[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I call it as I see it. If you are insulted by that, "get over it."

Meanwhile, you are still not taking Findlay at his word.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I don't see it that way, and I don't believe you have really made the case that I am not taking him at his word.

Besides, the last thrust of my posts was to simply go to the one document that says who did do the routing, rather than try to interpret many that don't really mention who did what (i.e. Findlay)

The Merion record is the most direct contemporaneous source, by those most closely involved.  For reasons that I cannot recall now, you and TMac delcared a long time ago that taking those members of Merion at their words just couldn't be done, and that there was some magical interpretation that only you caught, and that all involved missed badly.

I really don't think those involved should have their official record parsed out to way beyond its logical conclusion, nor do I think that not taking Findlay at his exact words is a big misstep.  Certainly not as big as your five year witch hunt to not take Merion at its word.  And after all, what has this last five years been about? Deciding whose word to take, so why call me out for reasonably believing there are other documents that bear more directly on the subject?

Hey, they said they did many plans, they went to NGLA to learn, they came back, they did five more plans, and they asked CBM and HJW to come over and make sure they were still on the right track (or best track) by having them approve the plan.  The report was in April 1911 and I certainly did not misinterpret what happened afterwards.  As I mentioned, the report is just vague enough and without details that you could go and make the argument that it must be reporting on stuff that happened way earlier, but in reality, most committees meet monthly and report on what happened in the last month.

I am not sure the exact schedule of their meetings, but I am pretty sure we will see an email from Wayne or TePaul telling us what period that meeting most likely covered.

In 99% of cases, the simplest, most direct interpretation of the closest documentation is going to be what happened over some vast coincidences of many people over many years happening to make the same kind of coincidental miswritings about a subject.  Your earlier routing theory depends on far too much of those coincidences to be convincing, at least in my mind, and I am pretty sure, in most minds.

The length of these threads is directly attributable to goofy debates about every stinking little nuance anyone of us makes.  Its pretty silly really, but I have no doubt you will carry on in the same vein, forever, most likely!

BTW, I got an email today about how internet search engines "customize" searches of various people.  A political liberal and a political conservative took screen captures of their individual searches and got completely different and differently ordered results because Google and other track 56 points of each of our searches to determine what we are really looking for.  Intersesting stuff concerning perception of information.  However, my real point was the speaker mentioned that newspaper ethics really took a jump in 1915 - just after the reporting period we discuss here.

It made me think of the Findlay article.  As you probably most correctly mention, he was slipping a nice little plug for a business associate in the articles, disguised as news.  On other threads, we wonder why gossip columnists are reporting on golf, etc.  Not sure it has any correlation, but the fact that he mentioned that there were some questions about how accurately news reports of the day were struck my eye in the context of these discussions.

Cheers.

[Mike Cirba]

As for Merion, Findlay wrote that Wilson "built" the course.  You can go into hysterics all you like, but hysterics will not change "built" to "planned." Unless you are arguing that Leeds was not in charge of "building" that version of Myopia, your rants about Myopia are beside the point.  

David,

Once again, your arguments and interpretations border on absurdist comedy.   Why in heaven's name would Findlay be referring to Leed's "construction" efforts and not his design efforts, as clearly Findlay stated he felt that Myopia was the best course in the United States at the time?

And your use of terminology is so inconsistent as to be laughable.

You used Findlay's vague comment that "many others" "as laid out by Charles Macdonald" is proof that he was talking about designing Merion (when the article talks mostly about courses and holes on courses abroad and Wilson's trip AFTER telling us he's not yet ready to talk about the Merion golf course because of its immaturity) yet tell us that the multitude of authors who told us specifically that Hugh Wilson and his Committee "laid out Merion" as evidence only of his construction efforts to someone else's plan.

It's really pathetic and intellectually dishonest.

But, there is a point in there that I'd like to address...

The majority of articles back then didn't refer to golf course design and building as "planning", or "design", but instead talked about constructing, or building, or "laying out".

In the multitude of articles I've seen that credit Hugh Wilson and/or his Committee's work at Merion, here are some of the verbs used;

"laid out"
"constructed"
"built"
"was responsible for"
"to whose genius Merion owes both its courses"
"was one of the original designers"

But there's much more...words like "planned", "architect", etc.

This idea that no one ever said back then that Hugh Wilson planned the course or was the architect of the course are simply untrue.

First, here's a September 1912 Opening Day article from a Philadelphia newspaper column;




Bryan was asking earlier about club and committee structure, and this January 1912 article provides some insight about who was in charge;




AW Tillinghast told us in April 1911 that he had seen the plans of the proposed Merion course.   Here's what else he told us.   Incidentally, his extensive Opening Day article says that Hugh Wilson and his committee deserve the congratulations of all golfers, but made NO mention of CBM and Whigham.

Tillnghast  - American Golfer 1916
"Certainly a reference to the Merion Course over which the championship of 1916 will be played, must be of interest. The course was opened in 1912, and the plans were decided upon only after a critical review of the great courses in Great Britain and America."







This Opening Day review by "Far and Sure" in American Golfer tells us who "conceived of" the problems of the holes.  




And finally, the most authoritative source of all, written by the men who were there...the April 19th 1911 Merion Cricket Club minutes;

Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:

Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.

On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional.

Thompson Resolution
Whereas the Golf Committee presented a plan showing a proposed layout of the new
Golf Ground which necessitated the exchange of a portion of land already purchased
for other land adjoining and the purchase of about three acres additional to cost about
$7500.00, and asked the approval of this Board, it was on motion.

Resolved, that this Board approve of the purchase and exchange, and agree to pay as
part of the rental the interest on the additional purchase.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think one of the problems surrounding this/these issues is the following.

Findlay's statement attributing Merion to CBM is clear.

Others may contend, as Mike Cirba does, that the Merion records indicate that the committee designed Merion.

But, the Merion records indicate that CBM was brought in to work with the committee, to be part of the committee, so when it's reported that the "committee" designed Merion, you have to include CBM as part of that committee.

Then, Findlay's clear statement that CBM designed Merion and the statements that the records indicate that the committee designed Merion
would be in complete  harmony

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, it's a reasonable question and until additional documents are produced, will probably remain an open question.
 Patrick,

Just saw and have time to answer some of your questions,  and first, thanks for now calling me reasonable twice in recent posts!

PMQ1 - The problem I have is, who is the "they" ? Does the committee include CBM ?  Or does the committee exclude CBM.

A - The record shows who was officially on the committee, and CBM was not.  No reason to doubt it, and no reason as a non member to be on any club committee, right?  Do you know of any club committees stocked with non members?


PMQ2 - And if it includes him, what was the extent of his role ?  Especially when you can't dismiss Findlay's statement.
It's hard to fathom that CBM was excluded as part of the committee, especially when Findlay declared that CBM laid out many holes.

A- That is the question, of course. I believe that he spent 4 days on the project, as documented, and wrote a few more letters back and forth, which have been documented.  And I believe in that time he had considerable influence on the Merion committee as they prepared their many routing plans.  I also tend to agree that they discussed routing at NGLA, despite some who have a narrow definition based on the written record.  My evidence is that the committee took "many routings" to NGLA and knew upon return they had to do 5 more.  If nothing else, whatever transpired at NGLA, they saw the error of their early ways.  If CBM suggested a few holes at that time, we will never know, but they clearly learned a lot from that meeting.

A - Yes, and part of his extraordinary legend is that he was willing to help other clubs trying to build golf coruses, by his own and HJW words.


PMQ3 - If he had no function, no imput, why would he agree to be engaged and waste his time with this project ?
Remember, CBM was no ordinary figure.

A - That is a little to black and white.  If he was willing to advise other clubs, that relationship implies a few days time and giving whatever advice he could give.  But, clearly, at the same time frame, he figured it was better do just design the damn golf courses, since he took on his first design commissions right around the time of Merion at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow.

PMQ4 -It's hard to believe that he'd accept a position as a non-influential lackey with no imput, to be summarily dismissed at the drop of a hat like a servant.  And, from the committee's standpoint, once you invited him in to assist with the project, would you ignore and exclude him from every facet of the project ?  If so, why invite him in as part of the planning process in the first place ?

A - Merion never said that they wanted him to be part of the planning process, they said they wanted instruction in the correct principles of design from him.  He certainly wasn't a lackey to them, nor was he dismissed.  I believe he was used exactly as both parties intended him to be used - as a trusted advisor.

BTW, its not too hard to believe that the biggest influence of CBM was to follow the portion of his NGLA model that the club design the course itself, without using a professional architect.  Certainly, having designed just three courses at this point in his career, CBM would have advised to follow the amateur model, no?  For that matter, while you wonder how Wilson could have possibly designed a course himself, CBM had only designed 3 at that point, and the first Chicago at Wheaton was a very uninspired routing.

Secondly, somewhere during NGLA CBM abandoned the copying idea in favor of incorporating key features while using the topography, and I bet that was instilled in the Merion committee at NGLA in March.  So, do we classify the use of some of the best design priniciples as design or inspiration by CBM?  Do we count the fact that Wilson was moved to go confirm those principles by seeing the originals rather than copying CBM's copies as inspiration or design?  (not that it matters all that much to me)

BTW, I do not agree with your contentions on Findlay, but understand how you arrive at your interpretation.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Now you want to put CBM on the Merion Committtee??!   Holy cow...your desperation to get CBM in there somehow is pretty apparent!  

Your good buddy Richard Francis tells us who was on the Merion Committee who laid out and built the Merion course.   He doesn't mention CBM and Whigham but we know that they provided valuable "advice and suggestions" to the Merion Committee.

But, ON the Committee??  

Pass that pipe, please!    

I just heard storm clouds were gathering over New York today... 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I see nothing in the records that say CBM was part of the committee. I agree he worked with the committee and had a great influence.  After all, they went to NGLA to learn, and they learned.  No one is arguing that, although I saw another comment saying we are the other day.

Also, Findlay's statement is far from clear.  For that matter, the Lesley/Wilson report was written for a very specific audience and for a very specific reason - to update those who were going to enter into contracts for land and construction of a golf course, spend on a new golf course and buy more land, what had happened.  

Findlay was writing for a general golf audience.  Which document, insiders describing what is happening on the actual deal, or a newspaper article generally describing the look and feel of the new course (and declining to go into much detail) for outsiders would you take to be one to rely on?

I have no doubt that the club records are more germane if there is any conflict.  And, I am not sure there is any conflict.  

Today's round of private emails (I think you were left off by your request) reminds me of the answer to my question - TMac and David suggested that a few words were not transcribed correctly by TePaul, which alters their meanings in their mind.  They, not having the original club records at the time, also thought that somehow, Tollhurst's 1980's writings, which were in error, must have been reflected in the original club documents that they did not have at the time.  I understand that reasoning, but it turned out that it wasn't true, and thus being stubborn, and not wanting to admit being wrong, it started a many year campaign to elevate articles such as the Finlay one to some sort of irrefutable evidence.  It is not, IMHO>

It was also probably the first case of the Moronics/3Blind Mice insulting someone's integrity and intelligence by calling them sleaze to defend their positions.  (And to be fair, TEPaul sure sent some equally insulting posts back)

Ahh, the memories!  Have a good day.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And Patrick,

Please give me some examples from your long time club experience of where any non member is part of a club committee.  Thanks.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Why would CBM have had to come down to Merion on April 7th, 1911 to "look(ing) over the various plans" if in fact he had either authored them, or seen them prior?? 

[Bryan Izatt]

Looking at the Findlay article it is at least arguable about what the CBM attribution really meant.

In the first highlight below, Findlay says he's not going to talk about the course because it's not inits final form yet.  If we take him at his word, why would he them reverse himself a few sentences later and gush many of the holes being great?

He then sticks the needle in on Wilson for building such a lacking Alps hole.

Then there is the "many of the others" statement.  Note that it says "many of the others" and not "many others".  Some here have used the "many others" or "many .... others" to interpret this statement differently than originally written. How "many of the others", and what are the "others" is the source of the debate.   If Findlay was referring to 4 others (for the sake of argument) then many of the others might be 2 or 3.  Grammatically, thoughts in a paragraph are supposed to be linked together.  If you're going on to another topic, you're supposed to start a new paragraph.  The lead in sentences of that paragraph are all about the Alps hole.  No mention of any other holes at Merion. So, grammatically the link back to "others" is logically to "Alps".  And, Findlay said he wasn't going to talk about the course and holes because they weren't completely ready yet.

Parse on. 

[DMoriarty]

David,

I don't see it that way, and I don't believe you have really made the case that I am not taking him at his word.

There is no case to make. It is right there in black and white. Findlay credits CBM with laying out many or all the holes at Merion.  There is no other reasonable way to read it.   The Merionettes' can't change this by pretending it might have referred to a bunch of non-existent Alps holes. [And by the way, I hadn't ever thought of you as a "Merionette."]

Besides, the last thrust of my posts was to simply go to the one document that says who did do the routing, rather than try to interpret many that don't really mention who did what (i.e. Findlay)

Except the one document doesn't say that.  Except for one sentence, the one document describes CBM's and HJW's extensive involvement in the planning process.  Merion left NGLA with more definite ideas on what they needed to do, but even then they still needed CBM's help.   After two days working with CBM on the layout plan, they came back home and rearranged the course and laid out five different plans, then CBM came back and sorted through it all and decided on the final layout plan.  How you guys could interpret this as cutting CBM out of the planning is beyond me. Isn't it extremely likely that they were trying to implement what they had gone over at NGLA?  If CBM had nothing to do with how they "rearranged the course" upon their return, then why did CBM have to travel back to Merion to reinspect the land and sort through it all again and decide on the final plan? Given that Merion wanted his opinion about how to fit the holes on the land, is it reasonable to believe that they discussed everything but this at NGLA? This wasn't some sort of academic exercise or test. They went to CBM for help planning the course.

The Merion record is the most direct contemporaneous source, by those most closely involved.  For reasons that I cannot recall now, you and TMac delcared a long time ago that taking those members of Merion at their words just couldn't be done, and that there was some magical interpretation that only you caught, and that all involved missed badly.

I would be a lot less negative about your posts if you would stick to your position and kindly refrain from falsely representing my position.  I never declared that "taking those members of Merion at their words just couldn't be done" and while I cannot speak for TomM, I doubt he did either.  I've been striving to take those who were there at their word this entire time, which is how I figured out what I have figured out.  And while it was far from "magical," there have been a number of important interpretations that only I "caught" and most everyone involved had "missed badly."

Also, while you may have total faith in the Merionettes, others don't and for good reason.  Their past behavior raises legitimate issues about the reliability, veracity, and completeness of their selective transcription of the parts of the historical record. 

I really don't think those involved should have their official record parsed out to way beyond its logical conclusion, nor do I think that not taking Findlay at his exact words is a big misstep.  Certainly not as big as your five year witch hunt to not take Merion at its word.  And after all, what has this last five years been about? Deciding whose word to take, so why call me out for reasonably believing there are other documents that bear more directly on the subject?

Again you are mistaken for the reasons I described above.  This has never been about whose word to take.  For me this is about understanding what happened.   As I have explained to you, this entails trying to find an explanation which reasonably accounts for all the facts.  That is how I figured many things out where others did not.  --by taking them at their word, and looking for an explanations fitting all the facts. 

Your solution doesn't fit all the facts, and for that reason you do not "take their word for it."   You hold up a single sentence, out of context, and ignore everything else including the rest of the report from which the sentence came!  The bulk of the Lesley report (or what we have of it) discussed the important role CBM and HJW played in the planning. Yet you seem to be ignoring all of that and interpreting that one sentence as if it were free of that context.

Hey, they said they did many plans, they went to NGLA to learn, they came back, they did five more plans, and they asked CBM and HJW to come over and make sure they were still on the right track (or best track) by having them approve the plan.  The report was in April 1911 and I certainly did not misinterpret what happened afterwards.  As I mentioned, the report is just vague enough and without details that you could go and make the argument that it must be reporting on stuff that happened way earlier, but in reality, most committees meet monthly and report on what happened in the last month.

It doesn't say "they did" plans before or after NGLA.  It says "after laying out many different courses" they went to NGLA to work with CBM.  "On our return we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans."  They/We tried many different courses before, and after they/we rearranged the course, singular.  So it seems the five plans must have been variations/options on the course, a course which that had been planning at NGLA.   

I am not sure the exact schedule of their meetings, but I am pretty sure we will see an email from Wayne or TePaul telling us what period that meeting most likely covered.

I think you must have misunderstood me. I am not talking about before or after the board meeting.  I think you guys are ignoring what happened before and after the single sentence upon which your hole argument relies:  "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."  You are taking it out of its context.

You cannot just unlink what happened at NGLA from what they did upon their return, and you cannot ignore that CBM and HJW would be returning to Merion in a few weeks to again see again how a course could fit on the land and to sort out the options and decide upon the final plan.

Put yourself into the equation in the following hypothetical.
-  You are brought in and "carefully study" land on which a rough routing had already been done.  You determine that while it would be a tight fit, and while you couldn't know for sure without a contour map, you  you could fit a first class course on the property, provided that you could use an additional piece of land you noticed adjacent to the property.  You have at least some ideas of the holes and on how you would use the terrain and its specific features. 
-  You spend two days with the most novice of design associates and a contour map, explaining to them and showing them the holes you think would work on the property how they should be laid out on the property.
-  While you plan to return to the course to make the final determinations later, you send the associates ahead of you to physically mark off the course you had been discussing.  They mark off the course as well as five variations to account for unforeseen difficulties, and/or for what had not yet been decided, and/or for when they had their own ideas.[/u].
-  You return to the site to  look it over and see how fits on the land, and you sort out the various options and alternatives approve a final routing plan.
- This plan was presented to the board as the plan you approved, and the board voted to build the course according to this plan. 

At this point, would it be fair to say that you had no input designing the course? How would you describe the extent of your involvement in the design up to this point?

- For whatever reason you dropped out of the project, but with no hard feelings, andyour top novice associate went ahead and built the course according to the plan you had chosed and approved. 
- The aesthetic stylings (bunker style for example) of the final product were not what you would have done, and not all of the bunkering you had recommended was yet in place (while you had a bunkering scheme for these holes, it was your practice to wait and exactly place fairway bunkers only after seeing play, and this was apparently what they were doing.)
- But otherwise they had tried to build the course depicted on the plan you had chosen and approved, and were planning on adding the rest of the appropriate bunkering later, after witnessing play.

At this point, would it be fair to say that you had no input designing the course?    How would you describe the extent of your involvement up to this point?

In 99% of cases, the simplest, most direct interpretation of the closest documentation is going to be what happened over some vast coincidences of many people over many years happening to make the same kind of coincidental miswritings about a subject.

I agree that the simplest explanation is usually the best answer.  But yours is not the simplest anser.  It may seem like it because the story has become so distorted over the years, but it far from the simplest answer.  To get your "simple" answer you focus on a single, out of context sentence yet dismiss vast amounts of the historical record as "some vast coincidences of many people over many years happening to make the same kind of coincidental miswritings."  This is proof positive that yours in not that simple after all.

Your earlier routing theory depends on far too much of those coincidences to be convincing, at least in my mind, and I am pretty sure, in most minds.

We've talked my early routing theory to death and discussing it further won't get us anywhere.  Besides, I may be mistaken but seem to recall you having written that CBM/HJW would have most likely seen the Barker plan, and (whether they saw the Barker plan or not) would have most likely had some ideas on how and where things would fit after that first trip, so I don't think you and I are all that far apart on that issue.   Whether we are or not, lets set that aside and focus on the Spring.   

It made me think of the Findlay article.  As you probably most correctly mention, he was slipping a nice little plug for a business associate in the articles, disguised as news.  On other threads, we wonder why gossip columnists are reporting on golf, etc.  Not sure it has any correlation, but the fact that he mentioned that there were some questions about how accurately news reports of the day were struck my eye in the context of these discussions.

One thing I find compelling about the Findlay article is that his source of information on Merion's golf course was Hugh Wilson himself.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Thanks for the nice response, and you make some good points, even if we disagree on some.

The only one to point out is that I think it was Patrick who surmised that Merion cut CBM out of the process, and I said no such thing. I believe they used him as they wanted to use him.    No one knows why he didn't come out for construction, and I don't think it was a falling out, but they might have used him more, who knows, except perhaps for schedule, distance to NYC, starting his own design practice, etc.  We just don't know exactly why his involvement tailed off.

In short, I have never unlinked the trip to NGLA from the final result.  It sure was instrumental, and I have said that often, so I wonder why you keep trying to tell us that I am trying to unlink it.  However, I just think the committee did all the pen to paper (the work of routing) and CBM first at NGLA (mostly features, but probably some routing advice - perhaps throwing their initial plans in the fireplace for some drama!) and then upon return for approval.  Its hard to measure how much impact those few days would have. 

So, we basically agree on the outline, but I choose to credit MCC with the routing.  Not unlike I love to get the credit when I work with a pro, and do 90% of the work, but he gets the public credit for his 1-10% edits and tweaks.  So, even though CBM would be more influential than Freddy Couples, I still see Merion as doing the bulk of the work and CBM as editing.

I understand your analogy on design credit, and have been in a few situations like that, on both sides.  The one thing I know is I probably wouldn't get any credit in those scenarios, and I don't think I really should.  But, it would be a whole nother kettle of fish and another difficult topic.

I still believe that "after laying out many different courses" they went to NGLA to work with CBM.  "On our return we rearranged the course and laid out five different plans"  means they planned routings on paper, saw CBM, realized their folly, and started over.  I take the singular to be nothing more than a change in tense by the writer (or reader) and don't place as much emphasis on those minute details as being game changers as far as interpretations.

Ditto, I agree with Bryan's take on the Findlay article.  There are a few partial sentences and fragments in that article, so its no stretch for me to believe his awkward wording of the passage in question is just that - awkward, and not indicative of switch subjects mid paragraph.  I fail to see how either side can be sure they are right and base any sort of argument on that.

As to seeing the Barker plan, the same scenario above would be in place - I think Barker gets no credit for having looked at a different piece of property in a preliminary way for the developer.  If credit was assigned in those cases, nearly every course in America would have five architects who tried to get the job getting co-credit.  And I said I had been in cases like bringing in multiple architects - in some they share plans, and in others (including a site visit I made yesterday) they are very close lipped about what other architects say.  So, its roughly 50-50% on whether CBM saw the Barker plan in the summer 1910 visit. 

I would say the committee had no qualms about keeping it, and using holes as they may see fit, probably south of Ardmore, and it may have made that part of the routing simpler, as Francis noted.  But, that is mere speculation, and I lable it as such.  I also get the feeling that while Barker routed on the property they had, that CBM and the early committee discussed the advisibility of getting the Dallas Estate, as well as the three RR acres, and leaving flexibility of the road (based on CBM's NGLA experience, but on a smaller scale for a smaller site).

I understand your point about Findlay, but again, I consider who he is writing for audience wise and the fact that newspaper articles are broad brush pieces at that length.  In sum, I still think the minutes of MCC are the best source to tell us what happened.  If I misrepresented your position, then sorry, but I do recall a lot of discussion on the "reliability" of club documents up to 7 years ago, most of it eminating from you guys, and felt like it got taken as a given for a while that since some over time have been found to be inaccurate, then all must be.  I don't think its the case here.

I believe your essay came out before anyone saw those, and when the Philly boys dug it up, there was a lot of consterntation about some transcription errors (and you mention them again above, and your distrust of TePaul)  I don't agree with you that they altered any documents in any intentional and meaningful way that changed their meanings.  Rather, I think it gave you another excuse to attack, and question those documents.  I believe I am not taking single sentences out of context in my interpretations.

But, overall, I still hope we can find some middle ground and leave this debate, all still interested in early American golf history and still interested in golfclubatlas.com.  I do appreciate those recent posts where you are trying to do that.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I'll ignore your attempts to get inside my head except to note that you are very bad at it.  I will also ignore your apologist comments about the Merionettes.

To be clear, I don't care about "credit" and was not asking you who should or would get "credit."

I am asking you about input into the design of the course.  Who came up with which holes should be built and where?  Who had the most impact on holes they planned and where they were located?

I find it fascinating that you shifted the hypothetical to one of working with a professional golfer, and it makes me wonder if you aren't dwelling on the time involved rather than the quality and substance of the involvement.  Because while it may be reasonable to compare the time CBM was involved to some designer in name only, it is unreasonable to compare the quality, substance, and impact of CBM's involvement to that of Freddy Couples.

And even as for the amount of time spent on the project, I don't think you really have enough information to conclude it was minimal.  Apparently  the only face-to-face meetings were a day in June, two days at NGLA in the spring, and then a day at Merion a few weeks later.   But as for other communications we don't know for certain.  All we know for certain is the minimum.

Here's an example to help explain.  Let's say I wanted to know the total games in which some Brooklyn ballplayer played during the 1904 season, but I only had access to a Baltimore paper, and that paper only showed the box score of games against Baltimore. (Unlikely, I know, but let's pretend.) I see that Brooklyn played Baltimore eight times and this player played in seven of those eight games.  

-Would it be reasonable to assume that the ballplayer only played in seven games all season?  
- If someone asked you if he was a solid contributor for Brooklyn that year, it would make no sense to answer, "No, he couldn't have been a solid contributor because he only played seven games," would it?

I think this is what you are doing regarding other communications.  You are concluding there was very little contact because we only have two letters, but we don't have any access to the sources where we would likely find more!  The two letters came from extremely narrow and fluky data sets, places we wouldn't normally expect to CBM's communications about Merion, say with Wilson (if they exist.)  We cannot expect letters the letters to Wilson to show up in the minutes when Wilson himself is never even mentioned!  And I don't think it reasonable to expect that Wilson would have forward all his letters from CBM to Piper and Oakley.  So on what basis do you conclude that there was limited communication?  

In short, I don't think you have the data one would need to draw a reasonable conclusion.  You could if we had all of Hugh Wilson's letters (not just his Ag letters to/from Washington) and/or if we had all of CBM's letters, but we do not.  Call logs would help too.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I agree we don't have enough data to determine how much more CBM particpated.

I understand that my comparison to Freddy Couples was not a perfect one, and in fact, only offered it up to show that I have an understanding of my own biases in interpreting such data, which might flaw my own conclusions.

And, while admitting to playing the role of "Merionette" in this post, I recall a recent conversation with TePaul, while thinking about Patrick's question regarding why Merion would "cut CBM out" of the process midway through.  For that matter, I am interested in all the clubs CBM is said to have consulted with prior to starting design work of his own with Raynor.

For all that talk, there really isn't any documentation of vast numbers of clubs using CBM as an advisor.  The few that are  known all have one thing in common - a wealthy man like Lloyd, whom CBM would presumably want to get to know, and ingratiate himself to for business reasons as a stockbroker. 

So, it's POSSIBLE that the limited time spent was all on the CBM side for a variety of reasons - he didn't have time to travel to Philly, he only wanted to put in the minimum amount of time it would take to get on Lloyd's good side, knowledge that he was going to do more with Raynor, problems getting NGLA where he wanted it to be, etc.  In other words, in all our focus on gca, we haven't really discussed just how much real life intervened for CBM in the amount of time spent for the benefit of others.  No doubt he enjoyed it, and did it for the good of golf, but he (nor anyone) is a pure saint, and they do have time limits and (as well known with Charlie) some patience limits, as well.

Again, speculation, but I cannot recall any discussion here regarding whether or not CBM had any free will in the matter of how much time he spent at Merion, only theoretical questions about how much Merion would want to have used him!

The more I think about it, the more not spending a lot of time at Merion makes a lot of sense from the CBM perspective.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thinking about it even more, some of the other "tells" as you call them that he had limited participation:

If the committee formed in January, and he was really, really involved, why did it take until March to get to NGLA?

I can think of some reasons, like no topo map yet, want to get more info on soils, etc. as he advised, tough schedule for one or both, etc.  But, it still seems like if he was more involved with the committee, the urge to get over and see him would have been stronger and faster.

Going back to my question about whether other meetings would have covered his pre Novemeber 1910 involvement - Why wouldn't there have been some definitive notation that he had been working on it?  Yes, they said "experts" were working on it, and yes, the probably meant CBM was assisting the committee, or had at least agreed to do so.  But, given the more specific nature of the report at the next meeting in April, one would think if more detail was available, more would have been given.

And, given CBM's state antithpy towards using professional architects (at that time, but would soon sort of change) would he have felt like a "pro" doing a routing like that?  Would Merion have felt right about wasting any more of CBM's time (important as he was) on a routing before a reasonably final land deal was in place?

Just some more thoughts.  But, I realize I am going on not much there, and that other interpretations basaed on the above are possible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why would CBM have had to come down to Merion on April 7th, 1911 to "look(ing) over the various plans" if in fact he had either authored them, or seen them prior?? 

One possible reason could be because they (the committee and CBM) agreed to make alterations in them and he wanted to review the altered plans on site to see how well they fit..

[Patrick_Mucci]

PMQ1 - The problem I have is, who is the "they" ? Does the committee include CBM ?  Or does the committee exclude CBM.

A - The record shows who was officially on the committee, and CBM was not.  
No reason to doubt it, and no reason as a non member to be on any club committee, right?  

I don't agree.

Do you know of any club committees stocked with non members?

Yes.
Baltusrol.
Baltusrol had two non-members on one of their committees for years.
The non-members had the same vote as the member committeemen, equal imput and attended all meetings.
Those two non-members were Terry Sawyer and myself, so I'm intimately familiar with this arrangement.
I'm sure other clubs had similar arrangements

PMQ2 - And if it includes him, what was the extent of his role ?  Especially when you can't dismiss Findlay's statement.
It's hard to fathom that CBM was excluded as part of the committee, especially when Findlay declared that CBM laid out many holes.

A- That is the question, of course. I believe that he spent 4 days on the project, as documented, and wrote a few more letters back and forth, which have been documented.  And I believe in that time he had considerable influence on the Merion committee as they prepared their many routing plans.  I also tend to agree that they discussed routing at NGLA, despite some who have a narrow definition based on the written record.  My evidence is that the committee took "many routings" to NGLA and knew upon return they had to do 5 more.  If nothing else, whatever transpired at NGLA, they saw the error of their early ways.  If CBM suggested a few holes at that time, we will never know, but they clearly learned a lot from that meeting.

Jeff, I don't think that you can dismiss communcation between Merion and CBM via the phone.
Rather than take the time and effort to travel back and forth between philly and NY, it is reasonable to conclude that they were in communication on the phone, about the golf course

A - Yes, and part of his extraordinary legend is that he was willing to help other clubs trying to build golf coruses, by his own and HJW words.

PMQ3 - If he had no function, no imput, why would he agree to be engaged and waste his time with this project ?
Remember, CBM was no ordinary figure.

A - That is a little to black and white.  If he was willing to advise other clubs, that relationship implies a few days time and giving whatever advice he could give.  But, clearly, at the same time frame, he figured it was better do just design the damn golf courses, since he took on his first design commissions right around the time of Merion at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow.

Jeff, he didn't casually advise other clubs as you suggest, he designed and built their golf courses.
You're making him out to be a vagabond who strolled into other clubs offering advice and that's not the case.
He was retained for the sole purpose of routing, designing and building their golf courses.
His role didn't change

PMQ4 -It's hard to believe that he'd accept a position as a non-influential lackey with no imput, to be summarily dismissed at the drop of a hat like a servant.  And, from the committee's standpoint, once you invited him in to assist with the project, would you ignore and exclude him from every facet of the project ?  If so, why invite him in as part of the planning process in the first place ?

A - Merion never said that they wanted him to be part of the planning process, they said they wanted instruction in the correct principles of design from him.  He certainly wasn't a lackey to them, nor was he dismissed.  I believe he was used exactly as both parties intended him to be used - as a trusted advisor.

An advisor is usually someone who might be a peer or slightly above the peer level who assists with guiding a project.
CBM was elevated far beyond the committeemen, he was an expert, he had designed and built great golf courses.
The committee had no such experience or knowledtge.
So, I don't see any club inviting a prominent expert into their ranks and not giving him equal footing in the matters he was reatained for.
If any famous expert is invited into a club to help them route, design and build their golf course you certainly wouldn't keep him at arms length, which is what you and the Merionettes are insisting.

BTW, its not too hard to believe that the biggest influence of CBM was to follow the portion of his NGLA model that the club design the course itself, without using a professional architect.  Certainly, having designed just three courses at this point in his career, CBM would have advised to follow the amateur model, no?  
NO, three courses probably represented 10 % or more of all the 18 hole courses in the U.S in 1910.


For that matter, while you wonder how Wilson could have possibly designed a course himself, CBM had only designed 3 at that point, and the first Chicago at Wheaton was a very uninspired routing.
What about the next two, world famous weren't they.

Secondly, somewhere during NGLA CBM abandoned the copying idea in favor of incorporating key features while using the topography, and I bet that was instilled in the Merion committee at NGLA in March.  So, do we classify the use of some of the best design priniciples as design or inspiration by CBM?

I don't think that's true.
Maybe we're arguing semantics, but, I don't thnk CBM abandoned his quest to craft a golf course out of 18 ideal holes.
While they may not have been exact replicas, I think the underlying principles were never abandoned  

Do we count the fact that Wilson was moved to go confirm those principles by seeing the originals rather than copying CBM's copies as inspiration or design?  (not that it matters all that much to me)

We don't know if that was the purpose of Wilson's trip.
That's your take on it, not mine.

BTW, I do not agree with your contentions on Findlay, but understand how you arrive at your interpretation.

What else can you contend ?
There wasn't one other Alps hole in the entire world that CBM had crafted.
Findlay was clear, CBM laid out many good holes at Merion.

What's your contention ?

[Mike Cirba]

To the general Merion Cricket Club membership (many non-golfers), who the letter in question was sent to in early 1911, 5 of the best 6 golfers out of a few hundred golf members in the club would have been called "experts", and I have numerous examples in early newspapers of everyone from Hugh Wilson to Robert Lesley being termed "experts".

Rodman Griscom had been chairman of the Green Committee back to 1896 and all of these guys were well known locally in the game for a decade or more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

AFter reading your last post, my major contention is that if you are just going to sit around and make stuff up, don't bother.  There were far more than 30 golf courses in the US in 1910, probably more like 1,030.

Before opening his design practice (if you could call it that) both George Bahto now, and HJW and others then contended that he was a friendly adivsor to many clubs in the east.  Odd that they would use the same word that Merion used. I suspect that whatever his role as advisor was, it was well known at that time, given the consistency of the wording used by many.

Wilson designed a fair number of well regarded courses after Merion East, including Cobbs Creek, Seaview and Merion West.  Perhaps not top 10 courses all, but for that matter, Fazio and a lot of other top gca's of any era don't have all top ten courses.  It is rare.  Your statement is unfair to Wilson who was recognized as an architectural talent over time.

As to CBM's role, both David and I agree we cannot know how extensive it is given the lack of records.  We can speculate all day (and have).

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

With all due respect, you really are typing out of your posterior.

Why dont you go to Merion and actually read something and do some research instead of just spouting inaccurate proclamations that have no historical basis just to argue and promote your agenda.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

AFter reading your last post, my major contention is that if you are just going to sit around and make stuff up, don't bother.  There were far more than 30 golf courses in the US in 1910, probably more like 1,030.

In 1910, 1,030 18 hole courses, you're not even close.
Didn't CBM design the first 18 hole course ?

Before opening his design practice (if you could call it that) both George Bahto now, and HJW and others then contended that he was a friendly adivsor to many clubs in the east.  

Would you cite who called him a freindly advisor and at what clubs was he deemed a friendly advisor.

Odd that they would use the same word that Merion used. I suspect that whatever his role as advisor was, it was well known at that time, given the consistency of the wording used by many.

Wilson designed a fair number of well regarded courses after Merion East, including Cobbs Creek, Seaview and Merion West.  Perhaps not top 10 courses all, but for that matter, Fazio and a lot of other top gca's of any era don't have all top ten courses.  It is rare.  Your statement is unfair to Wilson who was recognized as an architectural talent over time.

What Wilson did subsequent to Merion is irrelevant.
In 1910 he was a rank amateur with NO experience in routing or designing or building golf courses

As to CBM's role, both David and I agree we cannot know how extensive it is given the lack of records.  We can speculate all day (and have).

Yes, you may not be able to quantify it, but, you can't exclude or deny his role as Mike and the Merionettes would do

[Mike Cirba]

Hugh Wilson worked on Merion East for almost 15 years.

Pat...you really are a know-nothing ass.

[Patrick_Mucci]

O the general Merion Cricket Club membership, who the letter in question was sent to in early 1911, 5 of the best 6 golfers out of a few hundred in the club would have been called "experts".t

Griscom had been chairman of the Green Committee back to 1896 and all of these guys were well known locally in the game for a decade or more.


Mike,

They were golfers.

They hadn't studied and designed THE seminal golf course in America

[DMoriarty]

I agree we don't have enough data to determine how much more CBM particpated.

This is not what I wrote.  I wrote that you don't have enough data to have determined that his participation was as limited as you have maintained.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when we don't have the records we would need to make this determination.

As for how much more he might have participated, we cannot determine it for certain. That said, there are a number of factors which suggest that he had more contact that you guys maintain.  It may not be dispositive, but this sort of thing rarely is.  

I understand that my comparison to Freddy Couples was not a perfect one, and in fact, only offered it up to show that I have an understanding of my own biases in interpreting such data, which might flaw my own conclusions.

One of the biases I suspect in this particular situation is that you seem to greatly overestimate the face time CBM would have needed to come up with the routing and hole concepts.  Especially once he got a contour map.  I assume it is because of your modern day practice, but I don't think it took nearly as much time back then.  Designers as great as MacKenzie have done as much or more in less time.  

And, while admitting to playing the role of "Merionette" in this post, I recall a recent conversation with TePaul, while thinking about Patrick's question regarding why Merion would "cut CBM out" of the process midway through.  For that matter, I am interested in all the clubs CBM is said to have consulted with prior to starting design work of his own with Raynor.

For all that talk, there really isn't any documentation of vast numbers of clubs using CBM as an advisor.  The few that are  known all have one thing in common - a wealthy man like Lloyd, whom CBM would presumably want to get to know, and ingratiate himself to for business reasons as a stockbroker.  

I have no interest in discussing this with you.  It reeks of TEPaul and is snooty notion that CBM must have been of lesser class than his own dead relatives.  You have no idea.  Your  speculation that CBM was running around ingratiating himself to rich people for business purposes only speaks to your growing biases, and to TEPaul's continued influence over you.

So, it's POSSIBLE that the limited time spent was all on the CBM side for a variety of reasons - he didn't have time to travel to Philly, he only wanted to put in the minimum amount of time it would take to get on Lloyd's good side, knowledge that he was going to do more with Raynor, problems getting NGLA where he wanted it to be, etc.  In other words, in all our focus on gca, we haven't really discussed just how much real life intervened for CBM in the amount of time spent for the benefit of others.  No doubt he enjoyed it, and did it for the good of golf, but he (nor anyone) is a pure saint, and they do have time limits and (as well known with Charlie) some patience limits, as well.

This is what I was talking about.  You are writing as if you have determined that there was "limited time spent." You haven't.  Instead you have fallen into a "logical fallacy."  For all you know, they could have been on the phone and writing letters every day, so why are you drawing conclusions based on such limited contact?

Thinking about it even more, some of the other "tells" as you call them that he had limited participation:

If the committee formed in January, and he was really, really involved, why did it take until March to get to NGLA?

I can think of some reasons, like no topo map yet, want to get more info on soils, etc. as he advised, tough schedule for one or both, etc.  But, it still seems like if he was more involved with the committee, the urge to get over and see him would have been stronger and faster.

It was Winter, and they had phones and the postal service.  You are stretching things well beyond reasonableness.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I am trying to understand your logic regarding the Findlay article but I am not sure I do.  

I think I understand your position on Findlay having stated that he was "not yet ready to talk about the possibilities of the new place."   As I understand it, you are suggesting that if Findlay said he wouldn't discuss "the possibilities" of the course then he must not have been talking about the Merion when mentioned "many of the others, as laid out by" CBM.  I agree that this is arguable on its face, but I think it is less tenable when we look closer at the passage.

First and foremost, it does not seem that he could have meant what you think he meant.  Because shortly after writing this he began discussing Merion's Alps hole. If he meant what you think he meant, then what was he doing discussing Merion's 10th hole?

It seems he either immediately reversed himself or he meant something other than what you think he meant. Either way I don't think it logically tenable to conclude that "others"  could not mean Merion's golf holes when the sentence before was about one of Merion's golf holes.

More likely, he just didn't mean to completely exclude any mention of the golf holes, especially not a passing mention. In this regard, I think you should have started highlighting a sentence earlier. To paraphrase:  Findlay wrote that Wilson's object was to make Merion the "king-pin course of Pennsylvania." Findlay then said that it was too early for him to sign off on this for the reasons above.  Findlay seems to have have been indicating that he was holding off on making an overall judgment on the course even though that is for what H. Wilson is aiming.  This is a bit different than indicating that he will not discuss anything about the course, and it fits better with the rest where he obviously does discuss the course.  Also, Findlay did eventually sign off on this in the fall, pronouncing Merion the nicest course in Pennsylvania.

But that is the easy part.
________________________________________

I cannot make sense of portions of the remainder of the post. Do you mind clarifying a few things?

1.  When you wrote, "The lead in sentences of that paragraph are all about the Alps hole" to what "Alps hole" were you referring?  Merion's 10th hole?  Prestwick's 17th hole?  Some other Alps?

2.  When you wrote, "the link back to "others" is logically to 'Alps,'" is this the same "Alps" I mentioned in the question above, or something different?  If something different, to what Alps were you referring?  Merion's 10th hole?  Prestwick's 17th hole?  Some other Alps?

3. Regarding your clarification as to "many of the others" I agree that "many" signifies  a subset of "others.". But as to your example, do you really think 2 or 3 out of 4 could reasonably be properly described as "many?"

Thanks.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()