not even personally entitled or addressed.

I will produce Hugh Wilson's only remarks on architecture, as promised above eventually but it would not surprise me if they go unheeded and uncommented upon on here.

[Tom MacWood]

Which local Phillie writer was most consistent in crediting CBM for Merion?  

To my knowledge no local Philadelphia writer consistently credited CBM for Merion. Hugh Wilson, Robert Lesley and Hazard were the most consistent in crediting Macdonald & Whigham's contribution. Most local writers reported the design of Merion as a group effort. I take it you prefer Evan's reporting.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Credit for those news articles and their organization needs to go to Joe Bausch, not me.   I simply copied them from another thread he put them on some time ago that I think got largely missed.

I also agree with your contention that to fully understand a club's architectural history, it is fundamentally important to examine both external as well as internal materials, particularly if a particular club is willing to make those materials available.

I'm not sure about the articles in question, but I would simply add that I believe Joe Bausch's findings have been significant contributions to the archives of a number of clubs in this area, including Merion's, so I wouldn't want to simply dismiss the work he's done.   My understanding is that a number of other directly and tangentially related news articles had never been saved and have provided a richer picture.

Finally, I for one will definitely look forward to your posting of Hugh Wilson's comments on architecture.


Tom MacWood,

Now that we've all learned that many of Merion's bunkering schemes and principle hole strategies were not devised until sometime after July 1915, three years after opening, and 39 months after Macdonald and Whigham's second of two single-day visits to the Merion property (the first to simply look at the land in question), and 48 months after HH Barker's first of one single-day visit to the property, how does this information support your contention that both M&W as well as Barker have been given short shrift by history and Merion in terms of their architectural contributions to the golf course?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Personally my only real interest in this particular thread would be an analysis and discussion of the points mentioned in Reply #52 but to touch on your points to me on your last post-----


I have great respect for what Joe Bausch has accomplished with his huge time consuming effort in reprising Philadelphia newspaper articles many of which have not been seen or considered in many decades or perhaps up to close to a century. I would also include in that great work he has done some on-ground photos that have also not been seen and considered in many years. The same can be said about what Tom MacWood has produced on here with a number of other courses.

On the point about depending on just newspaper and magazine reports (contemporaneous) vs considering them with and against administrative records of various golf clubs, again my point is that both should be done by competent researchers and analysts if a comprehensive job is to be done with the architectural history and evolution of a golf course.

However, each course and club presents its own set of circumstances and problems and solutions in that vein depending on a number of factors. Some clubs have very good and comprehensive administrative records and some don't for various reasons. Merion has excellent and comprehensive administrative records throughout and Myopia's are pretty good too. My own club's are very good and comprehensive throughout its history. Pine Valley is interesting in this vein in that the club is structured in such a way that such a thing as board of directors meetings did not occur in the same way as clubs like Merion, GMGC, GCGC, Myopia etc. However, with PV there are a few really valuable club "assets" in this vein that more than fill in the blanks. You know more about Cobbs Creek than I do but I do not think anything resembling internal club administrative records ever even existed with that course for fairly obvious reasons and consequently newspaper and magazine articles (with photos) and various independent aerials are all we will ever have to analyze the architectural history and evolution of that golf course.

Considering all of the above I think it is not good policy and process for some on here to attempt to comprehensively analyze a course's and its architect's history and evolution by only using newspaper and magazine articles when administrative records to compare them to exist. This is the way a few on here try to do it and it has always been my opinion that they can only do a half good job of it because they are simply not considering or directly analyzing an important part of a club and course's history and historical record.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Now that we've all learned that many of Merion's bunkering schemes and principle hole strategies were not devised until sometime after July 1915, three years after opening, and 39 months after Macdonald and Whigham's second of two single-day visits to the Merion property (the first to simply look at the land in question), and 48 months after HH Barker's first of one single-day visit to the property, how does this information support your contention that both M&W as well as Barker have been given short shrift by history and Merion in terms of their architectural contributions to the golf course?

I suppose it would depend how much importance you place in the routing of a golf course.

[TEPaul]

Regarding the answer in the post above, other than the author of the essay contained on this website entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" and his sole supporter on here (the author of the post above) who has ever suggested that Barker or M&W routed Merion East?

[Mike Cirba]

More information about the evolution of bunkering at Merion East from A.W. Tillnghast, published February 1916;

"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."

"It was the first of the two eighteen hole courses at Merion, the West Course being opened several years later. The distances are admirable, and altogether Merion presents a good test of golf, but in view of the fact that the National title is to be decided there next September, a number of hazards will be introduced to bring the play closer to championship demands."

"Many of the hazards are natural, and a creek which winds through the tract is encountered frequently.  Probably the most interesting section is found at the very end of t h e round; certainly the last three holes are the most spectacular , for a large stone quarry has been converted to a hazard of immense proportions.  The sixteenth hole finds it immediately in front of the green, and it must be carried by a courageous well hit second. The seventeenth calls for a tee shot to the green, immediately over the excavation and again it has to be carried in driving for the home hole."

"Other holes present the characteristics of the famous Redan and the Alps of Prestwick. Ben Sayers, the wellknown professional of North Berwick, spends a great deal of time at Merion, where his son George is engaged, and he declares that the course is thoroughly
good."

And this from Tilly in September 1916;

"Certainly Merion has left no stone unturned in preparing for the event.  A few of the holes which were open to criticism have been bolstered up, and many new hazards have been placed."

[ChipOat]

Upon inspection of Flynn's diagram of the old 12th hole, together with some off-line consultation with Wayne (remember him?), it appears those cross bunkers didn't really come into play off the tee - even with the small ball and no watering system.

Maybe it wasn't such a good hole, after all.

[Mike Cirba]

Upon inspection of Flynn's diagram of the old 12th hole, together with some off-line consultation with Wayne (remember him?), it appears those cross bunkers didn't really come into play off the tee - even with the small ball and no watering system.

Maybe it wasn't such a good hole, after all.

Chip,

Tillinghast wrote that the old 12th got a lot of criticism early, but he said it was one of his favorites....something about every hole that was worth it's salt received cries of "unfairness", or something like that.   EDIT - Here's the Tillinghast quote;

"I am told that some of the Merion men are not reconciled to the twelfth, but I would regret to see it changed.  The plan of the hole is admirable, in my opinion."

Perhaps not surprisingly, "Far and Sure" said something very similar.  

"I am told that there have been some objections to the twelfth and this should at once stamp it as a good one. It is difficult to think of a thoroughly good hole which has not been thoroughly damned by some.  Our illustration shows the dog-leg route to the green. The throw of the fairway to the right forces the successful drive to the left-middle and then the green, over a brook, is nicely opened up."

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I for one am waiting patiently for Wilson's comments on architecture to be posted on GCA.   

[TEPaul]

As far as I can tell the following paragraph on bunkers was the only time Hugh Wilson wrote on golf course architecture. This paragraph was part of a chapter Wilson wrote in 1916 for Piper and Oakley's book Turf Grass for Golf. He was asked to write on the agronomic development of Merion and his chapter appeared in the book but he crossed the entire following paragraph out of an early draft with a note above it-----"Probably better omit this as it comes more properly under golf construction."

To me this paragraph explaining Wilson's thinking on bunkers raises the question if he and his Merion Committee were the first to visualize, articulate and execute sand bunkers on American INLAND "clay/loam sites (as opposed to sand or sand/loam sites such as Pine Valley or NGLA) that produced the bunker type and style of "easy" (upswept) sand flashed faces that became famously known as "The White Faces of Merion." Again, I think the key distinction is INLAND clay/loam sites. If Wilson and Merion were not the first to visualize, articulate and execute this particular type and style of bunkering on inland clay/loam sites in America who was and what is the evidence of the purposeful visualization, articulation and production of upswept sand floors on inland clay/loam sites that preceded Merion East?

It seems to me even the best of the inland clay/loam site courses in America that preceded Merion East pretty much had flat sand floors that were generally depressed below natural grade (Ex. Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont etc). Merion's were distinctly not just flat sand floors.





“BUNKERS.    The question of bunkers is a big one and the very best school for study we have found is along the seacoast among the dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape. The criticism had been made that we have made them too easy, that the banks are too sloping and that a man may often play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker where he should be forced to use a niblick. This opens a pretty big subject and we know that the tendency is to make bunkers more difficult. In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy; the only exception being where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or some similar substance to keep the same from blowing. This had made a perfectly straight wall but was not done with the intention of making it difficult to get out but merely to retain the bunker as it exists. If we make the banks of every bunker so steep that the very best player is forced to use a niblick to get out and the only hope he has when he gets in is to be able to get his ball on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule as we have at present with water hazards, when a man may, if he so desires, drop back with the loss of a stroke. I thoroughly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out of them and that the best and the worst must use a niblick.”

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I know your question is primarily about the "look" of the bunker and whether any inland US courses prior to Merion on clay-based soils had flashed sand faces, but I have a related question related to their functionality, particularly of fairway bunkers.   I also find it eminently fascinating that Wilson was specifically talking about making the bunker "natural" in appearance, a concept that Alan Wilson's 1926 reminisce makes clear was one of the design intents.

However, from a "form follows function" standpoint, I wonder who was the first to build fairway bunkers with the specific intent of being able to advance the next shot to the green if a slendid shot was played?

It seems to me that much of the nature of early American fairway bunker design was quite penal in nature, and one thinks of the earliest "scientific" bunkering examples of Travis at Garden City, or Leeds at Myopia, or Ross/Travis? at Pinehurst, or Fownes at Oakmont, and it seems that the specific intent was to cause the player to face a certain penalty of at least one stroke.   One thinks of the examples of Fownes and Leeds, who when they saw a good player hit a drive to a place they thought shouldn't be accessible, would drop a flag and almost instantly a new deep pit would be dug.

I'm thinking specifically about pre-WWI era American design, here.

Did Macdonald write at all about the purpose of the fairway bunkers he built in terms of their intended function and penalty?   Were any/all of the fairway bunkers at NGLA of the type that a well-played shot could be advanced to the green with the equipment of the time?

What about the courses built by Willie Park, or Colt/Alison, or Herbert Fowler?   I suspect they had some influence on this thinking, as well, and would almost like to see your quotation of Hugh Wilson and my follow-up questions made into a separate thread because I think this is a subject that has not been well-explored on GCA in the past and is very, very interesting.

[TEPaul]

"Did Macdonald write at all about the purpose of the fairway bunkers he built in terms of their intended function and penalty?   Were any/all of the fairway bunkers at NGLA of the type that a well-played shot could be advanced to the green with the equipment of the time?"


Sure he did. The following was probably as definitive as he ever needed to be on the playability of bunkering;


"There are many moot questions argued by noted designers of golf courses. The character and placing of hazards has always been a bone of contention. Why I cannot quite understand, because one has only to study the great holes which the world concedes are unexcelled. There should be every variety of hazard. Variety is not only "the spice of life" but it is the very foundation of golfing architecture. Diversity in nature is universal. Let your golfing architecture mirror it. An ideal or classical golf course demands variety, personality, and, above all, the charm of romance. The undulations and the run of the ball tell the story as to how the hazards should be placed. Don't place them without experience. Generally speaking, as stated above, they should be of great variety, the greater the better, but always fair. By fair I mean where a player can extract the ball in one shot if reasonably well played in some direction."


It is pretty clear to see with that statement, and particularly the last sentence, that Macdonald had no problem with the architecture of a bunker or the face of a bunker if it happened to be so steep that a player MIGHT have to play the ball sideways or backwards or whatever (hence his mention of 'some direction').

It's also pretty clear to see that Macdonald's larger point in that statement about hazards (including or apparently mostly bunkers) was that real "variety" should be the hallmark of them and the greater variety the better.

It would appear from what Hugh Wilson said above about bunkers, particularly fairway bunkers, was that in the interest of golf they should be CONSTRUCTED in such a way that they would mostly mimic the "easy" natural sand upsweeps of sand formations found in the school of natural sands formation in the dunes of the seacoast.

And it would seem that the fairway bunker shapes of Merion pretty much reflected Wilson's statement. Consequently, it appears they may've been a departure, generally speaking, from anything that was purposefully done as a type and style before them on INLAND clay/loam sites in America.

But if they weren't, then let's find some evidence of where that type and style reflected in Hugh Wilson's statement above was first visualized, articulated and produced generally by others on some INLAND clay/loam site before Wilson or Merion East. I'm not suggesting it did not exist before Wilson or Merion as a sort of a purposeful architectural standard of type, style and construction; I am only trying to determine where, when and by whom on a clay/loam American site before Wilson and Merion East.

[Tom MacWood]

Speaking of bunkers, here are three early photographs of bunkers at Seaview in 1914. Donald Ross was hired in 1915 to re-bunker the course.

[Mike Cirba]

Speaking of bunkers, here are three early photographs of bunkers at Seaview in 1914. Donald Ross was hired in 1915 to re-bunker the course.

Tom,

Darnit...I saw your message on my Blackberry and thought perhaps you found some other pictures of early Seaview than the one's I posted here about a year ago.

The only thing I'd mention is that Ross wasn't hired to "re-bunker" the course, accounts of the time state that he was hired to "stiffen" the bunkering four months after Hugh Wilson resigned as head of the Greens Committee at Merion citing the need to attend to his insurance business after spending many months designing Merion East, Merion West, Seaview, and doing revisions to North Hills and Phimont as a part-time gig.    

Joe's recent article indicates that Ross left stakes about the property where he wanted bunkering added.   No word on architectural drawings, differing styles, construction tips, or reconstruction of existing bunkering.    



Do you even know at what stage of construction those photos were taken, Tom?   They appear to be sand dumped in a mound at a place where a bunker is going to be dug to me.    I can't imagine even an amateur like Wilson would design a sand pile as a hazard in windy southern Joisey and expect that it would stay in place?  

This April 1914 article talks about the bunkering taking place in a year or so.



Are you sure of the timeframe of that picture of the 3rd green?   I ask because the course that Wilson designed that opened for member play in early summer 1914 (the club had it's official opening in Jan 1915 - it was delayed because Geist suffered a lengthy bout of "The Grip")  had this description of the hole;



Once again, it seems to me that you're trying to create an impression that isn't historically accurate with the uninformed and/or peripherally interested in an effort to further your own anti-Wilson agenda.   I'm not understanding your need/desire to minimize his contributions?

I think it would be more productive to actually engage in discussion regarding his architecture, as I've tried to do with you on the Cobb's Creek thread.   On this thread, Tom Paul just posted Wilson's only known writing related to an architectural topic, and I think he asked some interesting questions associated with those writings.   I also offered some other questions, and I'm interested in learning more about the whole subject.

Rather than just jab/parry/counter, perhaps we could actually talk about the architecture he produced, or is it simpler to just focus on taking potshots at him trying to further some odd belief of your's that his reputation is simply due to local legend and is generally unearned?