[Jim Nugent]

What really interests me is the following.
Francis was part of the committee.
Francis accompanied Wilson on the March 1911 visit.
By March 1911, Raynor was an integral part of CBM's "team".
Why is there no mention of Raynor at that meeting ?
Wouldn't Francis seek out Raynor ?
Wouldn't he grill him and absorb everything about the design and construction of a golf course ?
Why is there no evidence of any communication between Francis and Raynor ?
Written or with on site visits

This is another reason I doubt M&W played as big a role as David's essay suggested.  As you say, Raynor was an integral part of the team.  Yet as far as I know, he is not mentioned once in connection with Merion.  

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

Your question is wholly irrelevant.

It's like asking in 2000, how could Pac Dunes be designed by Tom Doak or Boston Golf by Gil Hanse since neither is a member of the Ryder Cup team, or have won any major championships to date?.. 

[TEPaul]

"And that doesn't strike you as strange ?"


Not at all. I guess I can understand why you might think it's strange but you don't understand the ethos of MCC back then like I do. To understand it you might have to actually read something and understand its theme like Edward Sayer's 50 year anniversary speech. 

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
Based on what we know of Merion, and who was involved, and who constructed the course, why would we expect Raynor to be involved? How many courses had Raynor been involved with prior to Merion being laid out?

Mike
I don't see anyone trying to exaggerate Doak and Hanse's golfing record in order to rationalize their choice.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

For a guy who reads so much history, you really seem to have a difficult time putting yourself into the context of the time period.

You have a very prominent Main Line club near Philadelphia, and the club selects five of the six lowest handicap golfers (the sixth joined the club the previous year) out of over 300 golf members, all men with at least a decade of dedicated experience in a variety of positions of administrative responsibility in the 15 year old game (in this country) to design and build their new golf course for the fledgling but rapidly popular new game and yet 100 years later you are somehow incredulous that they decided to do that?    

[Tom MacWood]

If they were so inthralled with six lowest handicaps at Merion why did they seek out Barker and Macdonald?

[TEPaul]

"For a guy who reads so much history, you really seem to have a difficult time putting yourself into the context of the time period."


Michael:

No kidding! He just doesn't seem to understand that all important "amateur/sportsman" ethos that completely imbued MCC back then. He too should read Edward Sayers' 50 year anniversary speech which the club asked to have published but even if he read that he still may not get it.

On the MCC/Barker issue you sound like some mindless drone! For the last time, Tom MacWood, MCC did not seek out Barker; Edward Connell who had nothing to do with MCC the club did! Are you ever going to figure that out or are you actually going to have to do some real research at Merion to figure it out? Well, belay that-----doesn't look like that would be possible for you at this point as you still don't seem capable of even understanding why THAT actually is important too! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

What really interests me is the following.
Francis was part of the committee.
Francis accompanied Wilson on the March 1911 visit.
By March 1911, Raynor was an integral part of CBM's "team".
Why is there no mention of Raynor at that meeting ?
Wouldn't Francis seek out Raynor ?
Wouldn't he grill him and absorb everything about the design and construction of a golf course ?
Why is there no evidence of any communication between Francis and Raynor ?
Written or with on site visits

This is another reason I doubt M&W played as big a role as David's essay suggested.  

As you say, Raynor was an integral part of the team.  
Yet as far as I know, he is not mentioned once in connection with Merion.  

Jim Nugent,

WOW, That's some leap in logic.

I don't think you can conclude that M&W didn't play a big role just because Raynor isn't mentioned.

Mike Cirba,

YIKES

Now you want us to believe that good amateur golfers make accomplished architects.

YIKES

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Yikes is right!!!  Pretty scary thought, isn't it??

Thank God none of our earliest courses were designed and developed by "expert" amateur golfers like Leeds, Travis, Fownes, Emmet, Tillinghast, Egan, Wilson, Crump, Whigham, Windeler, Smith, and/or Macdonald, particularly when they all had the compelling alternative of hiring an itinerant pro golfer to lay out 18 stakes in an afternoon for 25 bucks.  

Particularly since there was such a lovely history up to date of beautiful steeplechase, geometric pro designs littered across the US landscape to inspire them!  .

[TEPaul]

"YIKES

Now you want us to believe that good amateur golfers make accomplished architects."



Pat:

Whether you've recognized it or not or whether this is a point you have just now figured out, you should know that this particular point is essentially the very one that Moriarty (and apparently MacWood too) hinged the primary thesis or hypothesis on of his essay on Merion, "The Missing Faces of Merion."


To wit:

1. Since Wilson did not go abroad to study architecture in 1910 prior to the routing and designing of Merion East in 1911 therefore he and his committee not only DID NOT route and design Merion East but they were virtually incapable of doing that and, THEREFORE, had to find someone else (viz CBM/Whigam or Barker) to do it for them; and that all Wilson and his committee actually did do with Merion East was merely construct (build) the golf course to someone else's plan!

2. The recorded history of Merion, even the contemporaneous administrative records of MCC in 1910 and 1911, are therefore wrong or were created in some attempt to glorify someone and minimize the contributions of others (viz. MacWood's constant claims that Merion's history and history books are fantasy and fiction, and Moriarty's claim that the actual architects (CBM and Whigam) have actually been "MISSING" from Merion's history for a solid century!!).


Obviously, Patrick, there are a number of things wrong with those premises, assumptions and conclusions and via the discovery and presentation of a certain amount of contemporaneous material those fanciful and illogical notions of Moriarty and MacWood and perhaps even you have been proven wrong whether you three recognize it and/or acknowledge it or not.

Clearly, some of this falls into a matter of degree but nevertheless.

The fact of golf architectural history and American golf architectural history is that there apparently were a whole lot of amateurs or "amateur/sportsmen" back in that early era who did golf architecture and the truth probably is that much of it was disappointing even though with a number of shinning examples from a few of them it was not----eg Myopia (Leeds), GCGC (Emmet/Travis), Oakmont (the Fownses), NGLA (Macdonald and committee), Merion (Wilson and committee), Pine Valley (Crump and friends) et al.

There does, however, appear to be a common trait or characteristic amongst the ones who succeeded and that is they ALL took a great deal of time with those projects mentioned and if they made mistakes, and apparently they all did, they fixed them and continued to fix them until they and apparently the world of golf felt they got it right.

On the flipside, it is probably true to say that both the amateurs and the professionals from that early era who did not take that time turned out some generally inconsequential results.

That sure does appear to be the historic reality of this, and it is documented and provable, and to date it seems somehow Moriarty and MacWood and perhaps you too, Patrick, do not recognize it or are unwilling to admit it, accept it and acknowledge it for reasons that are not very credible or persuasive. In my book that makes all three of you pretty poor golf architectural analysts of that age and era and even worse historians of golf architecture of that age and era. But it also probably means the three of you are simply inveterate arguers who are either unable or incapable of conceding even provable and proven aspects of GCA history.

The underlying truth here is despite the protestations of some, golf course architecture, including routing and designing golf holes and courses, is not exactly rocket science or all that terribly abstruse-----and it was considered back then that those who played good golf and very good golf generally had an increased ability due to their experiences with golf itself to recognize what it took to route and design and build good golf architecture and good golf courses, and particulary if they took the necessary time to do it----which in the cases of those mentioned above was actually years or even decades!

This clearly does not mean all the "amateur/sportsmen" who tried it succeeded; in fact most probably failed. But it also does not mean that those mentioned did not do what they have been given credit by their clubs and by history for doing.

And THAT is what the likes of Moriarty and MacWood have been trying to suggest and to prove on this website and for up to seven years now in the case of Merion and Wilson and his committee. At this point, it appears they have just about totally failed to convince or persuade just about everyone. In my opinion, THAT should be and hopefully will be THEIR legacy as GCA researchers, analysts and dare I even say, historians?!

So where do you stand now on this issue, Patrick?     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Yikes is right!!!  Pretty scary thought, isn't it??

Thank God none of our earliest courses were designed and developed by "expert" amateur golfers like Leeds, Travis, Fownes, Emmet, Tillinghast, Egan, Wilson, Crump, Whigham, Windeler, Smith, and/or Macdonald, particularly when they all had the compelling alternative of hiring an itinerant pro golfer to lay out 18 stakes in an afternoon for 25 bucks.  

Mike,

I wouldn't put CBM in the company of the others, he spent decades studying architecture.

But, since you're in to lists, why don't you list the legion of the unsuccessful amateur architects ?

Then add to that list, all the good players on green committees who are responsible for disfiguring hundreds if not thousands of courses.

Particularly since there was such a lovely history up to date of beautiful steeplechase, geometric pro designs littered across the US landscape to inspire them!  .

GCGC was one of those geometric courses.
Your problem, like so many others, is that you judge the playability of a golf course from aerials taken from 4,000 feet
GCGC seems to have fared fairly well over the years.
I seem to recall that you liked it a great deal

And don't forget who was it that led everyone away from that.  CBM, the Father of American Golf Course Architecture.

Mike, would you also list the wonderful courses that the individual members fo the committee designed subsequent to Merion.

I just want to get a feel for their individual architectural talents

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

That's your take on Moriarty's and MacWood's premise/s

I'm not concerned about "The faces of Merion", and neither is this thread.

What I'm concerned about, what this thread is concerned about is the influence the great courses of the UK had on Merion and how that influence manifested itself.

Merion's website states that the 3rd hole was inspired by the Redan at NB
Other holes at Merion have similar backrounds, the Eden, The Alps.

But, the connection to the UK seems to flow through NGLA and CBM.

One of my quests is to ascertain the familiarity of the other four (4) committee members, with the great courses in the UK, PRIOR to March 1911.

For if there's NO connection, or a minor connection, then, the meeting at NGLA takes on enormous  significance.

I know that you, Wayno and Mike Cirba don't want that to happen, but, I'm not interested in anyone's position, I'm only interested in the process of DISCOVERY, irrespective of where that leads.

I don't think you, Wayno, Mike Cirba, David Moriarty or Tom MacWood share my interest because you all have your own agendas   

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Above you mentioned you'd like less insults.  If so, look within.   Above you accused me of "making things up" and "misrepresenting" the historical record, and absurdly claimed that there was not a "shred of evidence" that they were working on the layout at Merion East.

I find your accusations to be extremely insulting and would like you to set the record straight.   This should be no problem for you given your constant claims that you always admit that you are wrong.     So admit you were wrong.  Admit that, whether you agree with it or not, there is plenty of evidence indicating that they were working on the layout of Merion East.  

Or, if you want let your false claims and unjustified insults stand, then expect me to continue to call you our for your sleazy tactics.

______________________________________

Patrick,  I've spent a substantial amount of time looking into the activities of the others in the committee, particularly Francis, and I've never found anything to indicate that the others were familiar with the underlying principles of the great holes abroad.  Recall that Hugh Wilson directly addressed this in his 1916 statement when he noted that the members of the Committee were no more knowledgeable about this stuff than the average clubmen, and that they learned it from CBM.

Francis in particular had a rather interesting take on golf architecture in general and Merion in particular, but nothing to indicate he was versed in the great holes abroad.  

[TEPaul]

"......there is plenty of evidence indicating that they were working on the layout of Merion East."


When the Wilson Committee visited NGLA in March 1911?

If there is plenty of evidence then what is it? If there is any evidence at all from those involved back then then let's see it, any of it----anything at all, even one iota.

That you think they must have been working on the layout plans of Merion at NGLA isn't evidence. That you think it is highly unlikely that they weren't working on the layout of Merion while at NGLA isn't evidence; it's only YOUR opinion and it's speculation.

If there is any evidence at all that anyone back then said or wrote or even implied they were working on the plans for Merion East while at NGLA in March 1911, let's just see it, David Moriarty, or else stop wasting time with your endless speculation that you keep trying to pass off and foist on others and on Merion's history!   

[TEPaul]

"I've spent a substantial amount of time looking into the activities of the others in the committee, particularly Francis, and I've never found anything to indicate that the others were familiar with the underlying principles of the great holes abroad.  Recall that Hugh Wilson directly addressed this in his 1916 statement when he noted that the members of the Committee were no more knowledgeable about this stuff than the average clubmen, and that they learned it from CBM.

Francis in particular had a rather interesting take on golf architecture in general and Merion in particular, but nothing to indicate he was versed in the great holes abroad."



And that is very likely why the vast majority of the architecture of Merion East is not replications of the great holes abroad! 

[Mike Cirba]

The dog went into his house and the dog ate his dinner.

Is that evidence that the dog ate his dinner in his house?

[Mike Cirba]

Besides, why would anyone assume that Alan Wilson would comment on a meeting he didn't attend?

Did Hugh Wilson say they worked on the layout of Merion?  Did the MCC Minutes of a month after the meeting say they worked on the layout of Merion??

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  I've spent a substantial amount of time looking into the activities of the others in the committee, particularly Francis, and I've never found anything to indicate that the others were familiar with the underlying principles of the great holes abroad.  Recall that Hugh Wilson directly addressed this in his 1916 statement when he noted that the members of the Committee were no more knowledgeable about this stuff than the average clubmen, and that they learned it from CBM.

David,

That's interesting.
Can you post the statement ?

What would appear to be a "smoking gun" in terms of supporting the premise that the great courses/holes/features of the UK and the embodiment of those holes/features in the U.S vis a vis NGLA, heavily influenced the design of Merion is the original "Alps" hole at Merion.

If NONE of the committee had ever visited Prestwick, prior to design and construction of the "Alps" hole at Merion, then it appears clear that the committee conceived of the idea of crafting an"Alps" hole for Merion at or due to their meeting in Southampton  

The "Alps" hole at Merion was heavily constructed.
It wasn't sitting there in the land, naturally, just waiting to be discovered.

The "Alps" hole at Merion was a deliberate attempt at replication, there can be NO denying that.


Francis in particular had a rather interesting take on golf architecture in general and Merion in particular, but nothing to indicate he was versed in the great holes abroad.  

I'd like to ascertain exactly what the committee's individual, personal familiarity with the great courses of the UK was, PRIOR to the March 1911 meeting

[TEPaul]

"The dog went intohis house and the dog ate his dinner.

Is that evidence that the dog ate his dinner in his house?"



Jeeesus Michael, you screwball; what are you talking about? Of course that's evidence the dog ate his dinner in his house. Now, whether it should or could or must be considered "meaningfully accurate" or "verifiable proof" or "FACT" or even "PHACT" is another discussion for another day and another courtroom of law.

HOWEVER, if one were to say:

"The dog ate is dinner and the dog went into his house"------that would be an entirely different Kettle of Crap that would only deserve three pages of discussion or argumentation on here, instead of thirty!

[TEPaul]

And JEEESUS Patrick----your Post #93 is sort of a shock. It pretty much proves you didn't follow any of the details of those endless mutli-pages threads on Merion that played out over about seven years now.

I doubt anyone involved in those things wants to go through all that again for your learning curve or benefit. Go back and look in the back pages of this website and get back to us in a couple of months if you have any of the same questions you referred to in #93.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With so many things to remember, I'm not sure that the travel and experience prior to March of 1911 details of the other four committeemen were researched and revealed.

It would seem like a prudent exercise, even if it needs to be repeated.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What would be more prudent if you are interested in all the details is to simply spend the time researching all the information in the threads on Merion in the back pages. Believe me, all the information extant at this time discussed on here is in those threads even if some on here claim it isn't or that some of it was altered or whatever.

But if you don't believe that, as apparently the likes of Moriarty and MacWood don't, then I would be more than willing to provide you with the telephone numbers of Merion GC and MCC and you can call them, make an arrangement with them to access their archives and records and check it all out for yourself. That's what the likes of Wayne Morrison and I have been doing for about a decade now.

[Mike Cirba]

Without going back into Ancestry.com, here are at least some of the trips abroad by prominent members of Merion.   As memory serves, Griscom and Lloyd also both travelled quite a bit prior in the decade, but I was trying to get some trips closer to the relevant events.

1907, 1908 – Merion President Robert W. Lesley arrives back in New York from time spent in Europe, leaving from the port of Southamption each time.   Fellow member Rodman E. Griscom also travelled to Europe during this period, returning from Cherbourg, France.

August 1909 – Merion President Robert W. Lesley returns from Europe (Southampton)

September 1909 – Merion President Robert W. Lesley returns from Europe (Southampton)

August 1910 – Merion President Robert W. Lesley returns from Europe (Liverpool)

April 1911 – Dr. Harry Toulmin, a member of the construction Committte returns from Europe (Cherbourne)

May 1912 –  Hugh I. Wilson returns from Cherbourg, France


It's also sort of funny.   Note to self*  

*Never say anything self-effacing out of modesty lest some future researcher paint you as an incompetent dolt.  

I'm speaking of course of Wilson's comments that they were like average club members in their knowledge, which is ridiculous on the face of it.


We already know that Dr. Harry Toulmin was one of three men who designed the original Belmont GC in 1897.   The nine hole club was the predecessor to today's Aronimink and the club champ was 18 year old wunderkind Hugh Wilson, who had the best handicap in the club at that time by 8 shots.

We already know that Hugh Wilson was also on the Princeton GC Green Committee in 1901-02 when they were building their new course designed by Willie Dunn and modified by home pro James Swan.  

We also know that all these men were the top golfers of the 300+ golf membership at Merion, and had played many of what were deemed as the best US courses at the time, particularly in city-wide competitions with Boston and NYC.

In fact, Wilson and Griscom had already competed against Macdonald and Emmet in City Match play competitions.

All these men were also close friends with other top golfers who had much experience overseas and in the US in terms of knowing great golf courses...men like AW Tillinghast, George Crump, and Alex Findlay.

And it also seems from this 1900 article, listing men assigned by the Golf Association of Philadelphia to design a public course for the city of Philadelphia (which never happened), that Rodman Griscom had experience with laying out and constructing golf courses prior, most likely on his dad's property when the second nine was created at the original site for Merion.



Although the course was never built, it was evidently planned and routed.



With financial kingpin HG Lloyd, and Engineer Richard Francis, to suggest that these men were like average club members in terms of their experience and knowledge is a joke.   Lord save us from literalistic interpretative men!!  

Now...what Wilson said, and what was somewhat true if overstated, is that their experience in "construction and agronomy" was that of an average club member.

The very earliest courses were pretty primitive, and many of them just used the native prairie grasses cut short, and maybe there'd be an attempt to plant some seed for a green, but for the most part, they were crudely built and maintained.

THIS was going to be something different.   This was going to be an endeavor where most of the property was to be turned over, the soil treated and fertilized, shaping was done for tees and greens, grass seed planted, and then hopefully grass would grow and they'd need to maintain it and modify it as their ideas evolved.

THAT is why they were looking at Macdonald's grass experiments, his brochures from different seed merchants, and all the infrastructure things that were new to them.  

The committee also got an education from Macdonald on his studies of what made up the principles of the best holes overseas, no question about it, and he showed them his sketches, and then the next day he took them out and showed him his applied versions of those principles on his wonderful National course.

But to suggest these guys were just some nincompoops with zero experience in what made a good golf hole prior to the visit is taking a statement largely about construction and agronomy and trying to make it into something much more than was every true in this situation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

What would be more prudent if you are interested in all the details is to simply spend the time researching all the information in the threads on Merion in the back pages. Believe me, all the information extant at this time discussed on here is in those threads even if some on here claim it isn't or that some of it was altered or whatever.

TEPaul,

I simply don't have the time to do so.


But if you don't believe that, as apparently the likes of Moriarty and MacWood don't, then I would be more than willing to provide you with the telephone numbers of Merion GC and MCC and you can call them, make an arrangement with them to access their archives and records and check it all out for yourself. That's what the likes of Wayne Morrison and I have been doing for about a decade now.
As much as I'd like to, I don't have the time.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I completely understand that but unfortunately that is what it takes to understand the details of this stuff----something, I might add very, very few on here do or ever have. And that is frankly the primary reason a guy like Moriarty was able to sell them a bill of fallacous logic in his essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion." But the real irony is he also said in that essay he did it to try to learn somethng about Merion and its architectural history !    

He did it to learn something, my ass!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()