The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Mike Cirba]

David,

In Nov 1910 Merion put together extensive packets for their members and Board about the new land they were considering buying.

Those packets referenced precisely one and only one contact with CBM to that date' his June 1910 one day visit to look at the property and his followup letter of June 29th.

If the golf course was already routed by November 15th as you contend, when did CBM place his ideal holes on the ground?

Why is there no mention of him having routed the golf course at that point?

Why weren't his vaunted ideal holes and their magical locations revealed to an excited Merion membership at that point or indicated on the scaled map of the property that was sent to the membership?

If CBM had routed the course for them at that point, there is not one chance in a million that they wouldn't have pronounced that fact to their members, their board, and probably the world, is there?

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

The sky is blue. I await your ridiculous rebuttals.

BTW, you assume far more than I do in your vaunted essay, theory, etc.  It is not logical fallacy to presume that in a club communique in Nov 1911 to describe the situation to members voting to spend their own money, enter contracts, etc. for them to have accurately described what happened.  If CBM had routed the course prior to November 15, 1910, and he was so fricking famous, the plan would show his routing, and they would have told members that he had done so.  Would you or Patrick, as a club member, not accurately tell your members what was going on at such a critical time?

For that matter, while you seem to give HJW all the cred in the world in his eulogy, he also wrote that CBM that it was impossible for CBM to to all that was asked of him in terms of golf course design.  By your standards, we can easily extrapolate that out to say that even if he wanted to spend all of his time at Merion, its unlikely that he couldn't.

And really, the old trying to prove a negative, where no evidence of something happening, and overwhelming contemporaneous documents of what he did do (not just word parsing of secondary documents) is ridiculous.  I believe history is trying to narrow down to exactly what did happen using documents you have, not wildly speculating about an infinite universe of what did happen based on.....nothing. 

And I am stretching things beyond reasonableness in your mind! You may as well say the aliens landed and designed Merion.  Especially when you have admitted that your theories depend on everyone else in the universe being wrong.  And everyone involved at Merion deciding not to call CBM the designer, or say he had routed it, etc. etc. etc. I think that alone qualifies your theory as being highly unlikely to be correct.  It is just not possible that all those men wrote wrong, and read wrong up til the present day, except for you.

Ahh, dealing with the moronics.  I do think that name fits.

The fallacies in all of this, are all yours.  The wild assumptions are all yours.  We have given it so much more time, consideration and respect than it or you deserve.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

When you ask why ?  there could be any number of reasons.

Just because you don't know the underlying reasons as to why something happens, doesn't exclude reasons you don't like.

Example:
Why is Sebonack called a Jack Nicklaus-Tom Doak golf course if Tom Doak did the routing and the bulk of the individual hole designs ?

According to your logic, Jack must have done the routing and the bulk of the individual hole designs.

Just because you don't know the underlying reasons, doesn't preclude reasons you don't like

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

You're letting personality conflicts obscure reason.

Earlier you indicated that you took Findlay at his word.

Findlay stated that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion and he made his statement contemporaneously.

That would seem to support David's basic premise.

So why are you ripping in to him ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Since you like to call me out for being unfair to your side, and not commenting on things, I need to comment that David should really call you out for your "unproductive methodolgy" since he constantly calls Mike out for the same.

You constantly throw out stuff that is not supported by the actual documents at Merion.  Yes, the aliens could have designed Merion, but how productive is your methodology of thinking anything could happen, despite no evidence that it did?  Assuming that just because no one said something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen is frankly, childish, and purposely designed to further a useless argument.

Twisting my words, and telling me I said things that I didn't is childish, too.

I thought you were older than five.

Now, that said, I would consider that by modern standards, despite Merion calling CBM an advisor, that there is a case to be made for CBM getting credit as a co-designer, because in your Sebonic case, no one ever mentions two names with 60%-40% in the attribution.  Even if CBM was 10-25% as I postulated when you asked me, today, despite contractual arrangements, he probably might be listed as co-designer.  Back then, he wasn't, for reasons I listed earlier.

Cheers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Since you like to call me out for being unfair to your side,.

I'm not calling you out for being unfair to "your/our" side.
You're being unfair to the facts and the debate

and not commenting on things, I need to comment that David should really call you out for your "unproductive methodolgy" since he constantly calls Mike out for the same..

What, specifically is my "unproductive methodology"   ?

You constantly throw out stuff that is not supported by the actual documents at Merion.

. What specifically did I " throw out there" ?
And what "actual documents at Merion"  are you referring to ?
Findlay stated that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion, didn't he ? 
So it's Findlay's contemporaneous statement that conflicts with "the actual documents at Merion"
Is Findlay's methodology also unproductive because his statement conflicts with the alleged documentation at Merion ?
Have you seen the alleged documentation at Merion ?
You just want to ramrod your position down everyone's throat and slam David

  Yes, the aliens could have designed Merion, but how productive is your methodology of thinking anything could happen, despite no evidence
that it did?

All of a sudden, you now deny the veracity of Findlay's contemporaneous statement
Maybe Findlay was one of those aliens you keep referencing

  Assuming that just because no one said something happened, doesn't mean it didn't happen is frankly, childish, and purposely designed to
further a useless argument.

I disagree, especially given the paucity of records.
With an enormous lack of records clearly specifying attribution, excluding Findlay's, you can't declare that the lack of records precludes other events from occurring.

Twisting my words, and telling me I said things that I didn't is childish, too.
Would you cite, with specificity, where I "twisted your words" ?

I thought you were older than five.

how can you complain about personal attacks and then turn around and employ them at your leisure

Now, that said, I would consider that by modern standards, despite Merion calling CBM an advisor, that there is a case to be made for CBM
getting credit as a co-designer, because in your Sebonic case, no one ever mentions two names with 60%-40% in the attribution.  Even if CBM
was 10-25% as I postulated when you asked me, today, despite contractual arrangements, he probably might be listed as co-designer.  Back
then, he wasn't, for reasons I listed earlier.

I agree, CBM should be given co-designer credit

As to why he wasn't earlier, I have my thoughts, which include the "Sweeney" theory.

Cheers.

You too

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Neither you or David have any facts at all, just argumentative posturing.   

Not a SINGLE shred of evidence.

David,

Isn't this pathetic that the only person left to believe your ridiculous theories is Patrick, who gives new definition to a CBM "groupie" and would basically do or say anything in this debate to 1) try to make it appear CBM designed Merion and 2) draw Tom Paul back to GCA because he misses him.

Even Tom MacWood doesn't buy your zany ideas, although he just replaces them with zany ideas of his own, so I'm not sure what that means.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Not a single shred of evidence ?

Whigham's eulogy
Findlay's statement
Template holes
Merion's records retaining CBM

I know of people in denial, but you've taken it to a new level.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I will agree that Mike is a little too black and white when he says not a shred of evidence exists, but I still believe the volume of evidence, and which should be considered as a better source leans against.

First, you twist stuff, like saying Merion "retained" CBM.  They did not have, as far as I know any kind of formal agreement. They called him an advisor.  Period.

Findlay's statement is not entirely clear, despite your claims.  For that matter, he tells us a lot of other interesting and undisputed things about Merion's first year.
 
Whigham's eulogy is not as effective as Alan Wilson's remembrances, since AW did his earlier, was close to the situation, and came up with his conclusions after interviewing the members of the committee.  David's explanation for that was that HJW was a high caliber individual who wouldn't make a mistake, sort of implying that Alan Wilson wasn't.  But, he was and HJW was over 60 and 29 years removed from events.  Wilson interviewed the entire committee, and Whigham consulted his own aging memory.

Furthermore, why take Whigham at his word, when CBM himself, in Scotland's Gift fails to mention designing Merion when reviewing his design career? David's explanation for that was that CBM just started his design career summary with his second course, which doesn't sound reasonable, logical, or the best explanation.  As a side note, HJW had just become CBM's son in law in 1909. 

If he was really, really interested in the design business, wouldn't he be talking about how he took it over from or assisted CBM rather than describing Raynor's role over the years?  If nothing else, his lack of designs over the years suggests he may not have been all that interested in the design side and probably not all that involved.  He did so little, that CW only lists Morris County remodel for him, although they mention his "friendly interest" in CBM and other early architects work.  He spent more time as a drama critic and editor than as a designer.

So, was he really there and engaged in the design?  Was his 70 year old memory as good as it could have been?  Why does David say he wouldn't be building up his father in law but that Alan Wilson was building up Hugh?  I put my money on Alan Wilsons statement over Whigham.

As to template holes, yes, they clearly show the CBM influence, which I believe was exerted in the four days and perhaps some other contact in the time period.  I have never believed that they talked only of the NGLA holes when there.  They did take many routings, and after the visit, they started over. 

For that matter, in April, its not hard to imagine CBM saying "this is what I think is your best routing" and following up with a few suggestions as to where to place the Alps, Road, etc.  So, four templates made it in, and if we believe Findlay and others, Merion purposely left the bunkering and feature design until after Hugh returned from his GBI trip to see the originals for himself.

And, it appears that the original version of at least the Alps and Redan were clearly lacking in some form in their original versions.  If the first versions lasted less than a year, then even if we agree that CBM told them to put them there, they executed it poorly and soon corrected it.

Lastly, I have always been interested in the timing of CBM's first self proclaimed design for others - Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, which George Bahto tells us were agreed to in 1910.  At about the same time CBM came to Merion for the first time, NGLA had just opened.  The same year Raynor was retained by CBM to build those two courses which started the next year, the same year as Merion.  CBM was still a stockbroker and big wig in the world of golf.

Even if we discount TePaul's "tried to impress the rich guys" theory (which I don't necessarily, even though it sounds either crass, or like great networking) did CBM have the time to devote to Merion as advisor as the Moronics claim?  How much time would he devote to Merion when two clubs were paying Raynor and retaining him and willing to put his name on their course?

Why the difference from CBM's writings, the clubs giving credit as they did, etc., if there wasn't a real difference in how he worked between those three clubs?

To explain that, I suppose the Moronics will now tell us that the good members at those clubs were all mistaken, too.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,  

I've gone back and reread my posts which apparently brought on this latest fit of yours, and you are out of line. My responses to your specific points were reasonable and accurate.  

CBM and HJW were discussed in the November communications.  According to Lesley's committee, the Committee based their recommendation to purchase the land largely on CBM's and HJW's opinion.

And Yes, when you and TEPaul start fantasizing about CBM running around the country trying to ingratiate himself to rich people in order drum up business for Wall Street job, you are stretching things beyond reasonable.  

And whether you are capable of understanding the reasons our not, you have little basis for concluding that CBM's other communications with Merion were limited.

The rest is just your usual attempts to be nasty.  You sure don't like it when I point out the shortcomings in your argument, even when I do it politely.   Makes conversation difficult given the number of shortcomings.  

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I'm being black and white for a reason, and that's to try and move the conversation forward, if possible.

As long as David tells us that the golf course was routed by November 1910, and that CBM was the one who routed it, there is NOT a SHRED of evidence to support that ridiculous notion.

If, on the other hand, David is willing to concede that there was no finalized routing or really ANY routing work involving CBM in the YEAR 1910, then I think we can possibly make some progress in determining more accurately what CBM actually helped Merion with in their design.

But, this nonsense of trying to exclude Hugh Wilson by teling us that Richard Francis had his brainstorm working with CBM and Lloyd prior to November 1915 and that completed the golf course routing prior to then needs to end.

Otherwise, he'll just flip flop between theories as suits his arguing needs at the time.

They are mutually exclusive positions.   CBM had no participation beyond an initial site visit and followup letter in June during the entire year 1910 and it's time for David to just admit it so we can all advance the discussion.

[Mike Cirba]

CBM and HJW were discussed in the November communications.  According to Lesley's committee, the Committee based their recommendation to purchase the land largely on CBM's and HJW's opinion.


David,

During the year 1910, THIS is the TOTAL extent of communications between CBM and Merion after their one day June site visit and the "opinion" you're referring to.

If you have any other evidence to the contrary, now would be a good time to bring it forward.

New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features.  The quarry and the brooks can be made much of.  What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.

We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly.  The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.

The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House.  The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded.  A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf.  Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.

The following is my idea of a  6000 yard course:

One 130 yard hole
One 160    "
One 190    "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420    "
Two 440 to 480    "

As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee.  They had a very difficult drainage problem.  You have a very simple one.  Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you.  Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.

In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.

We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.

With kindest regards to you all, believe me,

Yours very truly,

(signed)  Charles B. Macdonald

In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Since about post 2248 (?) David has really made some progress, admitting there is little factual record of CBM's involvement between July and Nov 1910, admitting that his theories rely on almost everyone involved mis-writing and almost everyone since mis-reading the record.  He has also clarified his comments on "calling the shots" making his postion pretty reasonable and in line with at least my thinking concerning CBM's role.  

And, we also agree that we really don't know the exact extent of CBM's role, but that if you measure it by impact, its certainly greater than measured by time.

In other cases, he backslides a bit and goes back to hammering the pre Nov 1910 argument.  I can respect his arguments and methods, until I wake up and read him adopting Pat's "we cannot exclude anything" methodolgy, which certainly isn't productive to moving anything forward and does seem to go what David has stood for in the last seven years.

He says he doesn't want to cover that ground again, and neither should we.  I think the record is pretty clear that there was very limited involvement by CBM.  If something comes up to prove me wrong, and prove 100 years of historical thinking, and the club record wrong, I will jump up and down and yell it from the rooftops.  It would be nice to get some new info here that would allow us to flesh the history of Merion out a bit more, since we are all interested in it, and I also take David at his word that he became interested in trying to place Merion in context of the early history of American golf and golf courses.  A fascinating subject, to be sure.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

I thnk what would advance the conversation is for David to concede that the Francis Swap and finalized Golf course routing took place AFTER November 15, 1910, not before.

David,

Would you concede that point based on the evidence, particularly the MCC Minutes of April 1911?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

It is not Whigham's recollection vs. Alan Wilson's.    I agree with them both.  Alan Wilson wrote that CBM and HJW working on the layout plan at NGLA and when they returned to Merion and that their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value.  Alan Wilson credits Wilson and his committee for that which CBM and HJW didn't contribute ("except for this"), and while all of the Committee contributed he noted that Wilson was the person on the committee most responsible.  That sounds a hell of a lot like what I am saying to me.

As for Mike's latest misrepresention we know that the CBM was NOT the "TOTAL extent of communications."   For one thing, it does not make mention of the Whigham's budget estimate, so we know their were more communications than just the letter.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

The "budget estimate" line was written on July 2nd, and clearly based on the conversations the men had during the site visit.

Where does Alan Wilson say that "CBM was the person on the committee most responsible"?

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I thnk what would advance the conversation is for David to concede that the Francis Swap and finalized Golf course routing took place AFTER November 15, 1910, not before.

David,

Would you concede that point based on the evidence, particularly the MCC Minutes of April 1911?

I think what would advance the conversation is for Mike to stay out of it.  He has shown repeatedly that he is unwilling and unable to carry on a reasonable conversation about this stuff, his "no evidence" proclamation being just the latest example.

Mike,

Would you concede that you are incapable of reasonably discussing the material and go waste someone else's time elsewhere?

Last I heard conversations were communications.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Once again, without any evidence, you cower behind personal insults from across the country behind your computer.

You are a wimp.

Here is what Alan Wilson wrote;

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

   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I enjoyed reading that letter again. I will probably get blasted for this, but I always took the third paragraph as a veiled reference to go get the Dallas Estate, but provide cover by mentioning the 3 acres of RR land, the shorter course, etc.  Just a hunch, but in any case, they soon made arrangements to purchase the Dallas Estate using secretive methods.

I had forgotten the comment about 'abrupt mounds."  Could this have been CBM telling them they really needed a high hill to produce an "obligatory" Alps hole?  A stretch on my part, but since we have been talking Alps hole it stood out for me.

I also note that he mentioned not only their committee, but the Baltusrol committee, suggesting a bit that committee designed golf courses were not all that uncommon.  (I think Tillie did his bit at Balto later, in 1922)

And I am word parsing to be sure, but I always found the little PS about lime interesting.  It would appear that CBM is dashing off this letter without much thought, and rather than retype it (or having it retyped) he just adds his last sentence, as if he is on the way out the door and doesn’t have time to concoct a perfect letter.  Is that the sign of a guy getting ready for a collaborative effort?  For that matter, we have to ask why CBM didn’t suggest he design the course, or set up the next meeting that some say had to have happened, or give him their phone number. 

And, let us not forget that he didn’t write to the committee, he wrote to Lloyd for whatever reason.  Not sure if it means anything. But when David wrote his essay, he didn’t have this letter, and he presumed that it contained much more than it really did.

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Here's more of what Alan Wilson wrote, which makes laughable David's contention that Alan Wilson credited CBM primarily for the architecture of Merion East.

What a joke.


The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.

   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.

   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I can agree with your post 2474.  I think the differences in perception are with the phrase "except for this" which I take to suggest a fairly minor role for CBM, at least in the committee's mind, which as we have discussed, may have been based on time considerations.  I know you think CBM's impact is greater in results than time spent, and that is probably very, very true.  And I don't hold the view of some that they ONLY looked at NGLA's holes.  They had their routings in hand, and made substantial changes afterwards, as described by Alan Wilson.

But, both the record of two visits and the description by Wilson, and the Lesley report suggest that the club felt its destiny was clearly in its own hands, and that CBM was merely an advisor, albeit an important one, along with Oakley, Pickering, etc. in their respective fields.

So, yeah, we have actually been saying very close to the same thing for a while now, other than your suspicion that there was a lot of contact between CBM and Merion before they secured the land.  I have listed my reasons why I don't think it was the case, and speculated on other factors of interest regarding CBM in this time period.  Frankly, I would have loved it if there really were some Drexel papers, but there aren't.  But, we don't need to go there.

I guess I am wondering, like some others, just why the conversation continues?  I think we all agree that there is no new evidence either way, just trying to hammer home what we think is the most reasonable interpretation......which in case you don't know, is mine!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I am clueless as to "Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.)"  Please clarify.

Oddly, whoever he is, he didn't think much of the vaunted 10th green, the Alps!

Also, to tag on to my speculation that HJW's lack of track record, even not being associated with CBM architecturally, for someone who "wasn't there" Alan Wilson seems to have grasped some pretty deep thinking about gca in general, and how those principles were applied at Merion.

This is the passage that has always had me thinking that while they were grateful to CBM for showing them the principles of the best holes, they really had the idea that their course should be more natural.  Now, I know NGLA was far more natural than later Raynor versions of the templates, but I still sense a very polite distancing themselves from CBM in this and other writings.  He gave them valuble advice, but they wanted to make it all their own, despite David and Pat telling us they wanted a CBM course. 

As I ask, PR and SH wanted CBM courses in the same time frame, and got them.  Why not Merion?  I presume they knew what they wanted, what they were doing.  I do not presume that the good members of Merion could screw up their own history so badly as to get it that wrong, and it defies logic that they did so.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

If you believe Alan Wilson, do you believe that by writing about 90% about the committee and less than 10% about CBM, that this might equate to rough credit?  I know you don't want to get too precise, and I understand.  Again, it just seems like you have difficulty taking this in context, again focusing on the one sentence that clearly describes the contributions of CBM and HJW.  Why not focus on the rest?

As I said earlier, its clear that the Merion committee felt is was "their plans" and not CBM's.

That said, I have no problem saying the Alps, Redan, Eden, and Road holes were direct contributions of ideas by CBM, even if we don't know who exactly placed them .

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff,

Alan Wilson's account to William Philler goes on to say;

The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.

It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”

Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.  



Also, Jeff....wouldn't you think if CBM's impact on the actual routing and design of Merion was of great significance that Richard Francis would certainly have mentioned it....or even mentioned HIM?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Its not just Francis.  Its really easy to discount any addtional contact with CBM by the consistency of the entire Merion record, as follows:

In Nov they report on the prospects and advisiblity of buying the new land, and mention CBM's letter.  No mention of the extra time he was supposed to have spent on routing by that time.  Seriously, there is no way that they would forget to mention that it had been routed by CBM by Nov, when discussing his recommendations is such great detail.

They also hire engineers (usually noted for their precision!) to prepare a plan for the same meeting.  While capable of drawing accurate roads, and routing plan if available, they draw an approximate road, and blank golf land.  Seriously, there is no way that they would not show a routing by CBM if they had one, if trying to inform the members of where the process stood.


In Dec., in buying the land, Culyers says they will start work at once on the plans.  No mention that the world famous CBM supposedly had already figured it out.  Same as above.  For that matter, the housing developer, maybe even more than the club, would have trumpted the next great CBM golf course next to his development from the moment he had signed on, or at least at some point, but no one has brought forth any hint of that.

In the April report, they mention going to NGLA for a visit, and taking their plans, but no mention of any previous visits, or CBM plans.  They mention CBM returning to approve one of their plans.  If as David suggested, they wanted a CBM golf course, they would have called them his plans.

In their 1926 remembrances, the committee repeats the chronology of the meetings and the contributions of CBM's impact, but do not recall or mention any other contact with CBM.

In his 1950 remembrances, Francis tells of going to get approval from Lloyd, and goes into great detail, but doesn't mention CBM at all.

While its not hard to believe that there may have been some lost records, as happens at some clubs, they had many opportunities to mention CBM's work pre 1910, and didn't, even though, given the obligations they were asking of the membership, they were under obligation to report accurately.  They are remarkably consistent in their reports and recollections.

We might buy one misstatement, but David and Patrick are asking the world to buy at least five mistatements and/or intentional omissions.

Now, given there are a few CBM/H Wilson letters in the Oakley file, I can believe there may have been a few more.  But I think they had to have been minor, because Merion seems to have recorded all the game changing occurrences in their process.  I envision those four days with CBM as non stop question and answer sessions, and I can believe there were a few more letters along the lines of asking "Hey, Charlie, we forgot to ask you about your water system."

BTW, I cannot really fathom any real routing collaboration by phone.  Tried it, doesn't work!  And, given what they reported on the process, and how consistent it is, I cannot believe that they would have written at least once that they recieved some routings via mail from old Charlie.  Again, they had at least four opportunities do so, and while giving both broad outlines and some detail of the status of the new course process at each of those opportunities, they did not mention the specific detail that CBM had routed their course.

I have no problem in believing that while on site in April, CBM approved one of their routings (although I think it was largely already determined by Francis swap) and after doing so, saying "The tenth looks like an Alps to me!" (or some such)

If you check any source on the historic process, it will tell you that if contemporaries involved all say the same or similar things, you can belive its probably true.  Off hand, I don't recall what Wiki says about eulogies from 70 year old men 20 years after the fact as far as being valid documentation.  I guess at the minimum, it would have to be corroborated by another 70 year old man? (add smiley)  And nothing in the historic method says that you can substitute your woulda, coulda, shoulda's in place of interpreting documents, like Patrick and TMac try to do.

Is there a reasonable scenario where MCC would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times?  I think not.  But I am fairly certain the Moronics will try to concoct one.