Merion clarification

[Adam_Messix]

David--

I understand what you are saying, but it does not answer my question.  Was the 3rd green itself redesigned at any point during it's history?  I'm more concerned about the green than the bunkering in this case. 

[DMoriarty]

I am not aware of any "redesign" of the green surface, but couldn't say for sure.  After 100 years of maintenance my guess is that the green surface has evolved,  but I doubt there was ever a pronounced front to back slope.  

[Dan Herrmann]

Here's the info on Merion 3 from the '34 US Open program:

[DMoriarty]

And here is a photo of Merion's Redan from the 1934 Open Program, as linked by Dan on another thread and posted here http://www.trenhamgolfhistory.org/PTHGUSOpen20131934.html




Maybe one has to be left-handed to see it, but I can see why the experts at the time considered this hole to be a Redan.

[Dan Herrmann]

Just to make sure I understand - you're saying that Merion East's #3 is a redan, and therefore acts as evidence that the real designer of the course wasn't Hugh Wilson with a lot of influence from Flynn?

[DMoriarty]

Just to make sure I understand - you're saying that Merion East's #3 is a redan, and therefore acts as evidence that the real designer of the course wasn't Hugh Wilson with a lot of influence from Flynn?

Dan, I don't think you quite understand what I am saying, but I'd rather not jump around from issue to issue.  My point immediately above is quite simple:

The historical record leaves no doubt that Merion's third hole was modeled after NB's Redan hole and was considered a "Redan" at the time it was built and for many years thereafter.

[As an aside and so no one gets more confused, William Flynn doesn't even belong in the discussion when it comes to Merion's initial design.]

[DMoriarty]

While we are looking at old programs from Majors at Merion . . .  Before the 1916 Amateur the Brooklyn Daily Eagle ran a series on the holes on the East course featuring hole descriptions with rudimentary William Flynn diagrams, and these were later used in an event program.  Here is the diagram and description of Merion's 3rd (then the 7th) from the Eagle:



Kind of tough to read and not worth fully transcribing, but the first and last sentences are of particular note to this conversation:

"This hole is of the Redan type, with a formidable trap right across the face of the green, while a ditch comes int from the left, nearly meeting the trap and enclosing the line of the green . . . To metropolitan players it may be suggested that if the ninth at Sleepy Hollow were inverted so as to put the tee lower than the green, there would be a marked similarity between the two holes."

The ninth at CBM's Sleepy Hollow was also a Redan.   (This is one of a number of such references to CBM's two well known "metropolitan" courses, Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock.)



 

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Do you still feel that Macdonald/Whigam created the Merion East plan in 1910?  If not, what changed your mind?

Any comment on the MCC Board's 1914 statement thanking Wilson for the design AND construction of the two courses and of Alan Wilson's report that said each of the members of Wilson's committee had told him in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design and construction of the East and West courses?

[DMoriarty]

David,
Do you still feel that Macdonald/Whigam created the Merion East plan in 1910?  If not, what changed your mind?

I still feel that the rough routing must have been in place by mid-November 1910, due to the efforts of H.H. Barker and CBM/Whigham, with an important assist by Francis and Lloyd.  That said, I have always acknowledged that Wilson was involved in working out the details of the plan with CBM and Whigham in the spring of 1911.

So my views haven't changed much on this at all.  But now that I've seen the Merion Board minutes all this seems to be a bit secondary, because those Minutes not only confirm CBM's/Whigham's importance and extensive involvement, the Minutes also indicate that Merion left the final determination of the layout plan up to CBM/Whigham.  What more could you guys expect in terms of proof?   Merion's own Board set out to build the golf course that CBM and HJWhigham told them to build!

Any comment on the MCC Board's 1914 statement thanking Wilson for the design AND construction of the two courses and of Alan Wilson's report that said each of the members of Wilson's committee had told him in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design and construction of the East and West courses?

I am not sure you have your facts straight on either point . . .  

1.  I am unaware of any "MCC Board's 1914 statement thanking Wilson for the design AND construction of the two courses."   Perhaps you can clarify?

2.  As for Alan Wilson letter, Hugh Wilson was certainly the person "in the main" amongst the members of Merion's Construction Committee, and if you look at the whole letter it becomes more apparent that that this is what Alan Wilson was writing about.   In the previous paragraph Alan Wilson had already acknowledged that CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham had been (among other things) considering and advising Merion about their plans and that their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the golf course were of the greatest help and value. Then Alan Wilson wrote "except for this" (meaning except for CBM/Whigham's contributions) the Committee was responsible.   Then in the next paragraph he goes on to discuss Wilson's role after his trip abroad and notes that, among the members of the Committee, Hugh Wilson was the "person in the main" most responsible, especially when one considered the development of the course over the years. 

I do agree that among the Construction Committee, Hugh Wilson was the person in the main responsible.  But CBM/Whigham were the ones in charge of determining the final plan for the golf course.  And Merion's Board set out to build the course according to the plan CBM/Whigham approved.

[Jim Nugent]

David, you have just about convinced me.  If you're right, why do you think history buried CBM's involvement?  Why did CBM himself stay silent about it? 

[Colin Macqueen]

David,

"While we are looking at old programs from Majors at Merion ………Kind of tough to read and not worth fully transcribing…."

Here you go!


"This hole is of the Redan type, with a formidable trap right across the face of the green, while a ditch comes int from the left, nearly meeting the trap and enclosing the line of the green. A steep bank runs up to the green from the ditch. A trap at the left entrance to the green forces play straight on the flag. As the green is somewhat higher than the tee  brisk breeze against the player will make it a difficult "proposition" to get to the "carpet" with an iron and perhaps the spoon will be a favourite club here. It is not unlikely that a number of championship aspirations will come to grief on this hole, which ought to give a marked advantage to the player who has sure command of his long irons. To metropolitan players it may be suggested that if the ninth at Sleepy Hollow were inverted so as to put the tee lower than the green, there would be a marked similarity between the two holes."

Cheers Colin

[DMoriarty]

David, you have just about convinced me.  If you're right, why do you think history buried CBM's involvement?

These things happen.  Wilson had been in charge of building the courses and had continued to develop and nurture them through two US Amateurs, until his untimely death.  Through his years of study and hard work, he had become the person Merion most associated with the development of their courses, and for very good reason.  In contrast, CBM's and Whigham's contribution had come very early in the process, before much if anything had been done on the land and their involvement would have been largely invisible except to those few who were actually involved in the design process.  Out of sight, out of mind.

I don't think it was anything sinister back then by anyone back then.  Wilson was effusive in his praise of CBM, and Robert Lesley thanked him and Whigham along with Wilson's committee.  But his was at the dawn of a new era in the development of golf courses,  and it was (and is) difficult to accurately characterize CBM/Whigham's contributions in a few words or general summary. CBM and Whigham weren't members of the Merion so they weren't on any of the Committees charged with creating the course.   They were purely amateurs and so they weren't "hired" or "retained" by the club.  The term "golf architect" was not really in common usage then, and when it was used it was applied more to professionals, and to those who were actually paid to build the golf course.  So what were CBM and Whigham? Merion called them "advisors" which was accurate, but it made it easy for later generations to dismiss their contributions as being secondary or unimportant.

Also, the Wilson legend is a good story and obviously appealed to Merion's membership.  Once a legend gets going it hard to ever set the record straight.   One need look no further than the recent Golf Digest article to see how easy it is for a golf club to mistakenly credit one of their own members instead of properly acknowledging the contributions of outsiders.  

Why did CBM himself stay silent about it?  

It doesn't surprise me that CBM didn't mention Merion in his book. The book isn't anything close to a complete catalogue of CBM's contributions to golf architecture.  For just one example, CBM doesn't even mention his redesign of Shinnecock Hills.  If CBM had discussed each of his contributions to golf course architecture, it would have been an extremely long book.  

As it was, only a few chapters were devoted to gca, and in those CBM focused on just a handful of his courses, and with these he had been in charge of the entire creation process from beginning to end, including the construction of the golf course.  I don't think CBM/Whigham had much of anything to do with the construction of Merion, so I am not surprised it wasn't discussed.  He helped Merion plan it, told Merion what they needed to do, and left it to Merion to carry it out.  So Merion was far from one of CBM's start-to-finish creations such as courses like NGLA, the Lido, Mid-Ocean, etc.

It might be worth noting that Hugh Wilson never took credit for the initial design, either.  The closest he came to discussing the design process was when he praised CBM for teaching him what Merion should try to accomplish with their natural conditions.  And in 1914 when Merion (through Robert Lesley) discussed the initial creation of the course, Merion credited Macdonald and Whigham alongside Wilson and his committee.

And when Merion's Board minutes indicated that Merion would build the course according to the layout plan approved by CBM and Whigham, there had yet to be a specific mention of Wilson's involvement in the design process.  

[Dan Herrmann]

David - thanks for your reply #108....

Some more info that I hope can add to the discussion:
 
The MCC Board minutes of April 19, 1911 contain a report from the committee appointed to design and construct the East Course. That report was read to the board by Golf Committee chairman, Robert Lesley, with the proposed plan attached to it. From research done by Merion historians via MCC and Merion the Wilson Committee operated under the aegis of the Golf Committee (a standing or permanent committee on the Board as opposed to a "Special" (ad hoc) committee (Wilson's committee).  
 
That report said that Special Committee laid out  many different courses, then went to NGLA, came home and re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Macdonald and Whigam came over for the day and said if we would lay out the course according to the plan (apparently one of the five different plans the Wilson Committee had just done) it would result in a first class course and that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. This report does not say that MCC told Macdonald/Whigam at any time that it was his responsibility to develop or choose a plan and it does not seem to indicate it was a plan that Macdonald/Whigam developed on their own in 1910 with some help from Francis and Lloyd which is what you said in your essay.  If there had been a routing and design plan that was largely developed and done this way in 1910 then why does this report say the "Special" committee did so many different iterations themselves after they were formed (in Jan, 1911)?
 
It also appears that the land swap mentioned in the report which necessitated the acquisition of three additional acres was something that happened close to the final development of plans and the proposal of one plan to the board on April 19, 1911, and not something that happened in 1910, some half a year previous.
 
It appears from this material that MCC never said Wilson and his committee designed the East course on their own, only that they did it themselves with valuable help to the club from Macdonald and Whigam on three occasions over ten months. It also certainly does not say that Macdonald/Whigam with some help from Francis and Lloyd did this proposed plan largely on their own or by Nov. 15, 1910 that was offered to the board for their approval on April 19, 1911, as you indicate in your essay and other posts on this subject. Is it true when you wrote and presented your essay that you were not aware of the particulars of the April 19, 1911 Board meeting which included the report of the Special committee read to the board by Robert Lesley?
 
 

The Special Committee report to the Board meeting of April 19, 1911:
 

"Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the
new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the
evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard
to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes,
which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April
6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and
after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay
it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would
result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to
any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to
acquire 3 acres additional."


I can certainly understand that Merion at its April 19, 1911 board meeting approved the plan and set out to build the course that the Special Committee report said Macdonald/Whigam approved of.

What I can't really see is where any of this material from that time (1910-1911) says that the plan they approved and built was largely developed by Macdonald/Whigam and not the Wilson committee.

I also can't see where there is any evidence from that time that the final plan was largely developed by Macdonald and Whigam with some help from Frances and Lloyd before Nov. 15, 1910.  

Thanks

[DMoriarty]

Before I address your post Dan, lets be clear on just whose ideas you are presenting here.  What of the above was written by you, and if it wasn't written by you, then by whom was it written?

Some of what you have posted is inaccurate in a familiar way, and I like to know with whom I am communicating.

[Mike Sweeney]

Why did CBM himself stay silent about it?  

It doesn't surprise me that CBM didn't mention Merion in his book. The book isn't anything close to a complete catalogue of CBM's contributions to golf architecture.  For just one example, CBM doesn't even mention his redesign of Shinnecock Hills.  If CBM had discussed each of his contributions to golf course architecture, it would have been an extremely long book.  

This is one place that I question the amount of his involvement. It has been well documented that CBM's relationship with Shinnecock was frayed at best. Why would you not want Merion on your resume if you were so involved? Something does not ring true here as we all know CBM was not a modest man.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
As requested, here are the 1914 minutes referred to in my post #107

(An entry in the November 23, 1914 board minutes upon the resignation of Hugh Wilson as Chairman of the Green Committee read as follows,)
“The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was presented, whereupon, on motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolutionwas adopted:

RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson’s resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in the laying out and supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses. The fact that these courses are freely admitted by expert players to be second to none in this country, demonstrates more fully than anything else that can be said, the ability and good judgment displayed by Mr. Wilson in his work.

The Board desires to express on behalf of the Club its sincere thanks to Mr. Wilson and its regret that pressure of business makes it necessary for him to relinquish the duties of Chairman of this important committee.

On motion duly seconded, Mr. Winthrop Sargent was appointed a member of the Golf Committee and Chairman of the Green Committee.”


As to your later question, I wrote the above posts.   Did I write something you feel is not accurate?  Lord knows that I make mistakes, and don't mind learning from them.

[DMoriarty]

This is one place that I question the amount of his involvement. It has been well documented that CBM's relationship with Shinnecock was frayed at best. Why would you not want Merion on your resume if you were so involved? Something does not ring true here as we all know CBM was not a modest man.

What I think what it comes down to is that CBM was not in control at Merion through the entire creation.  He took great pride in his own complete creations, and it would have been contrary to character for him to claim credit for a course when he was not in charge of how it was built.   

Do you sincerely think that CBM would have needed Merion to enhance his resume?  Really?  Because I think his reputation was pretty well established by the likes of NGLA, Lido, Mid-Ocean, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, Creek Club, Yale, the Links, Shinnecock, Chicago, etc.  This was especially so in the 1920's, when NGLA and Lido (along with Pine Valley) often came up in discussions and debates about the best course in the country. In contrast, while Merion has always been a great course, its reputation has been built up over the decades and was not then what it is now.

[Bill Brightly]

For newer members who have not read it, and older members who have not read it in a while, now might be a good time to review David's essay: The Missing Faces of Merion:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/the-missing-faces-of-merion-by-david-moriarty-2/

[DMoriarty]

Dan Herrman,

So were you the one who transcribed the minutes from the April meeting?  Or did someone provide them to you?

And were you the Merion historian who determined the operating hierachy of Merion's committee structure?  Or did someone provide you with that information?  

[DMoriarty]

For newer members who have not read it, and older members who have not read it in a while, now might be a good time to review David's essay: The Missing Faces of Merion:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/the-missing-faces-of-merion-by-david-moriarty-2/

Bill,  

Thanks for pulling up the link.  Unfortunately the formatting of the IMO were thoroughly screwed up when Ran made some site-wide changes to the website a few years ago.  Footnotes don't show up or aren't marked as footnotes, section headings are missing and text shows up as headings, things are sometimes out of order, etc.   In other words it is a garbled mess.   But most of the information is still in there somewhere.

[Dan Herrmann]

Dan Herrman,

So were you the one who transcribed the minutes from the April meeting?  Or did someone provide them to you?

And were you the Merion historian who determined the operating hierachy of Merion's committee structure?  Or did someone provide you with that information? 

l

No. I did not transcribe the minutes., but what difference does it make?

I'm obviously not affiliated with Merion in any way.  I'm just a big time fan of the club and GCA in general.

[Mike Sweeney]

Do you sincerely think that CBM would have needed Merion to enhance his resume?  Really?  Because I think his reputation was pretty well established by the likes of NGLA, Lido, Mid-Ocean, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, Creek Club, Yale, the Links, Shinnecock, Chicago, etc.  

What I think does not matter. The question is why did CBM not talk about Merion and he wrote extensively about Yale, a course that he only visited once or maybe twice ?

CBM won the the first US Amateur in 1895 at Newport. Whigham wins the next year in 1896 at the old Shinnecock. CBM was a huge force/founder in/of the USGA. Merion host the US Amateur in 1916, Bobby Jones wins in 1924, and they host again in 1930. In 1934, Merion host a US Open and CBM dies in 1939.

CBM never mentions it and he was a driving force at Merion along with Whigham? Does not make sense to me. Maybe he had a fight with the Philly guys  , but I just can't see how HE would have thought his involvement was that important if he never mentioned it later in life. There has to be more to the story if he was as involved as you speculate.

CBM was a consultant for sure but just how important is speculation as Tom Doak stated on page 1:

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!  

[ChipOat]

I won't question what is/isn't a Redan; the written record indicates that CBM had a broader definition than we have historically associated with a Redan.

As for me, the Redans (or Naders) that I prefer are those where the ground game is almost always the preferred play unless it has been raining for awhile.

Those would include NGLA, Somerset Hills, Shinnecock, the Links Golf Club (NLE) and Piping Rock.  there are others, but I have not played them.

I respect CBM's definition and Merion's #3 is a wonderful golf hole.  In terms of how it PLAYS, it is not my favorite Redan 

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

You wrote, "what I think does not matter," yet you also think you know what CBM should have written?  Doesn't it matter more what we know about his involvement rather than our speculation about what we think he should or should not have written in 1927? 

While we are speculating about unknowable things, I think it is very unlikely he would ever have taken credit for a course if he wasn't in the person in charge of the project through its creation.   So far as I know he never did take credit in such a situation, but if you don't think CBM was ultimately in charge of what Raynor was doing at Yale, then we'll have to agree disagree on that as well.

Shouldn't the Yale example cut the other direction?  CBM may have spent more time on the ground at Merion figuring out the design than he did at Yale  or some of his other course he did with Raynor.

[DMoriarty]

Dan,

Here are some of the problems with the information you are passing on in post No. 112 above:

1.  This was a report by the "Golf Committee." "Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley report as follows on the New Golf Grounds . . ."

2. Nothing in the Minutes even remotely suggests that this report was on behalf of an unmentioned "Special Committee."

3. There is NO title or introduction in the minutes reading:  "The Special Committee report to the Board meeting of April 19, 1911:"  This phony heading creates the false impression that the report was from Construction Committee, while the actual Minutes indicate otherwise.

4. The post mentions "research done by Merion historians" suggesting that a "Special Committee" could not report directly to Merion's Board. This is demonstrably false.  Had these historians taken a few seconds to review more of the Minutes, they'd have noticed that special committees commonly reported directly to the Board. This included the "Committee on New Golf Grounds" which, according to the Board, was also a "Special Committee."  

5. In other words, the reason the Minutes explicitly indicated that this was a report by the "Golf Committee" is because it was actually a report by the "Golf Committee."
  
6. Nothing in the Minutes indicated that the report was "from the committee to design and construct the East Course" or that any such committee even existed.  Presumably you must be referring to the Construction Committee but nothing in the Minutes indicate that the Construction Committee had been "appointed to design . . . Merion East."  The Minutes had yet to even mention the Construction Committee at this time.

7.   The commentary also repeatedly mischaracterizes my position. I believe there was a rough routing in place prior to November of 1910, but noted that they were still working on the plan in 1911. This is consistent with the April minutes, unless one insists on reading into the minutes a bunch of stuff that is just not there.  

8.   You wrote:  "It also appears that the land swap mentioned in the report which necessitated the acquisition of three additional acres was something that happened close to the final development of plans and the proposal of one plan to the board on April 19, 1911, and not something that happened in 1910, some half a year previous."   To the contrary, the "three additional acres" most likely refers to the approx. 3 acre plot behind the clubhouse which was not included in the original purchase (but which was soon leased from the RR, then finally purchased decades later.)  In June of 1910, CBM informed the club that they needed to obtain this additional land by the clubhouse.

When we strip away the misinformation in the post above, the process becomes a bit more into focus. The design process had been ongoing since early the summer before, and the report is condensing a 10 month long process into a few sentences.  Your post seems to assume that nothing was done until right before the NGLA meeting, but we know that is not the case.  Some of the events described happened many months before.
_____________________________

As for the 1914  submission in honor of Hugh Wilson's retirement, thanks for posting, but I don't see anything inconsistent with my position at all.   Wilson did lay the course out and supervise construction, according to the final layout plan as approved by CBM and Whigham.