The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[JESII]

Mike,

Regarding #1833: They could have buile 14 - 16 quite similar to the end result based on the dimensions of the triangle on the November Map.! That's the point!

You see the narrowness of the drawing relative to the as built triangle as proof that they didn't have it figured out yet. You've said numerous times that they couldn'thave built two holes in that little width. There are 6 other instances on that course of adjoining holes covering a very similar width. How do you explain that? They did it 6 times but wouldn't do it a 7th?

I still don't quite get your angle about #1 though...I have no argument that #1 - 13 were more intuitive, primarily due to the location of the clubhouse and the width of the property (as Jeff has pointed out as a natural asset) and that the last 5 would have been more challenging...but the only improvement YOUR idea of the Swap would open up is the ladies aid around the quarry. You've often asked why these guys would do certain things on their "Championship Course"...well I'll ask you, why does a ladies aid put this Champioship Course over the top?

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

On my post #1816 I show how they could have fit two holes into the dimensions of the original triangle as drawn.

It just isn't very good.

You don't see the alternate route around the quarry on #16 as necessary and integral to the routing playability of a hole that was 430 yards with hickory shafts and wiffle balls, but quite obviously THEY did!    

They had hundreds of members who were just learning the game who would use the course day in and day out.

Remember the articles from 1915 that said Merion had very few bunkers.   Remember why??   Because for the average member it was already a ball buster without them.  

Recall also some of what Alan Wilson told us;

   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other...

...The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players....

...We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not..

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

My point about the first hole cutting across the property from the clubhouse to the western boundary is that it left only one way to get up to the northern side of the property on the way back...behind the clubhouse where the 13th green was located.

So, given that you're now on the old 13th green, with five holes left to go, can you imagine any possible routing that would/could utilize the land directly across the street from the clubhouse  (the land now covered by fine holes along Golf House Road)?

Let me also reiterate that if you'd come that far in the planning process with NONE of the triangle land available to you, it's time to call out the wacky wagon and take the whole group to Bellevue!  

[JESII]

Mike,

Have you ever heard of laying up?

The carry over the quarry on #16 is about 100 yards from the end of the fairway. If it takes two shots to get to the end of the fairway, so be it. The carry over the quarry on #17 is about 150 and on #18 it's at least that long. The committee built both those holes with no option to go around yet you insist they would never consider doing one of 2/3 that length on #16...I agree that it was off the ground as opposed to off a tee and in the case of 17, downhill but you have to admit the evidence immediately after your 16th hole undermines your position pretty clearly. Jeff? Can you at least admit this?

For the Francis Swap to be as you guys describe, the only architectural benefit to the course is the ladies aid around the quarry on #16...would that truly be worth the memory 40 years later of a guy who accomplished a great deal in golf...especially when his description of the event was specific, and much more influential then this bit???



When you say..."if you'd come that far in the planning process with NONE of the triangle land available to you, it's time to call out the wacky wagon and take the whole group to Bellevue"...how far in the process? It's my contention that this happened in September or October of 1910. The only thing you guys have to argue against that is the quarryman blowing the top off...remember, by this time Lloyd owned (or had an agreement to buy) half of HDC...I think he could authorize a little stone work...

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

You're missing my point, I think.  

The question isn't whether they needed to build the alternate route or not...the only relevant fact is that they thought they needed to and did build it!

I think they saw the idea that most of their members would be left with a 160-230 yard approach on a 435 yard par four that was all carry to reach the green as untenable.  In fact, we KNOW they did because they built the alternate route around.

As far as chipping it down for the second shot, what the hell kind of golf is that Jim?  

So once they decided that they needed to build that alternate route, EVEN WITH THE somewhat slimmer, longer triangle land in play, I think it left them flummoxed to fit the rest of the holes until Mr. Francis came up with an elegantly simple idea, the jist of which was;

If we don't have enough land to build the last five holes we want, perhaps we can get more land?  

[DMoriarty]

Jim, 

Mike has been playing this same shell game with the property lines for years now.  What he always conveniently forgets is that prior to the swap there was plenty of land to the west and there would have been no need to have the 14th fairway (or whatever was to be there) impinge on the alternate route to the 16th green.   

And of course he forgets the Francis statement.

[JESII]

Mike,

More to the point, they always had a flexible road so they could add width if needed so there's no reason to feel constrained by Golf House Road as drawn.

[Tom MacWood]

Why is Francis's 1950 account given more weight than Hugh Wilson's own 1917 account and his contemporaneous letters?

[Patrick_Mucci]

One of the non-technical issues that causes me to reflect on the issue was when Tom MacWood asked the following basic question.

And, I'll preface the question by stating that Hugh Wilson was appointed Chairman of the Construction committee.

Tom's question, or statement was, and I'm paraphrasing.

Why would a club that wanted to design/build a world class championship golf course cede that responsibility, the responsibilty of routing, individual hole and feature design to an inexperienced amateur ?

[JESII]

Pat (and Tom),

My personal answer to that is two-fold...

First, I think a committee was primarily responsible for the original lay out of Merion East, not a single guy.

Second, once laid out, they relied on Hugh Wilson to construct it to those ideas.

Third, I know...Wilson is primarily repsonsible for the golf course because they knew it would be a long term evolution to the finished product (and it was) and not even Tom or Dave argue that from May 1, 1911 Hugh Wilson gets the lion share of credit through the mid-20's until Flynn garnered some.

[Tom MacWood]

Pat (and Tom),

My personal answer to that is two-fold...

First, I think a committee was primarily responsible for the original lay out of Merion East, not a single guy.

Second, once laid out, they relied on Hugh Wilson to construct it to those ideas.

Third, I know...Wilson is primarily repsonsible for the golf course because they knew it would be a long term evolution to the finished product (and it was) and not even Tom or Dave argue that from May 1, 1911 Hugh Wilson gets the lion share of credit through the mid-20's until Flynn garnered some.

You didn't answer the question. Why Wilson (or the equally inexperienced committee)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I understand your points, but, with acknowledged experts at your disposal, would you entrust the design, the routing and individual hole and feature designs to a novice ?

Once a course is built, almost every green chairman tries to tinker with it.

It's the routing and original design that's the difficult part.

After it's built, tinkering or fine tuning is easy.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jim,

My point about the first hole cutting across the property from the clubhouse to the western boundary is that it left only one way to get up to the northern side of the property on the way back...behind the clubhouse where the 13th green was located.

So, given that you're now on the old 13th green, with five holes left to go, can you imagine any possible routing that would/could utilize the land directly across the street from the clubhouse  (the land now covered by fine holes along Golf House Road)?

Let me also reiterate that if you'd come that far in the planning process with NONE of the triangle land available to you, it's time to call out the wacky wagon and take the whole group to Bellevue!  

Mike,

You may recall the map below.  The acreage below Haverford College and north of Ardmore, including the southern area of JW is no smaller than using the road as a boundary and adding the triangle.  With a hundred years of retrospect, it looks like routing the last five holes in there would be difficult.  But then they figured that out too.  Rather than being lunatics, perhaps they were just totally inexperienced rank amateurs in the time before the Francis swap.  They did figure out in a couple of years that they didn't initially know how difficult the process of designing and building a course would be.

As to Tom's question, perhaps the simple answer is that they were successful, rich business men who were good golfers, and they took it on because they could, and they wanted to.  I've taken on many projects (not building golf courses) because I thought I could do them and I wanted to.  Sometimes it turned out I'd have been better served to get professional help.  Other times they turned out just as well or better.  Perhaps the Merion men just had enough ego to want to do it themselves.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike, Jeff and your peanut gallery,

As I've asked David, who do you think put pen to paper to draw up the 5 plans, or the plan(s) that preceded them?  How confident are you of your answer? 

Also, there are a number of references in the posts above to the Francis routing as it relates to the swap Francis proposed. Is there any evidence that Francis had a routing, that he had prepared, when he proposed the swap to Lloyd?  Or a routing he personally did after Lloyd agreed to the swap? 

If they indeed started blasting the 16th green a day or two after the midnight ride does that not suggest that there was an approved plan showing at least the 16th green before that time?  Else, why blast a green site that wasn't approved by CBM or the Board yet? 

Just trying to understand the timeline.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Not to go all Mucci on you, but I think the easiest way to address your points is to intersperse my comments in your post below.  As a general comment, I think it might help lower the temperature of the debate if you didn't use the word "pretend" so much in referring to Jeff and Mike's ideas.  The words "infer" or "speculate" are probably more accurate.  They have their analysis and you have yours.  In either case there is a lot on logical inference that goes on.  Saying they pretend is pejorative.  Hopefully they will follow suit in their responses to you. 

So much for trying to cover all this in a more organized and productive manner.   
________________________________________________________________

................................................   
________________________________________________________

Bryan, 

I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation in this environment, but I guess I will give it a shot. Well, let's give it a shot.

There is a lot about that Lesley report to the board that I don't understand and a lot of open questions out there about it that people aren't even asking. 

1. Is the transcript we have been given accurate and authentic?  I've never seen the actual minutes.  I have been denied access to them by both MCC and MGC.  I know that TEPaul keeps claiming that anyone can look at them, but this is false.  Wayne has arranged it so is the minutes are not available through normal channels, or at least they are not available to anyone who might actually view them with a critical eye.   So at this point it is impossible to know if what we have been given is an accurate and complete record of what happened.   
  Unfortunately we have been provided a number of different versions of the transcript of this supposed report over the years, and this only adds to the uncertainty about its authenticity.  Add to that the fact that on multiple occasions the Faker Flynn authors have put forth inaccurate and incomplete information and claimed it was authentic.   So it is difficult to know whether to trust this information or not. 
  That said, I hope this latest version in accurate, but I really wonder about what was before and after that report in the records and why the rest of the records for that meeting were not included on the Flynn Faker pdf.  Why wouldn't they have included the records where the golf course was actually approved? 
  As it is we have little choice but to work of of what we have, but we should all keep in mind the possibility that games are still being played with this material, as games have been being played for years. If it's not accurate, then this part of the discussion is moot. If someday we discover that it is inaccurate or incomplete then I will join you in criticizing those who put it forth.

2.  Who is the author of the report?
   The answer seems obvious.   Lesley is the author.  "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the New Golf Grounds."    But in the past TEPaul and Mike have tried to argue that this was something Wilson had written and that Lesley was reading for Wilson.  That doesn't make any sense to me and there is no indication of this in any text I have seen.  If this is the case then they ought to bring forward information supporting this. As a neutral reader of the passage, I would say that the Golf Committee were the authors.  Practically that probably means one of the members wrote it on their behalf.   I've seen no evidence one way or the other to indicate who precisely wrote it.  In my working life I prepared many reports that were presented by my superiors in forums that I wasn't invited to. In that context, I'd read it that Lesley was the superior delivering the message from the Committee. Why does it matter to this discussion?

3. What were the many different courses? 
   From the beginning of the report, "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the  new land . . ."  I assume that the "many different courses" were variations on the route of the golf course.  I'd agree with that assumption.  It seems the most likely.
 The many "different golf courses" could easily refer to variations of routings.  While it is far from clear, the description could refer to the variations up to that point, including Barker's rough routing, CBM/HJW's suggested changes and alterations to Barker's plan (I'm sorry, but I don't recall any specific document that says that CBM/HJW suggested changes and alterations to Barker's plan.  Is this an inference on your part?) (including the addition of the land behind the clubhouse,) Lloyd's and Francis' attempts to make this fit onto the pre-swap land, (I'm sorry, but I don't recall any specific document that says that Lloyd and Francis specifically were the ones trying to lay out courses on the pre-swap land.  Is this another inference on your part?) and the post swap routing that Francis figured out.  Again, do we know that there is a post-swap routing that Francis specifically figured out?

4.  Who from Merion went to NGLA?  We've always assumed it was the Construction Committee, but this report casts doubts on that.  Lesley wasn't on the Construction Committee, yet he reports that "on OUR return [from NGLA], WE arranged . . ."   It sure sounds like he was at NGLA.  In Wilson's 1916 chapter makes it sound as if his Construction Committee was there, so there is some confusion in my mind who was actually there.  There are other reasons I have my doubts about who was there and who wasn't, but I will hold them for now.   Let's just say that it is somewhat of an open question, at least in my mind.  A simple interpretation consistent with my comments above is that Lesley was reporting for the Committee. and that the "our" and "we" refer only to the Committee that wrote the report that Lesley delivered.  But, as you say, it is still an open question.

5.  What were "his plans?"  Lesley reported, they "spent the evening looking over HIS PLANS and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses . . . ."  As a neutral reader, I thought it meant either CBM's plans for NGLA or for specific ideal holes that went with the various "data" he had collected overseas.  Don't include me in the "you guys" below.  I give you this as a neutral reader with no particular bias on this point. Since all of you guys seem to think "plans' is synonymous with routing, then this ought to settle it right?   I didn't think so.   Rather you guys have tried to explain this away, arguing these must be plans from overseas or plans for NGLA but they couldn't possibly be plans for Merion - anything but that!  But we know that CBM told them he needed a contour map and we know that they had a contour map for months at least.  So it seems entirely possible that they were there going over CBM's plans for Merion and data from overseas, on which those plans were based.   We don't know, but it is certainly a possibility.  I agree we don't know.  Yours is one possibility.  Mine is a possibility.  No doubt there are other possibilities.  There is no objective way to weigh one possibility against the others without some more information.

6. What was meant by:  "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans?"[/i]  This is another statement which is far from clear, yet you some here think it only could mean one thing:   Merion came up with five different routings on their own and these routings really must have had nothing to do with the trip to NGLA.  I find this preposterous for many different reasons, but mainly because it ignores the first half of the sentence and ignores that these guys had just been going over this stuff with CBM!
a.  The reading ignores the first half if the sentence.   The "re-arranged the course."   Course is singular.   Before the NGLA meetings they had tried "many different courses" --plural, as in they had tried a number of routings.    But after the  NGLA meeting they rearranged the course --singular as in they rearranged the course to fit with what had been decided.   If this sentence is talking about routings, this seems to be the place where it is talking about routings.  I think dissecting the text is not all that helpful.  Taken in totality, one possibility for me is that they tried many different routings of the course before NGLA. Perhaps they had focused in on one.  When they returned from NGLA they rearranged that one and came up with 5 more routings.  Another possibility is that the singular "course" that they rearranged referred to the generic concept of the course and that they had many routings of "the course" before they left and they reduced those many routings to five when they returned.  In the end, we don't know that level of detail.
b.  What were these "five plans?"   Many have pretended these were distinct routings and that Merion came up with them after and without CBM.  But we don't know this, and to me it seems unlikely given that they also rearranged the singular course.   The differences could have had to to with hole lengths or green designs (should the 14th hole be the double plateau green and the 15th the hog's back green, or visa versa?) The differences could have had to do with the order in which the holes played.  (Should the course start the 14th thus ending with a par 3?  Or should it  Start on the par 3 13th and end on the 12th?   Should the redan come after the 2nd hole? )  We don't know.  I agree, we don't know.  I would infer that when they came back they developed 5 routings or variations on routings.  I don't think it really matters that we know in detail what the differences in the routings were.  It seems clear that they were after the NGLA visit. Whether CBM was involved in developing the 5 plans after NGLA, nobody knows.  You don't know he was involved, and they don't know he wasn't.  And back to my initial question to you and recently to them: who do you think actually drew the 5 plans.  It seems unlikely to me that it was CBM/HJW.  But, I don't know.
c.  What is meant by "laid out" five different plans?  For that matter, when Lesley used this phrase earlier when speaking of the different courses, and what did he mean there?  Were these five different plans that they had developed at NGLA and were laying off on the ground to see how they worked?   Were these five different pland the CBM "plans" referred to above?   It is not at all clear. I agree that it's not clear.  It could be they laid out five plans on five contour maps or just pieces of paper.  Or they could have laid out five sets of stakes on the ground under consideration.  To me, as a neutral observer, it seems clear to me that the 5 plans were laid out after they came back from NGLA.  It seems unlikely to me that they were laid out on paper at NGLA in the two days.  I'm don't understand what CBM "plans" you're referring to above?     

I could go on.  There are many more ambiguities. But the bottom line is for me is that rather than excluding CBM from the design process as Mike and Jeff pretend, this Lesley passage puts CBM and HJW right it heart and calling the shots!  I don't think that Jeff and mike have excluded CBM from the design process.  I thought both agreed that he provided input and advice in his letter, at the NGLA meeting and in choosing the final plan.  Do you want them to accept some additional contributions to the design process?  Do you think he drew the five plans that followed the NGLA meeting or the many courses that preceded the NGLA meeting?  Do you think that he specifically instructed someone else on how to draw them?  You seem to agree that there are many ambiguities and that there are no real answers to a lot of your questions.  I'm not sure how you can expect them to agree to additional credit in the design beyond the three items above, when you don't see a clear answer in the evidence.  It seems to me we are really nit-picking at this point.

In other words, I don't think we can parse out the "five plans" language and pretend that these two words explain how really Merion came up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!  If the trip to NGLA and CBM/HJW's return visit weren't key details of the design process, Lesley wouldn't have explained them, nor would he have thanked CBM/HJW years later for their help! I think everyone agrees that CBM/HJW made key contributions to the design process through his letter, at the NGLA meeting, and in choosing the final plan.  Based on what you've written above, the remaining point of contention around crediting CBM/HJW in the design process is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come "up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!"  I see nothing in what you've written or in the documentation that supports that assertion. You may feel it is reasonable factual analysis, but as you've said a number of time above, we just don't know.  Until we do know, I don't think it would be fair to claim more credit that the three points above.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

More to the point, they always had a flexible road so they could add width if needed so there's no reason to feel constrained by Golf House Road as drawn.


Jim,

Not sure I understand your point here (or David's) that "there was plenty of land to the west" they could use.

Where?

I've enclosed in blue lines the land they would be left with after routing 13 holes and they could only go as far west as the boundary of the Johnson Farm, which is what I've drawn.

Are you both saying that they could have run some holes east/west north of the clubhouse?   How exactly might that have worked?

[Mike Cirba]

Why is Francis's 1950 account given more weight than Hugh Wilson's own 1917 account and his contemporaneous letters?


Wilson wrote to Piper and Oakley about agronomic issues...they were from the Department of Agriculture.  Wilson's 1916 rememberances to P&O were for a publication where they were specifically asked to write about agronomic issues.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Plus, Bryan Izatt and I posted ALL of the P&O letters you sent us here a few years back and I'm pretty certain that nobody interpreted them in the way that you did.

Besides, Tom...Wilson in 1916 DID write that his committee both laid out and built the golf course...two separate steps.

And please don't reiterate the ridiculous notion that these patrician gentlemen were out there driving stakes into the ground to someone else's plans...it's clear from the MCC Minutes that they were quite familiar with the term lay out to indicate the design process on paper.




As to your other question/statement, now reiterated by Patrick following his man-crush on CBM, it's obvious that you haven't been keeping up with the fact that at that time, ALL of the best courses in America were designed by amateur members for their own clubs.

You also recently asked the same question about Tillinghast at Shawnee, until Phil Young totally repudiated you with a flurry of facts.

Don't you get tired making up baseless accusations and grand proclamations that have no historical basis in fact?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Well, perhaps not every good course was done by amateurs, but it simply did happen in a few documented cases.

I have to ask TMac and Pat what part of the historic process ignores documents of what happens in favor of opinions of what long ago people should have done according to todays "experts?" (i.e., Pat and Tom)

For that matter, I wonder if CBM was really "at their disposal?"  Perhaps a George Bahto could fill us in on how busy CBM was with other clubs, other items in his life (work!) and the like.  If he was at their disposal, why is the first meeting after the land purchase in March and not December or January?  It could very well be that was CBM's first open day on the calendar, no? I'm not sure, but fact is that is the first day they met with him.

Bryan,

Good question on who drew the maps.  It would seem Francis was added to the committee for his ability to draw maps and for his engineering skills.  Just a guess, but he probably drew u the plans that were devised by the committee.

Your point by point analysis of David's last point mostly mirrors mine.  In re-reading David's post I get even a clearer view of his "process."  Basically, to posit that CBM did the routing much earlier than the records show he assisted the committee the following have to be true:

Merion is changing its record on purpose and witholding the truth from him
Merion's record is flawed in that Lesley said he was reporting for the committee, and was the reports author
The committee saying "we routed many different courses" could mean that CBM or even Barker routed them
That the difference between "course" and "courses" is monumentally instructive (there is always just one course, no matter how many prelims you draw for it)

You get the idea.  David simply overthinks the little things to try to steer the case his way.  But, IMHO, far too many alternate interpretations of simple words and sentences would have to line up perfectly for his theories to be true.

As you say, neither Mike and I are trying to cut CBM out of the process, we are just not trying to expand it along a different time line than the documents show.  But, I think those four days were plenty of assistance and no doubt Merion wouldn't be the course it is without them.  I am not sure why, but David just isn't satisfied that this is enough credit to CBM.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

You may recall the map below.  The acreage below Haverford College and north of Ardmore, including the southern area of JW is no smaller than using the road as a boundary and adding the triangle.  With a hundred years of retrospect, it looks like routing the last five holes in there would be difficult.  But then they figured that out too.  Rather than being lunatics, perhaps they were just totally inexperienced rank amateurs in the time before the Francis swap.  They did figure out in a couple of years that they didn't initially know how difficult the process of designing and building a course would be.

Bryan,

As I mentioned to Jim, their problem with routing the final five holes if no triangle land was available wasn't just a question of total acreage necessarily, but available land configuration.

Precisely, there simply wasn't/isn't much room to build a hole going east/west on that part of the property.

David talks about having all this room to the west and Jim mentions that they could have moved the boundary of that road as they saw fit, but exactly how much room would you say there is between your yellow boundary line on the right and the green left boundary of the Johnson Farm land on your map?   Enough to get one hole going that way perhaps?   And then what?




Also, here again is a blow up of the infamous triangle showing exactly how much of the Johnson Land they actually used.

I find it inconceivable that this dramatic boundary change affecting 138 yards of golf course fronting land along the boundary line between the HDC development and the golf course would not have been reflected on the to-scale November 15th, 1910 Land Plan if it had been done by that point.

I can't think of any real reason it wouldn't be...can you?




By the way, I thought your answers to David were spot on and very objectively and accurately stated.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

Well, perhaps not every good course was done by amateurs, but it simply did happen in a few documented cases.

I have to ask TMac and Pat what part of the historic process ignores documents of what happens in favor of opinions of what long ago people should have done according to todays "experts?" (i.e., Pat and Tom)

For that matter, I wonder if CBM was really "at their disposal?"  Perhaps a George Bahto could fill us in on how busy CBM was with other clubs, other items in his life (work!) and the like.  If he was at their disposal, why is the first meeting after the land purchase in March and not December or January?  It could very well be that was CBM's first open day on the calendar, no? I'm not sure, but fact is that is the first day they met with him.

Bryan,

Good question on who drew the maps.  It would seem Francis was added to the committee for his ability to draw maps and for his engineering skills.  Just a guess, but he probably drew u the plans that were devised by the committee.

Your point by point analysis of David's last point mostly mirrors mine.  In re-reading David's post I get even a clearer view of his "process."  Basically, to posit that CBM did the routing much earlier than the records show he assisted the committee the following have to be true:

Merion is changing its record on purpose and witholding the truth from him
Merion's record is flawed in that Lesley said he was reporting for the committee, and was the reports author
The committee saying "we routed many different courses" could mean that CBM or even Barker routed them
That the difference between "course" and "courses" is monumentally instructive (there is always just one course, no matter how many prelims you draw for it)

You get the idea.  David simply overthinks the little things to try to steer the case his way.  But, IMHO, far too many alternate interpretations of simple words and sentences would have to line up perfectly for his theories to be true.

As you say, neither Mike and I are trying to cut CBM out of the process, we are just not trying to expand it along a different time line than the documents show.  But, I think those four days were plenty of assistance and no doubt Merion wouldn't be the course it is without them.  I am not sure why, but David just isn't satisfied that this is enough credit to CBM.


Jeff,

A few things in response.

The three best American courses, by far, at that time were acknowledged to be Garden City, Myopia, and Chicago, all done by amateurs.   NGLA was also just soft opening in July 1910, which was the fourth of that type.

The history of Philadelphia golf to that point was very amateur driven, as well, and no need for me to reiterate hundreds of articles produced by Joe Bausch in that regard.

Golf course architecture as a Profession was in its very nascent stage, and I would clearly differentiate men like Ross who made a dedicated profession of it versus the early golf pros who did it as a sidelight in one-day routings as part of their overall teaching, clubmaking, and greenkeeping duties on the early courses...the men MacWood seemingly seeks to elevate for his own reasons that seem to have little to do with actual factual history.

As far as Macdonald having the time, as I mentioned, NGLA only soft-opened in July 1910 and the reports of the course condition were pretty raw.   Also, CBM was having to build a clubhouse.

That he gave any time and help to Merion at all while at the realization of his dream course opening is to his credit.

To suggest he was "available" is simply not factual history.

As far as David and Tom MacWood not being satisfied that we give CBM credit, that isn't their goal.

Their goal is to diminish the involvement of Hugh Wilson for their own personal reasons, no matter how many facts we list, and no matter what evidence surfaces that they try to explain away, like the following.

Since we're talking about the land deals and such, what do you make of the fact that Wilson (and Merion) wanted to acquire land south of the Johnson farm originally, where today's 11th green and 12th tee are located?

That sure would have solved the problem of having to cross the road three times.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike, Jeff and your peanut gallery,

As I've asked David, who do you think put pen to paper to draw up the 5 plans, or the plan(s) that preceded them?  How confident are you of your answer?  

Also, there are a number of references in the posts above to the Francis routing as it relates to the swap Francis proposed. Is there any evidence that Francis had a routing, that he had prepared, when he proposed the swap to Lloyd?  Or a routing he personally did after Lloyd agreed to the swap?  

If they indeed started blasting the 16th green a day or two after the midnight ride does that not suggest that there was an approved plan showing at least the 16th green before that time?  Else, why blast a green site that wasn't approved by CBM or the Board yet?  

Just trying to understand the timeline.

Bryan,

I'm confident the various plans were almost certainly drawn up by Richard Francis, who tells us he was added to the committee specifically for his surveying and engineering skills.

I've referred to the "Francis routing", but only as shorthand for the final approved plan that seems to have been a result of his brainstorm for the final holes.

I do get where you are going with your questions though, and have also considered that his brainstorm could very well have happened AFTER April 19th 1911, during early construction and prior to the final sale and signing over the deed to Merion in July 1911

Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything to refute it except the MCC Minutes stating that the final approved plan required the swapping of land, and the addition of 3 acres.

Still, I agree that it is WAY more possible that this happened AFTER April 1911 than by November 1910.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
It is healthy to question the story IMO. A few years ago very few knew CBM was involved, and no one knew Barker was involved. They didn't even know who Barker was. And it was thought Wilson traveled overseas prior to designing the golf course. The story of the real estate venture was generally unknown too. We know a hell of lot more today than we knew then, and the emerging story is quite different than the legend. Instead of accusing others of trying to diminish Wilson and endlessly speculating, why not devote our efforts to finding the answers to the remaining unanswered questions.

IMO a good first start would be posting the entire entry that deals with the five plans.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Despite our differences on the exact subject matter, I couldn't agree with you more that it is always worthwhile to question things again in a fresh light.  And certainly, David's essay and your work on Barker sheds a bit more light on the whole era.

To me the unanswered questions would be more like filling in the details - like the lost Barker routing, the lost contour map Wilson sent to Piper, etc.  Perhaps poring over the supposed Drexel documents of Lloyd to see if there is any snippet that might help us understand more.

But, as you so wisely said, there isn't any new info at the moment, so maybe these discussions could be on hold for a while?

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

It is very difficult for me to carry on a conversation about this when everyone of our exchanges is followed by the types of misrepresentations and ridiculousness and false accusations that follow your last post.   I never claimed Merion was changing their record or withholding anything.  TEPaul is not even a member of Merion and doesn't speak for Merion, and I have been told by Merion who has the authority to speak for Merion on these matters and and sure as heck isn't either of the Flynn Fakers.    And when Jeff Brauer is going so far as to add and subtract words from what he presents as DIRECT QUOTES of my work, that is not "inferring" or "speculating."   If anything, "pretend" is much to kind a word for what these guys are doing here.   

Also Bryan, with respect, I don't consider you a neutral reader.  I don't believe in such things.  Your subjectivities and biases are different than mine or Mike's, but that doesn't make you neutral.   You try to keep your subjectivities and biases in check, but then so do I.  I don't think your interpretations are any more plausible than mine just because you consider yourself "neutral."

1.  We agree that Lesley was reporting on behalf of the Golf Committee.  My understanding was that he was the chair of that Committee.  However, I do not believe that Hugh Wilson was part of the Golf Committee in the spring of 1911 or before.   I could be misremembering or mistaken, but I do not think that Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee and Merion's Golf Committee were the same thing.   I think their only overlap was H.G. Lloyd. 
    -  You say you see no evidence of who wrote it, but there is strong evidence of who wrote it!  It is written in first person!   First person is a strong indicator that the person delivering the report is the person who wrote the report!  That is the way our language works.   I have written plenty of things which were ultimately delivered by another, but I have never had anyone ever report on my experiences in first person, as if they were their own!
    -  But let's just stick to where we agree.  Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee.  So then, who was it that went to NGLA?   The Golf Committee?  Or the Construction Committee?    Or some combination?   Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems to have been there.  But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well.   
    -  And if Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee, then who at Merion was in charge of getting the course planned?  Wilson's sub-committee, or Lesley's Golf Committee?
    -   It matters to this discussion because it is not entirely clear that Wilson's Construction Committee had anything to do with the planning even after they were appointed.   Based on what we have been told, MERION'S 1910-1911 RECORDS NEVER MENTION WILSON OR HIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAVING ANYTHING TO DO THE DESIGN.

2.   As for the "many different courses" we have some agreement.    To answer your questions about whether I am just speculating and inferring:  We know of the Barker rough routing.  CBM/HJW suggested that Merion add the land near the clubhouse.   Francis tells that with the swap he changed the routing and that Lloyd approved it.   

3.   You accuse me of dissecting the text regarding the statement that they "rearranged the course."  I don't get this.  All the other interpretations just ignore or read this part as meaningless.   When Lesley reported on many different courses, you agree he was likely discussing routings.  Yet here when he wrote of rearranging the course, he is no longer speaking of routings?   I don't get that at all.   And I don't think it makes sense for them to say the rearranged the course (singular) if then the also came up with five different routings.   Taken as a totality, it seems that they rearranged the course, and that there were five different iterations or variances of this course.

4.  As for the five different plans, I think it unreasonable for Mike et. al  to conclude that CBM was NOT involved in the creation of those five plans.   And IMO the most reasonable way to read the Lesley report is to read all this as a continuation of the same process -- they went to him for direction; he gave them direction, either with options or leaving for them some things to figure out; they returned and tried to impliment what he had told them; he came back to check on them and made the final decision.    Not unlike todays architect might direct his associates.   
    I don't know for sure and I don't think I ever claimed I did, but that I do think that this is the most reasonable and most plausible explanation.  If Merion wasn't trying to implement what they had learned from CBM then why have him return to go over it again and make the final decision?

5.  And that is what I think you are missing. I readily admit we don't know exactly what happened.    I am trying to figure out what is most likely given everything we know.    Their approach seems to be that if I cannot prove to an absolutely certainty what exactly happened, then we have to accept what they guess happened.  That is not the way these things work.   The question is, which makes more sense?   Whatever disagreements you have with my understanding, there are tenfold problems and shortcomings with theirs. 
   
What is more likely?   
       -That whoever went to NGLA sat their with ears in fingers not learning anything, then miraculously came up with five  wholly distinct routings that had nothing to do with what they learned at NGLA,  and then CBM/HJW just happened to show up, saying "Wow, that never occurred to me, but if you do it your course will be great," and they ignored this, too, yet just happened to like the same version without considering his opinion and they went with that?
       -Or that they went to NGLA for direction for what to do, and CBM gave him that direction, and they took his advice to heart and returned home to try and implement that advice, but they still weren't sure, so they brought him back again to go over everything again and make the final decision? 

It seems a pretty obvious choice to me. 

6.  You state that the only remaining issue "is focused on your assertion that Merion couldn't have come 'up with the plans without input and guidance from CBM/HJW's both right before and right after!'"
     I disagree.   I think you are falling into the exact same thing I discuss immediately above.    You seem to think the standard for them is one of mere possibility but the standard for me is one of absolute irrefutable proof.   

Do you understand what I am getting at here?  It is a question of methodology and standards of proof.  You seem to have a double standard here.   They have proven little or nothing, and it seems from my perspective that my theory is by far the most plausible and reasonable.   Yet you say that my theory must fail unless I prove that Merion couldn't have come up with on their own?      I don't get it?  Since when is that the standard? 

Why is mere possibility good enough for their theory?     Why is absolute irrefutable proof the standard for me?

Or maybe I have it wrong?  What exactly is your methodology here, Bryan? 

________________________________

I almost forgot.  I don't know who drew up the five plans or when they were drawn up.  Given the totality of the Lesley report, it seems that one of two things are most likely:
1.The five variations were conceived at NGLA and then tried out at Merion.
2.The five variations were a product of some ambiguity, confusion, or lack of clarity in the single course they had come up with at NGLA. 

[Mike Cirba]

-  But let's just stick to where we agree.  Lesley was reporting for the Golf Committee.  So then, who was it that went to NGLA?   The Golf Committee?  Or the Construction Committee?    Or some combination?   Judging by the first person nature of his description of what went on at NGLA, Wilson seems (bold mine) to have been there.  But by the same logic, Lesley seems to have been there as well.  


I think the last post speaks for itself.

No wonder we can't have a productive discussion here.   Suddenly, we have no freaking idea who went to NGLA!  






"Merion’s East and West Golf Courses

   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 Merion East 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."

"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course."  - Alan Wilson


What a bunch of liars those two Wilson brothers must have been!  

What the hell is complicated about thsi??

Sheesh...