Not to bring up a sore subject, but,

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake Moran asked a good question on here some days ago----eg Post #294. I went away for some days and didn't see it. I actually went to the Lesley Cup in Boston which is a bit ironic as Robert Lesley certainly was one of the central characters in and around Merion in the years we've all been discussing and arguing over about Merion's architectural history.

Here's what David Moriarty had to say in response to Kelly Blake Moran's good question to us about what motivates us to participate on these threads on this subject of Merion as much as we have and as passionately as we have. I'll supply Kelly with my answer to his question shortly but I should add now that the following, and particularly the second paragraph of it, is part of the reason I continue to participate!






"Kelly Blake Moran,

I am here because I am interested in it, especially the revolution/evolution in early American design.  I view Merion as very important in this regard, but not for the reasons usually discussed.    That said, I'd just as soon not deal with certain of these "gentlemen" at all, but for many years now my honesty, integrity, ability, and the quality of research and analysis has been constantly and unfairly maligned, and I am very interested in setting the record straight.

Also, TEPaul and Wayne are playing games with Merion's records, and have been hiding important facts.  I intend to make this an issue until they come clean, and/or until I can find a way to otherwise complete my research and finish my project.    In this regard, when they try to use Merion's records for their rhetorical advantage they often let things slip that they don't really understand, and sometimes that is very helpful.  It is a pretty tedious way to get information, but right now it is about the only avenue open to me."  
 
« Last Edit: Today at 03:19:59 PM by DMoriarty »
 

[JESII]

David,

Regarding your post 373...the plans those minutes were talking about are the plans the committee developed both before and after the March visit to NGLA. In no way do they specifically say, or even imply really, that M&W developed them, simply that they identified their preference of the group and that based on that preference the committee was recommended it for Board approval. If it were anywhere near as clear as you seem to make it I would have been gone long ago because the matter would be pretty well settled for me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It is my impression that Wilson role was primarily construction. That is the impression he leaves in his numerous letters to P&O, and in his own account in Piper's book.

Tom Macwood,  I tend to agree with your conclusion.
Why name a committee the "construction committee" if that's NOT what they were charged with.

Therefore you must read Bailey's letter in that context. It makes no sense that MCC (or Haverfrod) would turn to a an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman for the design of their high profile golf course.

But, by the same logic you cite above, why would they turn to that same inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman for the construction of their high profile golf course ?

As an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman, I think I've made some rather good suggestions and produced some rather good results when it comes to golf courses.

How did that inexperienced, untested  "Hotel" guy do at Pine  Valley

IMO the turning point with Wilson occurred after his trip abroad, that is when he began exerting his design influence at Merion, and that is when his design career began.
That's a reasonable theory

[Mike Cirba]

Jim Sullivan,

Would enjoy hearing your thoughts on my posts 361 and 362.

Others are still trying to have it both ways that the course was routed and staked and the Francis Land Swap happened before November 15, 1910, while also trying to capitalize on CBM's documented involvement in the spring but I suspect you are seeing that this really didn't happen until spring of 1911 and wanted to hear your thoughts.

In other words, I think they are mutually exclusive positions.

Either the course was routed (we know Francis tells us his work happened as the final piece of the routing) before November 1910, supposedly because of a 100x310 triangle on the Land Plan as the theory goes, or Francis did his piece sometime after the March 1911 visit to NGLA and before CBM's April 6th visit.

Patrick,

As regards the term "Construction Committee" and how it was used back then, have you read these articles written by Tililnghast, months before Harry Colt arrived at Pine Valley?

[JESII]

Mike,

I was hoping to ignore them because the Francis Swap story always tends to take on a life of its own and this thread didn't seem to need it...but if you want my honest answer, no I don't see them as mutually exclusive because I don't think establishing a general route around the property that would enable MCC to agree to a specific land purchase with HDC necessarily means they knew exactly what each hole was going to be. That's it. But, I am happy to admit I may very likely be wrong on it so I am able to have this conversation separately. If proof comes out which refutes my theory I'll be thrilled to admit it.

Tom Macwood has said a few times through the years that he thinks the routing process carried much less importance in those days than it does today...my theory would certainly depend/rely on that.



Why is it that Allan Wilson's words are reduced in value because they were written 15 years after the fact but Francis' are not even though they were 25 years after Wilsons?

[BCrosby]

I have not followed this thread much. I did open it this morning and noted the discussion about the meaning of "construction". In that regard Geoff Shackelford posted a quote from Colt on his blog recently:

"Cross-bunkers are made on a course, and they are dumped down everywhere; then wing hazards have their vogue, and we see them cut at every hole exactly opposite each other and at precisely the same distance from the tee. Then courses are supposed to be too short, and they are at once lengthened to about four miles from tee to hole…a good idea is worn threadbare in next to no time in golf course construction."   H.S. COLT

Colt used the term the way most people seemed to use it at the time. Meaning to design and build a golf course.

Trying to assign the term a narrow, more modern meaning is not consistent with its usage in the era. No one was confused about what Colt was saying above. Nor would they have thought it an odd usage.

Bob

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'm not sure I understand your question?   I neither devalue Alan Wilson's statements nor Richard Francis' statements because of the length of time after the fact they were written.   I think both men told us exactly what happened, accurately.  

I just think Francis used short-hand for saying what the final results of the land were up in that corner in terms of dimensions rather than trying to explain in a brief article a series of puts and gets along Golf House Road which reconfigured in some manner the land they originally anticipated needing, as well as requiring the purchase of three additional acres.

Similarly, I think Alan Wilson's words are confusing but not incorrect when he states that the property was purchased in 1910 and as a first step Merion decided to send Hugh Wilson overseas.   We don't know the length of time between when that decision was made and when he actually went but we also know in human terms that Wilson had two very young daughters and a business so any number of factors could have weighted on that determination.

In any case, we know from Francis that the value of the trip was not around the routing, but the architectural building up of each hole in an attempt to apply principles found abroad to the new holes they were going to build, and we also know from contemporaneous accounts that this work took place mostly after the tees, fairways, and greens were located and seeded, mostly in the form of creating new bunkers, mounds, sand mounds, and ultimately the recreation of a number of greens that weren't working well.

Bob Crosby,

Thanks for bringing your normal clarity and common-sense to this thread.

[JESII]

MIke,

Didn't Allan Wilson say they went to National to discuss the planning and lay-out of the Merion's new course?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I don't read it that way, truly.   It's a compound sentence, and I think they are two separate thoughts, the first being that "they..had our Committee as their guests at the National", AND secondly, "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East course were of the greatest help and value".

In fact, I think he's expanding and accentuating a bit on the previous sentence where he wrote that they "advised as to our plans".

Now, if he wrote, "they...had our Committee as their guests at the National WHERE their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East course were of the greatest help and value", then I would agree with you.


"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect.  Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans . They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.  Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."

[TEPaul]

The historical fact is the terms "construction committee"  "constructing" and the term "laying out" were often used interchangeably to mean either actual construction and building of architectural features from a plan or routing and designing (onto a plan) before construction or both.

We can definitely prove and confirm this by merely submitting those terms to the timelines and chronologies of numerous projects back then.

In other words, one cannot conclude that they were only using the term "laying out" to only mean they were just constructing or building architectural features to a plan if they used the term in the past tense a number of months before anything was built to a plan. This fact proves one of David Moriarty's contentions about the Wilson Committee (often referred to as the "Construction Committee) to be a virtual fallacy!

This was the case with the Wilson Committee and its report to the board before anything was actually built or constructed, therefore their use of the term "laying out" could not have referred to actual building and construction of the golf course and pretty much had to refer to the routing and designing on a plan before any architecture was actually constructed or built. And I should add that the Wilson Committee report to the MCC board on April 19, 1911 did not appear to include anyone who was not on the Wilson Committee (Wilson, Griscom, Lloyd, Francis and Toulmin).

The fact that Lesley read that report to the Board is understood when one begins to understand how permanent committees were only represented at board meetings. He was the chairman of the Green Committee (permanent or standing committee under which the ad hoc Wilson Committee worked) but he was not on the Wilson Committee (not a permanent or standing committee with a representative at the board level). This may not make much sense to people like MacWood and Moriarty but it does to people who belong to clubs like Merion who have served on their committees and boards.

[JESII]

Fair enough, it's not as clear as I had thought. I can see it both ways, so based on that reading you're not minimizing the value/accuracy of his statement. Tom Paul consistently pointing out that this was written 15 years after the fact (as though it should be assumed there's some inaccuracy in it is what I had in mind) is what I had in mind.

The timing of the trip to NGLA and subsequent visit to Ardmore is most compelling in the context of just how much the committee relied on M&W's thoughts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”.

Well, it was mostly remembered for 100 years, but those old Merion guys have to be rolling in their graves.

Also, in the word parsing dept., please note that they considered site selection and design/construction as two separate processes. And, as  I have mentioned before, the fact that they say it was unusual to be homemade vindicates  TMac in his position that it was common in that period to have hired a gca, even though MCC chose not to go that way.  At the very least, it was common by the time Alan W wrote this 15 years later.

I do see where someone might think this piece could be the start of a false legend, overly kindly remembering Hugh W, much like Merion being credited to CBm at his funeral.

[TEPaul]

Sully;

I have only pointed out that Alan Wilson's report was 15 years later as a fact and not to suggest that Alan Wilson did not know what he was talking about. I also added that the more reliable report as to the detail of the NGLA meeting and what happened at it in my mind would have to be the Wilson Report (Hugh) who was actually at NGLA and was reported no more than five weeks after that meeting.

When one analyzes these things it is best to concentrate and compare all available evidence together and not just fixate on one piece of evidence (particularly one that is 15 years after the fact instead of 5 weeks after the fact).

Analysis of historical events can be a and should be a process that involves the consideration of various chronologies and timelines of material both separately and together and some are better at doing that and understanding that than others apparently.

It should also be pointed out that when David Moriarty wrote his essay he had never even heard of this very important Wilson Report to the MCC Board meeting of April 19, 1911 much less what it actually said.

And by his own admission Moriarty did not even have the full Alan Wilson report to Philler in 1926. He actually credited me in his essay with supplying that information on this website and then noted in his essay that it had been deleted.   

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

That's correct.   I did concur with Tom that Alan Wilson probably wasn't at the NGLA meeting, but I have little doubt that everyone who came back from there talked about what occurred, and I'm sure Alan Wilson and others got an earful.

I also find it very fascinating as to the timing of both trips, and do believe that M&W helped them greatly by advising and providing suggestions about their plans, just as the record indicates from multiple sources.  

They just didn't author them...Hugh Wilson's committee did that, and the various contemporaneous records indicates that as fact, as well.

Also, having recently seen NGLA for the second time again this past week, I tried to put myself in the mindset of trying to imagine what the fellows on the Merion Committee must have thought seeing it for the first time in early 1911.  

There is no way that it couldn't have impacted their thinking on the art of the possible, and I believe that seeing that course was clearly a profound experience for them, and definitely influence their subsequent decisions.

Still, M&W didn't author the course routing or the hole designs beyond "advice and suggestions"...that was the job of Hugh Wilson's committee.   That purposeful exclusion of Wilson's work is the only issue I have with what David has been arguing...oh, that, and this notion that the course was finally routed before November 1910, but as you say, that's another issue that we probably shouldn't bring up in this context.

[Mike Cirba]

"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”.

Well, it was mostly remembered for 100 years, but those old Merion guys have to be rolling in their graves.

Also, in the word parsing dept., please note that they considered site selection and design/construction as two separate processes. And, as  I have mentioned before, the fact that they say it was unusual to be homemade vindicates  TMac in his position that it was common in that period to have hired a gca, even though MCC chose not to go that way.



Jeff,

Those are very insightful remarks, and both historically accurate and relevant and very telling to the debates at hand.

I'd mention to Jim Sullivan that indeed at that time clubs first bought as much land as they thought they'd need incorporating interesting features they wanted to use, and then laid out a routing and hole designs, exactly as what happened at NGLA.

***EDIT*** - Jeff, Just saw your last edited sentence.   In that regard, I think you'd have to ignore all of the many news articles and other accounts that credited Wilson as everything from "the genius behind the two courses at Merion", to having "laid out " the course, to those saying his committee "conceived of the problems of the holes", etc., which happened between 1912 and 1926.

In other words, Alan Wilson's account didn't start the crediting of Hugh Wilson as the principal designer of Merion.

[JESII]

In this context of buying the land before thinking about a golf course on it...other than just the general adaptability of the land for golf...why would CBM mention the three acres behind the clubhouse when they had hundreds of acres on the other side to choose from?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I think for a few very specific reasons;

First, the creek was the dividing line of these three acres.   If one were to create golf holes using the creek you'd want both sides at your disposal.

Second, it was land immediately adjacent to the front of the clubhouse, with access considerations around automotive transportation and parking and other amenities associated with ingress and egress.  

Third, it was adjacent to the railroad, and I think they also wanted to ensure there was no issue there as far as being able to traverse that land.

Finally, without that area, the "connective tissue" at the corner of the L-shaped property is pretty narrow, and they probably wanted to ensure they had enough width to play within there, especially considering that you needed at least a "going out" and a "returning" hole to work within those constraints.

Ironically, although the club did lease those 3 acres for many years before finally buying them, none of that land today is used for the golf course, and hasn't been since 1924, but as you know, it is used for the driveway and access to the clubhouse.

[JESII]

Mike,

Did those 3 acres include the other side of the creek?

Why stop at those 3 acres? The Creek and railroad continued down that border for a few hundred yards, didn't it? I don't have the map in front of me?

Ardmore ave was always there, and they didn't put the entrance off Ardmore initially, they brought it in from GHR, correct?

I don't think those answer address the most likely reason CBM identified specifically "three" acres.

I think he/they envisioned a hole there because it's a great setting for a golf hole.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

CBM never wrote about "3 acres".   What he said is that he thought it could work, "..provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.",  which we've all assumed, rightly or wrongly, was the 3 acres of RR land.

This 1924 picture shows the limitations of that portion of the property without it, and the advantages of getting the land on the other side of the creek pretty well.  You can still see the sand hazard near the original 12th green, which crossed the creek on the approach.

[JESII]

The 3 acres were between the creek and railroad?

[JESII]

I guess so...the creek is just right of the current greenside bunker, isn't it?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Yes, that's correct.   The three acres in question were/are bordered by the creek on one side and the railroad on the other, and ran up along the front of the clubhouse (not the pro shop side).

[JESII]

Why wouldn't MCC have sought that land all the way down their property? All possible explanations would endorse that other than the idea that they thought about it specifically for a golf hole...

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

The best way I can describe that to you consider where the creek comes into the property near the old 13th green across from the front of the clubhouse.

As a matter of fact, how do you know he didn't suggest they buy the whole thing?   All he said is "a little more land near the clubhouse", which I think is valid for all the reasons I mentioned.   Was he talking 3 acres?  10 acres??   What's a "little more land"?  

We don't know.   What we do know is once the course was configured and routed, they ended up leasing 3 acres, along and across the creek and permitting easier clubhouse access for golf (they located the second part of the 12th hole there (with an approach crossing the creek) as well as the original par three 13th whose green was bordered by the creek on two sides) and perhaps other ingress/egress considerations.

[TEPaul]

"Still, M&W didn't author the course routing or the hole designs beyond "advice and suggestions"...that was the job of Hugh Wilson's committee.   That purposeful exclusion of Wilson's work is the only issue I have with what David has been arguing...oh, that, and this notion that the course was finally routed before November 1910, but as you say, that's another issue that we probably shouldn't bring up in this context."



Michael:

I entirely concur with that.