USGA Architecture Forum at 4 PM Today

[Peter Pallotta]

David - I think your post #21 and then your questions to Jim in post #24 get to the heart of the matter, and probably lie at the centre of any disagreeements. (By the way, thanks for your detailed answer/post to me re what Wilson did at Merion once he got back from his study tour abroad -- I meant to thank you in that thread but got sidetracked; oh, and that goes to SL's questions too.) As briefly as I can:

1) It's clear that CBM approved the final plan; but, since its quite unusual for anyone to approve his own work, I have to assume that Wilson and the Committee must've been largely responsible for developing those 5 plans. (Yes, they had already recieved advice and guidance from CBM at that point; but if CBM had been instrumental in developing those plans, why would he have had anything to 'approve'? Presumably he would have simply presented, as the best one, the one he thought the best, and not have to decide/approve that post facto)

2) While 'the legend' assumes/accepts much without a great deal of documentation to back it up, I think similarly there is no documentation (that I have seen) to suggest that those five plans were, as you opine, more akin to 'variations' of a basic routing than to different routings. You may well be right -- but I think you would say (have already said) we simply don't know that for a fact.

In short, it seems that, IF those 5 plans were 'variations' on a theme, then CBM is certainly due more credit for the design than he's been traditionally given; but if those plans were actually different routings (and, as I suggest above, largely developed by Wilson and the Commitee, to then be approved by CBM) then the traditional credit as 'advisor' is probably pretty accurate.

[Mike Sweeney]

1 Given we are talking about CB Macdonald's involvement,  I am not sure who's opinion would matter more.

2. Last week you argued that it wasn't a CBM course because CBM didn't brag about it. Turns out he did brag about it, as you can see from Merion's Minutes.
______________________________



Thanks.

1. In reference to Macdonald's involvement, I would think that Merion Golf Club's or the individual committee members opinion would matter more.

2. If Macdonald did not put it in his writings, how is that bragging by Macdonald? It is in Merion's minutes which he has no control over.

In reference to your three questions:

1.  According to the Minutes, of those involved in the planning who had final say over the layout plan?

2.  And who narrowed the options from 5 to 1?

3.  And who had "approved" the plan which was submitted with Lesley's report to the Board?

___________________________

I don't know the answers.

[DMoriarty]

David,

I think the committee did all that stuff with some help from Macdonald and Wigham. I think the references to CBM and HJW COULD BE little more than salesmanship to the members. Emphasis on could!

This is rich, Jim.  Merion's Minutes indicate in no uncertain terms that Macdonald and Whigham had "approved" the layout plan which was submitted with Lesley's report.  Yet you can't bring yourself to admit even this!  

If you won't even take Merion's Board Minutes at face value, then I think it fair for me to assume that we are no longer both doing our best to try and objectively understand the factual information before us.

Oh well . . .  it has nonetheless been a pleasure discussing these matters with you.  You've been very patient.

Last week I asked if it was undeniable that Hugh Wilson was the green chairman at Merion in 1909. While you were responding on-line that this was false, Tom Paul responded off-line that it was true.

That is NOT what you asked.   You asked "Is it undeniably true that Hugh Wilson was chairman of the Green Committee from 1909 to 1914?"   He was NOT the chairman of the green committee from 1909 to 1914.  I am currently looking at a Board Minute entry from 1911 listing out the members of the Green Committee and Wilson was NOT the Chairman and NOT EVEN ON THE GREEN COMMITTEE.  If TEPaul told you differently, then TEPaul is mistaken.  

I have also been seen all of the golf related Minutes from 1910, and there is NO MENTION whatsoever of Hugh Wilson.  And if he was on the Chair of the Committee in 1909, then it would be easy enough for one of your friends at Merion to provide you with the Minutes  entry so indicating.  If you take TEPaul's word for it, then you have learned less than nothing in all these years of conversation.

I haven't asked either of you any follow up questions, but if he was in fact green chairman of the Merion Cricket Club, or MCCGA then this whole conversation changes regarding his potential input.

The juxtaposition between this statement and your statement above is emblematic of the entirety of these discussions over they years. On the one hand, you refuse to accept Merion's own Board Minutes when they explicitly indicate that (among other things) Macdonald and Wilson had approved the plan which was submitted with the Golf Committee's April 1911 report.    On the other hand, you posit that if Wilson had been Green Chairman in 1909 then "this whole conversation changes regarding his potential input."

How would the whole conversation change? The land was found in 1910, not 1909. The course was designed in 1910 and 1911, not 1909.

More importantly, there is NOTHING in the contemporaneous record indicating that the Green Committee was in charge of designing the course, or that the Green Committee was even involved.  Despite Mike Cira's attenuated speculation to the contrary, the Green Committee and the Construction Committee were NOT synonymous!  According to numerous reports, the Construction Committee was created in early 1911 (after Merion had purchased the land) and Wilson was the Chair of the Construction Committee! Yet according to the 1911 Board Minutes, Sargent was Chair of the Green Committee and he wasnt even on the Construction Committee.   Neither were three other members of the Green Committee.  So they were NOT synonymous.    They were NOT the same committee.   (As I have mentioned before, Wilson was added to the Golf Committee sometime in 1911, but he was not on that committee during 1910.)

This is getting silly.  It reminds me very much of Cirba's and Morrison's attempts to invent a second previous study trip abroad once I had proven that Wilson traveled abroad in 1912.  There was no evidence of such a trip, and Hugh Wilson even implicitly told us there was no earlier trip, yet they really really wanted there to have been a trip, so they spent years torturing the facts to try and create one!  

Something similar is happening here.   Wilson wasn't involved until 1911.  He told us so.  Others told us so.  He doesn't even come up in the Minutes until then!  Yet you guys really want him involved earlier, so you just pretend that it must have been a different committee running the show, and pretend he was the Chairman during the relevant time period.  Silly.    If the Green Committee was in charge, then let's see the contemporaneous facts.  If Wilson was the Chair when the Green Committee was in charge, lets see the contemporaneous facts.

And please don't give me an article from twenty-some years later which explicitly contradicts a contemporaneous article written by the same author!  

[JESII]

David,

Do you think Merion's committee approved the plan as well?


Regarding Wilson and the gren committee. As I said, I haven't spoken to Tom about details but he mentioned the MCCGA. A different entity than MCC. Do you think your records include info on MCCGA?

[DMoriarty]

Mike Sweeney.

1. In reference to Macdonald's involvement, I would think that Merion Golf Club's or the individual committee members opinion would matter more.

Interesting speculation, but thoroughly refuted by the words and actions of Merion's Board and their Golf Committee. The Minutes leave no doubt as to whose opinions mattered most to Merion.  

2. If Macdonald did not put it in his writings, how is that bragging by Macdonald? It is in Merion's minutes which he has no control over.

Seriously? Do you think the Minutes were lying about what Macdonald said about the course?   Macdonald had control over what he told them, didn't he?  He told them the last seven holes equalled any inland course in the world.  He was bragging about the course.  And he wasn't just bragging to Merion.  

In the January 1913 American Golfer, "Far and Sure" noted, "Two years ago, Mr. Charles B.Macdonald, who had been of great assistance, in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen."


Does telling a writer from the major golf publication that "Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen" count as bragging?  Or do you have a rule for this situation, too?

Would it be too much of a stretch for you to admit that, according to various reports, that Macdonald was indeed bragging about the quality of the golf course?  Or are you sticking to your guns on this one, too?
 

In reference to your three questions:

1.  According to the Minutes, of those involved in the planning who had final say over the layout plan?

2.  And who narrowed the options from 5 to 1?

3.  And who had "approved" the plan which was submitted with Lesley's report to the Board?

___________________________

I don't know the answers.

Really? You don't know who approved the plan even though the Minutes explicitly say that Macdonald and Whigham "approved" the plan?

You are comfortable speculating about what sort of crossovers one ought not to see on a 1911 CBM course, but unwilling believe the Merion Board Minutes?

My goal in this conversation is to try and understand what really happened at Merion.   I hope that is your goal as well, but I cannot see that  refusing to acknowledge even the most obvious points helps advance that goal.    

[DMoriarty]

David,

Do you think Merion's committee approved the plan as well?

No.

I think that when they left NGLA there were some issues to be resolved, so when they returned they "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans" for Macdonald/Whigham to consider and resolve when they arrived a few weeks later.  Macdonald and Whigham then went over the land and considered the plans, and came up with the best one, and that plan was submitted to the Board as the plan they approved.    

I think the mistake you and others are making is that you try to build a wall between what they were doing at NGLA (and before) and what they were doing at Merion "upon their return."  This was a process that had been ongoing in one way or another since the previous summer!

(Besides, what you are suggesting is NOT in the Minutes.   Normally I'd say that it was possible that the Committee may have been involved in the decision, but given your unwillingness to take even take the Minutes at their word, I am in no mood to start reading in things that aren't there.)

Regarding Wilson and the gren committee. As I said, I haven't spoken to Tom about details but he mentioned the MCCGA. A different entity than MCC. Do you think your records include info on MCCGA?

Every time your friend rears his head, his stories get more self-contradictory.  You may recall that in the not so distant past, TEPaul was vehemently arguing that the MCCGA did not even come into existence until 1911.  So how then is it that he uses MCCGA to explain that Wilson was chairman of the Green Committee in 1909?  I have a theory which I will try and explain later.

If Wilson was chair in 1909, lets see the proof.   It wouldn't matter to our discussion of the design, but I'd still like to see the supposed proof.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
This is the "prove the negative" type of thing I was mentioning earlier:  "If Wilson was chair in 1909, lets see the proof.   It wouldn't matter to our discussion of the design, but I'd still like to see the supposed proof."

Let me put it to you this way - Do you have proof of who the chair was in 1909?

[JESII]

David,

Let me get this straight...the Merion committee did not approve the plan they presented to the board!?!

I wonder if Merion approved hosting the US Open this week...

I think you need to reconsider the question. It's self evident that they approved AND approved of the plan. Just what they meant by CBM approving the plan is the question. If he had "Determined and Approved" the plan as you've slipped in a few times we would have a different conversation...but the minutes don't say "detemined" do they?

I'll ask Tom about MCCGA and 1909.

[DMoriarty]

Dan Hermann,

I don't know what you are talking about. If Wilson was chair in 1909, then prove it. That is not asking to you "prove a negative." It is asking you to prove a positive. Surely you understand this, don't you?

I am not interested in wasting my time debunking yet another unsupported and tangential dead-end theory.  I don't even care if he was chair in 1909.  But if you want to argue Wilson was chair in 1909, then prove it.  It should be easy enough. Call you buddies at Merion and get the documents listing him as chair.  It is not up to me to prove he wasn't the chair.  
______________________________________________________________________


Jim Sullivan,

Let's please stop playing word games.  

If the Committee "approved the plan" they didn't say so.  What they did say was that CBM and HJW came back down to Merion and after going over "the ground" and "the various plans" CBM/HJW approved the plan.  

"Various plans" to "the plan."  Surely we can at least agree that they reviewed the ground and the "various plans" and chose/determined/picked/recommended one plan, can't we?

I'll ask Tom about MCCGA and 1909.

Unless he comes up with actual proof instead of just another story, I am not interested.  

[DMoriarty]

Peter,

Sorry I haven't addressed your post in due order.

Upfront, let me just say that I don't agree that the "five different plans" discussion gets to the heart of the matter.  The tendency when we look at this information is to take each little snippet and analyze the hell out of it as if it were going to answer all our questions. The reality is that this was a long process, and the "five different plans" is just one fragment of many, one piece of the puzzle, and it must be considered with all that came before and after.  

It doesn't make sense to try and build a wall between what they were doing at NGLA (and before) and what they were doing at Merion "upon their return."  This was a process that had been ongoing since the previous summer!  

1) It's clear that CBM approved the final plan; but, since its quite unusual for anyone to approve his own work,

First, it wasn't just "his own work."  Those from Merion almost certainly must have contributed as well.  I have always acknowledged that.  

Second, it is NOT at all unusual for the person in charge to have final approval over a project to which many others have also contributed.  It happens all the time in law, in writing, in architecture, and in any creative profession and/or creative process where a number of individuals are contributing but only one of the contributors has final say over the project!  He had final say. Or final approval.

Third,  We don't have to rely on this sort of semantical nitpicking.  We have additional information, and we know they helped develop the project. CBM/HJW had long been helping with the plan starting the summer before, and Merion had been relying on their advice which was of  "greatest help and value."  It doesn't seem reasonable to write them out of a 9 month process because of your conjecture about how the word "approved" might have been used at the culmination of a long, complicated process.

I have to assume that Wilson and the Committee must've been largely responsible for developing those 5 plans. (Yes, they had already recieved advice and guidance from CBM at that point; but if CBM had been instrumental in developing those plans, why would he have had anything to 'approve'? Presumably he would have simply presented, as the best one, the one he thought the best, and not have to decide/approve that post facto)

At the very least he decided between the "various plans." If he had only "approved" the plan in the sense of a rubber stamp, then how did he go from five plans to one?  Doesn't deciding between the plans cut against your understanding of "approve?"

And, respectfully, I don't think your assumption is supported by the totality of the record. In my opinion:
1.  You are reading way too much into what you think they might have meant "approved."
2.  You are not adequately considering the 9 month process up to that point.  

Remember, before the NGLA meeting CBM/HJW had already been over the land and considering how the holes would fit, and unlike the summer before, Merion now had a contour map.  Given we know they were planning at Merion, it seems unreasonable to then turn around and say that the plans laid out after NGLA were independently created.  

2) While 'the legend' assumes/accepts much without a great deal of documentation to back it up, I think similarly there is no documentation (that I have seen) to suggest that those five plans were, as you opine, more akin to 'variations' of a basic routing than to different routings. You may well be right -- but I think you would say (have already said) we simply don't know that for a fact.

I have said that we don't know for certain.  But I view the "five totally independent routings" theory to be very unlikely for a host of reasons. I don't think it matters much in this context, so I'll mention just one. The actual quote is:  "Upon our return, werearranged the course and laid out five different plans." There was one "course" but multiple plans.  This to me suggests options vs. wholly distinct routings.

But as I said, I don't think it matters much in this context. No matter the degree of independence in the plans, they had just been planning the layout at NGLA with CBM and HJW!   And if the plans were very different, then wouldn't this make CBM's choice between them all that more significant?

[By the way, keep in mind that when Lesley used the phrase "to lay out" in that passage, he was referring to laying it out on the ground. ( "if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved . . .")  They were laying out the plans on the ground, but they weren't necessarily the ones who came up with the plans.]

In short, it seems that, IF those 5 plans were 'variations' on a theme, then CBM is certainly due more credit for the design than he's been traditionally given; but if those plans were actually different routings (and, as I suggest above, largely developed by Wilson and the Commitee, to then be approved by CBM) then the traditional credit as 'advisor' is probably pretty accurate.

You lose me here.   Whether they were variations or distinct plans, they were still just at NGLA working on the layout, and CBM had still played a major role in choosing the land, etc.  

For all we know he could have handed them five different plans at NGLA and said "lay them out at Merion and I'll be down in a few weeks to pick the best one."   This theory requires EXACTLY the same amount of speculation as your theory.  It may require less speculation because at least it doesn't discount/ignore NGLA.

I am not saying this happened, but it is no more speculative than your version, is it?  

[Mike Sweeney]

1. Seriously? Do you think the Minutes were lying about what Macdonald said about the course?   Macdonald had control over what he told them, didn't he?  He told them the last seven holes equalled any inland course in the world.  He was bragging about the course.  And he wasn't just bragging to Merion.  

2. In the January 1913 American Golfer, "Far and Sure" noted, "Two years ago, Mr. Charles B.Macdonald, who had been of great assistance, in an advisory way, told me that Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen."

Does telling a writer from the major golf publication that "Merion would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen" count as bragging?  Or do you have a rule for this situation, too?

Would it be too much of a stretch for you to admit that, according to various reports, that Macdonald was indeed bragging about the quality of the golf course?  Or are you sticking to your guns on this one, too?
 
3. Really? You don't know who approved the plan even though the Minutes explicitly say that Macdonald and Whigham "approved" the plan?

1. I don't see where Macdonald took any ownership of those last seven holes in his statement, so no I don't see that as bragging.

2. Macdonald said he was an adviser. I have emailed Tom Doak about Streamsong and then told people I believe it is the superior course on the property. I don't see Macdonald doing anything more than complementing a great course that he advised on.

3. Same thing. The minutes certainly acknowledge Macdonald, but they give me no insight into his true value at Merion.

Again, in my opinion, since day 1 you have taken new information that was discovered by Tom MacWood and/or yourself, and extrapolated it out with very select quotes that support your theory.

I just don't see enough evidence to support your theory of Macdonald's involvement beyond what American Golfer stated was Macdonald's role as: "in an advisory way".

Should Macdonald be acknowledged in Merion's history as an Advisor to The East? Of course.

Should Macdonald be on the scorecard with Wilson, or replacing Wilson? No.

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - I think this is well said and, more importantly, factually correct"
"Should Macdonald be acknowledged in Merion's history as an Advisor to The East? Of course.

Should Macdonald be on the scorecard with Wilson, or replacing Wilson? No."

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Based on the contemporaneous record, what exactly did Hugh Wilson contribute to the final routing plan mentioned in the April 1911 Minutes?

[Peter Pallotta]

David - thanks. You conclude by writing "I am not saying this happened, but it is no more speculative than your version, is it?" I think I agree - the last possible version of events is no more speculative than what I was describing.  But, while I'm trying to remember and honour all the facts/information that have been uncovered and posted here over the years, I'm also going with some intution or 'common sense' -- and it seems to me that, however those 5 plans came about (after months of CBM advising and after the NGLA visit etc), to think of them as basically "variations" instead of 5 meaningfully different "routings" would mean that all involved agreed pretty early on that there was only one basic way to route the course, one basic way to fit the 18 holes everyone agreed on onto the land/routing. But if this was the case, then why the need for the NGLA trip and the return to Merion and the development of 5 different plans and CBM having to approve the best one? I grant that I'm just thinking out loud here, but I just can't see the need for all that extra time and trouble and discussions if someone (i,.e. CBM) had already determined early in the process the ideal/sole routing -- so that suggests to me that Wilson and the Committee must've been grappling with/organizing a number of possible holes over a number of possible routings. As i say, though, I readily admit that this is just a 'suggestion'.

Peter  

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike,

Based on the contemporaneous record, what exactly did Hugh Wilson contribute to the final routing plan mentioned in the April 1911 Minutes?

David,

That is the entire point. There is no way to determine exactly what anyone did. Hugh Wilson is the architect by default as the Head of the Committee, which is not an easy job to manage people, manage internal and external egos, and to build consensus. Nobody knows who really did what 100 years later.

Your will reply that Macdonald "approved the routing" in the Minutes. Committees look to build consensus. If Macdonald did not approve, the Minutes would have probably skipped over his disapproval.

[DMoriarty]

Peter,  Thanks for your response.   I think perhaps you might be misunderstanding the relative timing of the events being discussed.   Either that or I am missing your point.

You wrote that my understanding of what happened when they "rearranged the course and laid out five different plans" would "mean that all involved agreed pretty early on that there was only one basic way to route the course, one basic way to fit the 18 holes everyone agreed on onto the land/routing."

First, this was by no means "pretty early on" in the planning process.  This is at the end of a very long process, not at the beginning.  It is unreasonable and contrary to the evidence that the planning was just getting going after the NGLA meeting.  For a few examples . . .
  - CBM had been considering how the holes would fit for 9 months, and had expressed the need for a contour map over 9 months before, and Merion had a contour map made sometime between then and the end of January 1911.
  -  Merion's Golf Committee had already taken a shot at "laying out many different courses on the new land."  (I suspect the Barker plan, whatever CBM/HJW had communicated from June-Nov., and Merion's own variations, including the Francis adjustment.)
  -  Merion had announced to the membership that "experts were at work" planning the course in January.  The only experts mentioned in the process were Barker, CBM, and HJW.  
Planning had been ongoing for quite some time before NGLA!

Second, I don't think they all had to have come to some sort of an understanding before NGLA.  Judging from the minutes, what mattered to Merion was what CBM thought should be done.  And it was at NGLA that he taught Merion what he thought they should do with their natural conditions.  After NGLA, they "rearranged the course" and laid out the five plans, and he came back down and finalized the one he thought best.

Pardon the bolds, but I am hoping you'll address these questions . . .

How does "common sense" justify walling off what happened at NGLA from what happened "upon our return" from NGLA?

Why would it be unreasonable to think that by the time they left NGLA that they had a good idea of the general bones of the routing, but that some of the details had not yet been worked out? Isn't it "common sense" that some of the details would have still beel left to work out?

Wouldn't it be much more unreasonable to think they had locked themselves into a very odd and difficult site (with only minor flexibility on one segment of the border) without first roughly working out how a first class golf course would fit on the land?

Why is it unreasonable to think that CBM had a rough routing in mind, but that there were still details to be worked out?

Upon returning from NGLA they "rearranged the course."  You mention "common sense" but it defies both the facts and common sense to act as if the design process began from scratch right after they had returned from NGLA and "rearranged the course."  One course. Not five courses.

In sum, I don't get what you are trying to say at all.   Designing a course is complicated.  After the rough routing is in place, there is still plenty to be decided.   Why is this so hard to accept?  I really don't follow your logic. What am I missing?

[DMoriarty]

That is the entire point. There is no way to determine exactly what anyone did. Hugh Wilson is the architect by default as the Head of the Committee, which is not an easy job to manage people, manage internal and external egos, and to build consensus. Nobody knows who really did what 100 years later.

Architect by default?  That is a funny one.  It may help you and others try to preserve the scorecard attribution, but it doesn't add much to a discussion of what really happened.  

But you are mistaken when you write "nobody knows who really did what 100 years later."  We don't know squat about Wilson did, but we know quite a lot about what CBM/HJW did. Here is  some of what they did:
- They traveled to Ardmore, went over the land, met with the Committee and provided their opinions on what could be done with the land, and confirmed some of what they had discussed in a letter.  Merion decided to purchase the land based largely on their opinions.
- They provided Merion with cost estimates for construction and irrigation.
- They provided Merion with a list of holes they thought should be included on the property.
- They instructed Merion and Hugh Wilson on various agronomy issues.
- At NGLA (among other things) they advised Merion about the potential layout and taught Merion what could be done with their natural conditions.
- Shortly after NGLA they returned to Merion and again went over the land and the various plans, and they determined the final plan from various options and their plan was submitted to Merion's board as the plan they had "approved."  
- After this, their involvement was more limited, but they did continue to advise Merion on the construction of the course.

So contrary to your claim, we know a hell of a lot about what they did.  We just don't know what if anything Wilson did when it comes to the planning!  All we know is that he built the course according to the plan CBM approved. That and your "architect by default" theory.

Let's try this again.

Based on the contemporaneous record, what can you tell me about Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process from Summer of 1910 through April 6, 1911, when Macdonald and Whigham approved the final layout plan?  

Nothing at all?



[And by the way, your "architect by default" theory is based on a misunderstanding of the facts.  Hugh Wilson was not "Head of the Committee." Robert Lesley was Chair of the precursor to the Golf Committee throughout most of 1910, when much of the planning was taking place.  Hugh Wilson was not even on the committee.   H.G. Lloyd replaced him as Chair of this committee in late November 1910. Still, Hugh Wilson was not even a member of this committee!  Hugh Wilson eventually joined this committee at some point in 1911, but from the order it appears in the minutes provided to me, this did not occur until AFTER CBM had already approved the final layout plan.]  

[DMoriarty]

Is anyone out there willing to tell me about Hugh Wilson's involvement in the planning process.  I am not interested in legends, or fanciful theories, or  rampant speculation, or "architect by default" proclimations.  I am interested in actual facts.  

Surely we ought to be able to compare CBM's involvement in the planning process to Hugh Wilson's.  

Here is just some of what CBM and Whigham were up to during the planning of Merion East from summer 1910 through April 6, 1911.
- They traveled to Ardmore, went over the land, met with the Committee and provided their opinions on what could be done with the land, and confirmed some of what they had discussed in a letter.  Merion decided to purchase the land based largely on their opinions.
- They provided Merion with cost estimates for construction and irrigation.
- They provided Merion with a list of holes they thought should be included on the property.
- They instructed Merion and Hugh Wilson on various agronomy issues.
- At NGLA (among other things) they advised Merion about the potential layout and taught Merion what could be done with their natural conditions.
- Shortly after NGLA they returned to Merion, again went over the land and the various plans, and they determined the final plan from various options, and their plan was submitted to Merion's board as the plan they had "approved."  

So now lets list out what Hugh Wilson was doing during this same time period.

Anyone?

Imagine that this wasn't Merion, and we knew that CBM had been so extensively involved in the planning any other course. . .  Would we even be having this discussion?

If nothing else, I have learned that old legends die hard, no matter the facts.   Especially in Philadelphia.

[Mike Sweeney]

Anyone?
 

Dan Hermann posted a response for Mike Cirba yesterday that seems logical to me:

Mike Cirba's 'Who was Hugh Wilson?' is posted under In My Opinion

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55871.msg1298608.html#new

[DMoriarty]

I've seen Mike's comments in that thread. Much of what he has posted is extremely misleading and demonstrably false.  And nothing he's posted even begins to answer the questions I asked above. The best Mike can do is pretend Wilson was chair of the Green Committee in 1909. Irrelevant and unproven.

Or maybe I've missed something . . .  If you think so, then feel free to draw on Mikes post in answering the question yourself.

Based on the contemporaneous record, what can you tell me about Hugh Wilson's involvement in the design process from Summer of 1910 through April 6, 1911, when Macdonald and Whigham approved the final layout plan?

[Sean_A]

David

What we can say is the ultimate responsibility for Merion's original design(s) is down to the decision-makers.  That is the way world works and that is why Wilson is defacto given so much credit for Merion.  It isn't perfect, but given what we know (or more accurately what we don't know), it is a reasonable approach.  Who knows, maybe Wilson didn't actually come up with any ideas and instead was very astute at choosing consultants and taking advice.  Who knows, maybe CBM merely offered vague advice about this that and the other.  I have always believed Merion was a Committee creation and Wilson was the Chair of that Comm for quite some time.  So it stands to reason that Wilson should take the lion's share of credit unless he or the Comm. stated this shouldn't be the case or if it proof can demonstrate the Comm. wasn't responsible for decision-making.  There is far too much agenda driven assumptions being made which really muddies the water.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Sean, Im not that caught up on the attribution issue.  I'd rather understand what actually happened.  

But regarding attribution, your "decision-makers" argument makes my case for me.  When it comes to decision making, all arrows point to Macdonald and Whigham.  None to Wilson.

Macdonald and Whigham determined the final layout plan from a number of options, and that plan was submitted to Merion's board as the one "approved" but Macdonald and Whigham.

Merion left the final approval of the layout plan to Macdonald and Whigham, Sean.  Macdonald and Whigham were the "decision-makers."

And Wilson was NOT chair of the committee who was dealing with the design issue.  He was in charge of constructing the course.  In Merion's case, construction did not begin until after CBM and Whigham had approved the final plan.  

ADDED:
Just so there is no confusion, Sean, here is the sentence from the minutes, with my bold:
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.

[Dan Moore]

It  seems clear the final decision maker was the Board at Merion.  To me it appears Macdonald was heavily relied for his recommendation as to which plan was best out of the variations the committee had developed with his imput.  The fact he approved of one of those plans does not mean he deterimined or personally created such plan.  I am vey interested in knowing if there is more primary source factual material about Wilson's role in the routing process as that does seem to be a factual hole here.  Regardless I find it pretty inconceivable the Club would assign him to build the course without his having been intimately involved in the the planning and routing process.  Jumping ahead I feel the course changed so significantly (many greens rebuilt, holes rerouted) as it was built and rebuilt over the next 10-15  years that I find it hard to argue Merion is not primarily the creation of Wilson (and Flynn).    In any event i think the fact Macdonald and Whigham played such a significant role as consultants in the initial planning only adds to the mystique and historical significance of Merion.

[Mike Sweeney]

Jumping ahead I feel the course changed so significantly (many greens rebuilt, holes rerouted) as it was built and rebuilt over the next 10-15  years that I find it hard to argue Merion is not primarily the creation of Wilson (and Flynn).   

Dan,

This week's event so far has been very interesting to me as a "Friend of Merion" since I first played it as a kid in the late 1970's. I spoke with an architect/friend yesterday and it is amazing how much the course has changed during that time. Deeper bunkers, very different edges to the bunkers, very different maintenance, the changes to #2, new greens on 12 and 15, the quarry holes look completely different. There used to a lake on #17 ! On and on, and those are just from my memory and a relatively short time frame.

I really hated the fact that they flattened #12 and #15 for this tournament, but the 18 very different and very unique greens have been compelling to watch so far. The players just can't seem to figure them out and today will be worse/better. The evolution of Merion is really amazing to watch and borrowing from Mike Cirba's essay Tillinghast stated:

______________________

Tillinghast described this evolutionary process at Merion for “American Cricketer” magazine in January, 1913; “”Before winter came down on us I visited Merion to play over the new course for the first time.   I liked it then, but I permitted weeks to pass before I attempted to put my impressions on paper.   It must be remembered that the golf course is unlike a book or the play, for it is not a work that is finished and to be judged as it is.   As a matter of fact, a golf course is never completed, and Merion is at present in a very early stage:  consequently we must regard it as the foundation from which there will gradually rise the structure of the builder’s plans.   To attempt an analysis of some of the holes today would be manifestly unfair, for they are not nearly so far advanced as others, and yet some day the very holes which now are rather uninteresting and featureless may be among the best of them all…As I’ve already said, comparatively few pits have been placed.  The committee wisely desires this to be the work of time…Every hazard is more or less experimental, and when the real digging is started, the pits and mounds will be sufficiently terrifying, I am told. Summing up my review, I believe Merion will have a real championship course and Philadelphia has been crying for one for many years.   The construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers. ”

_____________________________

Now Rick Riley may want Merion to go away and to be fair, I stayed away this week for some the reasons listed in the article, but so far the golf and the golf course have been very compelling to watch:

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page/usopenreilly130613/sure-merion-quaint-a-good-thing

Look, Merion is like playing in your favorite grandmother's attic -- the basket pins, the steep wooden staircases in the middle of holes, the giant rock walls that are in play. But it's a rotary dial phone. Ebbets Field was wonderful, too, but we had to give it up. Trying to force a U.S. Open into the pillbox hat that is Merion is like trying to fit into the pants you wore in high school. We're splitting apart at the seams here. So enjoy cuddly, furry, wonderful Merion for this one last week. Hopefully, after this, it goes the way of Old Yeller.

[Peter Pallotta]

David - thanks for the detailed response (in post 40). As you suggest, it may well be that I'm misunderstanding the relative timing of the events. I had a couple of more question, relating to the April 6th visit and the examination of the grounds and the approval of the best of the various plans, but I think it better to let those just sit for a while.

Peter