[DMoriarty]

The fault does lie with you Mike. Because even when I explicitly tell you what I think and what I thought, you come back and tell me that you know what I think better than I do.

For example, above I told you that I have always maintained that Wilson and CBM were working on the details of the plan at NGLA, and cited from my essay where I say  ". . . it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald. . ."   Yet you ignore this and once again return to quoting from the synopsis and not only ignoring the rest of the essay, ignoring me when I tell you exactly what I mean.  

This is disingenuous Mike. It is crap. I've explained myself to you repeatedly, but you have an agenda and it has nothing to do with trying to understand my point or giving my ideas a fair shake.  You are a homer of the worst sort.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Was Hugh Wilson and his committee responsible for creating the golf course routing?  Yay or nay?

[Niall C]

"Niall wrote:
Quote
Patrick, firstly not looking to knock CBM who clearly had a huge impact on Amercian golf but trying to put his ability at that time into some sort of perspective for the benefit of assessing his potential imput into Merion. Yes, his involvement in golf is legendary, however most of that was in his playing and administrative roles.

Niall, I am not even sure where one would begin to address this statement, but for now let me just say that I believe you may be drastically underestimating CBM's importance to golf course architecture in America.  

Also, I suspect you may be overestimating the state of knowledge of those at Merion with whom CBM and HJW were working.  Wilson said they only knew as much as the average club member, and in 1910 in America that meant they didn't know much.  Wilson wrote they learned more from CBM than they had learned in all their years golfing. Do you think that if you spent a few days with Tom Doak you would learn more than you had learned in all your years golfing?

Quote
Patrick, let me ask you a question, if CBM was magically transported into todays world, who would you choose to design your course him or TD ?

Not sure I can explain why, but this hypothetical strikes me as somewhat ironic given Doak's recent creation of Old Macdonald using the fundamental ideas underlying CBM's work.  I am pretty sure that the course was not a homage to CBM's record as a player or an administrator."


David,

First question, at the time we are talking about ie. the inception of Merion, what was CBM's reputation based on ? Was it based largely on his playing record and position in the USGA and Rules Committee, or was it based on his record as a golf course architect ?

Second question, in terms of CBM's lasting reputation as a gca, presumably you would agree that it is largely based on NGLA but also on other courses. By and large, these other acclaimed courses, do they date from before or after NGLA ?

What those two questions are aimed at are at addressing the question debated by myself and Patrick on whether the gulf between the Merion Committee and CBM (and HJW) was as great say as between myself and TD or JB or RH (why shouldn't living gca's be known by their initials   ) at the time of when Merion was designed and built. Now they say that in a debate, you shouldn't ask a question unless you know the answer, well in this case I am sticking my neck out on these two questions. I can tell you that as far as the British golfing press were concerned CBM's fame prior to NGLA was entirely based on his rep as a player and dare I say the grand old man of US golf. I can also say that in reference to stories about NGLA they referred to CBM and his rep as a player and administrator. I can't recall any articles referring to him as a gca. The press in the US may have said something completely different and all CBM's best work maybe was pre Merion, I don't know, but would be interested to hear.

As an aside, as someone who has undertaken some formal study in gca I'm pretty sure that a modern practising gca with the experience of those previously mentioned could still teach me a damn sight more than CBM could the Merion Committee.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

David,

Was Hugh Wilson abd his committee responsible for creating the golf course routing?  Yay or nay?

Mike,

I am not here to answer your quizzes or play your games.  I have repeatedly explained how I think the routing progressed, starting with Barker, possibly modified or changed by CBM and HJW, modified Francis and Lloyd with the swap for the land up in the corner.  In other words, I think that there was a rough routing in place before Wilson became involved in the project.   Wilson and his committee probably had input into in when be came on board, but then CBM and HJW had further input into it as well.  As far as who was responsible?  Well as I read Robert Lesley, it was CBM and HJW who were responsible for determining the final routing plan.  

I know you disagree and I know why you disagree, and I don't care.    I don't want to backtrack and go through this with you again.  You are incapable of reasonably discussing it.   I have no respect for you or your opinions.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Thank you for your answer.

Francis tells us at the time of his brainstorm the first 13 holes were already routed and he helped solve the puzzle of fitting the last five so I'm not sure what you mean by a "rough routing" if you still believe that all happened before Nov 15, 1910?

Presuming Francis was accurate and a finalized routing resulted from his efforts, then your answer to my question would still be "no", Wilson's committee was not responsible for creating the routing, correct?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

The gap between CBM and the committee was enormous.

Wilson stated that their knowledge base was equivalent to the average member in 1910.

CBM had designed the first 18 hole course in the U.S. and had designed NGLA which was already world renknowned.

CBM had studied for 38 years prior to Merion.
He had visited and studied the great courses in the U.K. and the U.S. and belonged to several of them.

1.   Do you feel that your knowledge of Golf course architecture is equivalent to that of the average member of any golf course ?

2.   Or, superior to it ?

If it's # 2, you've answered your own question.

If you answer # 1, you're being disingenuous 

Hope that helps

[DMoriarty]

David,

First question, at the time we are talking about ie. the inception of Merion, what was CBM's reputation based on ? Was it based largely on his playing record and position in the USGA and Rules Committee, or was it based on his record as a golf course architect ?

Niall,  you had written: "Yes, his involvement in golf is legendary, however most of that was in his playing and administrative roles."  I took this to mean his overall reputation, and that you were not limiting it to is reputation in 1910.

Still, as strange as it may sound, his reputation was well established as the leading figure in golf design in America even in 1910. He had created the first eighteen hole course at Chicago, had been instrumental in getting other courses going in the Chicago area, and reportedly advised clubs up and down the eastern seaboard about their own courses.   Plus, due to his successes, his personality, his experience in St. Andrews, his dual positions at the USGA and the Royal and Ancient, his relationships with the leading clubs and men in the game, etc., he was considered one of the foremost experts on all things golf, including courses.  (Likewise, in addition to being a Champion golfer Whigham was also prominent in the development of some of the Chicago clubs, and because of this, his famous golf lineage, his writing, and his extensive experience in golf world wide, he was also considered expert on golf courses.)

And then there was NGLA.  Like Pine Valley, NGLA was one of those courses which became famous before it was even completed.  Only moreso. NGLA was famous before they even had a location. I believe the first article I found on the course dates to 1904, and from then on, papers around the country followed the progress.  The 1906 trip abroad was covered here and abroad, and contributed to his notoriety. By the time CBM penned his "Ideal Golf Links" article in 1906, and the land was finally found and purchased in 1906-1907, and the course developed over the next few years, it was world famous in golf circles and CBM was famous for having brought it to fruition.

You have to understand that, before NGLA, it was widely believed that there were no truly first class courses in the United States. Long before it was even completed, NGLA was not only expected to be the best course in America, it was expected to be the first World Class golf course in the US. And by 1910, it was already well on its way to fulfilling those expectations.  And over its first few years of existence even a number of British experts - Hutchinson, Darwin, Ben Sayers, and others - pronounced it as good (if not better) than the best links courses.  And it wasn't just that it was better, it was different.  It represented a new approach to golf design based on patterning holes after the strategic principles underlying the great links courses.  It instantly became the model for how things ought to be done here.  In fact it became the model before it was even completed.  

With someone as prominent as CBM in golf, it is difficult to divvy up his reputation between different areas.  But by 1910 he 15 years beyond his prime as a player and the USGA had been long established.  But CBM was known as the man behind NGLA and in golf course design this made him the the most prominent figure in America.

Second question, in terms of CBM's lasting reputation as a gca, presumably you would agree that it is largely based on NGLA but also on other courses. By and large, these other acclaimed courses, do they date from before or after NGLA ?

Not sure I agree with your presumption.   While he was involved with a number of great courses, I think his prominence in golf course architecture was based primarily upon NGLA.  As for other courses before and after he is known for building the first 18 hole course and the Lido was quite a big deal when it was created and for a long time after, but I don't think anything compared to NGLA.  NGLA changed the game.  NGLA paved the way for the golden age and it set the stage for everything following, his courses and everyone else's as well.

What those two questions are aimed at are at addressing the question debated by myself and Patrick on whether the gulf between the Merion Committee and CBM (and HJW) was as great say as between myself and TD or JB or RH

I understand, but I may even be further away from you on this than Patrick.  I don't think you understand just how revolutionary NGLA was, and how it changed golf design in America.  It wasn't just that NGLA was good golf course, it was an new approach to creating golf courses, at least over here.  The change was so dramatic and successful that it almost completely wiped the previous era off the map.  Much of that old "dark ages" stuff was other significantly altered, plowed under, or abandoned. New courses were built with an eye to strategy and ideas and interesting golf.  NGLA ushered in the golden age of design over here.  It started a whole new conversation. It changed the entire context.  

No doubt golf design has changed since CBM built NGLA.  It has certainly become more complicated.  But I am not so sure that the core principles of what makes a golf course great have changed all that much.  At least not compared to the changes that NGLA helped create.

Here is one way to think about it. When it comes to what makes them great, I think Tom Doak's courses have much more in common with NGLA than NGLA had in common with most of the courses in the US at the time.  If reports were correct, then this was especially true of courses in and around Philadelphia.   That is how significant was the change.

So in 1910 when you compare CBM to average clubman, you are likely comparing across eras. You are likely comparing someone with an enlightened view of what a golf course could be to someone who probably hadn't considered it much at all.  You are likely comparing someone who had not only played great courses he had actually studied them and figured out what made them great, with someone who played most their golf on "dark ages" golf courses and probably didn't give these things much thought one way or another.  These weren't common ideas.  At this time, a golf course wasn't yet considered art.  It wasn't a means to express sophisticated strategic concepts which had proven successful over centuries.

When Wilson said he had learned more from CBM in than he had in all his years of golf, I don't think he was exaggerating.  

Just for fun, and to give you an idea of what passed for cutting edge architecture before in Philadelphia before CBM helped Wilson and co design Merion, here are few photos of a few changes made to Huntington Valley in 1909.  

[Tom MacWood]

This is a part of what Bernard Darwin wrote about CBM at the time of his death:

"If any one man can be called the father of American golf, Mr. Macdonald has a first claim to the paternity of that lusty infant that is still growing out of its clothes at so amazing a rate. He was the first official amateur champion of the United States, after having been runner-up in both of the two unofficial championships of 1894. He is the designer of two out of the three greatest courses in America and of a number of others of lesser but still considerable renown. And, more than all this, he has breathed into the game all over the country something of his own feeling for it, for its friendliness and its vigor and the spirit in which it should be played.

Mr. Macdonald, as a golfer, should be considered in three different characters: as a founder and prophet of the game in America, as a player of it, and as a creator of golf courses...."

[Tom MacWood]

First question, at the time we are talking about ie. the inception of Merion, what was CBM's reputation based on ? Was it based largely on his playing record and position in the USGA and Rules Committee, or was it based on his record as a golf course architect ?

Second question, in terms of CBM's lasting reputation as a gca, presumably you would agree that it is largely based on NGLA but also on other courses. By and large, these other acclaimed courses, do they date from before or after NGLA ?

In late 1910 there were two golf architectural projects that were being hailed as cutting edge and potentially revolutionary: the building of the NGLA and the redesign of GCGC. Those projects received more attention and publicity than any projects before in American history. As a result, during the early 1910s, CBM and Travis (though his proxy Barker) became the two most prominent figures in golf architecture in America and were in great demand for their talents.

[Mike Cirba]

I agree with Tom MacWood, but would also add Myopia and am a bit surprised to see him make a point I argued some time back.

Many of the foreign luminaries who came to these shores cited Myopia as equal to courses in their homeland, and superior to the other American courses by a long shot.

So yes, by 1910 the three best courses in the US were Garden City,  Myopia, and NGLA, with probably Ekwanok, and perhaps Chicago a rung behind, ALL courses designed and refined by amateur sportsmen architects.

Interestingly, strategic golf had been widely discussed among American luminaries like Travis for a number of years, and he and Donald Ross were doing cool stuff at Pinehurst by then, even with the deficit of sand greens.

Certainly NGLA was a landmark achievement that set the bar with the idea of creating 18 ideal holes, but strategic golf was already being practiced and written about fairly extensively by then.

I guess a good question is simply this...if CBM had never built NGLA, would Donald Ross, Walter Travis, Alister Mackenzie, Hugh Wilson, William Flynn, the Fownes family, George Crump, Harry Colt, and many others have arrived at the classic age of golf regardless?   We'll never know, but it is both undeniable that NGLA set a new standard, and that it perhaps rode a wave whose momentum was already inevitable given the leading thinkers of the game at that time.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I know you're smart enough to realize an obvious contradiction in your stated opinions here, so I hope we can have this discussion.

On one hand, you contend that the Francis Swap and thus the routing of Merion was completed before November 15, 1910.

Francis himself tells us that at the time of his brainstorm, the first 13 holes were already in place and after Mr. Lloyd agreed with his idea, the last five fell into place and workmen were out on the property in the next day or two blasting the site for the 16th green.

So, whatever we know, we know that this was not a "rough routing".   We know that Francis' idea created the FINAL routing.

We also know he found it while looking at a map, and was a surveyor/engineer, so it was obviously a drawing exercise, not a construction one, and from the nature of his work it is unlikely that he was being imprecise.   Francis also tells us that at the time of his idea, the land across the street from the clubhouse was not being used "for any golf plans" (plural), so there were more than one still in play.

So if you believe that all happened before November 15th, 1910, and you cite as your evidence the existence of a long, narrow triangle (95x320) on the north end of the November 15, 1910 Land Plan drawn by Pugh & Hubbard, then that begs a lot of questions, does it not?

For instance;

1) There is absolutely NO evidence of any activity on the property by CBM and Whigham between July and November 1910.   Not a single word written, and we KNOW they didn't visit during that time.   There is no mention of any further correspondence in any of the paperwork submitted to Merion's Board of Governors in November of that month, only the initial one-day site visit in June of that year.   If the course was routed during that time as you contend, what exactly is your evidence that CBM and Whigham did it?

2) We know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after "laying out many different courses" prior to their visit to NGLA, Wilson's committee went up to NGLA in early March and spent the night viewing sketches of the best holes abroad and learning about their principles from CBM.   We also know they spent the next day on the ground touring NGLA.    If the routing was already completed FIVE MONTHS prior as you contend, then what did this exercise have to do with placing template holes at specific locations on the ground at Merion?!?

3) We also know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after their return from NGLA, Wilson's Committee "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans".    We also know that this was not "laying out holes on the ground, but instead on paper, because the Minutes go on to say that CBM and Whigham came down on April 7th, and "after looking over the plans, and the ground itself", they determined that the best one would yield the best seven finishing holes of any inland course they'd seen.   Further evidence that those plans drawn by the Committee were laid out on paper is simply that they were attached and "submitted here-with" to the Board of Governors at the April meeting.  If the course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, as you seemingly still contend, why would CBM need to come to Merion in April and help them pick the best of their five routing plans??

4) Further evidence that the selected routing plan presented to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th, 1911 was on paper is evidenced in what was known as the "Thompson Resolution".    Remember, it is now FIVE MONTHS after the course was supposedly FINAL routed based on what you've argued was the timing of the Francis Swap, prior to November 15th, 1910, presumably to purposefully preclude Hugh Wilson's involvement in that routing.   So after ALL of that time, and after promising HDC that they would get right to work on the golf course as soon as the paper's were signed, and supposedly with an already routed golf course, why would Merion in April 1911 still be debating routings?   The Thompson Resolution reads; "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground (so much for Tom MacWood's contention that there was already a golf course staked out on the ground when Hugh Wilson began work in January - comments mine) which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of three acres additional ...".   Given that it's clear that as of April 19th, 1911 there was 1) No golf course "on the ground", and 2) still discussion and needed approvals of the final layout plan, and 3) clear documentation that the Committee authored the plans in question, with CBM's advice and suggestions, would you still contend that the Francis Swap and thus the final routing took place before November 15th, 1910?

While you contend that 1) I don't understand, and 2) I continually misrepresent your essay, I'm only reading what you wrote, David, and what still exists on your Opinion piece on this website.

For instance, your main contention is that the Francis Swap and thus the golf course routing was completed before November 15, 1910, and on that basis you seek to exclude Hugh Wilson from any routing credit.

That's a fact.   It is indisputable.

Here is your summation of the routing of the golf course;

Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed.

Here again is your synopsis and another paragraph from the body of your essay.  

Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. (bold mine) H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course. Immediately thereafter, the Construction Committee departed for NGLA so that Macdonald and Whigham could teach them how to build the golf holes at Merion East.
...
And again in the body...

Or so the story goes. But as is often the case with creation stories, this one is a blend of myth and reality. In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East. The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course. They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.

I'm not sure how that can possibly be misconstrued? 

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick/Niall,

Hugh Wilson, who if you know anything about him was a very humble, self-effacing man who eschewed the spotlight.   In many ways, he was almost the opposite of CB Macdonald in temperament and demeanor.

This 1924 article give some insight into his persona;






In 1916, he was asked to write an article about golf course agronomy by Piper and Oakley.   In that article, he included the line, which has been used out of context for political hay here repeatedly and without any real understanding;

"The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in CONSTRUCTION and GREENKEEPING was only that of the average club member.   Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out if we had realized one-half the things we did not know."

Now, when one considers all the letter from Wilson to P&O from February 1911 onwards related to soil types, fertilizer, manure mixes, grasses, seed merchants, etc., one would know EXACTLY what he's talking about.

Virtually ALL of these men had prior experience in course construction back around the turn of the century.   However, those were relatively primitive courses, and much had been learned in the evolving state of golf course agronomy and construction techniques in the ensuing decade, so yes, to that extent they all were very much just learning about construction and agronomy techniques when they started the project.

BUT, one bright note Wilson then goes on to cite, shifting gears;

"Our ideals were high, and fortunately, we did get a good start in the principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham."

And how did they convey those principles??

"Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural (inland - comment mine) conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes."

Once again, you'll note that there is not a single mention of any time spent laying out the Merion course, or even discussing their project in anything but general terms of how you might want to apply the principles of holes.

The Merion Committee members were five of the six best golfers in the club (by handicap) out of a membership roll in the hundreds.

Each had long history in Philadelphia golf, Griscom and Toulmin had been involved in design effort in early courses, Griscom had been the Chairman of the Green Committee at Merion since its inception, and Francis had surveying skills.   Wilson had been on the Green Committee at Princeton in his Junior/Senior years of college while a new Willie Dunn course was being built and opened.  

If these men had the knowledge of "average members", then the state of American golf in 1910 was far beyond what it is today!    

To not recognize what Wilson was actually trying to convey in very modest terms is to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of what he wrote as well as an ignorance of the history of the men on the Merion committee.

Here's the relevant parts of the article...the rest is about soil issues and growing grass.

Note the title;

[Niall C]

Niall,

The gap between CBM and the committee was enormous.

Wilson stated that their knowledge base was equivalent to the average member in 1910.

CBM had designed the first 18 hole course in the U.S. and had designed NGLA which was already world renknowned.

CBM had studied for 38 years prior to Merion.
He had visited and studied the great courses in the U.K. and the U.S. and belonged to several of them.

1.   Do you feel that your knowledge of Golf course architecture is equivalent to that of the average member of any golf course ?

2.   Or, superior to it ?

If it's # 2, you've answered your own question.

If you answer # 1, you're being disingenuous 

Hope that helps

Patrick

On the first point, that the Merion Committee knew as much about course design as the average club member I tend to think that the members of that Committee would likely have been ahead of the game given there previous limited experience in other golf projects, and that Wilson's later comment was borne out of a natural modesty as Mike suggests.

However even if we accept they were akin to your average club member, and look at the other end of the scale, CBM's ability as an architect, I simply find it hard to believe that in the hundred years since NGLA was built and with all the accumulated advancement in knowledge in design, construction and maintenance, all of which an experienced full-time gca of the modern day has the advantage of, that the gap between todays average golfer and a modern gca isn't infinitely greater than that between the Merion Committee and CBM. We've gone back and forwards on this one a couple of times now and I doubt either of us will change out position so suggest we agree to differ.

One other point, following last nights post I took the opportunity to flick through Scotlands Gift and particularly the section on NGLA where he says he started examining the classic courses in the UK during several trips to UK starting from 1902. So I would suggest that this was when any serious study started as opposed to 1872.

Niall   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick/Niall,

Hugh Wilson, who if you know anything about him was a very humble, self-effacing man who eschewed the spotlight.   In many ways, he was almost the opposite of CB Macdonald in temperament and demeanor.


Mike, I just finished reading the exact same drivel from TEPaul in an email a few minutes ago, of which you were copied, so please stop being a shill, parroting TEPaul's every word.

If the committee was sophisticated, then Wilson lied in his contemporaneous desription of their lack of ability, comparing them to the average member.   And, if he lied about that, what else did he lie about ?  False in one, false in many !

And, if he lied about that,
;

To not recognize what Wilson was actually trying to convey in very modest terms is to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of what he wrote as well as an ignorance of the history of the men on the Merion committee.

Now you're saying that Wilson was a moron, that he didn't know how to convey his thoughts.  That he misrepresented the abilities of himself and his committee members when it came to architecture and building a golf course

Here's the relevant parts of the article...the rest is about soil issues and growing grass.

We know how flawed newspaper articles are.

I prefer to take Wilson at his written word, unless of course you and the Merionettes feel that he was lying.

You can't have it both ways.
Either Wilson was telling the truth about the committee's abilties or he was lying.
And, if he was lying, what else did he lie about ?

[Niall C]

Patrick

A couple of other things I wanted to say but posted before I remembered to write them was firstly, in previous posts you have suggested that the Merion Committee would have needed CBM to route the course because of the difficulty of routing a course on that tight a site, I paraphrase but that is the gist of what you have said I believe.

From memory the Merion course is situated on c.120 acres of gently rolling land which is of a regular shape, or probably more accurately two adjoining regularly shaped sites. Certainly the quarry and the brook would have provided some constraint but that would have been outweighed by the opportunity they offered as features to the course. For courses back then 120 acres wasn't really that tight a site, and neither was it unusual for clubs to do it themselves without reference to CBM. After all, I doubt CBM routed every course course of 120 acres back then because he was the only one that could.

Secondly, I also seem to recall TD making some comment on one of the earlier Merion threads that it wouldn't be that difficult to route a course on the land at Merion.

Niall

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

You're now accusing not only me, but Hugh Wilson of lying.   You grow increasingly hysterical and desperate in the face of actual facts and evidence and the fact is that Hugh Wilson and his committee were NOT and did NOT have the knowledge of average members but were in fact humble, gracious gentlemen, and not self-promoting blowhards.

Your complete ignorance of golf course history is only matched by the misplaced arrogance of your arguments.

Do you think the man who had been chairman of the Green Committee at Merion since 1896, and whose committee had designed the second nine holes and modified the first nine at the original Merion Cricket Club course, Rodman Griscom, had the knowledge of the average club member in construction and agronomy?

How about Dr. Harry Toulmin, who had been one of the earliest founders of golf in the city and had co-designed the original Aronimink course (when the club was known as Belmont)?

What about Engineeer/Surveyor Richard Francis?   Another ignorant club member?

How about Hugh Wilson, who had been on the Green Committee at Princeton for two years while their new Willie Dunn course was being built?

What about HG Lloyd, who had served on the Merion Green Committee since at least 1903?

Average Club Member??   Are you kidding me??

Now, did they know the latest in grasses, fertilizers, construction techniques?   No, they didn't, and it's clear that's what Wilson was talking about.

Patrick, you really need to get a grip and try to learn something here.

[DMoriarty]

Mike it is you who portrays Hugh Wilson as a liar, not Patrick.  Patrick is taking him at his word.  

Likewise it is you who won't believe what Alan Wilson wrote.  Or H.J. Whigham.  Or A Findlay.  Or Francis. Etc.  

You guys just twist away all the statements you don't like and in the process you disrespect the words of your supposed heros.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Drop the agenda and constant insults and quit ducking the obvious questions I've outlined in post #2270.

The rest of your constant feigned outrage and indignation are simply a smoke screen, and neither you or Patrick or Tom MacWood have a shred of evidence which is why we see all this bluster and flurry from you, signifying nothing.

By the way, what were those 1909 pictures of the Willie Campbell designed original Huntingdon Valley GC supposed to add to this discussion?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

On the first point, that the Merion Committee knew as much about course design as the average club member I tend to think that the members of that Committee would likely have been ahead of the game given there previous limited experience in other golf projects, and that Wilson's later comment was borne out of a natural modesty as Mike suggests.

Niall,

You were copied with the same inane email from TEPaul that Mike was, earlier today.

Now, you're telling us that Wilson wasn't candid, that he did not describe the abilities of his committee properly.

That he's not to be taken at his word.

In 1910, I accept Wilson's written, contemporaneous words on the abilities of his committee, including himself.

That you, Mike and TEPaul don't believe him is your perogative.


However even if we accept they were akin to your average club member, and look at the other end of the scale, CBM's ability as an architect, I simply find it hard to believe that in the hundred years since NGLA was built and with all the accumulated advancement in knowledge in design, construction and maintenance, all of which an experienced full-time gca of the modern day has the advantage of, that the gap between todays average golfer and a modern gca isn't infinitely greater than that between the Merion Committee and CBM.


Niall, your lack of familiarity with NGLA is hampering your ability to understand the issues and CBM's abilities.

Secondly, you've changed your question, so to remind you, I'll repost your question in it's original form.

Re your Tom Doak analogy, do you really think the gulf between CBM and the Merion Committee was as big as the gulf in knowledge between me and TD ? Seriously [/quoe]

What advancement in design ?

If design has become so advanced over the last 100 years why isn't NGLA a forgotten relic ?
Why has it maintained its lofty position as one of the great golf courses of all time.
You're confusing hi-tech irrigation systems with the talent for designing great golf holes.

Ditto for construction.
NGLA, which you've never set foot on, is a highly constructed golf course.
Again, you're complete lack of familiarity is impeding your understanding of what took place at NGLA.
So, tell me, what are these great advances in construction ?
A D-6 or a D-8 isn't much different from the early dozers.[/b][/size][/color]

We've gone back and forwards on this one a couple of times now and I doubt either of us will change out position so suggest we agree to differ.
I can guarantee you that I'm not changing my position.

One other point, following last nights post I took the opportunity to flick through Scotlands Gift and particularly the section on NGLA where he says he started examining the classic courses in the UK during several trips to UK starting from 1902. So I would suggest that this was when any serious study started as opposed to 1872.

That's your interepretation.
I prefer to rely on what CBM wrote in the begining of "Scotland's Gift", on page 14 to be precise, where he states that he fell in love with golf immediately after arriving in St Andrews in 1872.
Then read further on page 18. second paragraph.

CBM was an intelligent man, his view of golf extended far beyond "keeping his eye on the ball"

Gotta run.

Niall   

[Tom MacWood]

I agree with Tom MacWood, but would also add Myopia and am a bit surprised to see him make a point I argued some time back.

Many of the foreign luminaries who came to these shores cited Myopia as equal to courses in their homeland, and superior to the other American courses by a long shot.

So yes, by 1910 the three best courses in the US were Garden City,  Myopia, and NGLA, with probably Ekwanok, and perhaps Chicago a rung behind, ALL courses designed and refined by amateur sportsmen architects.

Interestingly, strategic golf had been widely discussed among American luminaries like Travis for a number of years, and he and Donald Ross were doing cool stuff at Pinehurst by then, even with the deficit of sand greens.

Certainly NGLA was a landmark achievement that set the bar with the idea of creating 18 ideal holes, but strategic golf was already being practiced and written about fairly extensively by then.

I guess a good question is simply this...if CBM had never built NGLA, would Donald Ross, Walter Travis, Alister Mackenzie, Hugh Wilson, William Flynn, the Fownes family, George Crump, Harry Colt, and many others have arrived at the classic age of golf regardless?   We'll never know, but it is both undeniable that NGLA set a new standard, and that it perhaps rode a wave whose momentum was already inevitable given the leading thinkers of the game at that time.

In 1910 there were two American projects that received attention as cutting-edge/modern golf architecture and Myopia was not one of them. Myopia was altered over a period of years starting in the 1890s and never got the attention NGLA and GCGC received circa 1910. In the US if you were interested in building a premier modern golf course in 1910 you would turn to CBM or Travis/Barker, unless you were Toronto, Detroit or PV, then you would import the premier man in the UK.

The question about what if the NGLA never happened is impossible to answer, and really sheds no light on the subject of Merion, and their decision to turn to the two foremost experts on the subject.

[Mike Cirba]

No Tom, no one mentioned Myopia in 1910, which was a work in progress by Leeds until his death in 1930.

That's why Myopia had hosted its 4th US Open in 1908 and why all the associated articles about Merion (as well as Barker himself) mentioned that the goals were a course in the league of Garden City and Myopia.

If you recall, Barker was brought in by Joseph Connell of the Real Estate Company to assess the land for a golf course as part of HDC's efforts to entice Merion to purchase their land and thus increase the value of their development.   Barker also drew a rough sketch routing for Connell, which has not been found.

Not surprisingly, with that kind of incentive, Barker found the land to be among the best of it's kind he'd seen anywhere!    

HH Barker wrote this in June 1910;

I would say that the land is in every way adapted to the making of a first class course, comparing most favorably with the best courses in this country, such as Myopia and Garden City.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

I cannot help it if you are you are insulted by the truth. You and the Merionettes refuse to believe those who were there.  Hugh Wilson, Alan Wilson, Alex Findlay, R. Francis, and H. J. Whigham, etc.   It is ironic that you claim to look up to some of these guys yet you won't even take them at their word.  The legend has always been more important to you guys than the truth.

As for your long post above, I haven't read it, nor will I.  I told you I am not going over the swap again with you.  I don't care what you think and am not interested in discussing it with you.  As I said I have no respect for you, your intellect, or your intentions.   Discussing it with you gives you and your rhetoric more credence than it deserves.  

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Garden City and Myopia were well respected and considered among the best before NGLA, but NGLA was largely considered to have been on an entirely different level.   Moreover, even Myopia and Garden City were impacted by what was ongoing at NGLA, and were went through their own changes as a result.   While the Boston press complained bitterly about Myopia having been slighted by Hutchinson when Hutchinson (and CBM) visited Myopia, Myopia nonetheless took the criticism to heart and made a number of changes to the course.    

Likewise, Garden City had been going through a series of  changes to try and bring the course into the modern era, and Tom MacWood was correct to point out that Garden City's changes were well publicized. Travis was to have been working with CBM at NGLA at the time and so this should be no surprise that he was simultaneously trying to update Garden City.    And as TomM suggests, Barker probably had a hand in these changes as well, and they were part of this same movement away from the dark ages and toward more strategic golf.  

In 1908 (the year after CBM had built his Eden at NGLA) Garden City even went so far as to create its own Eden hole at their last. At the beginning of that year, it was reported that the hole would be remodeled into a Redan, but apparently the plan changed.  At that time it was reported: "No other famous holes are to be copied at present, but it is whispered that others may be, to offset the competition of the National Course of America, which will go into commission next summer at Shinnecock Hills. "(Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Jan. 7, 1908)

If there is any doubt about where NGLA stood in relation to what else was out there, we can go to Travis himself.  In the May, 1909 issue of The American Golfer, titled The Constituents of the Good Golf Course, Travis was already writing that National would be the finest course in America.  When discussing the placement of hazards, Travis wrote, "But any one who has played over the new course at Pinehurst will have had an opportunity of seeing how a course should be laid out on proper lines. Another fine example is the Salisbury Links at Garden City and soon, another, the finest of all, will be open for play, the National Golf Links at Shinnecock Hills."  (my bolds.)

Here is Travis in the August 1910 American Golfer, with my bold:

Although not yet quite mature, the new green of the National Golf Links at Shinnecock already furnishes sufficient indication of easily being far and away the best in this country in the near future.
. . .
It is not too much to say that none of the most famous courses abroad have more than four or five holes at the outside which stand out as being pre-eminent —the others are more or less tinged with mediocrity. Here we have eighteen holes which constitute perfection, or as near thereto as it is possible to attain in any single course.
. . .
A great deal of credit is due to Mr. Macdonald for providing such a classical links, which will ever remain a monument unto himself, and much good will be done to the game as a whole in the way of furnishing such a magnificent object lesson of what a first-class course should be in suggesting ideas to those interested in the lay-out of new courses or the improvement of existing ones throughout the country. The name, The National Golf Links, is appropriate by reason of the fact that the sixty-seven founders, each of whom has put in $1,000, and in whom the ownership of the property is vested, reside in various parts of the country; while as to the term "Links" it is really about the only course on this side which is deserving of such a title.

I don't mean to disrespect either Myopia or Garden City, but regardless of our opinions today, they were not widely considered to on par with NGLA.  Not even close.  A few may have had that opinion, but by and large NGLA was considered well beyond anything else out there.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

It is not surprising that you choose to avoid the pertinent subject and obvious related questions about your theories and essay and instead spend multiple paragraphs restating the obvious (i.e. NGLA was a landmark course that set the bar higher than anything before it in America and had a lasting impact on architecture), but that doesn't mean that your obfuscation and obstructionism aren't obvious to everyone else here.

You can choose to just keep firing insults and childish names ("Merionettes") at me in each response post but it only really shows how little evidence you actually have at your disposal to support your theories.  

Reducing yourself to that level has no effect on me, I can assure you.   I prefer to discuss the facts.

Here again are my very straightforward, factually based questions.   There are no insults or derogatory names, and I'd appreciate hearing your responses so we can put this matter to rest;


On one hand, you contend that the Francis Swap and thus the routing of Merion was completed before November 15, 1910.

Here is what your essay reads, in part, on that matter;

Surprisingly, as one can see in the land plan above, Merion acquired this small projection of land as part of the 117-acre parcel designated “Merion Golf Course” in the Plan. Merion optioned and purchased the land for the 15th green and 16th tee as part of their option and purchase of the bulk of the golf course property. Property records confirm this. The supposed land swap must have occurred prior to mid-November 1910, when Merion obtained an option from Haverford Development Company. This was six weeks before the purchase was finalized and the Construction Committee appointed. The “swap” was not a swap at all but actually a small but significant reshaping of the large parcel Merion intended to purchase from Haverford Development Company. Before the purchase, the parties must have agreed to shave off a portion on the right side of the parcel and added the projection of land for the 15th green and 16th tee.

Francis and Lloyd had been fine-tuning the layout plan before Merion secured the land. Francis described his epiphany as having occurred while he was looking over a “map of the property.” He also noted that the land Merion gave up “did not fit at all in any golf layout.” So by this time the planning process was well underway, and the “swap” allowed them to better fit the last five holes into the plan for the routing. “It was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion – with the help of a little ground on the north side of Ardmore avenue – but the last five holes were another question.” The Francis land “swap” allowed them to complete the routing plan. All before November 10, 1910.

So, by mid-November 1910, the layout had already been planned. I have found no evidence that Hugh Wilson had been at all involved in the purchase or the planning at this early date. To the contrary, as will be discussed below, the historical record indicates that Wilson became involved in early 1911, after the purchase was finalized.

Francis himself tells us that at the time of his brainstorm, the first 13 holes were already in place and after Mr. Lloyd agreed with his idea, the last five fell into place and workmen were out on the property in the next day or two blasting the site for the 16th green.

So, whatever we know, we know that this was not a "rough routing".   We know that Francis' idea created the FINAL routing.

We also know he found it while looking at a map, and was a surveyor/engineer, so it was obviously a drawing exercise, not a construction one, and from the nature of his work it is unlikely that he was being imprecise.   Francis also tells us that at the time of his idea, the land across the street from the clubhouse was not being used "for any golf plans" (plural), so there were more than one still in play.

So if you believe that all happened before November 15th, 1910, and you cite as your evidence the existence of a long, narrow triangle (95x320) on the north end of the November 15, 1910 Land Plan drawn by Pugh & Hubbard, then that begs a lot of questions, does it not?

For instance;

1) There is absolutely NO evidence of any activity on the property by CBM and Whigham between July and November 1910.   Not a single word written, and we KNOW they didn't visit during that time.   There is no mention of any further correspondence in any of the paperwork submitted to Merion's Board of Governors in November of that month, only the initial one-day site visit in June of that year.   If the course was routed during that time as you contend, what exactly is your evidence that CBM and Whigham did it?

2) We know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after "laying out many different courses" prior to their visit to NGLA, Wilson's committee went up to NGLA in early March and spent the night viewing sketches of the best holes abroad and learning about their principles from CBM.   We also know they spent the next day on the ground touring NGLA.    If the routing was already completed FIVE MONTHS prior as you contend, then what did this exercise have to do with placing template holes at specific locations on the ground at Merion?!?

3) We also know that the MCC Minutes of April 1911 tell us that after their return from NGLA, Wilson's Committee "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans".    We also know that this was not "laying out holes on the ground, but instead on paper, because the Minutes go on to say that CBM and Whigham came down on April 7th, and "after looking over the plans, and the ground itself", they determined that the best one would yield the best seven finishing holes of any inland course they'd seen.   Further evidence that those plans drawn by the Committee were laid out on paper is simply that they were attached and "submitted here-with" to the Board of Governors at the April meeting.  If the course was already routed by November 15th, 1910, as you seemingly still contend, why would CBM need to come to Merion in April and help them pick the best of their five routing plans??

4) Further evidence that the selected routing plan presented to the Merion Board of Governors on April 19th, 1911 was on paper is evidenced in what was known as the "Thompson Resolution".    Remember, it is now FIVE MONTHS after the course was supposedly FINAL routed based on what you've argued was the timing of the Francis Swap, prior to November 15th, 1910, presumably to purposefully preclude Hugh Wilson's involvement in that routing.   So after ALL of that time, and after promising HDC that they would get right to work on the golf course as soon as the paper's were signed, and supposedly with an already routed golf course, why would Merion in April 1911 still be debating routings?   The Thompson Resolution reads; "Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new Golf Ground (so much for Tom MacWood's contention that there was already a golf course staked out on the ground when Hugh Wilson began work in January - comments mine) which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased for other land adjoining and the purchase of three acres additional ...".   Given that it's clear that as of April 19th, 1911 there was 1) No golf course "on the ground", and 2) still discussion and needed approvals of the final layout plan, and 3) clear documentation that the Committee authored the plans in question, with CBM's advice and suggestions, would you still contend that the Francis Swap and thus the final routing took place before November 15th, 1910?

While you contend that 1) I don't understand, and 2) I continually misrepresent your essay, I'm only reading what you wrote, David, and what still exists on your Opinion piece on this website.

For instance, your main contention is that the Francis Swap and thus the golf course routing was completed before November 15, 1910, and on that basis you seek to exclude Hugh Wilson from any routing credit.

That's a fact.   It is indisputable.

Here is your summation of the routing of the golf course;

Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superceded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd also contributed.

[JESII]

Mike,

I also believe the Swap happened prior to November 15th but do not believe CBM/HJW were directly involved in it.

An answer to many of your questions in that post regarding all the action in the Spring if the Swap/Routing were complete by November is two-fold.
1 - Is it possible that a "different plan" as referenced is simply slightly different hole lengths on connecting holes such as 2 and then 3, current 7 - 8 - 9, 14 and 15? Wouldn't the courses plan be different if #2 were 400 yards and current 6 were about 525?
2 - I still disagree with your reading of Francis in that the first 13 were fixed before the Swap. We even went through the exercise of discussing how could/would those 13 be fixed if they didn't have the last 5? What would they do if the suggestion of the Swap was rejected by Lloyd/HDC? Have you thought about it in that respect? He said they were fairly easy to fit but the last 5 were another matter...that does not mean they were fixed and locked.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I'll try to answer that more comprehensively shortly but I'm pressed for time at the moment.

I would agree with the fact that there is no record or shred of evidence of any contact or involvement of Macdonald and/or Whigham with Merion during the entire second half of 1910.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts on the idea that's been suggested here that CBM used the time of the Committee's visit to NGLA to route the Merion course on a contour map as he supposedly placed the pre-defined template holes in proper positioning across the landscape?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()