[Joe Bausch]

Dear Discussion Group Members,

Those that have not quite had their fill on early Merion articles, I present the following:

The Devil Made Me Do It

Sincerely,
Geraldine Jones

P.S.  Golfers Magazine was a Chicago based publication, and William Evans was a long time golf writer for the Philadelphia Public Ledger.

[mike_malone]

The devil is Cirba? Morrison? Paul?

[Mark McKeever]

Good read, thanks!

MM

[Joe Bausch]

The devil is Cirba? Morrison? Paul?

No, the devil is the devil.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe, that pretty well says it all.  Wilson was largely responsible, with assistance from both his committee and advisors CBM and HJW.  Just another example of how most documents were worded back in those days, and when enough of them say it, maybe we just ought to believe them.   I guess we will probably hear that Evans is a liar or has it wrong.......

[Mike_Trenham]

Devil is in the the details.

[DMoriarty]

Glad you guys finally "discovered" Golfer's Magazine on the Hathitrust website.  That is where i have been getting those photos I have been posting.   Many or all of the photos in this 1916 article are actually from 1914 or earlier, but there are some pics from 1916 in other issues.  

I love the photo of the bunker on the 14th on the West course.  (In fact I emailed it along with some questions to Jim Sullivan last month.)  Is this the sort of primitive bunkering you guys think existed early on at Merion?  Because that bunker looks pretty cool to me.

Not sure why Joe is bothering to watermark a public domain article from the internet, but for those that want to read the article or copy the photos without Joe's annoying watermark, here is the link:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066624200;view=1up;seq=148

And here is link to an issue from the actual tournament, with some of the photos I've posted (some of which are mislabeled in the article.)
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066624200;view=1up;seq=317

===============================================================

Joe, that pretty well says it all.  Wilson was largely responsible, with assistance from both his committee and advisors CBM and HJW.  Just another example of how most documents were worded back in those days, and when enough of them say it, maybe we just ought to believe them.   I guess we will probably hear that Evans is a liar or has it wrong.......

Jeff, as for your last sentence, why would you write such incendiary crap?  

Unlike your buddies in Philadelphia, I've never once called anyone with actual knowledge of what happened at Merion "a liar."  I am no Mike Cirba, who has repeatedly called H.J. Whigham, a "liar," a "F*cking Liar," and worse.   Your friends not only call Whigham a "f*cking liar," they don't even believe Hugh Wilson himself when he describes his lack of qualifications previous to meeting Macdonald!  Nor do they believe Findlay when he indicated that Macdonald was responsible for much or all of the layout.  Hell, they don't even believe Merion's own minutes!  Yet I am the one who is calling people liars?  That is rich.  
============================================================

As for the article itself, there is probably a good reason why the wording looks so familiar to Jeff.   Sections of the article are largely derivative of the Lesley article authored in 1914, and other Evan's articles which have been quoted here extensively.  Even many of the photographs are taken directly from that Lesley article.  So it ought not surprise anyone that Evans describes Macdonald's and Whigham's involvement same as did Lesley.  While some on the other side seem to think so, repeating the same basic statements by the same people over and over again does not constitute an accumulation of evidence.

Besides, I seem to have missed what it is in this article that Jeff thinks is so damning.  So far as Evans knew, the actual East course was "largely the work" of Wilson and his committee.  Wilson was after all charged with laying the course out on the ground according to the plan approved by Macdonald and Whigham.   So what?  What if anything does this tell us about who came up with the plan?

It may be notable, though, that over five years after Whigham and Macdonald had been involved, whoever was feeding Evans this information still saw fit to credit them right along with Wilson and the Committee. Or, as I said, the information may have simply come from the Lesley article.

One other thing of note.  Evans seems to be somewhat ambiguous  as to who was chair of the Green Committee at Merion in 1916.  Either that or he seems to think that Wilson and Sargent were co chairs.  In one article he refers to both Sargent in Wilson as chairs, and in this one he indicates that both are "the directing forces" on the green committee.

[Joe Bausch]

From The Lurker earlier today:

From early golf reporter William H. Evans:

“The new Merion courses are largely the work of Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of years the chairman of the green committee. He has had as his assistants in laying out the courses R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Griscom and Dr. Hal Toulmin, with Charles B. Macdonald and J.H.J. Whigham as the advisers.”
 
Great Balls of Philadelphia Fire, is this the first example of the glorification of the beloved Hugh I. Wilson and the beginning of the creation of his "legend?" Is this the first example of the minimizing of the contributions of outsiders C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham??  Apparently William Evans did not understand that important distinction with Merion East between "planning" and "laying out on the ground." Or perhaps William H. Evans neglected to read that seminal Golfclubatlas.com IMO essay on the origins of Merion East that proved Macdonald and Whigham routed and designed the East Course in 1910 (with a little help from Lloyd and Francis), and Wilson and his committee who were complete novices were only responsible for constructing it to Macdonald's and Whigham's plan!

[DMoriarty]

Which Lurker, Joe?  There have been more than one today.  In fact the lurkers have more posts lately than most of the members in good standing.

Either way, it seems it is just more sarcastic, irrelevant nonsense from petty minded lurkers who just cannot seem to contain themselves.

Evans may or may not not have understood the difference between planning a course and laying it out on the ground. Certainly Tom Paul, Mike Cirba, and others here have never been capable of grasping the distinction.  And the distinction may well be at the heart of the confusion about Wilson's role.

But fortunately for me and my IMO, Merion's Board had my back on this one.  Robert Lesley and Merion's Board minutes make that distinction crystal clear, using language very similar to my IMO to describe what had happened at Merion:

“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.”

[Terry Lavin]

Puhleeze!  No mas Merion.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Well, it seemed appropriate on a thread titled "the Devil made me do it!"

I probably chose my words wrong.  I don't really care about your peeing match with Merion supporters, but I don't recall you calling anyone around at Merion at the time a liar.  But you have often dismissed all or parts of their first hand accounts and minutes as inaccurate in some way. 

Specifically, I was thinking the other day how you dismiss most of the Francis account due to time passing (but accept Whighams eulogy)  - including the Quarry blasting based on him being a bit fuzzy about his words "in about 1909 or 1910..." but latch on to his use of the word triangle and "know" that he meant a full triangle and couldn't have possibly considered the original land parcel up at the north end as a sliver that turned into a triangle.

Ditto with your constant rehash of the phrase "Layout" and "approve" (repeated above) despite many, many uses of the phrase in the context of planning (or for approve, advising).  Your 1910 routing by CBM theory has to ignore or explain away literally hundreds of data points to be correct.  Your theory relies on so many of these "at most 50% chance of being correct" interpretations of ambiguous statements that it has too many holes to be taken seriously.  It might as well be called Merion's Swiss Cheese Routing theory. 

Like others, I find reading you hammer home those examples again and again does get frustrating.  I don't presume to speak for everyone (lest Pat jumps me) but I do suppose that everyone who is interested has read it many times, and no more minds will be changed.

[JESII]

Jeff,

Just out of curiosity, what are a few of the hundreds of data points that need to be incorrect for the course to have been rough routed in 1910?

[Patrick_Mucci]

From a lurker

Patrick:
 
Wayne and I don't look at it as speaking for the club's membership; we look at it as speaking for the club's administration (who hopefully represents the membership) because that is what they let us do, tell us to do, and encourage us to do. And it's probably because in the last ten or twelve years Merion's administration and the USGA have realized Wayne and I knew far more about all the details of the architectural history of Merion than everyone else combined. In the last ten years and more we have been Merion's "go to" guys on the details and questions of Merion's architectural history. I guess that's what happens when someone has done as much research and leg-work on that subject and that club's architectural history as we have. It does not surprise me at all that you're not aware of that and apparently never have been. The result of all that all came together at this year's US Open when the whole world of golf was in convocations there. To me personally, the USGA's first forum this year at Merion dedicated exclusively to the investigation and presentation of the Open site's architectural history was the real highlight and that type of architectural forum will be annual at US Opens. Someone like you may not understand something like that because you've apparently never done it or been a part of it as Wayne and I have with Merion GC and with the USGA over the last decade.
 
You've picked the wrong allies and the wrong people to defend with Moriarty and MacWood, and probably because, like them, culturally you basically have a chip on your shoulder with clubs of the likes of Merion and just cannot see your way clear to any real objectivity about them. And also, Merion and clubs like it are of the world I come from, and not of the world you come from; and I will neither forget or forgive you for what you said to me about the world I come from. It was a revelation to me, and I suppose I am thankful for it. It basically confirmed for me that the people my father and I argued with for so many years about exclusionary practices and an exclusionary mentality at the clubs we came from were right after all.
 

[Bill_McBride]

Puhleeze!  No mas Merion.

Bandwidth crisis!   

[Ben Sims]

Imagine a world where guys like Moriarty, Tom Paul, Mike Cirba and others spent the time and resources they've given to Merion on consequential issues.  Would cancer be cured?  Would electric cars be more prevalent on the streets?  Would we have found the President's Kenyan birth certificate?  Imagine the possibilities!!

[DMoriarty]

Jeff Brauer,

Obviously I haven't hammered home those examples enough because you've apparently still got them all mixed up.  For example, the other day I didn't dismiss the rest of the Francis statement because of the wrong dates.  Rather, I dismissed TEPaul's false claim that Francis specifically told us that the Construction Committee was formed in January 1911. The Francis statement says nothing of the sort. TEPaul was playing fast and loose with the facts, just as you seem to be doing in your last post. You've apparently got that chip back on your shoulder and as a result you seem to have returned to simply tossing insults and making things up. Too bad.  

And Jeff, I don't base my theory on Francis' use of the word  "triangle" and I don't think Francis even used the word "triangle."  You are again just making things up.  What Francis did provide were the specific and accurate measures of the area in question (130 x 90 yards)  which is hardly as "sliver" as you suggest.  You and others choose to ignore this vital fact, yet in the same breath accuse me of not taking the Francis statement seriously?  That is the way it goes with these discussions.

I know . . . this is where you usually rail at me for being too literal and parsing every little detail you've written, but as one poster wrote above, "the devil is in the details." And if you cannot make your points without resorting to just making things up, well then your points probably aren't worth making.

Speaking of how unsupportable points probably aren't worth making, I am curious as to your answer to Jim Sullivan's question, which asks you to verify something else you just threw out there for rhetorical impact.  

And while you are answering him, maybe you can explain how the supposed "many, many" counter examples of how
"to lay out" could have been used changes what is clear from Merion's own minutes?  Are we to ignore the Board Minutes just because you think that somewhere else the words might have been used differently in a different context?  Are we to ignore Lesley's words just because you cannot seem to accept that he very specifically described that Merion would lay out the course on the ground according to the plan approved by Macdonald and Whigham?

[Lou_Duran]

Nah, there would be a continuing debate on the authenticity of the BC based on a watermark imperfection on the parchment.

Actually, I think some progress has been made.  David finally stated his conclusion with some brevity: Merion is of the Macdonald school of architecture.  Not having my friend Matt Ward around to berate me for the terrible crime of commenting without having played Merion ("carrying the water"), I just don't see it.  But Matt, if you're lurking, I have played a number of CBM's/Raynor's major courses and God knows that even some 1 billion Chinese probably know Merion's routing by now.

[Rich Goodale]

I think we could save a lot of time and effort and band width if we all just agreed that Leslie meant that the East course of Merion was "laid out on the ground according to the plan designed by Hugh Wilson and his Committee and approved by Macdonald and Whigham."

[Dan Herrmann]

As an aside, I thought the article's note about the West course being in the "woods" without an access road to be fascinating.

Rich - In my line of work, a "consultant' never approves anything.  Granted, this is 2013-era thinking, and I'm unsure of what the 1910's were like. 

[Steve_ Shaffer]

In my line of former work, a consultant is someone who takes off your watch and tells you what time it is. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Steve - mine too.

Of course, you have the model of consultants - "The Bob's" from Office Space

[Rich Goodale]

As an aside, I thought the article's note about the West course being in the "woods" without an access road to be fascinating.

Rich - In my line of work, a "consultant' never approves anything.  Granted, this is 2013-era thinking, and I'm unsure of what the 1910's were like. 

I resemble that remark, Dan, as I was a strategy consultant from 1976-2006!  In my experience (even in those dark old days) being asked to comment on alternative plans was part of the job, but the clients always did most of the work and made the final decision.  From the sparse "evidence" in all the tooing and froing that constitues the various Merion threads, I suspect that all McD and W did in the end was to offer some very general thoughts and comment on the detailed work done by Wilson and the Committee.

[DMoriarty]

Lou Duran,

This may be a rare case where I agree with Matt Ward.  To understanding how Merion was of CBM's school of architecture, it helps to have seen both NGLA and Merion.

I had the pleasure of playing Merion two days after playing NGLA and I was blown away at the similarities, which is one reason why I chose to try and figure out if there really was a connection.  Obviously others view it differently, the superficial aesthetics are totally different, and the mowing patterns and trees have buried long buried much of the nature of the course.  But Merion and NGLA struck me as being very much alike at their core.  The variation in hole lengths, the incredible variety of green concepts, the use of angles and ground slope to set up strategic decision making.  The aggressive use of natural features for strategic purposes. etc.  From the beginning Merion was a very sophisticated course strategically, by design.  I am only aware of a few courses in America from 1911 that compare to this level sophistication, and fewer still that weren't designed by CB Macdonald.  (About the only parts that don't seem like they could have been derived directly from NGLA to me were some of the  parts that were changed later.  The 11th and 12th, for example, and the 13th and 8th greens. On the other hand the 10th was also changed later, but there Wilson went with another CBM template, so it fits pretty well in the CBM mold.)  

It is a mistake to expect a course built by Raynor and a course built by Wilson to look the same.

[DMoriarty]

I think we could save a lot of time and effort and band width if we all just agreed that Leslie meant that the East course of Merion was "laid out on the ground according to the plan designed by Hugh Wilson and his Committee and approved by Macdonald and Whigham."

Close Rich, but not quite.  The various records leave no doubt that Macdonald and Whigham were not just brought in to approve some plan Wilson had come up with on his own.  They had been involved in the actual planning from the very beginning.  Merion purchased the property based "largely" on Macdonald's and Whigham's "opinions as to what could be done with the land." They continued to advise Merion thereafter and "their advice and suggestions as to the the layout of the East Course was of the greatest help and value."  And they determinedthe final plan after again going over the land and  "various plans" in April 1911.  So it was by no means solely a Wilson/Merion plan they approved.  

So at least you ought to say that the East course "was laid out on the ground according to a plans created by Macdonald, Whigham, and Wilson and finally approved by Macdonald and Whigham."

And this is probably pretty close to the reality.  Merion (including Wilson) obviously had great respect for the opinions of Macdonald and Whigham when it came to these matters, and so they had Macdonald and Whigham help them with the planning as much as they were willing.  And Macdonald and Whigham were willing to do quite a lot.  They helped them choose the land and helped them with their "most difficult problem" of how to fit 18 first class holes on the property, and worked with them on the layout at NGLA, and returned to Merion to go over the various plans and options and choose the best one.   And while it was design by committee of Merion members and CBM/HJW, given the identities of the men involved it should be of no great surprise to anyone that it was Macdonald and Whigham who had final say over the final plan.

After this, while Wilson was still consulting with Macdonald,Wilson was nonetheless in charge of laying the course out on the ground, and obviously he is largely responsible for how the plan was actually implemented on the ground.    

============================

Also Rich, I'd love for you or someone to share with me the contemporaneous records documenting "the detailed work done by Wilson and the Committee."  Because so far as I can find, no such records exist!  There is much more evidence of Macdonald's involvement in the planning that Wilson's.   You and others just assume Wilson must have done it because that is what you want to believe.

[Rich Goodale]

I think we could save a lot of time and effort and band width if we all just agreed that Leslie meant that the East course of Merion was "laid out on the ground according to the plan designed by Hugh Wilson and his Committee and approved by Macdonald and Whigham."

Close Rich, but not quite.  The various records leave no doubt that Macdonald and Whigham were not just brought in to approve some plan Wilson had come up with on his own.  They had been involved in the actual planning from the very beginning.  Merion purchased the property based "largely" on Macdonald's and Whigham's "opinions as to what could be done with the land." They continued to advise Merion thereafter and "their advice and suggestions as to the the layout of the East Course was of the greatest help and value."  And they determinedthe final plan after again going over the land and  "various plans" in April 1911.  So it was by no means solely a Wilson/Merion plan they approved.  

So at least you ought to say that the East course "was laid out on the ground according to a plans created by Macdonald, Whigham, and Wilson and finally approved by Macdonald and Whigham."

And this is probably pretty close to the reality.  Merion (including Wilson) obviously had great respect for the opinions of Macdonald and Whigham when it came to these matters, and so they had Macdonald and Whigham help them with the planning as much as they were willing.  And Macdonald and Whigham were willing to do quite a lot.  They helped them choose the land and helped them with their "most difficult problem" of how to fit 18 first class holes on the property, and worked with them on the layout at NGLA, and returned to Merion to go over the various plans and options and choose the best one.   And while it was design by committee of Merion members and CBM/HJW, given the identities of the men involved it should be of no great surprise to anyone that it was Macdonald and Whigham who had final say over the final plan.

After this, while Wilson was still consulting with Macdonald,Wilson was nonetheless in charge of laying the course out on the ground, and obviously he is largely responsible for how the plan was actually implemented on the ground.    

============================

Also Rich, I'd love for you or someone to share with me the contemporaneous records documenting "the detailed work done by Wilson and the Committee."  Because so far as I can find, no such records exist!  There is much more evidence of Macdonald's involvement in the planning that Wilson's.

I disagree, David, but feel free to believe otherwise (not that you needed any advice about that).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()