News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Merion clarification
« on: May 21, 2013, 04:54:50 PM »
I cannot fathom going through those old posts again.  So someone with knowledge maybe can clarify for me.  I was reading Golf Digest last night and the club historian indicated that Wayne Morrison had discovered that Hugh Wilson did not travel overseas to study the courses until the course was actually built.  Previously everyone presumed that Wilson had first studied the courses and then came back and built Merion.  Laid it out, designed it, over saw the committee or whatever.

I thought David Moriarty and Tom MacWood made this discovery?  Can someone shed some light on this?  It seems to me that Golf Digest has it dead wrong.

Please let do not let this start to be a revisit to the whole mess.  Thanks.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2013, 05:21:59 PM »
Lynn,

That was my recollection as well. Call Tommy. He will surely remember.
Tim Weiman

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2013, 05:29:55 PM »
Lynn,

From memory, they both claimed it.  I think TePaul's story was that Wayne suspected it from some documents, but hadn't gone public, since he wasn't sure.  At about the same time, the other two found out, and made a big, public deal of it here, which offended TePaul and Wayne and the Merion sensibility.

So, as to the first to publish it, it probably was DM in his opinion piece here.  And he always felt that the Philly crowd was sort of making up their version to take credit away, and it would be hard to prove their version of who discovered what.

It is also hard to concieve of going back over that ground again, with none of them active here any more.  It really doesn't matter, does it?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2013, 06:24:18 PM »
The truth always matters.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2013, 07:42:46 PM »
I thought the DIGEST piece was a great article on how important history is to Merion.

At the same time, what they did not say is that it is always a cause for concern when an entity wants to control its own history.

Thanks for bringing this up, Lynn.  I had missed this factoid buried somewhere in the long long threads about the golf course, so it was news to me when I read the current GOLF DIGEST, even though I wondered how it could have been missed in all of that.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2013, 12:40:29 AM »
Lynn and Tom,

It wasn't missed.

David wrote a great essay that fueled a fire in Wayne, Tom and Mike.

David's essay documented Wilson's presence at a variety of functions in the Philadelphia area during the period he was thought to have been overseas (before construction began). It also documented a return to the US in the spring of 1912, a year or more after his "only trip" was thought to have occurred. The Philly Mafia found a treasure trove of information in the previously un-researched attic of the Merion Cricket Club.

I suspect David (and Tom M) were 99% sure Wilson hadn't traveled abroad before Merion was routed and some info was found (as a direct result of his essay) that was the final 1% proof.

I can say, there are a great deal of unknowns between Wilson not traveling abroad in 1910 and him not deserving credit for the design.

I've had these conversations with Wayne and Tom as well as David. I expect emails from all three before lunch on Wednesday, but the reality is there's no hard evidence of what any party contributed to what Merion was on opening day 1912...other than...oh, forget it...

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2013, 01:32:19 AM »
On Aug 25, 2010 TEP posted the following:

"Jeff:

That's a terrific pick up on your part about what Joe Bunker said  in 1915 about Wilson going abroad, and how he may've used even a single word ("originally') to lead future researchers/analysts and history writers to an historically inaccurate assumption and conclusion.

Add to that the remarks about this from Wilson's brother in 1926 that were apparently also misinterpreted and misunderstood by later researchers/analysts and history writers to mean a 1910 trip abroad (in his 1926 report to Philler Alan Wilson did not actually say Hugh Wilson went abroad in 1910!!----but apparently someone at some point assumed and concluded that was what he meant!! Wink). 

Also notice that Richard Francis seems to be the one who added the information in 1950 for researchers/analysts and history writers that Wilson returned with surveys and sketches from abroad.

It looks like at some point perhaps within the next 35 years after Francis' article that the idea Wilson spent seven months abroad and in 1910 got interpreted somehow.

And then we get to 2009 when David Moriarty proved via a ship manifest that Wilson in fact traveled abroad in the spring of 1912 and returned in early May 1912, thereby scotching that old 1910 trip abroad story. I potentially bracketed that trip by producing the last date (March 1, 1912) of a letter Wilson wrote from Philadelphia, thereby scotching the seven months abroad story (which may've been initially verbally recounted as something like "several" and misiinterpreted into "seven."  Wink ).

So the truth is he went abroad for no more than two months in the spring of 1912.

And then there is that mention in an article perhaps in late 1912 or early 1913 by Alex Findlay in which it seems Wilson essentially told Findlay he had never been abroad before or at least not to study golf architecture.

And then in 2009 we have this essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" that assumes and concludes that, SINCE the 1910 and seven months abroad trip in preparation for designing and creating the course is not true, THEREFORE it can be concluded that Wilson and his committee could not have routed and designed Merion East because they were too inexperience and therefore actually incapable of routing and designing Merion East before building it (Moriarty's over-arching "Novice" premise Wink ), and that they had therefore only been the constructors of the course to someone else's routing and design----eg CBM and/or HH Barker!!   Wink


At that point in time it seems that Tom was crediting David for the discovery.

Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2013, 08:40:33 AM »
Thanks everyone.  I think between the responses above and some personal messages I have a handle on who did what and when.  So my conclusion is that Golf Digest was not wrong but not totally forthcoming about the discovery of Wilson's trip.  I suspect but for David Moriarty and Tom MacWood, it would not have even been mentioned at all in the GD story.

Incidentally Golf Digest has done an otherwise job of setting up the U.S. Open with the current issue.
It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2013, 09:45:20 AM »
Lynn,

Haven't read the GD article yet (interpret that anyway you want!) but would love to ask Ron Whitten or others just how credible a source some internet site is for a major news organization?  My bet is that they barely considered the IMO piece, whether right or wrong, in preparing their story.

Of course, in general that is changing, and specifically, this site has been quoted on other magazines (one example being Golf World calling me about Larry Packard based on some comments I made about him here) and if they Google "Merion" they are sure to come up with a bazillion hits on this site that they could consider.  On the other hand, if they called Merion to ask they might have felt that was all the research they needed to do on that 100 year old factoid.

Interesting big picture kind of thinking, to me, at least, whether or not you agree with this instance or not.

As to the old "who controls their history" argument, I guess everyone does control their own, or wants to.  And, if you are famous enough, you get both your authorized bio and an unauthorized one, as well.  And then, it gets messier trying to figure out what is what.  It seems over time, that history is as much perspective as it is fact, and I recall someone using American history of the Native Americans as a good example of how "history" is recorded, based on whose perspective is ignored, and then brought forward, etc.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bryan Izatt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2013, 10:02:56 AM »
The following from our favorite offline lurking former posting leader:

"Bryan:
 
I'm impressed that you found that old post; you really are such a good researcher.
 
I would say I credited David Moriarty in 2010 and I credit him now for discovering that Wilson went abroad in 1912, if by discovering that fact one means he was the first to make it public on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
 
But if one means by discovering that fact he was the first to be aware that Wilson went abroad in 1912, it isn't true that he first discovered that fact. I think David Moriarty discovered that fact by finding Wilson's 1912 ship manifest. Wayne and I discovered Wilson was abroad in 1912 from documents we found at the USGA Green Section some years before this subject even came up on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
 
Wayne and I never made any issue of it because we did not think it was of much consequence to who routed and designed Merion East (we had long been aware that Macdonald/Whigam had helped them because that too was always part and parcel of Merion East's history); We still don't think that fact is of much consequence to who routed and designed the East course, and either does Merion. For not making public on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com the fact we were aware of his trip abroad in 1912 previous to Moriarty discovering it, we were accused of hiding relevant information or conducting some cover-up of the truth of the creation of Merion. Neither was true----we merely felt then, as we do now, that simply because Wilson did not go abroad previous to routing and designing Merion East he and his committee were therefore incapable of doing that (actually I think I had even forgotten I had that letter of Francis's in 1912 explaining Wilson was abroad at that time in my files). That assumption/premise/conclusion was essentially the theme of Moriarty's essay (The Missing Faces of Merion) on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com We do not agree with the theme and conclusion of that essay and either does Merion. If others choose to agree with it that's fine too. I guess this is just what researching and writing history is all about.
 
You can post this on that thread if you want to.
 
TEPaul"

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2013, 10:13:00 AM »
David's essay documented Wilson's presence at a variety of functions in the Philadelphia area during the period he was thought to have been overseas (before construction began).

Is this accurate?  I was under the impression that DavidM researched ship manifests in the area during that period, didn't find an entry for that Mr. Wilson, and concluded from this that the 1910 trip was fiction.  What functions did the essay document?  I know, I could sift through the essay myself, but ....

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2013, 12:36:53 PM »
From the Essay:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Wilson wrote that he traveled abroad “later,” after his trip to NGLA. But between the time Wilson traveled to NGLA and the time the course was seeded in September 1911, it is extremely unlikely Wilson could have taken an extended study trip overseas. He was far too busy planning and constructing Merion East. It was not until spring of 1912 – over a year after the NGLA trip – that he would have time for his study trip abroad.

n In or about October 1910, Hugh Wilson lost in the semifinal of the Merion Cricket Club championship to the eventual runner up, H.L. Willoughby.

n In or about early January 1911, Merion appointed Wilson and his Committee.

n In the second half of January 1911, Wilson’s Committee traveled to NGLA.

n On February 1, 1911, Wilson sent Piper a letter from Philadelphia.

n In or about April 1911, Macdonald and Whigham met onsite at Merion with the Committee to further assist them with the lay out.

n “In the Spring of 1911″ Wilson and his Committee began building the golf course (H. Wilson)

n In September 1911, Wilson and his Committee seeded the course.

n In or around October 1911, Wilson lost in a four ball match at Merion.

n On January 17, 1912, Wilson attended a dinner at the Annual USGA Meeting in Philadelphia.

n On March 1, 1912, Wilson sent letter from Philadelphia to Russell Oakley, who worked with Piper."

----------------------------------------------------------

Along with a ship manifest in May 1912 and comments from Wilson stating only one trip abroad, or something similar.

I say 99% for David because even he seemed to leave the slightest possibility that a study trip happened earlier but that he couldn't fathom how an extended trip could have fit. I believe the trip in 1912 was only 6 or 7 weeks anyway so in theory it could have fit in the spring/summer of 1911.


Lynn_Shackelford

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2013, 02:28:20 PM »
I am so excited that my topic got a reply from the infamous Tom Paul.

Furthermore at some point in time the club will have reword that bronze plaque in the clubhouse regarding Hugh Wilson(see Golf Digest picture).  It may be true that others first knew this was incorrect, but Moriarty made it an issue, if only for other reasons.



It must be kept in mind that the elusive charm of the game suffers as soon as any successful method of standardization is allowed to creep in.  A golf course should never pretend to be, nor is intended to be, an infallible tribunal.
               Tom Simpson

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #13 on: May 22, 2013, 04:27:02 PM »
Lynn had it correct in his initial post  . . . “Golf Digest has it dead wrong.”   Wayne did not figure out the correct timing of Wilson’s trip abroad. He knows it and I know it, and Tom MacWood knew it.  In fact, even after I had proven (and Tom MacWood confirmed) the correct timing of the one and only study trip abroad, Wayne was still trying to downplay the 1912 trip by making the case that there must have been an additional, earlier trip!  

I won't go into all of it in this post, except to note that the Golf Digest article got a lot wrong, and demonstrably so. But the error troubling and saddening me concerns not the misattribution of my work, but rather that Merion is also erroneously crediting Wayne Morrison for the late Tom MacWood’s research!   Given Wayne's open hostility toward Tom MacWood and his work, I find this to be particularly galling and felt compelled to comment.

To briefly summarize, in late 2006 I figured out the correct timing of the Hugh Wilson study trip abroad based on a careful reading of Hugh Wilson’s own words from his chapter in the Piper and Oakley agronomy book.  At that time I provided travel manifests confirming that Wilson traveled abroad in the spring of 1912. I also extensively searched for records/evidence of any previous trips by Hugh Wilson, but to no avail (because there was no earlier trip.)  In April 2008, I restated and expanded my explanation in my "Missing Faces of Merion" IMO and in posts, and also provided (among other things) a timeline indicating that Wilson would not have had time to travel abroad between his NGLA trip and the time the course was constructed. (Jim Sullivan provides a version of that above.)

Around that same time (late April 2008) the late Tom MacWood further confirmed what he and I already knew-- he located and provided me copy of a short May 1912 article about Wilson’s study trip abroad from a British publication called Golf Monthly, and I posted the copy on April 26, 2008 on behalf of Tom MacWood.   http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34272.msg688300.html#msg688300

Neither TEPaul nor Wayne Morrison had ever seen this article before Tom MacWood had me post it here.
   --Tom Paul was astonished at Tom MacWood's find: “As far as I'm concerned that little article from a British magazine in May 1912 is probably the single most important bit of information I've ever seen via GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and from outside this area in all the years of threads on here about Merion G.C.”  
   -- A few weeks later (and a few weeks after my IMO had come out) Wayne was still busy trying to build a case that there must have been an earlier Hugh Wilson trip, but in the process even Wayne acknowledged that this article was Tom MacWood’s “find” and that it was MacWood (through me) who had brought it to his attention.  “That was an excellent find by MacWood regardless of when it was located.  I appreciate David bringing it to our attention.  I also believe that at this point, it has not been established that Wilson did not go to the UK prior to 1912.  That is hard to prove, but the timeline still allows that possibility.”

There is no doubt that this was Tom MacWood's "find."  Yet, unfortunately, the Golf Digest article credits Wayne with this discovery, not Tom MacWood: “[Wilson] did go in the spring of 1912,” Capers says, “and we are certain of that because Wayne found a two inch clipping from a British newspaper saying that an American from Haverford was over there looking at courses.”  

Wayne found the clipping?  No. Tom MacWood found the clipping.  The only reason Wayne Morrison knew about the clipping was because Tom MacWood had dug it up and was kind enough to share it with us all.  
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 04:34:09 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2013, 02:00:31 AM »
While I am here . . .

I see above that Tom Paul wrote about how he and Wayne Morrison had known all along that Hugh Wilson did not travel abroad until 1912 (after Merion East had been designed and built):   "I think David Moriarty discovered that fact by finding Wilson's 1912 ship manifest. Wayne and I discovered Wilson was abroad in 1912 from documents we found at the USGA Green Section some years before this subject even came up on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. . . . (actually I think I had even forgotten I had that letter of Francis's in 1912 explaining Wilson was abroad at that time in my files.)"   Supposedly, they didn’t bother to ever mention the letter or correct timing of the trip because they did not think it was “of much consequence.”

That is a very interesting admission, especially given that it is not as if they remained silent during all those years of contentious discussions about this very issue!  To the contrary, for years (and until well after my discovery in late 2006 and even after my IMO) both Tom Paul and Wayne insisted that Hugh Wilson traveled abroad to study the great courses in 1910, before Merion East was designed and built.  I have plenty of posts so indicating, and I may pull up a few of them later.  Some of them are pretty entertaining.  But for now I wanted to highlight just one of the many TEPaul posts where he completely contradicts his explanation above:

. . .
Wayne and I went through the entire collection of those Wilsons to Piper and Oakley letters about five years ago scanning through about 2,000 letters during an entire day. The only ones we copied at the Green Section of the USGA in Far Hills were the ones pertaining to William Flynn since he was all we were researching and writing about then. I would estimate that we copied about 15% of the total of approximately 2,000 letters.

This year [2008], probably in May, during the early discussions of Merion and Wilson and MacDonald/Whigam involving this essay of Mr. Moriarty's entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" I went back to the USGA at Far Hills and went through ALL the agronomy letters from the years 1911 and 1912. I did this to try to create a time line on Hugh Wilson's whereabouts in the years 1911 and 1912. That is when I found the letter from the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association's Richard Francis (one of the members of Hugh Wilson's committee that designed and built Merion East) dated in late March or early April to the US Dept of Agriculture's Russell Oakley explaining to Oakley that Hugh Wilson had taken "a hurried trip abroad'. At that point Hugh Wilson had a correspondence of approximately 150 letters with Oakley.

This letter went beyond the ship manifest that Mr Moriarty found for a Wilson trip abroad in 1912 and this letter corroborated that ship manifest listing of a Hugh Wilson and proved Merion's Hugh Wilson was indeed abroad at that time.

Neither Wayne nor I had that particular letter in our possession in the previous five years so it wasn't a matter of not reading it, we did not have it. I also found a 1912 letter in those files from C.B. Macdonald to Hugh Wilson discussing fertilizer application on putting greens. As far as we can tell that was the only other known collaboration (1912) between Macdonald and Merion following his second and last visit to Ardmore on April 6, 1911 which is confirmed by MCC board meeting minutes.

Again, the above statement is incorrect. It is not that we did not read a letter we had for some years, it was simply that we never had it until the discussion on Merion began around April of this year.
___________________________________________________________________


So TEPaul and Wayne neither read nor possessed the Francis letter until around May of 2008, long after I first explained the correct timing of the trip (based on Wilson's Chapter in the Piper and Oakley Book) and long after I provided the travel manuscripts documenting the trip.  

To use Tom Paul's word, all this letter did was further "corroborate" what I had already figured out.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2013, 02:25:23 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2013, 04:51:11 AM »
Welcome back to GCA David.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2013, 01:55:24 PM »
Thanks Neil. 

I am pretty surprised to be back myself, and I am not sure how long I'll linger.   I haven't had any interest in getting involved in these discussions for quite a while now, and was looking forward to watching the tournament without involving myself in these distractions. 

So when friends informed me there was a Golf Digest article in which Merion was crediting Wayne Morrison with my ideas and my research I just shook my head and laughed. My inclination was to let it go.  After all, at this point it really shouldn't be a much of a surprise to anyone that Merion would erroneously lavish credit on one of their own members instead of properly acknowledging the contributions of outsiders. 

But then when I actually read the article and saw that Wayne Morrison was also being credited with what is indisputably Tom MacWood's work product . . . well my heart sank.  I had to speak up.  And now that I am back I'll might have a few more things to say about the article before I move on. 

I wonder what Wayne Morrison must be thinking?  On the one hand, he got a nice 'shout-out' in Golf Digest.  On the other hand, he knows that all of the credit he received in the Golf Digest article properly belongs to others.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2013, 03:34:42 PM »
Ok Gentlemen,
   I have labored for 25 years with the apparent misinformation that Wilson traveled to Scotland/England and studied a variety of courses prior to overseeing the construction of Merion East. That appears to be inaccurate based upon the evidence proffered here. Can you learned posters synopsize what the design/build story of the east course most likely was/is? I was unaware that CBM may have had some influence, or is that too strong? Did Wilson draw inspiration from NGLA? There aren't many template examples of Macdonald/Raynor model holes at Merion, that I can think of; maybe #3 is a reverse redan, sort of, and  #13 is bunkered like a short, though the green is small. Who else was on the commitee?
   This thread has been a revelation. Thank you to the posters who have provided new illumination. I'm trusting some additional education can be provided.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2013, 04:01:32 PM »
Ok Gentlemen,
   I have labored for 25 years with the apparent misinformation that Wilson traveled to Scotland/England and studied a variety of courses prior to overseeing the construction of Merion East. That appears to be inaccurate based upon the evidence proffered here. Can you learned posters synopsize what the design/build story of the east course most likely was/is? I was unaware that CBM may have had some influence, or is that too strong? Did Wilson draw inspiration from NGLA? There aren't many template examples of Macdonald/Raynor model holes at Merion, that I can think of; maybe #3 is a reverse redan, sort of, and  #13 is bunkered like a short, though the green is small. Who else was on the commitee?
   This thread has been a revelation. Thank you to the posters who have provided new illumination. I'm trusting some additional education can be provided.

Charlie:

The fair answer to your question is that no one really knows anything close to the whole truth of who is responsible for what on a golf course construction site, much less one that was built 100 years ago.  People can research and speculate ... for example we now know when Hugh Wilson actually went overseas.  But we don't and CAN'T know much about what he saw and where it influenced his work at Merion. 

Even if we had the story complete in Hugh Wilson's own handwriting, there would be dispute over whether he was an unbiased source and whether he failed to credit others for their contributions.

There is also a great tendency in these matters to see things that are not there.  I've been guilty of it myself in the past, so I am wary when others do it.  For example, you are trying to find some similarity between the 13th hole at Merion East and the C.B. Macdonald "Short" template.  So it would probably surprise you to learn that the 13th is not one of Merion's original holes ... it was built in the early 1920's by William Flynn [with some input from Hugh Wilson] after the club acquired new property and completely changed holes 10-11-12-13 to eliminate the safety issues of crossing Ardmore Avenue.

So, Charlie, be careful what you wish for!  ;)

Charlie Gallagher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2013, 05:22:49 AM »
Tom,
   Your point is well taken about the distorting effect of time and the bias of the story teller. Your reply, however, yielded another nugget of information I didn't have, namely that Flynn constructed 13 when the course was reworked in the 1920's. I'm trusting that more of the history, as best we can deduce it, can be laid out by ones who are in a superior position to know.
    I also want to make sure that my previous post wasn't taken as a suggestion that CBM's template exists at Merion in any capacity. Rather, I was offering the point that Merion doesn't seem to have holes that fit into the template that he and Raynor prefered. I strain to find a comparison, where  if one visits North Shore, or Dedham Golf and Polo, (two Raynor courses I know a little) one can see the template quite readily. If Wilson visited NGLA, as history indicates, and he had a major hand in construction at the East course, he didn't employ the CBM template there.
   Thank's for your reply and the additional information you provided. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2013, 09:06:16 AM »
Charlie,

If you go back to those threads looking for nuggets I think all your questions would be answered, albeit in about a dozen of the million negative posts there.

But, as David M pointed out back then, there were some CBM templates in the original, albeit, Merion always took great pride in saying Wilson did them with his own style, nothing as rigid as we came to think of CBM (and that was more Raynor than Charlie....).

Also, from memory, and from David's essay, that spring 1912 trip coincided with building/rebuilding the features at Merion, although the routing was done earlier.  They appeared to rush to seed, knowing some of the features were far from what they would want later.  So, the trip still had an influence on the final design, even if the timing had been mis reported.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2013, 10:25:05 AM »
The truth always matters.
Truer words never spoken.

I'd missed the "clarification" until seeing this thread. Thanks.

Also... tip of the hat to David and Tom MacWood for their work. Amazing stuff. Too bad Tom isn't around to pipe in.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 10:31:25 AM by Tony Ristola »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2013, 12:34:32 PM »
The truth always matters.
Truer words never spoken.

I'd missed the "clarification" until seeing this thread. Thanks.

Also... tip of the hat to David and Tom MacWood for their work. Amazing stuff. Too bad Tom isn't around to pipe in.

So, Tony, what great truth has been discovered?  The course was routed before Wilson made the trip.  As an architect and student of history, you may recall that there were some pretty decent routings by the standards of that time done in a day and $25.

But, apparently, unless Wilson had previously traveled to the UK, there was no way he could have participated in a significant way in routing the course. Experience as a college golfer at Princeton on all the best courses in the Northeast that Wilson most certainly played informed him not one bit.   ::)  Mind you that the routing changed in not insignificant ways post 1912 and the course was fleshed out over many subsequent years.

Maybe it works in the courtroom and academia, but one error in the record does not invalidate the whole.  Had Merion turned out more like a Macdonald/Raynor and the proud man himself claimed paternity, perhaps I'd be more open to the suggestions advanced in David's piece and all the subsequent back-and-forth.  

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2013, 08:21:26 PM »
I apologize in advance for the long post.

Did Hugh Wilson's Trip Abroad Influence of the Initial Design of Merion East?
Tom Doak wrote:  "[N]o one really knows anything close to the whole truth of who is responsible for what on a golf course construction site, much less one that was built 100 years ago.  People can research and speculate ... for example we now know when Hugh Wilson actually went overseas.  But we don't and CAN'T know much about what he saw and where it influenced his work at Merion."  That is all true.  But while we cannot know everything, there is an awful lot we can know and ought to know before we even begin to consider the respective roles MacDonald, Wilson, and others might have played in the initial creation of Merion East.  

For instance, we know that Wilson's overseas trip could not possibly have had much of any influence over the initial design and construction of Merion East, because the course was laid out on the ground before Wilson went abroad:  
     -- We know that, approximately a year before Wilson travelled abroad, Merion's Board of Governors decided to built the golf course according to a layout plan approved by C.B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham, and all 18 holes were routed, constructed and seeded before Wilson went abroad.  Surely some finishing touches were added after Wilson returned and before the course opened, but the bones of the course (including the tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the major artificial features) were already in place - designed, built and seeded - before Wilson traveled abroad.  
     -- We know that, reportedly, the initial course had been significantly influenced by the great overseas golf holes before Hugh Wilson ever traveled abroad.  For example, in April 1912, it was reported that, "Many of the holes at Merion are patterned after the famous holes abroad . . .."    This was close to a month before Hugh Wilson returned to America.

Was Merion East Based on the Famous Holes Abroad like NGLA?
This brings us to the issue of supposed "template holes" (a wholly inadequate description in this case) at Merion.  Tom Doak correctly cautions against the "great tendency in these matters to see things that are not there," but I would add that this caution ought to cut both ways.  We shouldn't stretch too far to find "templates" where none might have existed, but we also shouldn't ignore the contemporaneous evidence of the existence of such holes just because they no longer match our modern understandings of such holes.
     --  As I mentioned above, even before Wilson returned from his trip abroad many of the holes at Merion East were reported to have been "patterned after the famous holes abroad."   A report at the time the course opened went even further: “Merion has a course in which nearly every hole is patterned after some famous hole abroad."  In fact, multiple reports at the opening and for years after mentioned that at least some of the holes were based on great holes abroad.
     -- One such example was Merion's current 3rd Hole, about which Charlie wrote "maybe #3 is a reverse redan, sort of."   Many modern observers would strongly disagree Charlie's assessment because the green doesn't slope enough from front to back to fit in with our modern understanding of a proper "redan."  Yet various contemporaneous reports (and reports for many years thereafter) leave no doubt that, initially, this hole was meant to be (and considered to be) a reversed Redan.
     -- Likewise, there were other contemporaneous accounts of what we would call "templates" on the initial course at Merion East.   Contemporaneous reports indicate that there was not just a "Redan," but also an "Alps," a "Road Hole," and an "Eden" green.  Also, the 14th green at Merion featured a double plateau green with a swale running vertically through the center of the green, creating plateaus on each side.  I believe many other such CBM "tells" existed as well, but I''ll set that aside for now so as to avoid speculation.

While others can speculate how these (and other) features might have ended up on the initial course at Merion East, I'll again try stick to what we do know based on Merion's own records and the reports of those in a position to know.  Among other things:  
     -- Before Merion purchased the land, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham had gone over the land at Merion's request, and according to Merion's Board, Merion purchased the land "based largely" on CBM's and HJW's advice;  
     -- CBM spent two days with Wilson (and others) working on the layout plan and going over the various holes at NGLA; and
     -- Just a few weeks after the NGLA meeting, CBM and HJ Whigham returned to Merion to again go over the land and to choose and approve the final routing plan, and Merion set out to build the course according to this plan.

Draw your own conclusions.
______________________________________________________________

Tom Doak,

Given that I am trying to avoid too much attenuated speculation, I hesitate to get too much into a discussion about other potential CBM 'tells' at Merion East. That said, I will briefly discuss the 13th Hole since your explanation to Charlie doesn't quite tell the whole story.  

George speculated that the current 13th was bunkered like a short hole "though the green is small," and while you correctly pointed out that the 13th hole was not an original hole, you don't mention is that the original 13th hole was also a short par three of around 130 yards.  From what I can gather, the original featured a much larger, undulating green and was described at the time as completely surrounded by trouble.   From a description of the opening: "The thirteenth a short lob of 130 yards. The green is surrounded by water and sand hazards."   While the original 13th featured Cobb's Creek instead of bunkers on three of its sides, it is perhaps not a complete stretch to wonder if CBM might have had something to do with the inclusion of such a hole at Merion.  (There are a few other reasons to speculate about whether or not CBM might have envisioned a short hole in the original location behind the clubhouse, but I'll leave that aside for now.)  Suffice it to say that the original 13th was a short lob to a large green surrounded by trouble.   While you would know better than me, I am pretty sure I have an old photo of the Short hole at Mid Ocean in the Bahamas, and that it also featured water as the hazard around a substantial portion of the green.

[Also Tom, purely as an I aside, I wonder if perhaps you might be understating Hugh Wilson's involvement when the changes to Nos. 10-13 in the early 1920s. The evidence with which I am familiar points to Hugh Wilson as being primarily responsible for those changes. But perhaps that is for a different conversation.]

Added:  Here is a photo of Merion's original 13th Green taken sometime between the opening and the 1916 Amateur. Note the green was quite large and was plateaued above Cobb's Creek, which crosses in front and then wraps around the right side and back of the green.  The bunker(s) to the left of the green are not visible in the picture, but they are visible in other photos.

____________________________________________________________________


Jeff Brauer,

I know that you mean well, but your recollection of what I (and others) have written in the past is not accurate. For example, I have not written "that spring 1912 trip coincided with building/rebuilding the features" or that there was any sort of initial "rush to seed," nor do I consider such statements to be remotely accurate.  There are other errors as well, but I'd rather not get into another back and forth with you.  Rather, I beg of you to please refrain from putting words in my mouth, especially if merely "from memory."  

Thanks.  
« Last Edit: May 27, 2013, 09:15:17 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Merion clarification
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2013, 08:34:37 PM »
David M:

Love your passion, not your prolixity. Let's not let this devolve into another pissing match. Happy Memorial Day.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back