The Creation of NGLA in Chronological, Contemporaneous News Articles

[Mike Cirba]

Jeff, 

That's really a great, factual, and accurate summation and as good a place to end this tempest in a teapot as any.

Someone here needs to stop the madness...might as well be me.

See you on another thread!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

I'd like to visit, hopefully for the last time, some of your views on H.J. Whigham, which I think are unfounded at best.

You speculate that Whigham was not "really, really interested in the design business" and really was not "engaged in the design" of Merion.  This is one of those frustrating examples where instead of looking at the historical record you are just wildly speculating based on some unfounded theory of yours or TEPaul's, and then drawing conclusions based on that speculation.    And in the process you are again projecting your modern views to an era where they have little applicability.

First, you again confuse quantity with quality, as you are wont to do. From my perspective, NGLA counts more than a slew of courses preceding it, or for that matter a slew of modern courses.

Second, you view what they were doing in your modern context, when what they were doing isn't anything like what you do.

You ask whether Whigham was "really, really interested in the design business?"  Of course not! Whigham was not at all interested in "the design business."  Like CBM, Whigham was a true amateur. He did not have a "business" designing courses, he had a distinguished career as a writer and editor.  But even still, he left his mark in Chicago (Exmoor being the latest name on the list) and working side by side with CBM on NGLA, Merion, Piping Rock, and other of CBM's courses. And when I say he was side by side, I mean he was with CBM on the famous 1906 trip abroad, with CBM on on his infamous horseback ride, and with him planning the layout, and co-authoring articles about the place later on. While today we mostly focus on CBM, Whigham was very much involved.  For example, when it was being build and when it first opened, Piping Rock was commonly referred as the creation of CBM and H.J. Whigham, and not of CBM alone or CBM and Raynor as we often think today. And this was likely the case at other early CBM courses as well.  

And lest you think he was just carrying the bag for CBM, his writing on the subject tells a much different story. Whigham had not only been creating golf courses since the near the inception of golf in America, he had been writing about the creation of golf courses since the mid-1890's. You tout Alan's Wilson's 1925 article as "deep thinking about cga in general" but if you are interested in true "deep thinking" about golf course design see Whigham's Scribner's article from 1909.  

In 1906 CBM had written his article on the idea course for Outing and listed some of his "ideal holes" but provided little explanation of on what made these particular holes models for his ideals. It was Whigham who authored the 1909 Scribner's piece that accurately and articulately explained the concepts and principles underlying NGLA's holes and great holes anywhere. The article was not only one of the first in America to discuss the elements of great design in detail, it was unsurpassed in sophistication and clarity.  Between Whigham's writing and Booth's drawings, I can easily understand how someone like Perry Maxwell could read the article and decide he too wanted to build golf courses, and then to journey to NGLA to learn how.  

For another interesting exercise highlighting Whigham's knowledge, expertise, and involvement, compare Whigham's 1909 piece to his works on the subject of golf course architecture from around a dozen years earlier. While Whigham's early work was relatively advance for the mid-1890's, one can see the profound evolution of his thinking during that first decade, perhaps because of his experiences with CBM, their extensive study of the great courses, and their efforts to create NGLA.

Add to that his vast experience and knowledge of the great links course and of courses world wide (somewhere I have a photo of him from the Indian Open from the 1890's) and his Where's-Waldo-like presence --from his participation in the golf exhibit at Chicago's World Fair, to his involvement in the creation of Chicago courses, to his early championships, to his books and articles, to his work with CBM, to the photos of him at Cypress Point during the construction, he sure seems to pop up at some key moments in the history of golf and its courses. I would be hard pressed to name anyone in America more knowledgeable about the subject of strategic golf, its courses, and its culture during this early era.

Was George Thomas not "really, really interested in the design business" because the total number of designs with which he was involved was relatively few?  How about Hugh Wilson?  How does your standard for who was "really, really into the design business" apply to him?  Was George Crump not "really, really interested in the design business" because he didn't even complete one course in his six or seven years involvement?   How about CBM?  

As for Alan Wilson as a deep thinker on the subject, I couldn't say one way or another. I know he wrote some articles on agronomy, but I can only think of one other of his written contributions somewhat relating to gca.  He wrote article in which he argued that golf courses ought to be measured along the ground instead of in a straight line, despite the fact that such a methodology is fraught with practical inefficiencies and even if properly executed it would overestimate real distances on anything but the flattest terrain.  As I recall, his justification was that uphill holes play longer anyway, so exaggerating their distance was appropriate.  Apparently his deep thoughts on the matter didn't consider rolling terrain or downhill holes.

Third, while Whigham was a writer as you say, he was no mere "drama critic" as you put out there. Starting in the mid-1990s he was a war correspondent for major London and Chicago papers, covered the Spanish-American and Boer, and other conflicts around the world, and was praised for his work.  Later he was a writer for and Editor in Chief of major publications. He was also an expert and author on art, architecture, foreign policy, a friend and advisor to Presidents, the editor in chief of popular magazines, and had traveled the world and in the process he had golfed everywhere.  He not only wrote a remembrance on CBM, but widely read remembrances on other great men, including Theodore Roosevelt.

For you to dismiss his opinion so lightly does nothing to advance the conversation, but again shows your biases.  And it further exposes your biases when you proclaim, as you did, that you would take the word of someone not even there over the word of someone who was not only there and involved, he was one of the foremost experts on the subject anywhere.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I have read the summary of HJW career, too.  I certainly was not trying to dismiss him, and I don't think I am biased.  The facts remain that he only did one course on his own.  Maybe a great writer who grasped the concepts, but perhaps not great at details, implmentation, or what have you.  Maybe a case of those who can, do and those who can't write.  The fact remains that he missed a chance to have even gotten deeply involved in what had to be the greatest design opportunity anyone could have been handed as CBM's son in law.  But, it was Raynor who took the CBM mantle, not HJW.  The results speak for themselves.

And, while that doesn't disqualify him from commenting at his own father in laws funeral many years later, it doesn't really qualify that one statement as the be all end all of CBM's involvement at Merion.
Also, my point remains valid, and your method remains constant, as deflection has been a hallmark of your method here.  I ask again -

Is there a reasonable scenario where Merion would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times while trying to accurately report their record to the members and board?

Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?

Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?

Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?

Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?

Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record.  How could they all keep their stories straight?

Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?

The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Jeff, the fact that CBM had an ongoing relationship with CBM indicates that they retained him.
The relationship was NOT casual, it was formal.

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.

First you agreed with taking Findlay at his word, now you claim it's not entirely clear.
What's not clear about his statement that CBM laid out many of the holes at Merion ?
 
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.

I don't agree.
HJW was an integral part of the planning process from 1910 to 1912, AW was an outsider from 1910 to 1912
HJW had first hand knowledge, Alan Wilson, second hand knowledge.

Furthermore, why take Whigham at his word, when CBM himself, in Scotland's Gift fails to mention designing Merion when reviewing his design career?

Why ?  Because CBM's role at Merion differered from his role at Piping Rock, The Creek, Yale, Lido where he was solely responsible for everything.
Whereas, at Merion, it was more of a joint venture where he wasn't responsible for everything.

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. 

David and I may differ on this issue.

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.

You'll have to take that up with David, since that appears to be David's take on the omission from "Scotland's Gift", not mine.

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.

You'll have to ask David as I can't speak for him.[/size]

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. 

I'm not so sure it was limited to four das and I'm not so sure that they started over from scratch as opposed to modifying what they might have had, or a combination of both.

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. 

You and I both know that you just don't inject a hole into a routing.
A routing is an 18 link jigsaw puzzle not prone to have random holes inserted on a whim.
And, as you and I both know, the interjection of 4 to 5 to 6 holes takes a hell of a lot more work than closing your eyes and sticking a pin in a topo.
There has to be structure and continuity in a routing, so I think CBM's role was far greater than that of playing "pin the tail on the donkey" with the random placement of template holes.

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.

I don't know if you can draw that particular conclusion.
What feature designs are you refering to ?

And, it appears that the original version of at least the Alps and Redan were clearly lacking in some form in their original versions. 

I think that's reasonable to state about the "alps" hole, I'm not so sure it's an accurate statement about the "redan" hole.

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.

It could also be that they realized that they didn't have a template hole, or even a hybrid, but, sadly a mutt, and as such, realized that it was so lacking in value that it was better off being altered.

Remember, this is 1910-11-12 and there had to be a good deal of uncertainty relating to the holes and the topography they had to deal with.

Who wouldn't love to see a replica of # 3 at NGLA on their course ?
But, if the topography doesn't lend itself, and the attempt at replication is woefully lacking, you're better off trying something else.
And I think that's what happened.  They realized that the hole was sufficiently lacking.
Trial and error, in 1910-11-12 had to be common and it's probably more common today than people think.
So, I can understand modifying a golf course in the early years.
Even the vaunted Friars Head and Sebonack had early modifications to their courses, why would we expect any less in 1910-11-12 ?

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.

By train, telegraph and telephone, Philly and New York aren't very far apart.
Piping Rock opened in 1912 or 1913, Sleepy Hollow in 1913 or 1914 depending on sourcing (C&W)

I don't see the conflict that you see.
CBM appears to have begun at Merion in June of 1910 when NGLA was already open for play.
Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow are in close proximity to New York City.
I don't think there are any exclusionary factors related to those events.

What does trouble me is why Sleepy Hollow sold off four CBM holes and why they brought in AWT ?

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? 

Absolutely.
Unlike others on this site, he could chew gum and walk at the same time,
Being involved in three seperate projects over a 3 to 4 year period is certainly not a herculian task.
Just ask Donald Ross.

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?

As I stated above, I believe there was a difference.
At Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow, he was the soup to nuts guy, responsible for everything

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

NO, only you are mistaken. 
By the way, at what point where you accepted by, and as a Merionette ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I've sat on Boards at a number of Golf/County clubs for over 25 years.

I have to laugh at your questions asking "WHY" a board wouldn't do this or wouldn't do that.

I can only tell you that it's sometimes mind boggling as to why a board chooses to act or not act.
Why they choose to include or omit relevant information, credit, attribution, etc., etc..

If you're offering, as part of your defense or position, "WHY" Merion's board didn't act in a certain way, there simply isn't an explanation.

You can't say, WHY didn't Merion's board do this or say that ?
I mean, you can say it, but, it has no relevance.

As a side note, many, many years ago, when I just graduated college, a club I just joined did something that I didn't understand.
It didn't make sense.  So, I approached an older, seasoned, intelligent, experienced, successful Board Member and asked him how and why the Board made that particular decision.  The older member looked at me and said, "as you get older, you'll soon understand, that no matter how smart, how successful, how industrious the board members are, the moment the front wheels of their cars pass through the clubhouse gates, they lose their minds."

When I was first appointed to my first Board position, an issue was discussed and debated, and I immediately knew that that oldtime member, was dead on the money with his statement to me.  I was astounded by what I witnessed.

So, asking "WHY" is a question, that is often unanswerable, or, if it is answerable, it's answerable in a context that would intrique Rod Serling.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is the million dollar question: why would the powers to be at Merion put all their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had already engaged the two premier golf architects in America? Horatio Lloyd built his home around the same time and engaged the premier architect in America. When they built the course they engaged Pickering from Boston who was described as one of the foremost grass experts in the US, but when it came to the design, the most important aspect of the project, (with a major real estate investment on the line) they went with a complete novice.

Both sides have their documents and articles they like to point to, but at the end of the day logic has to enter into the picture...what is plausible. I have been asking this question for a couple of years now.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

I think there's another important question.

If, as Mike Cirba asserts, some of the other committee members had more experience designing and building golf courses, why did they name someone who had NO prior experience as the Chairman ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I was not asking why Merion did this or that, as TMac does just above.  I was asking why they would do one thing that you speculate they did, and then fail to record it in their minutes?

So, like you, I am laughing at TMac's coulda woulda shoulda post above.  It has no relevance.  I don't know why they were intent on doing it themselves, although some reasons have been proffered.

I am simply responding to your comments that we "don't know that there wasn't more correspondance between CBM and Merion."  I think we do, because Merion did record all the major times they met with CBM.  In both the contemporaneous documents and later recollections, they are remarkably consistent.  If CBM was more involved than they said, they then missed several opportunities (not just one) to report accurately and it diminishes the chances of them having done what you suspect they did.

I mean really, the November report details the meeting and followup letter of CBM.  If he had some other important contacts in the June-Nov time frame that substantially why would their report to the members mention only two of three?  It strains the bowels and mind to think that they would not mention it.

TMac,

You can keep on asking your questions.  Pat has given you the correct answer above.  Because they wanted to.  Why is another fascinating question, but there is your answer.  You ask, but cannot provide any other answer because there is none.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff
When I've asked the question in the past most of the time it has gone unanswered, but when it has been answered the response has been I can't explain it, but that is what happened. Is that your explanation?

I'm a fairly religious person, and faith is obviously important, but when it comes to accurately documenting history faith does not fly, intelligence must be a consideration.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niether does substituting what you think should have happened for what the documents say actually happened.

As I asked, is there any reasonable explanation for the consistency of contemporaneous documents and near term recollections of those involved other than the committee doing the bulk of the work with CBM providing valuble advice?

There is not.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,  

I'll be glad to answer your questions, hopefully later tonight.

But I have to say that I am having trouble even taking you seriously when your argument is based on the obviously erroneous assumption that H. J. Whigham did not have the wherewithal to know whether or not Merion was a CBM course.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I look forward to the answers.

As to HJW, its a side issue.  I recall you often promoting the more contemporaneous, the more directly involved, etc documents as superior documents to rely on. I am surprised to see your vigorous defense of the longest by time away document as a lynchpin of your arguments.  It doesn't strike me as your best work!

Good night.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I look forward to the answers.

As to HJW, its a side issue.  I recall you often promoting the more contemporaneous, the more directly involved, etc documents as superior documents to rely on. I am surprised to see your vigorous defense of the longest by time away document as a lynchpin of your arguments.  It doesn't strike me as your best work!

He was there. He was involved.  He was an expert on the topic discussed.  The rest of the article checks out, and he was still sharp when he wrote it.  And CBM's accomplishments in golf and golf design were so great, Whigham had little reason to embellish about Merion.  As accounts go, it doesn't get much better than that.  

And Whigham's account is consistent with the contemporaneous accounts from Merion.

[DMoriarty]

Now turning to what I hope can be a productive discussion about your more sensible positions.

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.

While I disagree, I understand why you want to read "except for this" the way you do, but I don't think you are considering Alan Wilson's perspective when writing this. I am not referring to his desire to secure his brother's place in Merion's history (although I think it may be unreasonable to ignore this.)  Rather I am referring to what Alan Wilson actually knew about CBM's involvement.

Alan Wilson was not at NGLA, and there is no evidence that Alan Wilson had any involvement whatsoever in the early creation of the golf course. I have never seen anything indicating that he was involved with any of the  key committees or anything to do with the early creation of the course.   

Even his own account suggests that he was unaware of exactly what happened early on.  He strongly suggests that Hugh Wilson's trip abroad to study the great golf courses was in 1910 which is wrong by two years.  More importantly, he presents the process of creating the course as if it occurred after the trip abroad.  This is wrong as well.   And he puts some other things in an order which, if not wrong, are a bit peculiar.

Believe me, I am not trying to cast doubt on his veracity.  But I am trying to focus your attention on just how little he knew about this early planning stage. 

Because I understand it, you latest theory about Alan Wilson seems to be as follows:  If CBM/HJW significantly influenced the planning, then Alan Wilson would have written more about it.   

My main problem with your theory is as follows: If Alan Wilson was not there, and if the evidence indicates that Alan Wilson did not know much about this early stage, then it is unreasonable for you to expect him to have written more about it than he did.

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

.

As for the Wilson report, it was written over a dozen years after the fact, and during most of that time Merion was in Hugh Wilson's capable hands.  Wilson had completed major changes before his death and and very much put his mark on the course.  So it doesn't surprise me that you read it as if the course was in Merion's hands.  It was, from the time the plan was approved onward.   But as I said above, Alan Wilson had little knowledge about the planning stage, over a dozen years before, so I don't think your conclusions about the extent of his coverage of this material are appropriate. 

As for the Lesley report, I am not sure what Lesley report you read, but the one I read did not list CBM as "merely" anything, nor did it mention anything about Oakley, Pickering, etc.  Every sentence of that Lesley report but one describes CBM's and HJW's involvement in the design process, and that in the single sentence, Merion is very likely acting according to what CBM had taught them at NGLA and in anticipation of their planned visit to choose and approve the final plan.

I know you don't fully agree with that reading, but I thought we were in agreement that they were working on the layout at NGLA and that we cannot separate what they were doing at NGLA from what they did "on their return." 

Whether you agree or not, I don't think it tenable for you to posit the Lesley report suggests "that the club felt its destiny was clearly in its own hands."  If anything, the Lesley report suggests that CBM/HJW's involvement in the design process was extremely important to Merion.  Why else would they travel to Southampton during the design process?  Why else have them come back down to Merion to go everything again and sort things out?  And Jeff, CBM/HJW not only had undeniable input into the substance of the plan, CBM/HJW approved the final plan, and it was presented to Merion's Board as the plan that they approved. That is from the Lesley Report. It sure sounds to me that Merion had put their destiny in CBM's and HJW's hands, at least for the plan. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I think the position that if it's not in writing, ergo it didn't happen, dismisses the high probability that the parties were in communication by phone.

In fact it's almost impossible to deny that probability

[DMoriarty]

I have read the summary of HJW career, too.

This is probably some attempt at a cut, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

Is there a reasonable scenario where Merion would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times while trying to accurately report their record to the members and board?

Yes.

Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?

I didn't claim there were meetings, and I'll answer the routings question below.  

As for other communications, the November correspondence was about purchasing the land, but the decisions and recommendations had been made in early July, when the committee recommended the  purchase the land based in "large part" on CBM's opinions and letter. It was read into the record in July, and that is the only reason it came out in November. The Committee had used the letter to sell the Board on the purchase in July, and the Board used the letter to sell the members in November.

In short, it is unreasonable for you to expect all of CBM's communications with the Site Committee to make it into the minutes or the board's report to the memberships.  Why would any other CBM letter have been read into the boards record during this period?  Do you think the board was monitoring CBM's communications with any or all members on the Site Committee?  Why would they?

And why don't you have the same expectation for Lloyd's negotiations with Haverford Development Company?  That was about the purchase, and apparently, if we are to believe the Merionettes, there are no records of what went on in those negotiations in the minutes or anywhere else.  Are we to assume that there were no negotiations?

Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?

The routing was rough, and they had to change it to make it fit, and CBM had seen the changes and not yet "approved" the changes.  And it included land that they did not yet own or control.  You think they are going to go public with a routing when they haven't yet secured all the land they needed?

Somewhere there is a Barker routing of the course, and it probably has CBM's and HJW's lines and changes right over the top of it.   And on top of that, or more likely on a separate sheet, Francis had made his changes.  But they hadn't finalized anything, and wouldn't until CBM got a contour map and until he went over it with them and until he returned to Merion, went over it all again, and chose and approved the plan. That is when they had their final routing.  When CBM/HJW approved it.  And in November CBM and HJW hadn't yet approved it.

Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?

See above.

Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?

I have not claimed more face to face meetings.  Why do you keep acting as if I have? But as for other communications, the answer is No.  That wasn't board business.

Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record.  How could they all keep their stories straight?

Because the Chair of the Committee, the one with whom he most likely would have been communicating and thus be most aware of these communications, was dead.

Because they weren't appointed until late January, and it is unclear that anyone except Wilson did anything initially. Are you certain all of them were even at NGLA?  I am not.  I am not even sure it was that committee.  But assuming it was that committee, did all five of them show up at CBM's door with sleeping bags for a slumber party?  Why would all five of them have gone?  One of them was in Europe that spring, although I am not yet sure when he sailed for distant shores.  Another of them didn't seem to have much of an interest in the nuances of strategic design.

But they weren't telling a story. I wish you would stop accusing me of accusing them of lying.  They said that CBM was extremely helpful planning the course, and after that it was Hugh Wilson's show. This was true.  Do you really expect they are going to make sure Alan Wilson included a phone log of calls to CBM in his letter about his brother? Were they to have gone through their own correspondence for letters from CBM?
 

Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?

  Because he didn't build the course.  Because only discussed the projects with which is was most involved.

The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.

Why didn't Wilson take credit in his Chapter or in one of the thousands of letters he wrote about the golf courses?  

Why in his only discussion of the planning does he profusely praise and thank CBM for all his help and for showing him what to do with the land at Merion?

Why did his friends in D.C. write that his greatest accomplishment in architecture was the redo of the course in the 1920's?   He designed Merion, yet isn't worth mentioning in his remembrance?  It made the cut in CBM's remembrance, but it didn't quite make the grade in Wilson's remembrance written by his own close friends?
 
Not a single contemporaneous sourse said that Wilson designed the course, but you keep acting as if every source did.  Why is that?  And don't point me toward the Lesley report because you have acknowledge that you cannot separate what went on a NGLA from what went on upon their return.  

CBM is discussed again and again in Merion's Board Minutes.  Every time the course comes up, they are discussing CBM's help and involvement.  Yet that is not enough for you.  

Can you list for me all of the mentions in Merion's Minutes of Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process?

Thanks.

One more thing about Alan Wilson since you seem to like to run with gossip.  He was no fan of CBM's.  In fact what TEPaul and Wayne tried to blow into some fantasy about CBM abandoning the game sounded to me like Alan Wilson expressing his dislike for and disrespect of CBM.

Given your penchant for following the gossip, what do you make of this?

How do you suppose Alan would have felt about his brother sharing credit for Merion with CBM?

[Jim Nugent]

Here is the million dollar question: why would the powers to be at Merion put all their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had already engaged the two premier golf architects in America? Horatio Lloyd built his home around the same time and engaged the premier architect in America. When they built the course they engaged Pickering from Boston who was described as one of the foremost grass experts in the US, but when it came to the design, the most important aspect of the project, (with a major real estate investment on the line) they went with a complete novice.

Some possible answers to your million-dollar question:

1.  I'm guessing the "two premier golf architects in America" you refer to are Barker and CBM.  Well, MCC saw Barker's ideas, and was not impressed.  They did not hire him. 

As for CBM, perhaps he did not want to be more involved than as an advisor.  i.e. by his own choice he was not available to do more than Jeff and Mike (and I) believe.  Wasn't that mostly the case after Macdonald finished NGLA?  That he didn't really want to design other courses?  I'm pretty sure I read words to that effect here on GCA.com.   

2.  Merion knew Leeds had created what many considered America's top course in a similar manner.  They knew CBM, with little previous GCA experience, had created NGLA, mostly on his own, also getting help from others in key areas.  Not unreasonable to think that their own golf experts might do a good job as well.  Especially with CBM advising them at key steps along the way.   

Tied in to this is point...

3.  Golf course architecture was in its infancy then.  According to Patrick there were only 30 courses in America.  CBM had only one top course under his belt.  There was no huge body of work or architects -- no real 'establishment' -- to turn to, even if they wanted. 

The comparison Tom makes to house architecture is off the mark.  That was an established field, with centuries of ideas, techniques and standards behind it.  Who/what was a golf course architect?  In many cases, a golf professional who staked out 18 holes and tees in a day or two. 

In short, where MCC needed expert help/work, they got it.  Like others before and after, though, they were able to do some/much of the key design themselves.  That's my read.  As I understand it, much of Pine Valley was designed that way.  So was Oakmont.  So was Myopia.  Even NGLA was designed by someone who had little practical experience.  And MCC had that person's help.   

Even now, I bet more than one of us on this board believes he could design a course.  Now say we're given an excellent site.  Enough money to hire top construction people.  Doak or Brauer of C&C or any of the archies on this board to advise us.  Pat Mucci and a few other experienced/effective golfers/business people to work with us on our construction/design committee.  Almost no regulatory bodies to deal with... several years to travel to other great courses, taking intensive notes... having constant access to the top golf experts of our area, probably on a non-stop basis.  Our own livelihoods are not an issue. 

At least some of us would not turn down that opportunity.  In the early days of American golf courses, I think that is what happened at Merion. 

btw, the biggest wrinkle in my thoughts is Findlay's statement, that David attaches to his signature nowadays.  It's the most convincing piece of evidence that CBM did a whole lot more than just advise.  I reconcile it with my overall view by going with Mike's thought, that Findlay was talking about the design principles of the templates. 

[Tom MacWood]

Niether does substituting what you think should have happened for what the documents say actually happened.

As I asked, is there any reasonable explanation for the consistency of contemporaneous documents and near term recollections of those involved other than the committee doing the bulk of the work with CBM providing valuble advice?

There is not.

Jeff
If there were documents that actually say what happened there would no reason for this never ending debate. And you and the others would not be going on and on trying to convince us Wilson designed the course. The documents would've spoken for themselves and this would have ended a long time ago.

I'll ask you again, why would the powers to be at Merion engage an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had the two premier golf architects in America at their disposal?

[Tom MacWood]

As I asked, is there any reasonable explanation for the consistency of contemporaneous documents and near term recollections of those involved other than the committee doing the bulk of the work with CBM providing valuble advice?

I'm not sure which document or documents you are referring to, but I'm sure I've seen them (or it) at one time or another, and I am quite confident that I can give you a reasonable and intelligent explanation. Present away.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Some possible answers to your million-dollar question:

1.  I'm guessing the "two premier golf architects in America" you refer to are Barker and CBM.  Well, MCC saw Barker's ideas, and was not impressed.  They did not hire him. 
That doesn't preclude the use of his routing or an amended version of his routing

As for CBM, perhaps he did not want to be more involved than as an advisor.  i.e. by his own choice he was not available to do more than Jeff and Mike (and I) believe.  Wasn't that mostly the case after Macdonald finished NGLA?  That he didn't really want to design other courses?  I'm pretty sure I read words to that effect here on GCA.com.   
Jim, you're wrong on this issue, just look at his body of work subsequent to Merion
Also, Jeff claims just the opposite.  Jeff claims he was too busy with Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow

2.  Merion knew Leeds had created what many considered America's top course in a similar manner.  They knew CBM, with little previous GCA
experience, had created NGLA, mostly on his own, also getting help from others in key areas. 

CBM had also done Chicago, another great golf course and a founding member club of the USGA, so let's not  minimize his accomplishments[\b][\size][\color]

Not unreasonable to think that their own golf experts might do a good job as well.

They had no architectural experts, no one who could compare to CBM

  Especially with CBM advising them at key steps along the way.   

How ? Specifically did he advise them ?
Do you think they were capable of routing a course with complete individual hole designs ?

Tied in to this is point...

3.  Golf course architecture was in its infancy then.  According to Patrick there were only 30 courses in America.  CBM had only one top course
under his belt.  There was no huge body of work or architects -- no real 'establishment' -- to turn to, even if they wanted. 
I indicated 18 hole golf courses
Why do you and others conveniently dismiss Chicago golf course, a great golf course that today remains ranked in the top 100 ?

The comparison Tom makes to house architecture is off the mark.  That was an established field, with centuries of ideas, techniques and
standards behind it.  Who/what was a golf course architect?  In many cases, a golf professional who staked out 18 holes and tees in a day or
two. 
Is it your position that golf architecture in the U.K. Wasn't established ?

In short, where MCC needed expert help/work, they got it.  Like others before and after, though, they were able to do some/much of the key
design themselves.  That's my read.  As I understand it, much of Pine Valley was designed that way.  So was Oakmont.  So was Myopia.  Even
NGLA was designed by someone who had little practical experience. 
That's not true, CBM had prior experience and his standing in GOLF was enormous

And MCC had that person's help.   
evidently enough help to cause Jeff Brauer to declare that CBM should get co-design credit


Even now, I bet more than one of us on this board believes he could design a course.  Now say we're given an excellent site.

What do you mean, "we're GIVEN an excellent site ? That can't be a given, that's a critical element in the design process, a decision that has to be made by the involved parties 
Enough money to hire top construction people.  Doak or Brauer of C&C or any of the archies on this board to advise us.
And to what extent do you believe the final product would be a Doak, Brauer or C&C course ?
All of it ?  50 % of it ?  Enough of it that they would deserve co-design credit ?
Be honest and realistic now, how heavily would we depend on Doak, Brauer or C&C ?
Truth be told, they would do theLion's share of the work.  They are the experienced experts with a bona Fidel track record, AND they would take the huge burden of responsibility off our shoulders.

  Pat Mucci and a few other experienced/effective golfers/business people to work with us on our construction/design committee.

NO, we would rely on Doak, Brauer and C&C to advise us on whom to get for construction.
Remember, this is 1910

Almost no regulatory bodies to deal with... several years to travel to other great courses, taking intensive notes... having constant access to the
top golf experts of our area, probably on a non-stop basis.  Our own livelihoods are not an issue. 

You're forgetting this was 1910, there was no vast body of great courses located nearby  and you don't have years to study, you have to build a golf course and you've got to do it in short order

At least some of us would not turn down that opportunity.  In the early days of American golf courses, I think that is what happened at Merion. 
I don't
Jim, if I gave you the task of creating a new golf course, soup to nuts,  for the membership of our club, you'd be crapping in your pants, since the responsibility is awesome and burdensome and you know relatively nothing about creating a "championship" golf course, especially if it was 1910.
You and others are so cavalier about what it takes  to site, design and build a golf course, as if so simple.
Well, if it's so simple how come so many mediocre to lousy courses have been built since 1910 ?
How come mediocre to lousy courses continue to be built if this process/project is so easy ? [\b][\size][\color]

btw, the biggest wrinkle in my thoughts is Findlay's statement, that David attaches to his signature nowadays.  It's the most convincing piece of
evidence that CBM did a whole lot more than just advise.  I reconcile it with my overall view by going with Mike's thought, that Findlay was talking
about the design principles of the templates. 
What templates ?  There were no templates in 1910
The templates ONLY came into being recognized as templates because of CBM-SR-CB repeated, patterned use of them

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I already answered your question and I already listed the minutes and remembrances I am referring to.

Pat,

Your post above is interesting, and it may just answer TMacs question. I have postulated this before, but in essence, doing it themselves with CBM helping probably was the best option available to them!  A perfectly logical choice.

There were no local gca's, so that wasn't an option.  NYC was the closest.  They clearly didn't like Barker.  They liked CBM who wasn't really set up quite yet to design courses with Raynor (although he was making contacts at the exact same time with SH and PR, with work to start on the same schedule.)


So, they latched on to CBM who agreed to help within whatever time constraints he had, which turned out to be 4 days (and to humor you and David, time for some other letters and phone calls, which may have happened)  Also, you have to recall that CBM told them to contact the Baltusrol committee for more advice, so in his initial letter, he certainly didn't seem to be directing them towards him designing the course.

So, both sides agreed Merion could do it, with a little help from CBM in a pinch.  They clearly thought Barker wasn't an option (maybe he came to town on the rival B and O rather than the Pennsylvania - I have seen commissions go down the tubes for far lesser reasons, like drinking Miller Light in front of the client who happend to be the Budwiser distributor in town.....) and the rivalry of the two railroads is legendary.  Speculation of course, but its clear that for some reason, they just didn't like Barker or his plan.

This is why I don't get TMacs repeated questions.  They did use CBM, and perhaps CBM set the terms because of what was going on in his life.  We don't know, but I have always been interested in the timing or PR and SH coming right on the heals of Merion and why the arrangement of advisor came to be the way it was. 

I have considered the possibility that CBM may have had some informal agreement or understanding with PR or SH to NOT call Merion his design, because for whatever reason, he wanted PR to be it.  That reason could be friendships, the ability to control it better because of Raynor, or being in NY, etc.  I don't know.

But, I do know that CBM never mentioned it in SG, and Merion clearly and consistently called him an advisor.  Besides the time factors, responsibility to the club for getting things done resting on the committee, etc. the two main participants both never said he was the designer of the course.  George Bahto, CBM's biographer never saw any documents in his research claiming that CBM thought he had designed the course.  It would be interesting to see all his correspondance to see why.  We have certainly debated the Merion side of the story with no new documents.

In short, I ask in the context of 1910, why wouldn't a committee design (still common in those days) with periodic assistance from the father of american gca NOT be the best option they could have had? 

[Tom MacWood]

Here is the million dollar question: why would the powers to be at Merion put all their eggs into the basket of an inexperienced, untested, insurance salesman when they had already engaged the two premier golf architects in America? Horatio Lloyd built his home around the same time and engaged the premier architect in America. When they built the course they engaged Pickering from Boston who was described as one of the foremost grass experts in the US, but when it came to the design, the most important aspect of the project, (with a major real estate investment on the line) they went with a complete novice.

Some possible answers to your million-dollar question:

1.  I'm guessing the "two premier golf architects in America" you refer to are Barker and CBM.  Well, MCC saw Barker's ideas, and was not impressed.  They did not hire him.  

As for CBM, perhaps he did not want to be more involved than as an advisor.  i.e. by his own choice he was not available to do more than Jeff and Mike (and I) believe.  Wasn't that mostly the case after Macdonald finished NGLA?  That he didn't really want to design other courses?  I'm pretty sure I read words to that effect here on GCA.com.    

2.  Merion knew Leeds had created what many considered America's top course in a similar manner.  They knew CBM, with little previous GCA experience, had created NGLA, mostly on his own, also getting help from others in key areas.  Not unreasonable to think that their own golf experts might do a good job as well.  Especially with CBM advising them at key steps along the way.    

Tied in to this is point...

3.  Golf course architecture was in its infancy then.  According to Patrick there were only 30 courses in America.  CBM had only one top course under his belt.  There was no huge body of work or architects -- no real 'establishment' -- to turn to, even if they wanted.  

The comparison Tom makes to house architecture is off the mark.  That was an established field, with centuries of ideas, techniques and standards behind it.  Who/what was a golf course architect?  In many cases, a golf professional who staked out 18 holes and tees in a day or two.  

In short, where MCC needed expert help/work, they got it.  Like others before and after, though, they were able to do some/much of the key design themselves.  That's my read.  As I understand it, much of Pine Valley was designed that way.  So was Oakmont.  So was Myopia.  Even NGLA was designed by someone who had little practical experience.  And MCC had that person's help.    

Even now, I bet more than one of us on this board believes he could design a course.  Now say we're given an excellent site.  Enough money to hire top construction people.  Doak or Brauer of C&C or any of the archies on this board to advise us.  Pat Mucci and a few other experienced/effective golfers/business people to work with us on our construction/design committee.  Almost no regulatory bodies to deal with... several years to travel to other great courses, taking intensive notes... having constant access to the top golf experts of our area, probably on a non-stop basis.  Our own livelihoods are not an issue.  

At least some of us would not turn down that opportunity.  In the early days of American golf courses, I think that is what happened at Merion.  

btw, the biggest wrinkle in my thoughts is Findlay's statement, that David attaches to his signature nowadays.  It's the most convincing piece of evidence that CBM did a whole lot more than just advise.  I reconcile it with my overall view by going with Mike's thought, that Findlay was talking about the design principles of the templates.  

Jim
I will tell why your #1 does not make sense based on their actions. They were obviously impressed enough to make a point of publicizing Barker's involvement, publicizing his opinion of the possibilities (largely based on his routing), and it was also reported they had hired him to design the course. Barker was more or less a hit and run artist, and typically he did not hang around to oversee construction of his designs. Also he usually went home to the UK for the holidays and often stayed until spring. That is the more reasonable explanation for what happened and why he disappeared from the scene.

As far CBM is concerned it seems to me he was very involved, and as a result his fingerprints are all over the design. CBM was the premier architect in America, and having him involved was a major coup for the club.

Myopia was originally laid out by a professional, and Leeds became more or less the dictatorial figure at the club and redesigned the course over a period of almost two decades. It is a poor example. I don't think intelligent men would put the design of what they hoped to be a top notch golf course in the hands of novice based him developing into a dictator a la Leeds. That is an illogical explanation.

Golf architecture was not in its infancy in 1910. Golf architecture was in its infancy when Leeds, Macdonald, and Colt began in the 1890s. By 1910 you have had a decade of modern golf architecture with men like CBM, Travis, Emmet, Park, Colt, Fowler and Abercromby leading the way. One of the problems with this debate is the fact that you and others lack historical knowledge and perspective.

Pine Valley was designed by Colt. Oakmont was redesigned over a period of many years, and did not reach his full potential until post WWI. CBM had been involved in golf architecture for over decade when he designed the NGLA. He had also thrown himself into the subject like no one before, intensely studying the art over period of years. Again the historical perspective is missing.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I gotta run, but with all due respect, I believe you are the one, for all your research, who seems to lack historical perspective more than anyone here.

The letters clearly show that while the developer brought in Barker, MCC clearly had no intent to use him.  It is not uncommon for developers to bring in a gca to show them how to lay out a residential course, but in this case, MCC took off with the project on their own path.  You can tell from the intial reports they made to the board.

Barker disappeard from Merion because the developer brought him in and the club decided they wanted to work with CBM.  They did not publisize his involement, some newspaper got a hold of McConnell who mentioned bringing Barker in and it got printed by someone who didn't realize how the project had moved on.

[Tom MacWood]

I already answered your question and I already listed the minutes and remembrances I am referring to.

What is the number of your post?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

2487 and possibly once before, as I think these are reiterations of the questions:

Is there a reasonable scenario where Merion would fail to mention additional CBM contributions so many times while trying to accurately report their record to the members and board?

Would they mention his June 1910 letter in their Nov meeting, but not other meetings and routings?

Would they present a blank drawing in Nov 1910 if they had his routing?

Would they not mention the routing in December if it was integral to their land purchase?

Would they not mention other meetings or continued correspondance with CBM in any of their reports, correspondances, or recollections, which were quite consistent in the number of times they met with him, and what happened when they did?

Why would each of the committee that Alan Wilson interview for his piece (and they were there) not take the time to correct a faulty record.  How could they all keep their stories straight?

Why didn't CBM take credit in Scotlands Gift?

The answer is simple - all of their perceptions back then were that the committee designed the golf course, and CBM offered valuble advice that helped them immensely.