[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

The bit about me being a romantic was an attempt at a little self-deprecating humor.  As usual such attempts around here just add fuel to the fire.  You repeatedly knock me for being "quixotic" and throw in some related insulting comparisons as well.  I am not sure what of value such disparagement adds to the discussion.   It certainly doesn't address anything of substance, that is for sure.  To be quixotic is to be excessively idealistic, unrealistic, and impractical; overly romantic and naive.  Were I actually here to change Merion's mind or convince Mike Cirba then I'd agree that my mission would be quixotic.   But that is not my goal nor has it ever been.   

And there is nothing quixotic about my analysis.  I think it represents the most reasonable, logical, realistic, and practical take on all of this.  Given what we now know, the overly romantic, idealistic, unrealistic, and quixotic view is this continued speculation that Merion mostly went it alone and mostly figured it out for themselves with only minimal and general advice from CBM and HJW.  And it is here that I think you are falling into the old and discredited romantic notion of what happened at NGLA and at Merion. 

And that is one of the two main areas where I disagree with your latest comments.   You seem to be clinging to this notion that somehow the meeting at NGLA was only dealing with vague and general concepts of design rather than  specifics of Merion's design, and I don't buy it.  More than that, I don't think the evidence supports it.  It seems a left over notion from back in the days before my essay when everyone thought Hugh Wilson went to NGLA for help planning his trip and for general advice about golf course design. 

The second issue involves your changing of my words and my intentions.  For example, you somehow twist my statement that was instructing them into him ordering them what to do.  I don't recall ever saying he ordered them what to do.  Yet you throw that in there.  You also throw in the words "boss" and "subordinates."  Those are your words, not mine.  I agree that the choice of words is important, which is why I don't understand why keep changing my words.

The reason CBM/HJW were instructing is because CBM/HJW were the foremost experts on this sort of thing and Merion was there for instruction.   This was no two way exchange of information and ideas, and it is excessively unrealistic to think it was. The reason CBM/HJW were calling the shots is because those at Merion knew the value of their instruction and advice and were deferring to it.

The third involved a combination of the two, where you are equating the nature of the relationship with the degree of specificity of advice, and then presenting a false choice.   You don't think he was their boss, ordering them how specifically to route and plan the course.  Instead, you think he was their friend offering advice about general principles. Well I think this is a false choice and don't think it was either.  I see no connection between the nature of their relationship (instructor, advisor vs. "boss") and the degree of specificity of the advice.    I think this is a rhetorical ploy to make my position out to be dogmatic where it was not.   

As I see it, the tone was friendly and advisory, but the content was quite specific.  It doesn't get much more specific than traveling back to Merion to choose the final plan!  Merion could have ignored the advice and called the shots themselves, but obviously they didn't, and it is quite fortunate for Merion and for golf that they didn't.
____________________________________________________

Wilson seems to have attempted to build an Alps, a Redan, a Short, a Long, a Road, a Double Plateau, a biarritz style green with a swale through the middle, and numerous other signature features and strategies of CBM courses. 

Given all else we know, is it more reasonable to believe that he did so based on some general advice about basic prinicples, or about specific advice and instruction about what Merion should do with their land?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

The bit about me being a romantic was an attempt at a little self-deprecating humor.  As usual such attempts around here just add fuel to the fire.  You repeatedly knock me for being "quixotic" and throw in some related insulting comparisons as well.  I am not sure what of value such disparagement adds to the discussion.   It certainly doesn't address anything of substance, that is for sure.  To be quixotic is to be excessively idealistic, unrealistic, and impractical; overly romantic and naive.  Were I actually here to change Merion's mind or convince Mike Cirba then I'd agree that my mission would be quixotic.   But that is not my goal nor has it ever been.  Sorry that you took MY attempts at humor badly. It certainly wasn't intended to be disparaging.  

And there is nothing quixotic about my analysis.  I think it represents the most reasonable, logical, realistic, and practical take on all of this.  Given what we now know, the overly romantic, idealistic, unrealistic, and quixotic view is this continued speculation that Merion mostly went it alone and mostly figured it out for themselves with only minimal and general advice from CBM and HJW.  And it is here that I think you are falling into the old and discredited romantic notion of what happened at NGLA and at Merion. 

And that is one of the two main areas where I disagree with your latest comments.   You seem to be clinging to this notion that somehow the meeting at NGLA was only dealing with vague and general concepts of design rather than  specifics of Merion's design, and I don't buy it.  More than that, I don't think the evidence supports it.  It seems a left over notion from back in the days before my essay when everyone thought Hugh Wilson went to NGLA for help planning his trip and for general advice about golf course design. I never subscribed to the theory that they went there to plan the trip. I also don't subscribe to your logical analysis that the meeting at NGLA was about the specifics of Merion's design.  I respect your right to espouse that theory.

The second issue involves your changing of my words and my intentions.  For example, you somehow twist my statement that was instructing them into him ordering them what to do.  I don't recall ever saying he ordered them what to do.  Yet you throw that in there.  You also throw in the words "boss" and "subordinates."  Those are your words, not mine.  I agree that the choice of words is important, which is why I don't understand why keep changing my words. I don't think I twisted your words.  I was trying to clarify what you meant with some of your statements.  As I'm sure you know, there are two definitions of "instruct", one is to "teach" and the other is to "order".  From the context of your "calling the shots" premise, I was trying to clarify if you meant "order".  Perhaps if you had used the word "teach" rather than "instruct" your meaning might have been clearer to me.  Not only are words important, but their context is too.

The reason CBM/HJW were instructing teaching is because CBM/HJW were the foremost experts on this sort of thing and Merion was there for instruction to learn.   This was no two way exchange of information and ideas, and it is excessively unrealistic to think it was. The reason CBM/HJW were calling the shots is because those at Merion knew the value of their instruction and advice and were deferring to it.  I made two changes in the first sentence.  It's not an attempt to twist your words, but rather a way to seek clarification if my version is what you are really trying to say.  I never suggested the meeting was a two way exchange of information.  Your use of the word "deferring" in the context of "calling the shots" suggests to me that you're using the humble submission definition of "defer".  Dis you intend to mean humble submission.  Can you understand that I might read that as inferring a superior/inferior relationship, a boss/subordinate?

The third involved a combination of the two, where you are equating the nature of the relationship with the degree of specificity of advice, and then presenting a false choice. I don't think I did that.  It certainly wasn't my intent.  You don't think he was their boss, ordering them how specifically to route and plan the course. In my opinion, no, I don't.  But I was more interested in whether YOU did believe that he was directing them on the routing and hole designs. Instead, you think he was their friend offering advice about general principles.  I don't think he was their friend.  How would you infer that?  Wilson didn't even know how to spell Macdonald's name in the Oakley letters.  Some friend. Well I think this is a false choice and don't think it was either. You made this choice up, so you can think whatever you want.  Don't attribute it to me. I see no connection between the nature of their relationship (instructor, advisor vs. "boss") and the degree of specificity of the advice.  Neither do I.  Do YOU believe that CBM gave them specific directions on the routing of the course and the design of the holes within that routing?  I think this is a rhetorical ploy to make my position out to be dogmatic where it was not.   It was not a rhetorical ploy on my part since I never had your construct in my mind.  I never said you were dogmatic.

As I see it, the tone was friendly and advisory, but the content was quite specific.  It doesn't get much more specific than traveling back to Merion to choose the final plan! These two statements are confusing to me.  What was the content that was quite specific about the routing and the hole designs?  If his advice was so specific, why did they go back and create 5 more plans? Are you saying that because CBM chose the final plan that he therefore was the creator of the routing and hole designs? Merion could have ignored the advice and called the shots themselves, but obviously they didn't, and it is quite fortunate for Merion and for golf that they didn't. Or, they could have accepted the advice and the teachings and called their own shots, using your vernacular.
____________________________________________________

Wilson seems to have attempted to build an Alps, a Redan, a Short, a Long, a Road, a Double Plateau, a biarritz style green with a swale through the middle, and numerous other signature features and strategies of CBM courses.  And the attempts were not so good as I recall.  Does this mean that CBM was a bad teacher or that Wilson et al were lousy students.  I'm still not sure that that this point, if true, establishes that CBM was the designer of Merion East.  It is arguable that he gave them advice and information about these "ideal" holes and they routed and designed some variation of them into their design.  CBM wasn't a believer in exact replicas of the ideal holes was he?  So, did his specific advice on these holes include the version that Wilson et al actually built?

Given all else we know, is it more reasonable to believe that he did so based on some general advice about basic prinicples, or about specific advice and instruction about what Merion should do with their land? Like so many things in this discussion I'd have to say that I don't know which is more reasonable.  And, what difference would it make - if I thought it was more reasonable does not make it true.

Since the other side appears to have taken their marbles and gone home for the moment, why don't we call it a day on this thread about NGLA.  Of course, you can have the last word based on my comments above.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

No one has taken their marbles and gone home...just not sure what more to add as the evidence has all been presented and it's very clear what that evidence supports and what it doesn't, no matter how "logical", or "reasonable" it seems to certain people, or whether certain people "buy" it, or not.

It has been postulated here that CBM was guiding the Merion Committee over many months and through all of the planning process, yet there is no evidence at all to support that theory.

Further, it has been postulated that CBM was "calling the shots", or otherwise creating the plans for the Merion course and telling the Merion Committee what to do, where to place golf holes, what golf holes to build where, etc.etc., although once again, there is no evidence at all to support that theory.

We know that CBM helped the Site Committee in June 1910, and we've seen the results of that visit in a very generic letter he sent back to HG Lloyd that contained a somewhat guarded recommendation to proceed.

The next documented activity was nine months later, in March 1911, with the Committee's visit to NGLA.   Hugh Wilson tells us quite specifically 1) what advice they got from CBM and Whigham, but just as importantly, the duration of that advice.   Notice he doesn't tell us that CBM was involved at every planning stage for days, or weeks, or years, as has been proposed without supporting evidence.   He also tells us specifically what that advice entailed, which was a discussion of the principles of the great holes abroad and how Merion should try to apply them to their natural conditions (i.e. inland, clay-based soils), followed by a day seeing CBM’s own application of those principles on his golf course.

The MCC Minutes reflect that exact same itinerary/scenario, which shouldn’t be surprising as both were written by Hugh Wilson.   They tell us that through Macdonald’s drawings and materials (photos, et.al.) of the great holes abroad they discussed the key principles of those holes.

Finally, we know that CBM came back for a single-day visit on April 7th, 1911 to help the Merion Committee pick the best of their five plans, or in the words of Alan Wilson, “to consider and advise about OUR plans.”

We also know that Richard Francis seemingly didn’t think CBM and Whigham’s contributions to the golf course were significant enough to mention them.   However, we do know that the Wilson Bros., Robert Lesley, and AW Tillinghast (as well as “Far and Sure”) saw fit to credit them with helpful “advise and suggestions”.

I have to ask…does someone “calling the shots” offer “advice and suggestions”?   Of course not.  

In closing, I’d simply refer again to read what Hugh Wilson told us about where, when, and for how long, and in what matters CBM and Whigham advised them, and I think you’ll know the entire story you need to know.   It’s fitting that he should have the last word here, in my opinion, after what his memory and reputation have been dragged through.

The rest is really pointless and baseless speculation that lacks any evidentiary support, either physical or anecdotal.




   

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I think I am having trouble understanding what points you are trying to make and your methodology for trying to make them.   I have a few theories about what happened at Merion, I think I have offered plenty of support for those theories.  I think my theories are the most reasonable and straightforward explanations of what happened at Merion.  You aren't convinced and I can live with that.   But all this dissection of what words I have used and what words your would prefer I use?  What you can come up with to disagree with is that you prefer the word "teach" to "instruct?"   I was hoping for a bit more of a substantive critique than this sort of nit-picking and word parsing.  

You can describe the dynamic of the relationship however makes you most comfortable.   I think the most reasonable understanding of the source material is that CBM/HJW were providing Merion with specific guidance/ advice/ instruction/ teaching/ direction/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it as to what Merion ought to do with their land, including which holes they ought to build and where they ought to build them.   And Merion acted accordingly.

It is certainly your prerogative to disagree, but you've never really offered or explained a more viable or reasonable alternative, and have never really explained your justification for viewing CBM/HJW's contributions as of a more general nature.  Merion's internal Board records apparently never even mention Hugh Wilson, much less give him credit for coming up with the holes they out to try and build and their locations!  Where is the direct evidence that Wilson and his committee came up with this stuff on their own?

In other words, you are again holding me to what I consider to be an unreasonable standard where you will not accept any theory or conclusion that builds on what we specifically know.   Yet the alternative is one big tenuous house of cards, a pile of suppositions supported more by disproven legend and wishful thinking.

I thought your approach was a balancing of probabilities where you were trying to determine what is most likely?   That doesn't seem to be the case.   Does it?    Or perhaps I have misunderstood.  

What was the content that was quite specific about the routing and the hole designs?

This is what I am talking about.   I don't think this is a reasonable standard or requirement, and it  only seems to apply to one side of the argument.  Surely I can come to a reasonable conclusion about the topic of the NGLA meeting without you producing for you a precise description of what exactly they discussed at NGLA!   I base my conclusion about the specificity of the discussion on the Hugh Wilson chapter, the Alan Wilson letter, the Whigham article, the vast disparity in knowledge and experience between CBM/HJW on the one hand and those at Merion on the other, the timing of the meeting, the Lesley report on what preceded and what followed,  the subsequent trip to Merion by CBM/HJw, the existence of a contour map at the time, the descriptions of the course in the Ag letters, the previous comments by CBM, the previous inspection of the site, the subsequent inspection, the knowledge of how CBM worked in analogous circumstances with Raynor, etc.  Not enough for you without a transcript?  Then I cannot help you.

Moreover, there is NO BETTER ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION.   Did they just happen to rearrange the course after the NGLA meeting with no specific input from CBM?    If they were so little concerned with the specifics of his advice why burden him with yet another trip down to choose their final routing?  

If his advice was so specific, why did they go back and create 5 more plans?[/color]

Where did I claim that every single specificity was settled at NGLA and why would you hold that out as some sort of requirement of specificity?  Surely it is reasonable to think that they were working on the specifics but hadn't worked everything out, isn't it?   And it is a big assumption on your part Merion created five more plans independent of CBM's advice and direction, and one I am unwilling to accept without some support beyond your interpretation of the report.  I read it differently and think it more likely that they laid out the five variations of "the course" according to CBM's advice or five variations of "the course" because of ambiguities or unforeseen issues in CBM's advice.  Either of these would explain why he had to come back down to choose which one was best.   In contrast, I just cannot figure out under the other theory why they needed CBM/HJW after the NGLA meeting at all.

Are you saying that because CBM chose the final plan that he therefore was the creator of the routing and hole designs?

I don't understand why you would isolate out this one event from what had immediately preceded it?  It is not as if he hadn't been involved up until this point but was just passing by and stopped in and chose the final plan.  He had been working with Merion since they chose the land based on his advice back in June of the previous year, and he had been working on the layout with them at NGLA a few weeks before.   His choosing of the final plan was the culmination of a long design process stretching back to June.

That CBM/HJW apparently had final say as to the layout plan informs us as to the level of his their involvement in the entire process.   It doesn't get any more specific than choosing the final layout plan, does it?  Yet you think it reasonable to believe that in the events leading up this he wasn't providing specific advice or instruction as to which holes they should build and where they should be located?   Given that CBM/HJW were in put charge of choosing the final plan, I think it safe to assume that they had specific input into the process of creating that plan.  
____________________________________________

Like so many things in this discussion I'd have to say that I don't know which is more reasonable.  And, what difference would it make - if I thought it was more reasonable does not make it true.

You seem to be having trouble sticking to any particular methodology here.   Aren't you the one who is supposed to believe in the balancing of probabilities here?  Yet it doesn't matter which is more reasonable?   You lost me here, again.

While the link between what is reasonable and what is true can sometimes seems a bit tenuous, the former can be an effective tool in trying to figuring out the latter.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think David has presented an extensive premise in a reasoned manner.

It's an opinion piece, the first one of its kind that I've seen on this site.

Some take exception to David's premise, in whole or in part, but, I think, for the most part, that he's put forward a resoned synopsis, absent access to Merion's or MCC's archives.

You can nit pick the language, the interpretations, the nuances and conclusions, but, on balance, between his opinion piece and his responses in threads lke this one, I don't think you can dismiss the entire body of his work on a whim or on the basis of personailty conflicts.

Let the readers/participants/lurkers make up their own minds on the basis of his presentation/s and the ensuing refutations.

In terms of this website, GCA.com, I think David's efforts and product/s have represented a valueable contribution/s. irrespective of you and others disagree with him.

[Tom MacWood]

Contemporaneous reports from Tillinghast, Findlay, and everyone else in Philadelphia at the time were "tangential"

National magagine accounts crediting the Committee are "tangential'.

An obviously erroneous blurb 30 years after the fact where Whigham essentially credits Macdonald with every US Course created after 1910 is a gem.  

I think that's enough....

It's funny...

I think the day I realized it was enough was when Joe Bausch first posted the October 1913 article where writer William Evans wrote that Hugh Wilson was Clarence Geist's designer for his new Seaview course, a course where money was no object, because he "was responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line".

Evans wrote that Wilson was resonsible for the brililant course that was Merion.

First, David argued that he meant the Merion West Course, which didn't open for another 8 months.

Failing that, he and MacWood launched an attack on the writer, never even considering the germane question which was, why would one of the richest men in America use Hugh Wilson, who was not connected to Geist by club affiliation or business association,  to design his dream course if he never designed a course prior?

It was at that point I realized that they'd say literally anything in their zeal to minimize the work of Hugh Wilson for reasons of their own that have nothing at all to do with an accurate representation of history.

Good night.

Mike
I'm not aware of any contemporaneous reports by Tilly, Findlay or anyone claiming Wilson designed the East course. He was in charge of building the East, and those are the reports I recall. The national reports accurately credit the committee for construction.

Regarding Seaview I believe those Evans reports said Wilson was responsible for the new Merion course, which is pretty vague if you ask me. That same report said Wilson went abroad before the new Merion course was constructed. Which course is he referring to? Joe B also produced reports that claimed Bill Robinson was involved, and we know Geist must not have been totally satisfied with either man because he brought in Ross, Reid, and Connilan in short order. You need to get your facts straight.

I've been gone for a week and it appears not single bit of new information has been brought to the table.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You can spin things as you like and choose to believe as you wish but the facts don't support you.   You ignore basic facts such as Fred Pickering actually being responsible for constructing the East course and hope that casual observers here aren't keeping up with the fact that other design committees such as Crump's at Pine Valley were also named the Construction Committee, months before Harry Colt even saw the pine straw there.

That's ok...far as I can tell you, David, and perhaps Patrick (hoping and praying that he can claim another great course for his idol CBM) still cling to your theories.   The rest seem anywhere from rejecting to unconvinced, and that's not surprising considering the actual factual evidence, or lack thereof, on which you and David have tried to build your respective cases.

I do recall back a few years ago when the email flurry began and you and David shared all of this with Tommy and Patrick and some others and i was tipped off that you guys had dynamite and an explosive story that was going to change history and make Wayne and TePaul's research efforts and resistance to your ideas look absolutely foolish in their own backyard.

Whether you were justified or not, or who was right or wrong no longer matters.   The bottom line at the end of the day is that this whole thing ended up in too much loss and bloodshed here on GCA, and a general worsening of the site over time.  

As far as the supposed dynamite, it turned out, upon careful examination, to be just a loud firecracker.   The absolute lack of physical and anecdotal evidence supporting either the Barker in December "Midnight Train To Georgia"  theory or the CBM "calling the shots" theory, or the "ABC (anybody but Wilson) theory all turned to be based on not much more than circumstantial evidence and a torturning and twisting of the language and evidence..

Further, since that essay was released, 95% of the additional evidence produced here has been by me, by Joe Bausch, or through Wayne and/orTom's research.  

So, if you're looking for new facts or evidence to appear here supporting your position, I'd simply say, go find it Tom, because you haven't so far.  

[Tom MacWood]

Fred Pickering worked for the company out of Boston (Johnson Contractors) the committee engaged to build the course. The committee (and Wilson) oversaw construction, which is obvious to anyone who has read the P&O letters. Like I said you need to get your facts correct.

When was the last time new info was brought to the table?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I see you are returning to your pathetic witch hunt about my intentions.  So much for all those insincere apologies of yours.  This whole thing turned ugly because of you and your pals' desperate and dishonest attacks on me, so it is appropriate you have returned to it now.    

But you should really start getting your facts straight. Tom MacWood had little to do with my essay except for providing the background information on H.H. Barker and for proofing it. (The discovery of Barker's involvement with Merion was all mine, although it may have fit with what MacWood suspected.  You'd have to ask him about that.)  Patrick had a look at the IMO as well and it was he and Ran who convinced me to post it here.  I never gave it to Tommy to proof, and I don't think he saw it before it was posted.  I know the identity of slime who "tipped you off" and he is nothing but a self-important gossip and is as sleazy as you guys!

I told Patrick that I was hesitant to come back because I  didn't think you Philadelphia boys could deal with an honest and frank discussion about Merion's history, but Pat convinced me to give it shot.  He was obviously mistaken on that one, as you guys have proven repeatedly and continue to prove with garbage such as your previous post.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As I have long said, I think the disagreements may be a matter of semantics, as DM believes CBM was more involved than some at Merion gave credit for. I think that much is clear, although I also think its reasonable for MCC to have called him an advisor over DM's phrase "calling the shots" which as a lawyer, David knows might have carried some ramifications, but even in lay terms, it’s a fine line.

-  Merion came up with a land deal on their own.  ACTION
- CBM/HJW's advised on acreage requirements, good hole distances, etc., but they didn’t follow exactly, even if close. ADVISOR

 - Merion prepared many routings.  ACTION
- CBM/HJW's advised on routings, then approved one. ADVISOR (but closest to being the actual designer)

-  Merion came up with the land swap on their own.  ACTION
- CBM/HJW reviewed and signed off (final advice) on that plan from among five for the committee, which took their plan to the board for final approval, including buying three extra acres at additional cost.   (Not sure, but I suspect that it might not have been a foregone conclusion that the board wouldn’t reject that plan and tell them to select one within their original allotted acres.  Either way, CBM had no authority to spend other people’s money in this scenario, as an architect with a budget would.  ADVISOR

- Merion set a budget, allocated funds of $40,000  ACTION
- CBM/HJW's advised that a budget of $40,000 was probably adequate, but did not prepare a detailed budget, nor did they have any real say in how it was spent, as they most likely did when Raynor was building to CBM's designs. ADVISOR

- CBM/HJW advised them to get agronomic help from Piper. ADVISOR
- Merion (Wilson) writes Piper back and forth hundreds of times for his advice. ACTION

- CBM/HJW probably advised to get an engineer type on staff.  Maybe even Raynor! ADVISOR
- Merion adds Francis to committee, hires Pickering to Construct.  ACTION

- CBM/HJW advised committee as to best hole types to build, and possibly on which holes to build them. ADVISOR (but closest to being the actual designer)
- Merion builds course with Pickering, but CBM never comes back in field.  They use about 7 of CBM’s template holes, and others do not get included.  Are these field decisions by Pickering, the committee?  Do field conditions affect the design?  We don’t know but the primary final design edits done without CBM.  ACTION


At the very least, it is semantics.  By modern standards, I do believe CBM probably deserves some design credit, for the approval of the routing at the least.  At the least, I understand how some feel about his contributions.  On the other hand, from the way I phrase the words above, advisor seems like the right title, even though, there is no doubt MCC wouldn’t look like what it looked like initially or today without CBM’s advice. 

But,  MCC was in charge to a larger degree than I suspect happened at Piping Rock and other CBM full designs.
That it doesn’t look much like Piping Rock, done by CBM at the about same time seems simplistic enough evidence that CBM wasn’t quite as fully engaged.  That CBM wasn’t around for construction, and the committee did so much work seems evidence enough. 

However labeled, I believe MCC will more fully acknowledge the role of CBM and HJW  moving forward.  They did it initially, and it fell by the wayside over time, and the Tollhurst Club History has a few mistakes the club would probably like to correct for the increased interest in Merion of the 2013 US Open.

[Mike Cirba]

Fred Pickering worked for the company out of Boston (Johnson Contractors) the committee engaged to build the course. The committee (and Wilson) oversaw construction, which is obvious to anyone who has read the P&O letters. Like I said you need to get your facts correct.

Tom,

You really ought to take this latest comedy act on the road.     Seriously.

So, Barker and/or CBM did the design?

Fred Pickering and Johnson Contractors built the course?

Why did Hugh Wilson and his Committee get all that credit again?    Why did Merion use him immediately to design and build a second course and mega-moguul Clarence Geist use him to design and build his dream course immediately after the East course opened?

Oh, they "oversaw" Pickering.

I see.

Are you allergic to Pennsylvania, or get in a car accident or something here?   Seriously, I question your sanity with statements like that Tom.

You really are a piece of work.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

As I said about a zillion times here, I think the record of CBM's contributions is pretty clear and Hugh Wilson tells us exactly what he helped with, and we have his June 1910 letter and we know he helped them select the routing that required 3 additional acres, so his gravitas in the golf world was definitely something the Committee was hoping to leverage with the Board.

I would also agree that those contributions weren't well known in modern times and I do think David helped to bring that to light, despite his very over-reaching essay that also sought to elmininate Hugh Wilson and the Committee's early design contributions (with the exception of the Francis Swap).

Some of David's most recent posts now seem to at least concede that CBM was not in charge, but that perhaps he and Wilson's Committee were working in tandem on the design phase, or "side by side" as I think he put it at one point..

I do wish he'd change his Opinion Piece on this site to reflect his change of thinking because right now it is still as incorrect as the day it was posted.   One would think Ran might also want to get a fresh copy that reflects a LOT of evidence and information that David didn't have at his disposal when he originally wrote the piece.

[Tom MacWood]

Fred Pickering worked for the company out of Boston (Johnson Contractors) the committee engaged to build the course. The committee (and Wilson) oversaw construction, which is obvious to anyone who has read the P&O letters. Like I said you need to get your facts correct.

Tom,

You really ought to take this latest comedy act on the road.     Seriously.

The only thing humorous about this is the fact that you had no idea of Pickering's background and experience, but that is what happens when one becomes so emotionally invested in a legendary tale.

So, Barker and/or CBM did the design?

I think it is likely Barker routed the course, CBM overlayed his design concept upon that routing and Wilson later redesigned the course. Based upon what we know right now I think that is the most likely (and logical) scenario.

Fred Pickering and Johnson Contractors built the course?

Johnson contractors and Fred Pickering built a lot of courses around that time. That would be my educated guess, but I don't have access to Merion's internal records so I could be wrong. What do you think?  

Why did Hugh Wilson and his Committee get all that credit again?

Credit for what?  

Why did Merion use him immediately to design and build a second course and mega-moguul Clarence Geist use him to design and build his dream course immediately after the East course opened?

Once he traveled overseas and began redesigning the East I think he proved himself to be a very competent designer. I'm not sure if that confidence was completely warrented, I think the West turned out well relatively speaking, but Seaview required the intervention of Ross and others.

Oh, they "oversaw" Pickering.

I think that is pretty obvious. Have you read the P&O letters?

I see.

So you think they designed the golf course, but had no oversight on Pickering? Clear thinking and defending legends are obviously not compatible.

Are you allergic to Pennsylvania, or get in a car accident or something here?

Huh?  

Seriously, I question your sanity with statements like that Tom.

My track record has been pretty good over the years when it comes to figuring out who did what and when. After looking at these things for so many years you start to get a sixth sense, that is once you put emotions on the back burner, and allow logic to dominate.

You really are a piece of work.

[Mike Cirba]

Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee brought in Fred Pickering who constructed the course, or 'laid it out upon the ground", if we want to be literal in terms of the construction and building process.    According to Alex Findlay, Pickering had constructed literally hundreds of courses by that time and had knowledge of construction and agronomy said to be unequaled in this country.

Hugh Wilson also employed Fred Pickering to construct the course he designed at Seaview in 1913.   He was also hired for Merion West in late 1912/early 1913 but quickly let go due to excessive drinking, according to a 1924 letter from an aide to Hugh Wilson to P&O.   It seems the Seaview gig was meant to be a second chance of sorts, but perhaps Alex Findlay had a bit more tolerance for that sort of thing and continued to use Pickering for a number of years after to good success.

This article from April 1914 in the Chester (PA) Times discussing extensive changes made by Findlay (with Linaweaver) at nearby Springhaven GC, and speaks about Pickering's role at Merion East and Seaview;

[Mike Cirba]

It seems as well that H.J. Whigham's 1939 claim that Pine Valley was started with the idea of "emulating the National" was more of the same overreaching hyperbole that permeated that eulogy.   

It seems Whigham wanted to give credit to every course designed in the US after 1910 that had features or principles modeled after famous ones abroad directly to CBM as the originator of the idea. 

However, as the following article shows, even within that construct, there was ample room for debate and disagreement and certainly Herbert Fowler's ideals that were studied and emulated by Crump and Smith differed widely with not only St. Andrews, but NGLA, as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Please use "yellow" overwrite, as I can't read the green.
Plus, my patent on the use of green doesn't expire for another 27 months.

Thanks

Mike Cirba,

While newspaper articles shouldn't be automatically dismissed, we know that they can be erroneous, flawed at the fact and conclusive base.  Hence, I wouldn't offer them as absolute proof without corroborating evidence.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Thank you proving my point with that first article. I'm not sure the purpose of the second article other than a diversionary tactic...a common occurrence with you.

Johnson contractors and Fred Pickering built a lot of courses around that time. It would be my educated guess that they built the course, but I don't have access to Merion's internal records so I could be wrong. What do you think?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  

Why are you blatantly misrepresenting what Whigham wrote about Pine Valley?  Do you think we haven't read it?  You continue to convolute, stretch, and twist with impunity.  When are you going to stop with your outrageous smear attempts?   Is there anything you won't misrepresent to try and score your petty and tedious points?  

And why are you again posting articles without proper attribution?  Unless you wrote that second article you need to provide a paper and a date.   Stop with the bush league games.  


On the bright side, I love how you of all people continue to use phrases like "overreaching hyperbole" as if Whigham was  the crackpot with the irrational devotion and undying agenda, and you are the experienced, eye witness expert reporter and writer.

[Tom MacWood]

It seems as well that H.J. Whigham's 1939 claim that Pine Valley was started with the idea of "emulating the National" was more of the same overreaching hyperbole that permeated that eulogy.  

It seems Whigham wanted to give credit to every course designed in the US after 1910 that had features or principles modeled after famous ones abroad directly to CBM as the originator of the idea.  

However, as the following article shows, even within that construct, there was ample room for debate and disagreement and certainly Herbert Fowler's ideals that were studied and emulated by Crump and Smith differed widely with not only St. Andrews, but NGLA, as well.

What does this have to do with Merion and/or Whigham? What Crump and Smith were looking at was an article written by Fowler that appeared in the Illustrated News of London in 1913 (it included a photo of a plasticine model of this hypothetical ideal course). I'm not sure how much influence the article ultimately had on Crump because he ended hiring Colt to design PV.

[Mike Cirba]

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses.   Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect.   He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad.   Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country.   Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography.   The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America.   Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars.   From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses.   And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."

'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National.   Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."

"...Here again he was right.   For the National has been much more than just a good golf course:  it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style.   Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example.   Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie.  But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."



So Tom, would you still contend that Whigham wasn't engaging in over-reaching hyperbole when he wrote his 1939 Eulogy?  

I wonder if Mackenzie knew that he would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way, or Donald Ross, or basically EVERYONE who practiced between 1910 and Whigham's Eulogy?

What's your question about Pickering?

[Tom MacWood]

Sorry Tom, but Crump already had a basic routing and five holes in place months before Harry Colt arrived.   I'm not sure why you relish telling tall tales and misrepresenting history so much...does the truth of what actually happened simply bore you?

That is interesting speculation about the routing, but speculation nonetheless. It is a fact Crump & Co hired Colt to design the course, but I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Merion, and my question to you about Pickering.

The article was from the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 15th, 1914, not that either of you are interested in the truth or contemporaneous accounts.

As far as Whigham and his statements 30 years after the fact, it is filled with over-reaching hyperbole, such as his statement that George Crump was "emulating the National" when he built Pine Valley.   In that same article, one would think that CBM built a Ross-like architectural practice spanning the globe as he's given credit for courses from sea to shining sea.

PV did share some commonalities with the National, for example Crump's trip overseas, the consortium of investors, the testing nature of the design and the difficulty growing grass. At the time wouldn't the National have been the inspiration for anyone interested in building a world class design in America?

I copied the relevant portions of Whigham's article above.   If there is doubt about what he wrote, simply look back a page or two.

And finally...

Quit the feigned audacity about citing articles...when was the last time either of you two put forward a piece of evidence or meaningful information on ANY topic?.

It seems the both of you have simply been relegated to trying to shout down others historical research, ala Phil Young's piece on SFGC, or the both of you here, yet again espousing the same disproven theories on the same tired topic.

Phil's piece was interesting, but unfortunately it was full of errors and questionable information, which I detailed. The history of golf architecture is not really Phil's strength, and I beginning to wonder about you too based oh your confusion about Pickering, Fowler, et al. Its pretty obvious you prefer your local legends to historical research.

[Mike Cirba]

"Clubs all over the country asked Macdonald to remodel their courses.   Since he was every inch an amateur, golf architecture for him was entirely a labor of love, and it was quite impossible for him to do all that was asked of him. So he used to send Seth Raynor to do the groundwork, and he himself corrected the plans."

"Raynor had an extraordinary career as a golf architect.   He was a surveyor in Southampton whom Macdonald had called in to read contour maps he had brought from abroad.   Raynor knew nothing about golf and had never hit a ball on any links, but he had a marvelous eye for a country.   Having helped lay out the eighteen holes on the National, he was able to adapt them to almost any topography.   The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America.   Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars.   From coast to coast and from Canadian border to Florida you will find Macdonald courses.   And in hundreds of places he never heard of you will discover reproductions of the Redan and the Eden and the Alps."

'Not only did the great links spring into existence by the magic of the Macdonald touch, but others were started independently with the idea of emulating the National.   Pine Valley is almost a contemporary..."

"...Here again he was right.   For the National has been much more than just a good golf course:  it has been the inspiration of every great course in this country, though plenty of them will not show a trace of the Macdonald style.   Take MacKenzie's Cypress Point, for example.   Here is a finished product which fits perfectly into magnificent scenery; every hole is a masterpiece and pure MacKenzie.  But Cypress Point would never have been conceived at all if the National had not shown the way."



So Tom, would you still contend that Whigham wasn't engaging in over-reaching hyperbole and poetic exaggeration when he wrote his 1939 Eulogy honoring his recently deceased Father-in-Law?  

I wonder if Alister Mackenzie knew that he would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way, or Donald Ross, or Harry Colt, or basically EVERYONE who practiced between 1910 and Whigham's Eulogy THIRTY YEARS LATER?

What's your question about Pickering?

btw...thankfully, we have the contemporaneous records of Pine Valley as they were designed and built, chronicled by Tillinghast, and months before Colt arrived.   Thankfully, as well, we have Joe Bausch finding those articles to offset the incredible attempts at misguided historical revisionism that seem too often to permeate and contaminate this site.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,  

Historical analysis and interpretation of these old documents require a modicum of common sense, intelligence, and reasonableness.   The reader must make a genuine, good-faith effort to actually try and understand the message the author was trying to convey.

This is in sharp contrast to your what seems like your agenda-driven numbskull approach, where all common sense is checked at the door and the source material is interpreted with purposeful obliviousness to the intent and meaning of the author, and where you consistently ignore the meaning and context and twist cherry picked passages beyond all recognition.  In short, you treat the source material as if it were fodder in a food fight.  Never mind what it really is, you just want to find a hand-full to hurl in the hopes it will look messy and maybe even stick.

Your treatment of the Whigham article is a perfect example.   Whigham never tried to give CBM credit for creating Pine Valley and it is really preposterous for you to pretend he did.  (In fact you must have even realized how asinine your attempts were --I see you deleted one of your posts in its entirety two hours after posting.)  Whigham made it quite clear that, while Crump brought in CBM and CBM gave some advice, Crump set out to build Pine Valley "out of his own inner consciousness" and that "to all intents and purposes Pine Valley was a George Crump creation and a nobel work of golf architecture."  

In fact, Whigham's treatment of Pine Valley is striking for its contrast with his treatment of Merion.   In both cases CBM was brought in to give advice on the course.   In Pine Valley's case, Crump only followed a few of CBM's suggestions and therefore in Whigham's mind Pine Valley was not a CBM course, it was a "George Crump creation."     But Whigham did consider Merion to be a CBM course, and by comparison this gives us some idea of the input and influence CBM must have had.  

Likewise, Whigham never claimed that MacKenzie "would never have amounted to much without Macdonald showing him the way" or anyone else for that matter.   This is just your bullshit attempt to make out the Whigham article to be something that it wasn't.    Were you not such a pathetic homer and Wilson sycophant you might actually do some reading and come to understand the various connections between CBM's work and what happened at at Cypress Point.   And you might want to read a bit about what MacKenzie thought of CBM's work as well.    

After all this time you have spent trying to trash CBM and Whigham, you still apparently have no clue as to just how revolutionary NGLA was and CBM/HJW were for golf design in the United States.   Yet, ironically, those at Merion understood this, which is why the brought in CBM and HJW to guide them through the process of creating their first class course, and why they made a point of thanking him for his contributions.

_________________________________

I have to laugh about the date of that article!    Everytime you "forget" to properly attribute an article it is for a reason --you want to pass it off as something it is obviously not.   It is a lot like when TEPaul and Wayne "forget" to include critical language from some A. Wilson quote, in that there is no way it is ever an accident!   So here you pass off a 1914 article as if it had something to do with what was going on at Merion in 1910 and at NGLA before!  Typical of your duplicitous and downright slimy approach to all of this.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Would you expect that an article about Crump's influences on Pine Valley would pre-date 1910?    Really??

No, instead it goes straight to the point of Whigham's obviously over-reaching article where he states that Pine Valley (and EVERY other great course in the US between 1910 and 1940) is directly the result of NGLA, going so far as claiming that George Crump was emulating the National.

Gvien that it took you about 2000 words to tell us what Whigham really said and spin it to some type of reasonable seeming-opinion, I think it's pretty obviously the case.

[DMoriarty]

It didn't take me 2000 words to explain what Whigham really meant.  That is clear from Whigham himself.  My 2000 words barely begin to explain the slimy nature of your approach.  But my words fall well short of doing your approach the injustice it deserves.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()