News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike Cirba

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #325 on: February 02, 2010, 01:28:22 PM »
Tom,

The October 1913 article states that Hugh Wilson "has been" Geist's right hand man and that he "has" laid out the Seaview course.



Please notice the past tense.    

Your continued insistence that the first mention of Wilson isn't til then conveniently ignores that fact.

You also ignore Wilson's own words that he used Fred Pickering to construct Seaview, as well as the article Joe posted yesterday that indeed confirms that Pickering constructed Seaview.

You also ignore all of the asociated articles by a host of different sources after the fact who credited the course to Hugh Wilson.

You also ignore the fact that the very articles that mention Robinson at the very inception of the project 1) Show that he is inviting experts to help him and 2) Show that indeed, as he requested, that the course has been laid out by experts who have experience in this matter, which Mr. Robinson clearly did not.

You also ignore the fact that through Wilson's lifetime, neither he nor anyone else in the area reading all of these news articles including men like Tillinghast and all the interconnected framework of friends ever once took issue with the fact that Wilson was named as the creator of the Seaview course.

You do conveniently find some evidence in a 1939 article written posthumous to Geist's death by Fred Byrod, who was a writer who clearly was not even born at the time Seaview was created, that mentioned that Robinson helped Geist construct the course in the beginning, but then completely mis-stated Donald Ross's role and may have been part of the source for that long-standing mis-attribution.  

I love how you find instant credibility in these posthumous accounts decades after the fact when everyone involved is dead and buried yet conveniently ignore all the men who were there at the time and what they reported.   ;)   Tom, I'm seeing a trend here.  ;D  

« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 01:33:04 PM by Mike Cirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #326 on: February 02, 2010, 01:32:22 PM »
"Yes you wrapped it up alright, you also succeeded in giving the false impression there is evidence Wilson was involved at the beginning. Oh well that is par for the course."


SO, then what do you make of all those newspaper articles from back then that attribute Hugh Wilson as the designer of Seaview as EVIDENCE?

Isn't it interesting that you just said the above when you went so overboard with a single newspaper article or so that attributed Myopia to Willie Campbell and a single newspaper article that mentioned Macdonald and Whigam "helped and advised" Merion East, not to mention a single newspaper article mentioning Barker and Merion and how you managed to weave that into the fact that those people designed those courses despite the fact there is a ton of evidence within those clubs own administrative records to the contrary?

Talk about false impressions and par for the course!   ::)

Why are you are so intent on changing the subject? Whatever the case I'll oblige you.

You need to go back review the last Myopia thread, there were at least three contemporaneous reports (from three different sources) crediting Campbell. And as far Barker and CBM & Whigham and Merion are concerned, as you know it is well documented those men were all involved prior to Wilson, and Barker created the only know routing for Merion, again prior to Wilson. Both cases are quite a bit different than placing Wilson at the scene without any evidence or contemporaneous reports.

Are you a graduate of the William Evan's school of reporting?

Mike Cirba

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #327 on: February 02, 2010, 01:36:28 PM »
Guys,

Let's not kill what's been a pretty good thread, all in all, with another rehash. 

Tom MacWood...you disagree with me, so noted.   

Others can make up their own minds based on the evidence presented, or ask questions. 

Otherwise, feel free to keep digging for more evidence.

Thanks

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #328 on: February 02, 2010, 01:36:59 PM »
What date did Pickering become involved at Seaview?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #329 on: February 02, 2010, 01:48:24 PM »

You also ignore the fact that the very articles that mention Robinson at the very inception of the project 1) Show that he is inviting experts to help him and 2) Show that indeed, as he requested, that the course has been laid out by experts who have experience in this matter, which Mr. Robinson clearly did not.


You're right, the article said Robinson was the lead designer, but he also sought the advice of experts and it named three men - the Nichols brothers and Bispham (no mention of Wilson). Lets just assume Wilson was one of those experts who advised Robinson. How did you make the jump from Wilson being one of several advisers to Robinson to Wilson being the original and solo architect of Seaview?

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #330 on: February 02, 2010, 02:38:01 PM »
TomP, I think this is our MacVeigh fellow (from the January 11, 1917 edition of the Evening Ledger):





@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

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #331 on: February 02, 2010, 02:55:51 PM »
That would be the man who owned the land Bryn Mawr GC had an option on, alright. He was some handsome devil, don't ya think?

See the mention in that article of the fact he was a counsel to the PRR? That is just so completely typical of the men of Merion. Matter of fact, the entire Main Line was essentially created by the various people surrounding the massively powerful PRR. The idea was to turn the Main Line into a sort of American version of the English countryside.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 03:03:07 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #332 on: February 02, 2010, 03:14:43 PM »
"Why are you are so intent on changing the subject? Whatever the case I'll oblige you.

You need to go back review the last Myopia thread, there were at least three contemporaneous reports (from three different sources) crediting Campbell. And as far Barker and CBM & Whigham and Merion are concerned, as you know it is well documented those men were all involved prior to Wilson, and Barker created the only know routing for Merion, again prior to Wilson. Both cases are quite a bit different than placing Wilson at the scene without any evidence or contemporaneous reports.

Are you a graduate of the William Evan's school of reporting?"


We've surely been all through both club and course histories before but again your problem is all you've ever done or ever seen is a few newspaper articles-----way less than half the research and story. And so have I seen those few newspaper articles which are certainly not very explanatory but unlike you I've seen everything else extant that records the administrative histories of those clubs regarding their golf course and who did them. You've seen none of that fundamenatlly important research material and apparently you never will, and it definitely shows in the way you analyze these things.

And not just that which is pretty seminal but you seem to believe that just because WE today have not seen the architectural plans for Merion that that means they did not exist. The documentary evidence that they existed is overwhelming in the club's administrative records but for some odd reason you don't seem to understand that or acknowledge it or are inclined to just discount it and rationalize it away.

Someone who operates and thinks and analyzes these subject like that sure can't call themselves a serious golf architectural historian. That also goes for someone who can't seem to understand or appreciate the vast differences in architecture and perhaps agronomy too between a sand site and a clay/loam site.  ???

 
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 03:35:19 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #333 on: February 02, 2010, 03:21:07 PM »
"What date did Pickering become involved at Seaview?"


We have never been able to determine the exact date either Pickering or William Flynn or Howard Toomey or Joe Valentine became involved with Merion. Do you suppose, therefore, we should assume that they weren't or that they didn't do what the club's history says they did?  ;)

By the way, in an earlier post on this thread you mentioned that Wayne and I underplayed Pickering and his contribution to Merion by only mentioning that 1924 letter about him by Wilson's secretary Fred Kortebien. How easily you forget or perhaps missed it entirely, that it was Wayne Morrison some years ago who did the research on Merion that actually gave Pickering his due there, as Wayne did as well with the documenation of William Flynn's part in the evolution of the architecture of that course. As far as I can see all you've ever contributed on that subject is to continue to doubt or deny the complete obviousness of a real wealth of documentary material for just about seven years now.

Mike and Joe, I think you've done a marvelous research job on Seaview and you summed it up well above. Now let it go and let this Doubting Thomas continue to doubt---he seems inclined to continue to do that with some of these courses and architects no matter what is produced concerning them.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 03:38:28 PM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #334 on: February 02, 2010, 08:04:38 PM »

You're right, the article said Robinson was the lead designer, but he also sought the advice of experts and it named three men - the Nichols brothers and Bispham (no mention of Wilson). Lets just assume Wilson was one of those experts who advised Robinson. How did you make the jump from Wilson being one of several advisers to Robinson to Wilson being the original and solo architect of Seaview?


Tom,

I didn't claim that Wilson is the original and solo architect of Seaview.   If you read carefully what I wrote yesterday I objected to your rush to judgment in your (ABW) Anybody But Wilson Architectural School to name William Robinson, simply because 1) it goes against your long-standing claim that these rich, intelligent guys didn't hire complete novices to design their courses so I note some hypocrisy in your sudden change and 2) all indications from the earliest articles mantions that the course was laid out by experts who had prior experience.

From that I stated that it was probably the usual cast of characters, Hugh Wilson and friends, and maybe even some input from Harry Colt.   In any case, we KNOW Wilson was there prior to October because the article claims he laid out the course, and even if we just use your definition of that as some construction job we know that was underway by June of 1913.   

We also know that Hugh Wilson said he brought in Pickering to construct Seaview, and we know that the course was constructed between June and October 1913 (less the replacement of the hurricane-damaged holes), and grew in over the winter and spring and was opened to member play by July 1914.

The fact that Pickering was named in the January 1915 article that Joe posted yesterday as the constructor of Seaview is consistent with the other evidence and would lead me to believe, but not prove, that given the friendship of Geist and Hugh Wilson, and given the fact that Hugh Wilson was hanging with Geist in Philadelphia on public course matters in April of 1913, and given that William Robinson, who was in fact a local and could spend more time at the site was given what is essentially project management responsibilities, that Robinson was seeking advice from experts who had prior design and construction experience, and given that Hugh Wilson had just opened Merion East, which opened to great acclaim and excellent conditions,....well, then Clarence Geist being a very smart man would have been very happy to utilize the services of Hugh Wilson and Fred Pickering and clearly had faith in their abilities.

Don't you think if someone else had done the design that Clarence Geist himself would have corrected all those erroneous reports?

In any case, we're going to continue to look for more information in Atlantic City at another promising source, and we'll certainly post all of the results here, but for now, my own records list Seaview originally as a Wilson/Robinson design, until I see something more definitive.

My lengthy encapsulation of events I posted this morning was in response to your charge that there was something wrong with the original course, such that Donald Ross had to be called in to fix things.

I just thought it was important for people here to understand the entire story, in context, and not just get snippets and bits and pieces clearly designed to discredit the man, for whatever reasons you seem to feel consistently compelled to do so.

I really love your research Tom and wish we could collaborate on some things, but we're never going to agree on this and I personally believe you have some personal bias or agenda that is leading to a blind spot on the matter that doesn't allow you to accept contradictory evidence.

In any case, hope that answers your questions...thanks for the discussion.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #335 on: February 02, 2010, 08:25:08 PM »
With the help of a former GCA member, I think I have the property of Mr. MacVeigh mapped out.  It was VERY CLOSE to the current Philadelphia Country Club property.  I've driven by there hundreds of time and it is nice terrain, of course.

@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

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #336 on: February 02, 2010, 09:44:08 PM »

We've surely been all through both club and course histories before but again your problem is all you've ever done or ever seen is a few newspaper articles-----way less than half the research and story. And so have I seen those few newspaper articles which are certainly not very explanatory but unlike you I've seen everything else extant that records the administrative histories of those clubs regarding their golf course and who did them. You've seen none of that fundamenatlly important research material and apparently you never will, and it definitely shows in the way you analyze these things.

And not just that which is pretty seminal but you seem to believe that just because WE today have not seen the architectural plans for Merion that that means they did not exist. The documentary evidence that they existed is overwhelming in the club's administrative records but for some odd reason you don't seem to understand that or acknowledge it or are inclined to just discount it and rationalize it away.

Someone who operates and thinks and analyzes these subject like that sure can't call themselves a serious golf architectural historian. That also goes for someone who can't seem to understand or appreciate the vast differences in architecture and perhaps agronomy too between a sand site and a clay/loam site.  ???

 

Not a fan of newspaper articles? Just to refresh your memory that Myopia thread involved a combination newspaper, magazine and club history excerpts (none of which you introduced). With your aversion to newspaper articles I take it you are not thrilled by this thread or any thread involving Joe B.


TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #337 on: February 03, 2010, 08:08:32 AM »
I've never said I'm not a fan of newspaper articles or I have an averson to them; it's only you who keeps saying that about me on this website, I suppose to try to make a point that you can't make and haven't made to try to defend your own research and less than complete efforts in that vein. I thnk they are very useful in research but I also believe the contemporaneous administrative records of a golf club when they exist and pertain to architectural issues are logically more valuable and more meaningful. They are direct research information, not indirect like newspaper articles. I'm not just talking about club history books (as you seem to when you criticize club histories), which you've apparently always assumed both me and others are talking about. I'm talking about contemporaneous club administrative records. They exist for Merion and Myopia and the fact is with those clubs you've never seen them because you've never been to those two clubs but I have many times and I've seen them and considered them. You and your friend on your Merion interpretations may be decent researchers but you, like anyone else, have to take the time to do a complete research job and with these two clubs, and the fact is you have done probably less than half of a complete job at best by only directly researching newspaper articles and nothing more. I realize you have denied this and discounted it on here for years and you will probably continue to do that (what else can you do?) but it is a fact, and if you want to measure up to any other credible researcher, analyst and golf course architecture historian who always gets directly involved with a subject in physically looking at and considering everything there is, basically there is no way your research or anylyses of some of these subjects will ever measure up to something credible and accurate.


"....club history excerpts (none of which you introduced)."


I not only introduced Edward Week's club history book excerpts on here long before you ever did (probably because I have it in my office and you must've had to go to Hurzdan's office to find it after the fact), I also interpreted it in a way no other on here could because they haven't seen it all its supporting material. To prove it all one needs to do is look at the threads on the back pages of this website. As for the club administrative records from which Weeks did his research for his history book (some of which he used and some of which he didn't), with that and putting that material on here I respect the privacy of the club as I do with Merion and particularly MCC. Having been through it all, I guess theoretically I do understand you and your research friend who have not done that research yourselves at those clubs having a problem taking my word for what it says and means but in my opinion that's your problem, not mine and not those clubs'.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 09:38:54 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #338 on: February 03, 2010, 08:18:06 AM »
Joe:

By the way, the location of Wayne McVeagh's large estate that was the focus of the aforementioned Bryn Mawr GC has been specifically identified. As has pretty much always been the case with any research to do with Merion or some of its people, the best way to get to the facts is to involve Wayne Morrison in it. On the subject of Merion and some of its people it has pretty much always been that way on here and elsewhere even though a few on here have tried to strenuously deny that for years.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #339 on: February 03, 2010, 09:09:20 AM »
Joe:

By the way, the location of Wayne McVeagh's large estate that was the focus of the aforementioned Bryn Mawr GC has been specifically identified. As has pretty much always been the case with any research to do with Merion or some of its people, the best way to get to the facts is to involve Wayne Morrison in it. On the subject of Merion and some of its people it has pretty much always been that way on here and elsewhere even though a few on here have tried to strenuously deny that for years.

Where do you think I got my info Tom for post #335 above?   ;D
@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

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #340 on: February 03, 2010, 09:21:40 AM »
"Where do you think I got my info Tom for post #335 above?    ;D"


Well exactly Joe. Never underestimate the power of Merion GC's uber researcher/oracle, Wayne Morrison. I guess I sorta slept in today. Don't be surprised if our 'outta state' Merion/Wilson anti-legend fixators and investigators question the accuracy of it though.  ;)

PS:
Actually Wayne has so much architectural material in that Merion archive, the other day he was reaching up to a top shelf for a file and a bunch of research material fell off and damn near buried him in a documentary research material avalanche. I think he's OK though.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 09:23:31 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #341 on: February 03, 2010, 09:43:08 AM »
I'd be remiss not to correct the mischaracterization of Joe Bausch's research as limited to newspaper accounts.   Certainly Joe has unearthed a gold mine of local information from newspaper sources, but his work has not been limited to that media in the least.

Beyond that, though, when something Joe has found is in contradiction with long-held beliefs or common understandings, Joe has shared that information directly with the clubs involved and sought whatever internal sources they had that were the sources for the original contentions.   I'm thinking about clubs like Wildwood (thought to be Stiles/Van Kleek, but actually Findlay), Philmont (thought to be Flynn but really Park Jr.), and Ashbourne (thought to be Meehan but Park Jr., as well), although the latter is sadly extinct.

In most of those cases, the clubs have welcomed the additional information related to their histories, and I think in all cases everyone's understanding of the history of the clubs involved has been enriched.    Some are perhaps resistant to giving up long-held beliefs, but I think generally those folks are in the minority as more of these early stories become unearthed, and the tales of their heritages are more richly detailed.

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #342 on: February 03, 2010, 11:01:02 AM »
Mike:

Your last post is pretty important in the broad scheme of over-all golf course architecture research and recording, certainly including the interpretations of and from various clubs and their history books.

I think we all need to recognize that this kind of interest (the in-depth research of golf course architecture and courses) is a fairly recent phenomenon. For that reason alone a lot has changed in the last twenty years or so, not to mention some of these clubs and courses are at or close to their centennials and have gotten far more into the details of their architectural histories for that reason.

The list has gotten long of the clubs who have misinterpreted their architectural evolutions and histories in varioius ways, both big and small.

I've not bothered to count it up but with Wayne and I this list of courses and clubs who have had various misinterpretations or mistakes in their architectural histories and evolution is probably gotten to twenty or thirty and perhaps more, and of course we both know other competent researchers who have found the same about other clubs and courses. We have found, however, in the vast majority of them that there has not been resistance to accepting more accurate facts as they are uncovered. We find generally it is usually very logical why misinterpretations and mistakes happen and have happened as well as almost always being remarkably innocent. The fact is material that has been available for many years (albeit not as available or findable as it seems to be these days) has simply never really been analyzed in the same detailed and "time-line" context and ways that some of us have gotten into doing it.

Having said that, I think this notion subscribed to by one or two or a few on here that generally speaking these clubs having gotten into misinterpretations and mistakes with their architectural and architect histories is nonsense. I just don't see it. It has not been my experience once you involve yourself directly with these clubs.

Also, some on here seem to be under the impression that when all this architectural detail is found and analyzed that it should be reflected in club history books or club websites or whatever or these clubs are not acting responsibly with their architecture. I don't see that happening in most cases for reasons that are obvious to me but perhaps not to others. However, in most cases that does not mean these clubs are not interested in repositing ALL this new detail and analysis in their archives which more than ever clubs are now beginning to get into in various and important ways.

This is just another and reiterated reason why I believe if any serious researcher on the subject of some club and course they just have to get themselves directly involved with the club itself somehow.

Of course someone like Joe passing on all these newspaper articles he has found to the clubs themselves is a very good start. But after that these clubs have to get involved in analyzing the accuracy of those newspaper accounts with what they have available in their clubs that is contemporaneous to those newspaper accounts. Like anything else one has to consider everything and not just some part of it.

TEPaul

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #343 on: February 03, 2010, 11:46:16 AM »
I suspected as much with the location of that Wayne McVeagh estate that was scheduled to become the new Bryn Mawr GC in the early to mid 1920s with seemingly an architectural combination of Wilson, Toomey and Flynn, and perhaps even Hugh Alison.

Here's what actually happened with that estate of former US Attorney General Wayne McVeagh.

Apparently the principles of the planned Bryn Mawr GC, a number of which were Merion (MCC) members, had an option on the 250 acre Wayne McVeagh estate. They either didn't excercise the option or else they lost the purchase of the estate to Percival E. Foerderer who bought the entire estate in 1925.

Now here's where it gets interesting if you're interested in building architecture that has a direct connection to a number of famous golf clubs.

Percival Foerderer tore down McVeagh's apparently impressive mansion by famed architect Theophilius P. Chandler Jr (later I'll get into the connection of this building architect to some of the estates of some big-wigs in golf in this era we all know and talk about) and hired Addison Mizner to design and build him a mammoth Castilian style castle that became known as La Ronda. For those who aren't aware of Mizner he was the famous Spanish Style building architect who did numerous famous houses in Florida, particularly Palm Beach, as well as the famous club houses of Seminole, Gulf Stream and I think Indian Creek, as well as Boca Raton which Mizner actually owned the entirety of before going broke and selling the entire Boca Raton project to Philadelphia and Seaview's Clarence Geist.

Addison Mizner's magnificent Castilian mansion, La Ronda, has been in the news very recently because it was purchased recently by a developer who tore it down (Oct, 2009). Numerous architectural conservation parties fought him but he got his way. Among other things they fought him to have it preserved because it was the only Addison Mizner architecture in Philadelphia (actually the only Mizner building of that famous style north of the Mason-Dixon Line).

Ironically, it was sold to this developer by a very good friend of mine and prominent man in Philly and with GAP by the name of Art Kania (Art's grandson, Jimmy, is a college guy at the moment but he is the present player of the year of GAP, and his father was a contemporary of mine and the GAP player of the year a few times).  
« Last Edit: February 03, 2010, 12:30:20 PM by TEPaul »

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #344 on: February 03, 2010, 12:02:21 PM »
Tom, that fellow got his way:  La Ronda was torn down a couple of months ago IIRC.
@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

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #345 on: February 04, 2010, 06:54:11 AM »


Tom,

I didn't claim that Wilson is the original and solo architect of Seaview.   If you read carefully what I wrote yesterday I objected to your rush to judgment in your (ABW) Anybody But Wilson Architectural School to name William Robinson, simply because 1) it goes against your long-standing claim that these rich, intelligent guys didn't hire complete novices to design their courses so I note some hypocrisy in your sudden change and 2) all indications from the earliest articles mantions that the course was laid out by experts who had prior experience.

From that I stated that it was probably the usual cast of characters, Hugh Wilson and friends, and maybe even some input from Harry Colt.   In any case, we KNOW Wilson was there prior to October because the article claims he laid out the course, and even if we just use your definition of that as some construction job we know that was underway by June of 1913.    

We also know that Hugh Wilson said he brought in Pickering to construct Seaview, and we know that the course was constructed between June and October 1913 (less the replacement of the hurricane-damaged holes), and grew in over the winter and spring and was opened to member play by July 1914.

The fact that Pickering was named in the January 1915 article that Joe posted yesterday as the constructor of Seaview is consistent with the other evidence and would lead me to believe, but not prove, that given the friendship of Geist and Hugh Wilson, and given the fact that Hugh Wilson was hanging with Geist in Philadelphia on public course matters in April of 1913, and given that William Robinson, who was in fact a local and could spend more time at the site was given what is essentially project management responsibilities, that Robinson was seeking advice from experts who had prior design and construction experience, and given that Hugh Wilson had just opened Merion East, which opened to great acclaim and excellent conditions,....well, then Clarence Geist being a very smart man would have been very happy to utilize the services of Hugh Wilson and Fred Pickering and clearly had faith in their abilities.

Don't you think if someone else had done the design that Clarence Geist himself would have corrected all those erroneous reports?

In any case, we're going to continue to look for more information in Atlantic City at another promising source, and we'll certainly post all of the results here, but for now, my own records list Seaview originally as a Wilson/Robinson design, until I see something more definitive.

My lengthy encapsulation of events I posted this morning was in response to your charge that there was something wrong with the original course, such that Donald Ross had to be called in to fix things.

I just thought it was important for people here to understand the entire story, in context, and not just get snippets and bits and pieces clearly designed to discredit the man, for whatever reasons you seem to feel consistently compelled to do so.

I really love your research Tom and wish we could collaborate on some things, but we're never going to agree on this and I personally believe you have some personal bias or agenda that is leading to a blind spot on the matter that doesn't allow you to accept contradictory evidence.

In any case, hope that answers your questions...thanks for the discussion.

Wilson/Robinson? There is no evidence Wilson was involved prior to Oct. 1913 and there is no evidence Pickering was involved prior to Oct. 1913. In fact Wilson's letter in early 1914 mentions the work had been done by locals.  Would you consider Pickering a local?

« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 03:58:34 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #346 on: February 04, 2010, 07:14:58 AM »
Tom,

You need to read much more carefully about what specific work was done by locals.   

It had nothing at all to do with the building of the golf course that exists today.   

Your double standards at this point are self-evident and not really worth arguing about.   You're willing to take a funeral speech by Whigham 25 years after Merion was built where he alluded to it as "a Macdonald/Raynor course" as proof that Macdonald must have designed it, or the fact that Barker took a train through Philadelphia en route to Atlanta as proof that Barker must have routed it, but a contemporaneous article written by the local press 3 months after the start of construction that states Hugh Wilson has been Geist's right hand man and has laid out the course" followed by oodles of other contemporaneous accounts by other local writers is subject to disbelieving scrutiny.   Wilson himself tells us he had Pickering construct the course, which is then proven by a January 1915 article stating the same thing yet somehow their words aren't any good.

Instead, you focus on an opening paragraph as course building began saying Robinson is in charge but which quickly states he's looking to experts for help.   A month and a half later the news states that the course has been "laid out by experts who have" experience in this regard, yet you want to assign credit to Robinson even though he has zero experience in this regard and could hardly be called an expert.

Your "Anybody But Wilson" agenda has certainly reached a new height, Tom.   

Mike Cirba

Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #347 on: February 04, 2010, 09:41:10 AM »
By the way, Tom…over time I’ve come to the belief that HJ Whigham wasn’t being purposefully disingenuous while grieving Macdonald's passing in the 1930’s when he wrote that the “Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America”, and then included Merion Cricket Club in that list, even though he knew full well at that point that the course that had recently hosted the 1934 US Open was a far cry from the open, undeveloped farmland he and Macdonald had seen on their last visit to Ardmore prior to course construction in April 1911.  

I think what Whigham meant was simply that the original genesis of the Merion course was exactly what Macdonald had hoped for when he built the National, which was to spread strategic design principles across the United States based on copying those principles from holes overseas.  

The intent of the new Merion course seems to originally have been to emulate what Macdonald had done at NGLA and use holes overseas as templates for at least some of the holes.   That was the basis of Macdonald’s sketches of holes abroad that he showed to the Merion committee when they visited NGLA and seeing them in person prior to trying to copy/construct their features seems the very reason for Wilson’s later trip abroad.   I do believe that initially Hugh Wilson and the others at Merion were intent at least conceptually to build any number of template holes, but I think pretty quickly that their thinking evolved away from that, probably as they realized that trying to copy holes from GBI that were built on heaving dunesland is a much different proposition than doing them on inland PA clay soil.   Macdonald had much more in the way of micro-variations in the seaside land and sandy soil as his base (not to mention the ocean views and winds) as a palette at NGLA, by contrast.    It couldn't have helped that Merion's original "Eden" green at the 15th was roundly criticized and I can't imagine anyone with a sense of aesthetic balance being happy with the incongruous visual of their "Alps' mounding rising monstrously from open farmland behind that original 10th green.

Also, after the course originally opened, “Far and Sure”, whether he was Tillinghast or not, after mentioning some of the foreign-born inspirations that Wilson and committee had copied on the Merion course, commented quite perceptively and intelligently when he stated;

I think that the very best holes
at Merion are those which are original,
without any attempt to closely follow
anything but the obvious.


It had to be pretty obvious very quickly to Wilson and those at Merion, as well, that the best way to go was to use their natural features to develop golf holes and then just use little copied features here and there where they made sense, such as the “Valley of Sin” created when the rebuilt the 17th green in 1916, rather than slavishly attempt to copy holes outright.

Still, from Whigham’s perspective, Merion started out indeed with the principles brought from overseas by Macdonald, and was inspired by his example and followed his advice initially, even if things quickly evolved quite differently.

By the time of the second (West) course at Merion, which rapidly followed the East, there was no attempt to reproduce any famous holes, but instead just find the best golf holes that the property would yield.

Indeed, similiarly at Seaview, writer “Verdant Greene” pointed this out somewhat interestingly when he almost seemed to state that the course was somewhat built in opposition to the idea that one needed to obviously copy holes or features from abroad.




And finally, that last paragraph speaks exactly to what the “Locals” were working on at Seaview in Wilson’s March 1914 letter to P&O.  

Construction on the Seaview course stated in the May/June 1913 timeframe, and was completed and seeded in the fall of 1913.   So to state that Wilson said “locals” designed and built the golf course is not reading very carefully, much less considering the relevant timelines, or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on your part.  ;)




So, that's my take on HJ Whigham's statement on Merion, as well as pretty clear documentation on what "locals" were working on at Seaview.

I don't know what the heck to say in response to your theory about Barker's "Midnight Train to Georgia"!   :o ;D
« Last Edit: February 04, 2010, 02:44:13 PM by Mike Cirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #348 on: February 04, 2010, 04:03:40 PM »
The early contemporaneous Atlantic City newspaper article said Robinson was the lead designer, but that he also sought the advice of experts and it named three men - the Nichols brothers and Bispham (no mention of Wilson). For the sake of argument lets assume Wilson was one of those experts who advised Robinson. Shouldn't Robinson be given primary credit and Wilson, the Nichols, Bispham, and whoever be given only minor mention, if any mention at all?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion's minimal bunkering in 1915 and NOW: Seaview Origins
« Reply #349 on: February 04, 2010, 04:09:39 PM »
Do you consider Pickering an AC local?

How much credibility should we give Fred Kortebien's letter? Is there a record or report confirming Pickering was fired from Merion and if so when was it? Was Pickering an employee of Merion Cricket Club or a contractor?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back