Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: DMoriarty on November 21, 2006, 02:03:50 PM
-
The other night I was trying to get caught up on a big stack of NY Times issues and came across a US Am preview, dated August 27, 1916, which contained an interesting description of the Merion East's 10th hole. Forgive me if others have already seen this article or brought it this site's attention, but I do not remember having seen it . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Misc/NYTMerion1916.jpg?t=1164134351)
While I am fuzzy on the details, I do recall a discussion about the characteristics and origins of this hole, and thought this article might supply a bit more information from a contemporary source. For example, the unattributed article describes the green as follows:
The green is . . . completely surrounded by by breastwords and trenches, so that the result of the shot is always in doubt until the golfer scales the last rampart and glares or smiles at what his hands have done.
I found this particularly interesting for at least two reasons . . . first, the unattributed author seems to be of the opinion that the approach shot was blind. Second, his description (result in doubt . . . scaling the rampart) reminds me of MacDonald's description(s) of the virtues of the approach on an Alps hole.
This article certainly isn't dispositive, but it is another piece in the puzzle . . .
-
What's the puzzle?
-
Dave,
I'm pretty convinced (as I wrote back then when it was debated) that the original 10th at Merion featured a blind second shot across the road. This article seems to confirm that as fact, although it does nothing to substantiate any notions that it was an "Alps", or that Raynor or Macdonald had any involvement in the early course.
p.s. How far behind are you in your reading?? ;)
-
Unfortunately I am still unable to figure out how to post photos &/or copies of them , but if someone might like to spend a few moments doing so, if you access the USGA digital archives, in the September 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated, at the top of p.20 & the bottom of p.21 are two photographs of the 10th green & the surrounds during the playing of the Amateur.
I think they will answer your questions.
-
I bet it was a more interesting hole than the current #10.
-
Mayday,
Do you also think the old 11th was more interesting? Do you think the cummulative "interest" was higher then than it is now?
-
I'm not exactly familiar with the old #11, but that article speaks of a " run up between bunkers". So, I would imagine it was less interesting than the present great #11 ( if they could widen that fairway to the left a little so you could aim at the pin and end up in the fairway---I want #7 to be the same way!)
-
B Crosby asked:
What is the puzzle?
Well it probably depends upon who you ask. My puzzle was whether Merion (not the Haverford Merion) can be viewed as a rejection of what had been going on in Philadelphia, and a turn back to links inspired and heathland inspired courses.
Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project.
Another puzzle is whether the 10th could properly be called an Alps hole.
Another puzzle was whether the green complex was modeled after that of Alps Holes.
Another puzzle was Dave,
I'm pretty convinced (as I wrote back then when it was debated) that the original 10th at Merion featured a blind second shot across the road. This article seems to confirm that as fact, although it does nothing to substantiate any notions that it was an "Alps", or that Raynor or Macdonald had any involvement in the early course.
p.s. How far behind are you in your reading?? ;)
-
Dave,
I have played Yale and NGLA and felt much similarity between the two. Merion doesn't have any feeling of similarity in look or playability for me to either of these courses.
-
The Golf Illustrated, July 1914, has an article by Lesley and describes the tenth. " The second must carry Ardmore Avenue and a number of deep bunkers. If the ball overruns the green it finds lodgment up on the slope of the mountain which is at the rear. "
The article describes both courses, including the 'new or west'.
-
Unfortunately I am still unable to figure out how to post photos &/or copies of them , but if someone might like to spend a few moments doing so, if you access the USGA digital archives, in the September 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated, at the top of p.20 & the bottom of p.21 are two photographs of the 10th green & the surrounds during the playing of the Amateur.
I think they will answer your questions.
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/carrera993/10thatMerion.jpg)
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/carrera993/Another10thatMerion.jpg)
-
I think I figured out how to do this! From the 1916 Digital Archives of the USGA
(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b350/jasontopp/10thGreenMeion1916amateur.jpg)
-
p.s. How far behind are you in your reading?? ;)
Would you believe I started with the current paper and am working my way backwards? I didnt think so.
mayday_malone said:
Dave,
I have played Yale and NGLA and felt much similarity between the two. Merion doesn't have any feeling of similarity in look or playability for me to either of these courses.
I've not played Yale, but I agree with you regarding the lack of a similar feel between NGLA and Merion. That being said, I dont know that anyone has suggested that Merion was a MacDonald course with all the usual bits and pieces.
If you had played the original 10th as pictured and described above, (with the blind approach requiring a high shot, the bunkering in front, the berm in back, and "ramparts" and "breastworks" short) don't you think it may have reminded you a bit of the Alps green at NGLA?
-
Wayne,
Do you think there used to be more fairway to the left?
Because the shot is blind and there is a chance of getting caught on the side of the hill on the left , I think there should be more fairway over there IF that is how it used to be.
-
I think they were just using the available land to it's best effect for the old #10. Part of my problem with the new #10 is that it feels jammed into the space before the road.
I can imagine that an Alps type hole seemed appropriate in that spot and I would see it as similar to NGLA. But it would be the only place on the course where I felt that way.
-
Wayne,
Is Mayday talking about the 10th or 11th?
I think he's suggesting that all the area up to the green along the left on 10 should be fairway, not the 11th. If that's the case, I can't agree, and don't understand why he would feel that way?
-
TEPaul,
1. I dont think anyone suggested that MacDonald designed the 10th hole at Merion East. I know I didn't.
2. Your word "evolution" implies that Merion East's roots were in the local golf landscape, but this doesnt seem to be the case at all.
3. There were plenty of golf courses in Philadelphia in 1910, and Wilson could have easily built a longer version in their style at the new Merion site. And you say yourself that Crump went to Europe to study because the local courses "weren't any good." What could be more of a rejection than these two prominent golf figures ignoring what was in their own back yard and instead traveling across an ocean to find something better?
3. You can call it "discovery" if you want to, but they would have had no need to go discovering if they were at all satisfied with the status quo. Based on what I have seen so far, Merion represented a significant departure from what had been going on in Philadelphia (and most of America) for over a decade.
-
For those of you that conclude the 10th was an Alps hole, how many know where the original tees were, how far it was to the road and the elevation changes involved? So what if some writers, even a Whigham, referred to the hole as an Alps. That doesn't mean that it was nor does it mean that it was intended to be conceptually based on the hole despite NGLA's powerful impact on American golf at the time.
I dont claim that the 10th was an Alps hole. I merely thought that this blurb was worth posting, and that the description of the 10th green is consistent with the theory that Wilson might have designed the 10th green with the Alps hole (or at least the green of an Alps hole) in mind.
As for your questions, I have tried to figure out some of it, but havent done so conclusively.
Was the old road in the same place as the new? Where were the tees in relation to the present location? The hole used to play at 385, and there are descriptions of walking back into the woods and up the hill to the tees, and I have tried to figure it out and it seems like either the road moved or the tees had to be back somewhere in the range of where they currently are. Can you clear this up? Thanks?
As for the elevation changes, I have tried to figure them out (assuming the tees in approximately the same place and a green across the road) but don't feel confident that I have yet done so. So far, based on very preliminary observation, I am very surprised at how close the approximate elevation changes (tee to low spot in valley to green) seem to be to-- you guessed it-- NGLA No. 6. But like I said, I havent found a source I absolutely trust yet.
Do you have the elevation changes and tee and green locations? Did the hole dogleg much (so as to shorten the quoted 385 yards?)
I think Wilson, later Wilson and Flynn and finally Flynn were not following convention but moving in an entirely different direction. It can be seen in shot testing underpinnings and also ground and aerial option holes and aerial requirement holes. Merion and Pine Valley are examples of an American style of golf architecture that had connections to courses in the UK but also an original direction as well.
This sounds good to me, especially if you consider the convention of their immediate environment. But this is also entirely consistent with the notion that Wilson had the Alps hole (or green) in mind when he designed the 10th at Merion East.
-
How does the word evolution imply that? Merion's roots would've been in the local golf landscape only if the likes of Hugh Wilson and Merion were aware of nothing other than Philadelphia architecture.
My point exactly.
-
Wayne,
I think it was probably blind. The "high" side of the road is on the tee side, as you know, and I'm thinking that horizon beyond today's 10th green and fairway hid the view of the green down at the level of today's first fairway, especially with fronting "ramparts" and such.
Also, given the yardage of 385 is about 75 yards longer than the yardage today, I'm thinking that the tees would be pretty close to where they are today, especially given the descriptions of the walk up through the woods.
Even if you consider the greater run on the ball with firm fairways, they were still playing the tee shot up that hill, which would have negated roll quite a bit. Given 1916 equipment, it would have taken a tremendous poke to carry up to the top of the hill.
I'm not sure that would make it an "Alps", but the author does seem to strongly imply that you wouldn't get to see where you second shot ended up until you crossed the road.
-
By the way, the berm (I think it was about 10 feet hight) was in back of the green, protecting golfers on the 1st fairway as that hole was a dogleg left (and remained that way until the 1930 Amateur). I doubt very much the green was blind from the fairway landing areas, especially given the firm conditions and the tees, which were much shorter than the present ones.
I assumed that the tees would be much shorter than the present ones, but the article says that the green was 385 yards from the tee. It doesnt seem like the tees could have been too much shorter unless: 1) the hole was measured at a significant dogleg, 2) the green was much further across the road than it looks to be in the photos, 3) The road was in a different location all together, or 4) the 385 figure is just wrong.
Plus, the article describes the stroll "up through the woods" and hitting the drive across "a valley," implying that the tee was somewhere at least partially up the hill.
The low 5-step ladder from the road to the level of the sand and the green is not much of an elevation change. Ardmore Ave was cut into the terrain. There is an equal rise from the road to the fairway on the south side of the road.
Are you sure that the ladder is up from the road and not some sort of bunker or embankment? I couldnt tell.
-
Tom,
Are those people? Now there's an idea of how to rough up those bunker faces! ;D
-
David,
Isn't the 6th at NGLA the Short? ;)
-
David,
A little information can be misleading. The golf boom really hit Philadelphia and the members at Merion Cricket Club needed more room to accomodate more golfers. Within 10 years of the start of golf at Merion, the Haskell ball obsoleted a lot of early courses. Merion's course in Haverford was short for its time. Within 15 years of the start of golf at Merion there was a need for a second course with membership continuing to climb to over 1000 members. A third course was being planned.
Wayne, no doubt Merion had very real and practical considerations which prompted the move and the new courses. Nonetheless, these considerations do not explain why Merion departed so drastically from the local style and approach (if they did), or even why Wilson went to GB to study their courses.
What you don't understand is the course you think of today was not the course opened in 1912, nor was it the course modified for the 1916 Amateur, greatly modified for the 1924 Amateur, more for the 1930 Amateur and the last significant change for the 1934 Open. The original East Course was not nearly as radical a departure as you credit it. It was a great improvement but not finished for another 25 years. It wasn't until Wilson and Flynn began collaborating that it began to resemble what you think of today. It took about 10 years after it opened that it began to take familiar form.
While I dont at all know the specifics, think I do understand that the course has evolved significantly over the years. Nonetheless, I am not convinced that the original Ardmore Ave. Merion shared much in common with the previous courses in the area. Maybe it did, but I havent seen or read convincing evidence that this was the case.
I look forward to seeing such evidence, if it ever comes to light. Until then, what I keep going back to in my mind is just how different these older courses were, not just in the shape or look of the hazard, green, or tee, but in their entire approach to golf and golf architecture. Because these courses were wiped off the map, I think it is easy for us to overlook just how much golf design changed during this time period.
Frankly, too many people seem to be taking a lot of stabs in the dark. It will be beneficial to all when the full facts are disseminated.
Sorry you feel this way. I posted the excerpt not as a "stab in the dark" but as another step in the direction of the "full facts." If you feel differently, feel free to disregard it.
TEPaul said:
When it came to good inland golf architecture it had to start somewhere.
Yep. And in America it appears to have started with a rejection of about 15 years of professional architecture, and a return to the links and to the heathland courses inspired by the links.
-
Wayne, who in the holy hell are these people who say stuff like this? If they aren't willing to trust the word of the people who've been on that course for years why don't they just come here and walk out on the 10th fairway and look across Ardmore Ave for themselves? This stuff is not exactly rocket science.
Who should I trust, Tom? You,who says that the hole was obviously blind from the landing area? Or Wayne, who says it was not?
Mike Cirba said:
Isn't the 6th at NGLA the Short?
It may be called the Short now, but originally it was called the Tall, which is just a euphamism for Alps. ::)
-
It did change dramatically in that time period! Who has ever denied that? Can we expect a point on your part in our future?
. . . The original East Course was not nearly as radical a departure as you credit it. . . .
-
TEPaul & Wayne,
If one takes comments in the article at face value the golfer, on a 385 yard hole, would be left with a high pitch shot across Ardmore Ave.
If you calculate an area 385 yards from the green and then work backwards, placing yourself at at distance that would leave you a long, high pitch shot across Ardmore Ave, you can clearly establish the topography of the land between the old green at 385 yards from the tee, and the DZ off the tee.
That terrain is slightly rolling in nature, not steep or sharp by any stretch of the imagination.
That the putting surface might have been obscured by the berms for the road or even the crowning effect of the land, doesn't support the contention that the hole was an "alps" hole.
The "Alps" feature in an "Alps" hole was a pronounced obstruction, with a good deal of elevation between the DZ and the green, and not a berm similar in nature, but less elevated than the berms that shield the road on the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA.
If one stands in the DZ, the elevation is about 305 above sea level. If one stands in the middle of the first fairway, about 50 yards from the green, the elevation is 312 above sea level or about a 7 foot incline.
That topography wouldn't qualify as an alpine feature.
It's too gradual, and if the golfer's eye level was at 5 to 6 feet above the ground in the DZ, the elevation change from eye level in the DZ to the green would only be 1 to 2 feet, hardly the configuration of an "Alps" hole, and almost a certainty that the green would be visible, unless a berm was created where Ardmore bisects the fairway.
David, Mike Cirba and others have tried to insist that the 10th was an "Alps" hole, yet, the lay of the land, the elevation shootings are the strongest refutation of their argument, irrespective of what some article says.
Don't forget, we were told that Donald Ross stated that Seminole was flat. Alleged quotes from Donald Ross were produced as evidence, yet, anyone who's ever been to Seminole knows that the elevation changes are SUBSTANTIAL AND DRAMATIC.
So, don't take what you read as The Gospel.
-
"Yep. And in America it appears to have started with a rejection of about 15 years of professional architecture, and a return to the links and to the heathland courses inspired by the links."
David:
Has anyone denied or even questioned that?
Are you serious? Here is what you wrote above, my bolds added:I don't think any of this can be viewed as a rejection of what was going on in Philadelphia or any other part of America at that time.
TEPaul asked:Let me ask you something David. If the author of that article and the esteemed Robert Lesley said that green surface couldn't be seen from the approach area why in the world would anyone think they'd be lying? Do you think they wanted to be viewed as blind and nuts in their time by hundreds of people who saw that hole?
Of course the green surface was blinded by that berm in front from the fairway approach.
But why are we even discussing this?
I don't know, why don't you ask Wayne, since he apparently disagrees with you?
-
Wayne, it seems like you disagree with just about everything in this article . . . . So much for the paper of record.
Have you ever posted the 1916 Flynn drawing? If not, could you? I'd love to get a look at it.
_______________________________
Patrick,
I have never said the hole was an Alps Hole, nor do I have any interest in getting into a purely definitional debate.
Could you do me a favor and go to GoogleEarth and compare the elevation changes at NGLA's Alps with Merion East's old tenth. I was surprised at the similarities.
-
Patrick,
I have never said the hole was an Alps Hole, nor do I have any interest in getting into a purely definitional debate.
So why did you ask these questions?
Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project.
Another puzzle is whether the 10th could properly be called an Alps hole.
Another puzzle was whether the green complex was modeled after that of Alps Holes.
-
Could you do me a favor and go to GoogleEarth and compare the elevation changes at NGLA's Alps with Merion East's old tenth. I was surprised at the similarities.
Google Earth also shows Mountain Lake's #3 Alps Hole as having 0 feet of elevation change. While the #3 Alps hole at Mountain Lake is no Alps hole, it does have some elevation change, and Google Earth is not perfect. GE also does not show any elevation changes around National's Alps green, which there surely are.
One man's opinion, no matter what google or old articles say, the 10th at Merion across the road to the now 1st fairway/green area was never an Alps hole, uphill and blind maybe, but not an Alps as the pitch of the hill is too gradual similar to Mountain Lake's inappropriately named Alps hole.
-
Wayne:
It's hard to tell exactly what it was in front of that old 10th green or how high it was. That second photo above is probably the most indicative I've seen but you can only see a part of the left side of whatever was there.
Was it a berm? Was it some of those "Mid-Surrey" mounds (sometimes referred to as "alpinization") that appeared more clearly on the old 9th hole? It's hard to tell.
But if you look closely at that second photo above you can see some people lying on one of those things and a few people standing behind one, and it's not hard to tell it comes up to at least their waist and maybe higher.
Would that have been enough height directly in front of that green to blind the putting surface from the other side of Ardmore Ave?
Of course it would have.
Whatever that old green and surrounds looked llike something tells me the look of it wasn't bound to survive at Merion East anymore than the look around the 9th hole was, or perhaps even the 8th green.
Don't forget, PVGC went through some of that fairly rudimentary and obnoxious looking crap ("alpinization") about the same time. It didn't last at either course.
We sometimes forget how early those two courses were for quality inland architcture in America.
-
I'm not sure what Patrick's referring to because I've never called the old 10th at Merion an "Alps" hole. I only suggested that it was probably blind, based on everything I know.
As you know, Macdonald and Raynor called any number of holes "Alps" holes; sometimes, like the one at Yeaman's Hall, they weren't blind at all. I suspect at the time any hole on a new American course that featured blindness or some approach over something you couldn't see was called an "Alps". Let's face it...in those early years, the idea of having something modeled after a British or Scottish golf hole concept was all the rage, whether it made sense consistently or not.
Was the 10th meant to be modeled after an Alps? I have no idea and unless I saw some proof based on the leading knowledgeable authorities of the time, such as Hugh Wilson, or anyone directly involved in the original course building, I would never make such a claim.
Merion, unlike NGLA, was not intended to be directly imitative of great holes overseas. Yes, I'm sure Wilson learned a lot from Macdonald and from his overseas visit, but what he brought back were conceptual ideas more than anything, not outright attempts to capture the key elements of great holes in the imitative fashion that Macdonald did at NGLA. For instance, there's no "Road hole", there's no "Double Plateau", there's no "Leven", there's no "Biarritz", and the early accounts make clear that this was Wilson, not Macdonald, who designed Merion en toto. I think suggestions that Macdonald was responsible really strain credulity, because even at that early time, the course at Merion looked nothing at all like the type of geometric design that Macdonald was noted for in all of his work.
I'm sure to add some authenticity to his product, Wilson may have been pleased that some saw the 3rd, where the green sits a bit obliquely on a tabletop shelf of land as approximating the demands of the redan, and features like the front of the 16th and 17th greens owe pay homage to the Valley of Sin, and Wilson may also have thought that having a blind hole like an Alps (he must have seen many blind holes on the great courses) was the sign of a sporty, challenging course, so he built one on 10.
I think the key point here is the difference between influence and imitation. Macdonald, throughout his career, (and later Raynor & Banks) leaned heavily towards the latter. Wilson (and later Flynn) took those principles and Americanized them.
One thing that was very surprising to me looking at the Golf Illustrated pics of Merion from the Feb and Sept 1916 issues was how much the course looks similar in many respects to today's course. The approach to the 16th, the drive on 4, the green at the 9th, the tee shot on 17, the approach at 7 all looked very cool, and with the exception of some bunkering added over the years, the course looked much further along at that point than what I truly expected to see.
-
This topic seems to get some odd back and forth.
But, you need to read the entire December GI 1914 article.
Lesley did say “ The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick; in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”
Lesley said it resembles an Alps.
But, by my reading 92 years later, this principle of ‘Alps’ was fairly broad as Lesley stated, and not very well defined in today's modern terms as others have discussed in the thread.
-
Patrick,
I have never said the hole was an Alps Hole, nor do I have any interest in getting into a purely definitional debate.
So why did you ask these questions?
In that same post, I believe I noted that different people were solving different puzzles, and said exactly which puzzle interested me. But you left that part out of the quoted "questions" you say I asked.
____________________
I dont entirely trust Google Earth earlier, which is why I said above that I wasnt confident in the elevation changes I had found so far.
That being said, Merion seems to have more elevation change(even if it is a gradual incline) than some have assumed.
____________________________
Can anyone explain to me what the author might have meant when he wrote about the "breastworks" and "ramparts" that the golfer had to scale?
-
This topic seems to get some odd back and forth.
But, you need to read the entire December GI 1914 article.
Lesley did say “ The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick; in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”
Lesley said it resembles an Alps.
NO, that's not what Lesley said.
Lesley was refering to the incline behind the green with it's imbeded bunker as resembling the same feature in the Alps hole at Prestwick, and NOT the other features of both holes. There's a clear distinction between being feature specific and broadly categorizing the holes within the same mold.[/color]
But, by my reading 92 years later, this principle of ‘Alps’ was fairly broad as Lesley stated, and not very well defined in today's modern terms as others have discussed in the thread.
The drive and approach shot a Merion bear no resemblence to the 17th at Prestwick.
The only similarity, in a general context, is the incline and bunker behind the green.[/color]
-
Patrick,
I'm sure you're surprised that I don't agree with your interpretation of Lesley's remarks. ;) ;D
If you read closer, he refers to the green background and high hill, but as part of describing the hole in entirety (he already talked about the tee in the first phrase).
If you take out his tortured grammar in the middle where he tries to cram too much into the sentence, the sentence would read;
"The tenth hole resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick; in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green".
That's what he's defining as an Alps. Similar to the Alps at NGLA, and at Prestwick, there is a large, fronting, crossing bunker just short of the green.
Personally, I have no idea whether Wilson or Flynn looked to design the 10th at Merion specifically as an Alps, or whether they were even inspired by the concept (I suspect not), but I do know quite clearly what Lesley was trying to convey.
-
Hi Pat,
The posting was Lesley's description from the article. And I mentioned that this attribute of being an Alps was a generality in my opinion and that today, 92 years later, some take this much too literally.
Lesley's own words gave a broad ' it resembles ' qualified by the ' in principal ' definition. By the way, don't forget that Lesley also described it as having a cross bunker guarding the green. You left that out of your last line of ND green.
These GCA discussions have given me a 'general' idea of the old 10th and with the Flynn odd couple and others weighing in, I accept the generalities having never seen the entire hole in an old photograph.
I think the 6th at the 'new' Merion was a downhill shot. ;) Let's see you put some green on this 1914 photo :D
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/jstiles/merion_west_16th_.jpg)
-
Just an interesting tidbit from the George Bahto interview on this site, that discusses how the cross bunker in front of the green is integral to the definition of an "Alps", and likely what Lesley was referring to;
"Seth Raynor built an Alps on most courses, but they were generally identified as having 'Alps bunkering' - meaning some cross-bunkering in front of the green. Instead of a blind approach over a 'mountain,' Raynor customarily positioned his Alps renditions just over the crest of a rising fairway - then cross-bunkering the green complex."
-
Just an interesting tidbit from the George Bahto interview on this site, that discusses how the cross bunker in front of the green is integral to the definition of an "Alps", and likely what Lesley was referring to;
"Seth Raynor built an Alps on most courses, but they were generally identified as having 'Alps bunkering' - meaning some cross-bunkering in front of the green. Instead of a blind approach over a 'mountain,' Raynor customarily positioned his Alps renditions just over the crest of a rising fairway - then cross-bunkering the green complex."
The Alps here at Mountain Lake has little in common with the original.
It has the largest green on the course and a cross bunker covering a little over half the approach. The other half is unpinnable false front.
-
Before:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/jstiles/merion_west_16th_.jpg)
Today:
(http://static.flickr.com/86/261655493_12cd52aabd_b.jpg)
-
Are there any better drive by holes than #6-7-8 at Merion West and #1-2-10-12-13 (and even more holes if you don't pay attention to the road !) at Merion East ?
BTW I thought Flynn was supposed to be an early agronomic genius . There is evidence at other courses of too many trees by tees and greens.
-
Tom - I was thinking the same thing! And for those of us fortunate enough to play Merion, I really admire the house to the right of the 11th (East), the walk up 14 (East) and also wonder just how many times my kids would interrupt anyon putting on 7 (East) if I lived in that house!
-
Mike's reply #29 assumes the tee box was where it is today.
Could it be that it was well to the right of the present tee box ? Maybe back of the reservoir.
The article mentions a stroll through the woods.
-
The back tee on #10 certainly wasn't where it is now back then. Although there's never been much room back up in there I remember when they added some distance up there. It hasn't been all that long ago.
I agree with Wayne, I can't imagine that hole could've possibly been 385 yards when the green was across Ardmore Ave.
And if someone thinks that hole was a real "Alps" hole they're applying a very loose definition of an Alps hole, in my opinion.
-
And if someone thinks that hole was a real "Alps" hole they're applying a very loose definition of an Alps hole, in my opinion.
Tom,
I think it's very clear from Lesley's writing that he's comparing the crossing bunker across the length of the front of the green (with it's corresponding high face or rampart) with similar characteristics at Prestwick.
I think other comparisons I've heard in an effort to prove some involvement by Macdonald have been very unconvincing.
-
If you read closer, he refers to the green background and high hill, but as part of describing the hole in entirety (he already talked about the tee in the first phrase).
If you take out his tortured grammar in the middle where he tries to cram too much into the sentence, the sentence would read;
"The tenth hole resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick; in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green".
The two holes are SO DISIMILAR that no one in their right mind would say that one resembles the other. And, to isolate one feature that might be similar and expand that similarity, erroneously to cover the entire hole, is absurd.[/color]
That's what he's defining as an Alps. Similar to the Alps at NGLA, and at Prestwick, there is a large, fronting, crossing bunker just short of the green.
There are large crossing bunkers guarding a myriad of greens, but that doesn't make those holes "Alps" holes. You can't take one feature, while ignoring all the others, and equate the hole, with an "Alps" hole.
I guess you'd call the old 14th at GCGC an "Alps" hole by your definition..
An "Alps" hole gets its name from the definitive intervening feature incorporated into the hole, a steep hill between the DZ and the green. No such feature ever existed on the 10th at Merion.
And, I believe my reading of Lesley's remarks are accurate, he was refering to the similarity of the features to the rear of the green, the incline with the imbeded bunker.[/color]
Personally, I have no idea whether Wilson or Flynn looked to design the 10th at Merion specifically as an Alps, or whether they were even inspired by the concept (I suspect not), but I do know quite clearly what Lesley was trying to convey.
Then, you and Lesley are incorrect.
The 10th at Merion doesn't have an "Alps" feature, which is the critical and defining feature of the hole.[/color]
-
Patrick,
The built-up backdrop behind the original #10 green at Merion that provided protection to/from the first fairway has as much in common with the Alps hole at Prestwick as I do with Natalie Gulbis.
Lesley was clearly talking about the front crossing bunker, with the steep rampart face. Don't you read anything by George Bahto? ;) ;D
By the way, a very Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I trust we'll pick up this discussion over the weekend. What should we call it...Jaws II? ;)
-
TEPaul: I understand what the terms "breastworks" and "ramparts" mean.
_________________
Wayne, you say the site of the old green was only a few feet higher than the current approach. What do you make of this description of ramparts and breastworks? Surely those must have been more than a few feet higher that the current approach?
Anyone:
I am curious as to what features this particular author was referring when he described golfers scaling the breastworks and ramparts to finally get a look at their handiwork.
Also, the recent photos make the old 10th green look lower than the surrounding ground almost all the way around. Is it possible that the green area was hollowed out and lowered to build the ramparts and breastworks and to give the feeling of playing over a hill?
____________________
One thing that amazes me is just how how much this reporter (whom I assume from the rest of the article was present at Merion) could get so much wrong! The measure of the hole is wrong by 35 yards . . . the blindness of the shot is wrong . . . the breastworks and ramparts were apparently delusions . . . I doubt if any NYTimes reporter has been so very wrong since, at least until Judith Miller started reporting on WMDs.
-
Tom Paul, you keep telling me that I should trust those who have been there and are familiar with the course, but not even those of you who fit into this category are in agreement. For example, I don’t think Wayne has acknowledged that there were five foot breastworks and ramparts in front of the green (if there were any.) Neither has Patrick. More importantly, you weren’t there, Wayne wasn’t there, and I doubt even Patrick is old enough to have been there in 1916. And, respectfully, you guys not only contradict each other, but also contradict the written opinions of those who were there.
And it is not as if these men were hacks who didn’t understand golf or course design. To the contrary, they were many of the biggest names in Philadelphia golf and design and American golf and design. If I recall correctly, the previous thread established that, Tillinghast, MacDonald & Whigham, Leslie, and Findlay all specifically compared at least some aspects of the 10th at Merion East to those on an Alps hole. Plus, Travis references that some famous European features were incorporated into the course, but doesn’t specify those to which he is referring. Add to this list the New York Times Article describing scaling breastworks and hillocks to finally get a look at the result of one’s approach, a description which echoes MacDonald’s description of approaching an Alps green and which seems to describe a fortress green like those on Alps holes.
So instead of repeatedly asking me why I don’t trust you guys, perhaps you should be asking is: Why don’t you guys trust these highly respected sources? After all, these men were there then, and (with the possible exception of the unidentified NY Times writer) they knew what they were talking about when it came to golf and/or golf architecture.
NOTE: I am NOT saying that No. 10 at Merion East was an Alps hole, or that it was meant to be an alps hole, or even that any of its features were modeled after any features on any alps hole alps hole. What matters to me is how the writers and designers of the time viewed Merion, and they viewed Merion as heavily influenced by the Links tradition and incorporating features and/or concepts from that tradition. They also thought that Merion East represented a break with and significant improvement over what had passed for golf architecture in Philadelphia before.
Happy Thanksgiving to All.
-
Wayne
Back to the location of the tee box. Can you reference the angle of the dogleg, in as much as it is a dogleg right, not left, as it now exists ?
-
in the pics of the old 10th green, the hill and bunker behind the green is very interesting to me. i realize that it was probably necessary as protection from the 1st hole. Is this feature used on any other courses by any of the GCA's involved with merion? i am sure that he would of encountered a similar safety issue somewhere else? The bunker which is raised above the level of the green looks very un-natural to me.
also would it be safe to assume at that time the 11th tee was also on the other side of ardmore ave. same side as 10th green
-
Wayne -
I would guess Pickering was involved with The Capital City Club at Brookhaven. The dates would fit. But that's a guess. I'll check. Bobby Jones won a state am there in '16, I think.
Bob
-
Patrick,
The built-up backdrop behind the original #10 green at Merion that provided protection to/from the first fairway has as much in common with the Alps hole at Prestwick as I do with Natalie Gulbis.
Mike, just the other day I was playing golf in the Philadelphia area and overheard some golfers commenting about how good your legs looked in Bermuda shorts. One commented that they'd look a lot better in high heeled spikes, so, I'm not so sure about your statement.
The back of the 17th at Prestwick has a steep incline with a bunker imbedded at its foot, not disimilar in concept to the incline with the imbeded bunker on the old 10th at Merion.
While the scale and configuration may differ, the concept is similar.[/color]
Lesley was clearly talking about the front crossing bunker, with the steep rampart face.
From Lesley's quote, I don't think you can state that, to the exclusion of all other features[/color]
Don't you read anything by George Bahto? ;) ;D
By the way, a very Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours. I trust we'll pick up this discussion over the weekend. What should we call it...Jaws II? ;)
Sounds good to me.[/color]
One should also note that Ardmore Avenue, at that location, is a dead flat road
-
Wayne -
No other top 50 US course has to deal with as many external constraints as Merion. Limited land and a big bad road running through the middle of things. To ask the obvious, would Merion be a better course if Ardmore Avenue didn't exist? It looks as if the earlier versions of Merion were designed as if the road was of little significance. They just routed the course right across it. At some point liability issues arose (I assume) and a work-around was necessitated.
As I count there are five holes impacted by Ardmore. The solutions they worked out were obviously quite good. (The old USGA Green Committee Bulletins rave about the new 10th, for example. A simple, elegant, great hole. More interesting than the original 10th.) But would the 12th, for example, be a better hole if the same green was on or beyond where the road is now?
The road was a constraint that, optimally, you wouldn't elect to have if you had the choice. The Wilson/Flynn work-around was brilliant. But as brilliant as it is, might the original routing (or some version of it) have made for a better course, assuming the removal of Ardmore Rd.?
Or did the work-arounds necessitated by Ardmore Road result in a better course than the one originally designed? I have no opinions on this. (I don't know much about the original routing.) But I would like to hear your view. Apologies if this has been covered before.
Bob
-
Wayne Morrisson,
That's what I'd call doing your homework.
Thanks for your efforts.
-
Wayne,
Flynn's sketch, along with your photos and the early photos help to provide some context to the debate.
I agree with you, all too often some accept an article as The Gospel.
100 years from now, if someone should find the most recent edition of the MGA Golfer, and read the article about Trump National, should they accept everything The Donald says about the golf course, all his golf courses and golf in general, as The Gospel.
Remember, someone quoted Ross as stating that Seminole was flat.
Golf was so new to America in the early part of the 20th century that I think many writers took liberties with the terminology, phrases and understanding of golf course architecture.
-
Patrick,
The built-up backdrop behind the original #10 green at Merion that provided protection to/from the first fairway has as much in common with the Alps hole at Prestwick as I do with Natalie Gulbis.
The back of the 17th at Prestwick has a steep incline with a bunker imbedded at its foot, not disimilar in concept to the incline with the imbeded bunker on the old 10th at Merion.
While the scale and configuration may differ, the concept is similar.[/color]
Patrick,
Can you show me where the 17th at Alps has the 15 foot tall wall of turf with an embedded bunker behind the green as the 10th at Merion evidently had?
(http://www.prestwickgc.co.uk/course/17thgreen.jpg)
No, instead Leslie was clearly referring to the large crossing bunker just short of the putting surface. I think Wayne's pictures are really good for this discussion, and I'd ask you both to imagine the 3rd picture, and now a 4-5 foot high embankment just short of the putting surface, at the far end of the crossing bunker. I don't believe the islands of turf in the bunker mattered, as the far end wall was considerably higher than any of them.
With the 15 foot back end wall of turf, the effect would have been of a green down in a hollow, even if the green was at the level of today's fairway. I still believe that it would have been effectively blind from most of the approach areas, with perhaps only the top part of the flagstick visible over the steep wall of the fronting bunker.
Wayne; how tall is your son these days? Thanks to both of you for getting out on this beautiful day to help along this discussion. ;D
Unfortunately, there's no way to prove it unless someone has a picture straight on of that approach shot. The following is from the far left of the green, but does show the man-made hill behind with the bunker in it, and also shows the fronting bunker with a steep embankment with people laying on it.
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/carrera993/Another10thatMerion.jpg)
The other picture, from just just off the front right of the green, does convey a bit of what I imagine was almost a punchbowl quality to the green. Very visible is the hillock behind, and in the front, you can just begin to detect the upsweep of the back end of the front bunker feature.
(http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a168/carrera993/10thatMerion.jpg)
By the way, my comment about a "punchbowl" is to discuss the feature generally, and should not be construed as meaning anything particularly derivative from Macdonald. It's just that it seems to me that the built up features around the green would have hidden much, if not all of the green from view on the approach shot.
-
Mike,
If Flynn's drawing is at all representative of the larger features of the hole, there was no berm fronting the green. I think what those folks are laying on are the mounds in the sand area and they might be 3-4 feet high. It looks like there was room between the mounds to see much of the green. I could be wrong, but that's my best determination as of now. I do think the photographs clearly show that the area before the road and after was pretty darn flat.
Wayne,
That could be. One thing interesting that Flynn's drawing shows is that the sandy expanse of the front bunker seems to extend right to Ardmore Avenue all the way to the green.
Using those steps as a marker of where the road starts and extending it rightwards in your minds eye, it does seem as though those people are lying on what is probably the far end of the bunker, closest to the green. I'm not sure if those are the turf islands Flynn drew or not, or whether those might be sitting back somewhere in the middle of the bunker closer to the road?
-
Wayne:
Maybe I'm wrong but I always thought that old 10th was maybe 20-30 yards over to our right from where David is standing. I think that house in the background of the shot from the right of the old green is the same one you can see behind David.
-
I'm not exactly sure where David is standing, but it seems in looking at some aerials that the old 10th green was well to the right of the current end of the fairway, and probably close to a line of where the big, corner bunker is on #1.
It seems the old 11 tee would have almost been a straight back line to today's 11 tee, and it was just a few steps off the right hand side of the old 10th green. There's a good pic of what i'm talking about on page 68 of Geoff Shack's "Golden Age of Golf Design", which also seems to show the location of the islands of turf in the fronting bunker.
-
Mike,
The old 10th green was in line with the current 11th tee. The mounds behind the tee and trees on the other side prevented me from photographing there. David stood at the closest spot where i had a clear shot to him. Even still, it wasn't open. However, the ground between the original spot and David's location is the same level. I'm sure the green was built up above the natural grade so that the mounding wasn't hiding all that much anyway.
The old 11th tee was to the right of the current 11th tee as you'd expect with the old 10th green location.
In any case, it is clear that there was precious little in common with the old 10th iteration and the Alps at NGLA and far less in common with the original Alps at Prestwick. You are very right in noting that there was a lot of latitude in definitions and poor to mediocre critical analysis.
Wayne,
I think this stuff is fascinating. Thanks for providing all of the supporting documentation that you have. I'm still thinking that the 10th green was probably blind to players on the approach (probably one could only see the top half of the flagstick), and it's also very clear to me (despite Patrick's protestations to the contrary ;)) as well that what Lesley and others were talking about when they called the hole an "Alps", was simply the broad, crossing, "Sahara" type feature just short of the green; a feature coincidentally shared with both the orginal Alps hole at Prestwick, as well as the 3rd at NGLA.
That's what Lesley was referring to, and it makes perfect sense. A largely blind shot over a large crossing hazard...voila! An Alps hole!! :D
I think the exact location of the old 10th green, which would have placed it about exactly where the 1st fairway today bends to the right (almost exactly in line with the corner bunker on 1) also makes complete sense of Flynn's drawing, where the hole appears to be a slight dogleg right, instead of a swinging dogleg left as it is today.
What's more, this educational discussion has cinched for me the fact that these holes were not meant to be imitative, as most of the Macdonald/Raynor template holes were, but simply original holes based on inspiration from what Wilson learned overseas.
At Merion, even as early as 1916, you find none of the abrupt geometric features found at NGLA, etc., nor do you find holes where the great "template holes" are meant to be imitated or reproduced in anything but very, very loose conceptual form. I think it makes very clear that this was a home-grown effort, and that Macdonald's influence, important as it may have been, ended largely with those two days Wilson spent at NGLA. I'm thinking that anything beyond that would have involved largely agronomic issues, not architectural ones.
So, I think this thread has been very good for a number of reasons;
1) I think we've all learned more about the architectural evolution of the Merion golf course.
2) I think we've all finally disabused the idea that Macdonald had much if anything to do with the finished product, even if at that early juncture it was still important in American golf to put a name on things, however much of a stretch it might be.
3) Once again, I've proved Patrick wrong on his understanding of template holes and their history. ;)
So, I would also like to thank David Moriarty for starting this thread, and for bringing forward all the historical news accounts of the time. That engendered some very good questions, and I think they've been answered here very well, as well.
All in all, not bad for some GCA dweebs. ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
Only one with a lilliputian brain and perspective could call the old 10th at Merion an "Alps" hole.
When you view the old green site from 5 to 6 feet above the DZ, I don't care how wide or deep the fronting bunker, the presentation is nothing like an "Alps" configuration, in concept or reality.
And herein lies the problem, extrapolating and interpolating holes that are more a figment of the imagination than an architectural presentation.
But, I'm not surprised by your pattern of claiming bogus "Redan" and "Alps" holes as the real thing.
Perhaps the method by which you process information is similar to your methods of chipping, mostly illusory and wishful thinking ;D
-
Patrick,
In reading your response, in which you completely avoided the subject of my proving you wrong about the 17th (Alps) hole at Prestwick, I'm reminded of the line from the movie "Dodgeball", in which the crazed old coach stated, "If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball."
Completely true, and completely absurd all at the same time! ;)
Nowhere here, nor anywhere else, will you find that I claimed the old 10th hole at Merion was an "Alps hole". Instead, I stated that what Lesley and others were referring to was the fact that the approach was likely blind, but much more pertinently, had to carry a huge crossing bunker, exactly like the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA.
I agree with you that this in and of itself does NOT make the old 10th at Merion an Alps hole in the way we normally think of it. In those above examples, the approach also needed to carry a large, hillside that accounted for the blindness. I believe a true Alps hole needs this feature to be considered an Alps.
However, Seth Raynor didn't seem to think that was the case. He built a number of "Alps holes" where not only did the approach not need to carry some hillside, but also wasn't blind in any way. I cited the "Alps" at Yeaman's Hall as an example, and if memory serves, the "Alps" at Yale isn't blind either.
Instead, as George Bahto points out, what became the distinguishing feature for Alps holes was simply the need to carry a large, "Sahara" type, cross-bunker just short of the putting surface. While neither you or I agree that such a hole is a classic "Alps", that's how the terminology evolved back in those days, and it's why a fellow like our Mr. Lesley felt comfortable comparing the 10th at Merion in 1916 to an Alps hole.
This is really pretty simple stuff, Patrick, unlike my chipping game. I'm not sure why both of us respectively find both of those concepts so darn complex. ;) ;D
-
Wayne, thanks for posting the pictures and especially the Flynn sketch. Your son must really be a good sport.
I realize that the sketch is not to scale, but still it got still got me wondering about a few things. If you or anyone else can explain I would be greatly appreciative.
To start, where was the original fairway? Flynn has the hole dogleg right and I think you have mentioned that the hole doglegged right. But with the existing line of play off the tee, this is pretty hard to figure . . . if there was fairway to the left of the current fairway, then drives would be whizzing past the heads of the golfers putting on the 9th . . . if the current line off the tee was in use, then the second shot have to be at an angle across the road, and this in inconsistent with the photos I have seen. Here is a photo with a pretty straight line from approximately where I believe you said the old tee was located to what I gather from the posts was the approximate location of the old green (I may still have the tee too far back):
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Merion-10-with-Ruler.jpg?t=1164445027)
I am having trouble reconciling this photo with your descriptions and Flynn’s sketch. I can see that the sketch isn’t meant to be in scale, but using the road as a reference, his driving line is completely different from the current driving line, and would seem to be over the 9th green. What’s more, his angles seem to make more sense, unless the second shot was an angled carry over the road to a green sitting quite crooked to the road.
Also, how on earth could have they gotten the distance so wrong? First, they have the 11th at something like 330 yards, and the holes run somewhat parallel to each other, and the 11th right next to the 10th green. Second, assuming the correct placement of the features, this yardage was way off . . . 60 or 70 yards off. With all of golf and design knowledge around that place, it is hard for me to believe they could have been that far off. Third, those who hit 250 yard drives to get to the level area would likely only have 70 or 80 yards to the green, as opposed to 135 yards. Even I can tell that there is a difference between a 75 yard shot and a 135 yard shot.
I am not trying to make any affirmative points here, but rather just trying to figure this out. Given that you have an overlay of the old and new, hopefully answering will not be much of a burden. Thanks in advance for any responses.
-
That's a good question. Certainly the current 11th is a much better hole than the original 11th form. The original 11th green was very long and fairly wide in a flat area to the right of the current line of play. In every way the current hole is superior. The original 10th was about even, though the current one is much more natural and I really like the way the current green extends along the dogleg, it is a great offset. The current 12th is also about even, though the current green is much better than the original given the slope and bunkering. Today's 13th is not as good as the original but it isn't too far off. The original had the stream running in front of the green much the same way that the current 11th does. Given that the 11th is a heck of a lot better, the trade-off of stream locations is for the better.
-
David,
Really good questions, but in re-looking at Geoff Shack's book this morning, I may see the problem. I had originally stated that the green would probably be at a direct line to the big corner bunker on #1, but the aerial on page 68 of "The Golden Age..." shows what looks like the turning bunker that's still there today, only the center of the old 10th green looks to be a good 20-30 paces to the right of it.
If you move the line on your picture about that distance, I think with some changed mowing patterns, this should resolve your question about how it played as a slight dogleg right.
I can't resolve your distance question, however, because I don't know the exact location of the old 11th green in relation to the old 10th tee.
-
Tom,
I think I added to David's confusion with my contention sometime earlier in this thread that the line was probably right at the turning bunker on #1. That was based on my not understanding that the big bunker on 1 on page 68 of the Shack book is the exact same turning bunker that exists today. I had thought that virtually all of the original bunkering on 1 had changed (i.e. blown up) when Wilson/Flynn changed it into a dogleg right.
This morning, after looking at it again in light of David's questions/aerial, I saw where I was wrong.
Unlike someone else on this thread, who contended that the 17th at Prestwick has a big earthen wall behind it with an embedded bunker, I will admit when I'm wrong. ;) ;D
-
Mike:
The old 10th green was at least 30 yards from that bunker on #1. The old green was probably just about where a good tee shot would be on #1 today. And don't forget, the driveway back then was not where it is today. It came in directly across the 14th from Golf Club Rd.
To me the more interesting aspect of David Moriarty's initial post is not if the old 10th was 320 or 385 yards or if the hole was really an "Alps" or a slight dogleg right but whether or not Merion East was one of the first indications of a rejection of the old rudimentary architecture seen in America and also in inland England before that time or before say 1900 or 1905?
Of course it was, but the question is why and from where did that change evolve? But I think we need to make a strong distinction between the linksland model and that INLAND model from the Heathlands that took some of the characteristics of the more natural linksland course. We need to talk more about the evolution of the INLAND golf course and its architecture. I think that was the key back then. Basically the old linksmen all said it could not really be golf if it was inland and not links. This had to have created a helluva dynamic after a while.
Merion East is very representative of the early evolution of golf architecture in America, in my opinion, because it was one of the first of the INLAND courses that departed from the look and style of that old INLAND course and architecture that was often known as "steeplechase" golf.
Just look at the bunkering, the placement and shapes of the bunkering on Merion East. Where was there bunkering on an inland golf course in America like that at that time?
The intereting thing about Merion East is it did have some of that rudimentary style on it in its earliest days and that old 10th green and the obnoxious looking "Mid Surrey" mounding ("Alpinization) around #9 green were examples. To me this meant Merion East is an excellent example of an important transition time in INLAND golf architecture. So obviously was Pine Valley that followed Merion East by about two years.
But it didn't take Wilson and Flynn, and Valentine that long to get rid of that rudimentary unnatural looking stuff and get a lot more natural looking with what they were making, particularly bunker placements and shapes. It didn't take Pine Valley long to get rid of that rudimentary stuff either. Doesn't this mean things were changing fast? It does to me. Golf architecture, particularly INLAND architecture was becoming pretty sophisticated pretty fast. It was beginning to be referred to as "modern" or even "scientific".
I think Ron Prichard is probably right that the original Merion bunker style, shape and look was the prototype for the generic American bunker to come.
So where did Hugh Wilson come up with it? That to me is the most interesting question. I think we probably know where he saw some examples of INLAND architecture like this. I think it was probably the same place Crump saw it.
Was it inland? Was it INLAND---eg the world's first really good inland golf architecture?
Where was it? Was it Myopia Hunt? Was it the English heathlands? Or was it the linksland or maybe all of them?
-
The old 10th green was in line with the current 11th tee. I posted that previously. I couldn't photograph there because of the mounding constructed behind the 11th tee. I mentioned this previously as well. Your answers are close at hand, but you seem to skip some of the information provided.
I did see that and that that was were I put the line, but looking at it now I see that my dot could be very slightly to the right of where it is.
Unfortunately, that doesnt really clear things up and actually makes things a bit more confused, at least for me . . .
Here is a pic from 1924, i think, showing the green complex (with interesting modifications from 1916) . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Merion10-aerial-Old-and-New.jpg?t=1164479598)
It looks to me that the green sits pretty square to the road, but placing the green where I think you are placing it (and making the hole a dogleg right) would mean that the line of play was from an angle somewhere by the front left corner of the picture, over what appears to be a bunker just south of the road. Is this correct?
-
This just isn't complicated stuff unless one is trying to figure it out never having seen Merion East.
I've seen Merion East.
-
This just isn't complicated stuff unless one is trying to figure it out never having seen Merion East.
I've seen Merion East.
Since your host smokes more than Tom Paul, I am not sure that seeing Merion through a cloud of smoke counts, ;) and those hickories might be good for The West but ...............
I happen to have bumped into him yesterday, and he was happy that I brought my brother-in-law who is a cardiac surgeon. :D
-
Mike, You notice I said I "saw" Merion? My host knows that it would be a stretch to say that I "golfed" Merion, as it was a rough day with the hickories. He and the rest of our group were very good sports to put up with me. It was an amazing experience despite my golfing ineptitude.
____________________________________
Out of curiosity I took another look at the elevations and found what should be a much more reliable source, namely a USGS application capable of generating elevation profiles. I created an elevation profile of the Alps from the front of the tee to the middle of the green in a straight line. I then did the same thing for Merion’s 10th, only I started at the same ‘old tee’ point as above and went straight to the same first dot, then doglegged to a point further right than the point above. I converted this profile to the Alps Elevation scale, then superimposed it on the Alps profile with Merion’s tee matching the elevation of NGLA’s. (I did not scale for hole length . . . If I had, the Merion line would have been shorter and a bit more compressed, but the elevations would remain unchanged.)
Again, the results were very surprising, at least to me. . . .
The small line represents NGLA’s Alps hole, the large line represents the 10th's relative elevation profile as described above.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/nlgaAlpsmerion10elevation.jpg?t=1164524460)
-
(I did not scale for hole length . . . If I had, the Merion line would have been shorter and a bit more compressed, but the elevations would remain unchanged.)
David,
Honestly, I am not trying to tag team you, but this chart is not relevant. Even as a kid, I hit George Izett (http://www.izettgolf.com/) persimmon driver over most of that hill to a landing area on the hill between the bunkers but way way up the more gradual hill of the 10th. Yes it would be partially blind to the old 10th green, but not blind. On Friday, playing the same white tee markers of 30 years, I was 55 yards short of the front pin in the left second cut. It had almost no elevation change to the green and would have very little if playing to the old 10th.
The Alps at National has always been blind. Even if the longest drivers today (not me) find the right hand fairway slot on the Alps, it is still going to be almost completely blind, but they will be able to see the pin rather than just the pole marker.
-
David,
Honestly, I am not trying to tag team you, but this chart is not relevant.
Anything that leads to a greater understanding of the hole is relevant. That being said, I didnt post the chart to make a specific point about blindness or whatever, but rather just found it interesting that the elevation changes on the two holes are as close as they are. Given the reaction I received when I first suggested this, I'd have thought a few others would have found this interesting as well.
TEPaul said:
Well, that's nice but I certainly doubt you went out on #10 and looked at the landscape with these questions in mind. If you had done, I very much doubt you'd have any confusion at all about the way the old 10th hole used to be including the position of the old green, the angle of play and the question of blindness on the approach.
Not claiming any great knowledge, Tom, just setting the record straight.
-
David,
You are one of the few guys here that has played the 10th hole with hickory clubs. Thus you might know best how the hole was originally played by Jones & Company. Where did your hickory drive end up, and how blind was your approach shot?
-
Wayne: What are those three bunkers across the road protecting ? Could it be the old 10th ?
If so, the green is further to the left than projected.
-
Guys, guys, guys, guys, guys...
We're getting further and further from the point.
David, your picture with the red-dotted arrow is at least 20 yards left of the center of the old 10th green. Take another look at the 1924 aerial, back up a bit, and you can see the big corner bunker on #1 that still exists today, and that you pointed your redpointed arrow right at.
You'll see that it's a bit off....by 20 to 30 yards figuring the center of the old 10th.
It is so clear that what Lesley refers to as an Alps feature is the crossing bunker in front of the green. Everyone please go back and re-read what he wrote. He wasn't talking about the mound behind, he wasn't talking about the tee area, he was talking of the crossing bunker. Read again, carefully;
“ The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick; in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”
The Principle of the Alps hole is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green, according to Lesley. Simple, folks...that's all there is here.
The artificial hillocks around the green emulating small dune mounding probably lent some degree of similarity, as well. I still think the steep front face of the front bunker probably blinded most of the green, especially for those players who didn't drive the ball 300 yards like Bobby Jones. However, it's all moot, because Lesley was talking about an Alps concept, not a direct imitation.
-
I'm not sure why there is an arguement when you have multiple (contemporaneous) sources reporting the approach was blind...one source maybe, three or more sources, and aren't you're pissing into the wind.
Instead of trying to determine if the 10th is technically an Alps or comparable to the unworldly Alps at the NGLA, it might be a better idea to compare it to other similar holes (Alps, Punchbowls, Hill, Blind, etc.) at other Macdonald & Whigham courses of the same period...like Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow, Chicago (circa 1912), St. Louis, Greenbriar-Old White and Lido.
-
Mike S.
I believe I hit my drive (or was it my second?) into the fairway bunker left. After a swing or so in the bunker I ended up right of the green, somewhere near where Jones' drive landed. From there in I am sure I must have played very much like Jones, only left-handed. He carried a jigger, didnt he?
Mike C.,
I do realize that the second segment is in the wrong place, but just haven’t posted an update until now. As I said above, the elevation profile is based on the green being about 20-25 yards right, as seen below. As I also said, I don’t think this clears much up, unless the line of play into the green was at an angle.
I don't know how David plays with hickory clubs but I doubt he has anything close to the ability of Jones that would give him an insight as to how Bob Jones played with hickories on this hole.
Wayne, since Mike S. has apparently heard about the quality of my ball striking that day, I think perhaps his comments were more than a little facetious.
Here's what Jones did in the 1930 Amateur from the current back tee. Today the hole is measured as 310 yards, it was listed as 335 for the 1930 Amateur. I guess it somewhat depends on where the measurement is made for the turn of the hole. In any case, a straight 300 yard drive got him pin high. The 1916 10th tee was a minimum of 30 yards shorter than the back tee Jones hit from in 1930. An accomplished player would have been able to hit off the 1916 tee pretty darn close to the road.
Is it possible that you are overestimating just how far accomplished players could hit the ball in 1916, or even 1930? In Scotland’s Gift, MacDonald documents a driving test conducted by some top players in 1919 on a variety of holes with varying slope and wind, and the average driving distance was only 228 yards.
The following is a revision of the aerial above (and the one that corresponds to the elevation portrait above.) The distance between the first segment is 250 yards, and the two segments together measure just over 340 yards.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Misc/merionold103.jpg?t=1164614378)
-
Tom MacWood,
I agree with the accounts that the old 10th would have been blind, simply due to what seems like a significantly elevated face to the large front crossing bunker. Also, poor drives left back on the hillside would have compounded the visibility issues.
In the examples you cited, I'm not as familiar with them as I probably should be (having only played Sleepy Hollow, among them), but I agree with Wayne and would like to hear your perspective on each as regards;
1) Does each have a large front crossing bunker?
2) Is each one blind from the approach?
3) If so, is it because of small permutations of the ground, a large elevated front bunker face, or similar to the Alps at NGLA, or 17th at Prestwick, because of a large hillside intervening between the approach area and the green?
Thanks!
Mike
-
Tom,
We know you've been on a quest to try and find a greater influence at Merion East by Macdonald and Whigham due to some passages you've read and a eulogy by Whigham. Please explain how the holes at PR, SH, CGC, SLCC, GOW and Lido compare to indicate they are conceptually linked. Knowing you are more informed, I hope it comes out better than Lesley's analysis.
Wayne
Instead of arguing if the 10th was blind or not (with multiple reports of it being blind I'm not sure why its even being debated) the more interesting question - to me anyway - is what is the antecent of this hole.
Some say it was an Alps, and perhaps it was, there were several forms of Alps designed by Macdonald & Whigham during that period. There were also multiple versions of the punchbowl and other similar blind or semi-blind holes created by them as well.
If you are interested in unraveling the early history of Merion's architectural evolvtion, my guess is you will find clues regarding the source of the old tenth at one or more of the courses I listed.
My only interest is getting at the truth. It is a documented fact that Macdonald & Whigham acted as advisors at Merion...being the most influential and powerful figures in American design why wouldn't Merion want them as advisors, especially if they planned on replicating famous holes or features of famous holes, M&W's strong suit.
The truth is out there.
-
Mike
I'm no Alps expert (George Bahto is the one who would know), but from what I understand most did have crossbunker. Ironically Sleepy Hollow might have been an exception. Old maps I've seen indicate the green was down over the edge of a ravine with no sign of a bunker (the punchbowl hole was down in the same ravine). Sleepy Hollow illustrates how these holes differ based on the nature of the site.
Again from what I've seen they are all blind or semi-blind, although I'm not sure about the Greenbrier. And the scale of the mound and/or blindness seems to differ from course to course based on the nature of the ground, for example Chicago is more or less flat; Sleepy Hollw pretty severe; St. Louis somewhere in between.
-
It's too bad you guys don't have Wilson's notes/sketches from his trip overseas. This would undoubtedly help to clarify the "British" influences on Merion. I think it is more interesting that he chose to involve the road in the hole (which seems British to me) than whether it was an "Alps" or not. Do you at least know his itinerary?
-
I don't know David. You seemed a bit confused throughout. You talk about Ben Hogan when others are talking about Bob Jones. You place the old 10th green too far to the left of the proper location that is evident in photographs you yourself cite. You make a graph that has absolutely no value at all with no scale for distance. I will argue that your graph is not close to what it looks like in person. The plateau is much longer than you indicate and begins just a bit past the fairway bunker on the left. Finally, how confused can you be? Jones hit the ball exactly as far as shown in the diagram. You cite some contest where the long distance was 228 yards. It isn't on the same hole, who knows how the wind was blowing and how firm and dry the fairways were?
Wayne, I mispoke in writing above. Thanks for pointing it out. I've changed it. As far as the rest I dont really think you are addressing my posts. Rather you are just repeating your conclusion.
How confused can I be? Well, in that Jones diagram the distance of those drives is around 260 yards, or a little less. Not a big stretch over the 228 average I cite considering it was Bobby Jones and that it was 1930. (The study I cite was 1919.) So your fundamental assumption seems to be off by over 40 yards.
The 228 yards figure wasnt some study I came up with, it is in MacDonald's book, along with many other statistics that make your distance assumptions suspect. He doesnt give the slope and conditions for every number given but he does state that this particular study was on five holes with a variety of slopes and winds. I doubt that the drives would have been much longer on the uphill 10th.
The elevation chart abovewas a relative comparison with National, so a horizontal scale would have added little or nothing to that. But since you asked, here is a profile with some distance references.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/merionelev2.jpg?t=1164647661)
Point 1=2nd tee. Point 2=200yds. Point 3=250 yards, Point 4=old green (where placed immediately above.)
Take a step back and listen to Mike Cirba as the voice of reason. There was precious little of the Alps concept in the old 10th. Some like to pound a square peg into a round hole. The sand fronting the green is the real common concept.
Maybe so, but there are very many assumptions being made about this hole that just dont check out. You and others seem to have your mind made up about this hole and dont seem all that interested in hearing or addressing new or conflicting information.
As for the other courses listed, I believe there were some construction photos posted in the last thread of the Lido's Alps hole which showed no evidence of an actual Alps.
-
It is so clear that what Lesley refers to as an Alps feature is the crossing bunker in front of the green.
That's not what Lesley was refering to.
Obviously, you're ignoring the skill and familiarity with the english language that early writers possessed.
Look up the definition of a Semicolon PRIOR to rereading Lesley's passage, and then tell me what you think.[/color]
Everyone please go back and re-read what he wrote. He wasn't talking about the mound behind, he wasn't talking about the tee area, he was talking of the crossing bunker. Read again, carefully;
“ The tenth hole has its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick[size=8x];[/color][/size] in principle, that is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green. ”
The Principle of the Alps hole is a two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green, according to Lesley. Simple, folks...that's all there is here.
Not so fast my friend.
Lesley seperates two independent clauses through the use of the semicolon.
To declare that any two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green is an "Alps" hole is absurd.
As I stated to you earlier, the old 14th at GCGC had that feature, yet, NOONE ever refered to it as an "Alps" hole.
And, do you know why ?
Because a fronting cross bunker doesn't inherently make a hole an "ALPS" hole.[/color]
The artificial hillocks around the green emulating small dune mounding probably lent some degree of similarity, as well. I still think the steep front face of the front bunker probably blinded most of the green, especially for those players who didn't drive the ball 300 yards like Bobby Jones. However, it's all moot, because Lesley was talking about an Alps concept, not a direct imitation.
Baloney.
Lesley was incompetent and incorrect in categorizing the 10th as an "Alps" hole.[/color]
-
Patrick,
I'm confused as to your point.
First, you take great pains to educate me in the use of the semi-colon, claiming that due to punctuation fluency that the "early writers" possessed, Lesley was not referring to the large cross bunker in saying the hole resembles an "Alps".
Then, perhaps you can tell me exactly what he's referring to that makes the hole "resemble an Alps"? Is it the "tee back in the woods"? Is it the "green background with a high hill covered with grass" that you claimed was identical to the 17th at Prestwick" (which is what you stated before I posted the picture that showed absolutely NO such feature on the Alps at Prestwick)? No, of course he's talking about the large fronting cross bunker in making his comparison!
Then, you refer to the old 14th at Garden City, and ask why that hole wasn't considered an Alps hole if Lesley's definition is adequate. First, Lesley never declared the old 10th at Merion an "Alps" hole. He said the front bunker RESEMBLED the same on the Alps at Prestwick.
Second, I'm not sure if Lesley ever wrote anything at all about Garden City, so I can't say whether he would have found any similarities between the front cross bunker at GCGC and the front cross bunker at Prestwick...maybe..maybe not.
Finally, you give up on Lesley altogether in trying to make your points, calling him not only incorrect, but incompetent, as well. ;D
Patrick, I do get your point and agree with you that a true Alps hole, like the 3rd at NGLA, really does need a high hillock intervening between the approach area and the green, and it also needs the large cross bunker, which that one has, similar to 17 at Prestwick in both respects. We AGREE!! ;D
However, not everyone back in the early days, including Raynor, were quite so rigid in their definitions. Many of the "Alps" holes that Raynor built not only didn't cross some large hillock, but weren't blind at all!!
That's why Mr. Lesley, rather than being a complete imbecile, chose to compare the old 10th at Merion with some features of the Alps hole at Prestwick. By most accounts, it was a blind approach, and it featured a large crossing bunker that "resembled" the one at Prestwick... Simple.
From Ran's writeup of Yeaman's Hall;
5th hole, 420 yards, Alps; Yeamans Hall was built at the end of Raynor's career and indeed, Raynor died before the course opened for play. By 1925, though, Raynor had already heard the complaints from a number of memberships about the blind aspect of his Alps holes to the point where here at Yeamans, he merely put in the front Alps bunker (bold mine) and didn't bother with the blind aspect of a conventional Alps hole. Still, this central hazard between the tee and green helps create interest for this flat hole just as the Bottle bunker configuration originally did at the 4th.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000201.jpg)
Also, I think George Bahto makes the distinguishing features and their historical usage quite clear during his interview on this site;
Alps' was a term describing a blind shot throughout the British Isles - the original was the 17th at Prestwick. The 3rd at National is an awe-inspiring version. A 'mountain' must be carried on the approach shot to a green fronted by a deep cross bunker. National's Alps is considered an anachronism to some, but students of the classics consider it a wonderful tribute to days gone by. It was the end of the era of blind shots, but C.B could not resist when he found a natural Alps site when building his Ideal Golf Course. Seth Raynor built an Alps on most courses, but they were generally identified as having 'Alps bunkering' - meaning some cross-bunkering in front of the green. Instead of a blind approach over a 'mountain,' Raynor customarily positioned his Alps renditions just over the crest of a rising fairway - then cross-bunkering the green complex. Sadly, many clubs covered in the cross bunker because they did not understand the origin and concept. Alps greens usually had a spine of sorts running through the green to compound putting problems.
The bottom line, Patrick, is that any blind shot to a green fronted by a deep cross bunker was called an Alps back then. It later morphed to sometimes mean even holes with just the fronting bunker, as total blindness fell out of fashion.
-
Patrick, I must take issue with your application of the semi-colon and am in agrrement with the conclusion drawn by Mr. Cirba.
You suggested that he was, "ignoring the skill and familiarity with the english language that early writers possessed..." and that he should, "Look up the definition of a Semicolon PRIOR to rereading Lesley's passage, and then tell me what you think."
The American College Dictionary defines the word semi-colon as, "a mark of punctuation (;) used to indicate a more distinct separation between parts of a sentence than that indicated by a comma."
You go on to state how, "Lesley seperates two independent clauses through the use of the semicolon."
That is interpretaive and has nothing whatsoever to do with grammar on your part. The separation in a sentence by use of a semi-colon MAY allow for two "independent clauses" to be used together, but quite often they are similar clauses.
It is this (my interpretation of Lesley's words) that he is doing by using a semi-colon at this point of his sentence. All he is stating is that he sees this holes having some similarity to the "Alps" hole previously mentioned, and IN PRINCIPLE, or the specific similarity being that it the cross bunker [up by the green complex] of the two-shot hole that is found on many [not all] "Alps" holes.
You stated that Mike was declaring, "that any two shot hole with a cross bunker guarding the green is an "Alps" hole" and that doing such "is absurd..."
I can't find how he has done that anywhere in this thread and that he has made several efforts to deny doing so.
-
Pat
Robert Lesley was not incompetent. He was a well respected figure in golf and chairman of the Golf Committee at Merion (and long-time president of the Phila Golf Assoc & founder of the Lesley Cup). He also wasn't the only one to refer to the Alps at Merion; Tilly did as well in 1916. Was he an incompetent too?
-
Tom and/or Phil,
Would either of you happen to have Tillinghast's exact quote about the 10th at Merion handy? I'm really curious to see how he viewed it.
Thanks
-
If you think Jones's drives were "around 260 yards, or a little less," then I will not continue a conversation with you as you have a problem with analysing information presented to you. There was a study done of every one of the 18 holes Jones played twice in qualifying for the 1930 Amateur and there are many examples of distance equal to the shots he hit on #10; a distance much greater than you consider. I have no idea why your analysis is so flawed and I no longer care that it is.
That is your perogative, but I assure you that I am not making this stuff up.
I layered the modern aerial over your Jones photo and matched up the road, all the bunkers and both the 9th and 10th greens (incredibly, for all the talking we do about changes at merion, everything still pretty much matches up, except for maybe the size of those two back bunkers on nine. I used Google to measure the distance. I have no reason to doubt Google's measuring tool. Do you?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/MerionJonesOverlay.jpg?t=1164656516)
If you or anyone else has information with a better foundation, then I'll be glad to accept it. Likewise, if you or anyone else I have made some sort of mistake in interpretation or representation, I'll be glad to correct myself.
-
David Moriarty:
Didn't you know Jones hit a good number of drives 300 yards or more in his career? Don't forget none of us know how far a golf ball may've bounced and rolled in those days. Haven't you ever seen a golf ball bounce and roll 75-100 yds? I believe there was a diagram kept as to where Jones hit every shot in that 1930 tournament. I know I have that hole by hole diagram around here somewhere.
For the life of me I just can't understand what you think you're trying to prove or accomplish on this thread.
-
Also, Wayne, I don't doubt that B Jones hit many drives of equal or greater distance to his drives at the 10th. After all, the 10th plays substantially uphill, seemingly much more uphill than most people thought. This is the likely reason that so many have miscalculated their own driving distances on this hole as well as the driving distances of others.
___________________________
MODIFIED
Here, is Tillinghast from the American Golfer on the NGLA Alps hole . . .
Other holes present the characteris-
tics of the famous Redan and the Alps
of Prestwick.
Here is MacDonald from the 1914 Golf Illustrated (with my bolds added:)
When the player hits his second
shot across the summit of the saddle back hill called
the Alps he is completely in doubt about the result.
His ball may be on the green close to the hole, or it
may have fallen just short of the green into a serious
hazard, or it may have run over the green into thick
bent leaving a difficult down-hill approach. The
margin between the three results is so small that the
player is frequently pleasantly or unpleasantly disappointed
when he comes to the top of the hill and
surveys the result beneath him. The green lies in a
hollow with the bunker in front and a high bank
behind. If the ball carries far enough to get over the
bunker by only a foot it gets a running fall and may
go right past the hole into the bent beyond. Therefore
the difference between being in the bunker short
of the green or in the bent beyond the green is often
the difference of two or three feet in the carry.
__________________________
David Moriarty:
Didn't you know Jones hit a good number of drives 300 yards or more in his career? Don't forget none of us know how far a golf ball may've bounced and rolled in those days. Haven't you ever seen a golf ball bounce and roll 75-100 yds? I believe there was a diagram kept as to where Jones hit every shot in that 1930 tournament. I know I have that hole by hole diagram around here somewhere.
For the life of me I just can't understand what you think you're trying to prove or accomplish on this thread.
I've heard that Tom, yes, but he didnt hit a 300 yard drive here, because that would have put him over the road.
What am I trying to accomplish? Nothing, just interested in the evolution of golf architecture, so I am trying to peel back the layers to get to the truth. I really dont understand how that could possibly be so offensive to so many.
-
What am I trying to accomplish? Nothing, just interested in the evolution of golf architecture, so I am trying to peel back the layers to get to the truth.
David,
I have allowed myself to get sucked into this 5 pager, but I am still unclear. The truth about what?
-
David,
Thanks for providing those quotes. I'm assuming that the 1913 quote by Macdonald was specifically concerning Merion's 10th?
Could you tell me what month that quote appeared?
Unfortunately, I'm at work and there is variance on my browser in terms of what images appear and which don't, so I haven't been able to see what you posted today, and therefore can't weigh in on your graphs, etc.
I hope to check them out tonight.
It seems that we're still debating total yardage. One thing that might help is if anyone knows how far or short the old 11th green was from the old 10 tee. Since those holes were parallel, and we know that the old 11th tee was immediately adjacent to the old 10th green, finding the difference between their corresponding green & tee should go a long way towards answering that question.
-
Mike, I think there is some sort of disconnect between my brain and my posts lately . . .
The year is 1914 and MacDonald & Whigham are credited as authors. June 1914, Volume 1, No. 3, pges 25-27.
-
Mike, I think there is some sort of disconnect between my brain and my posts lately . . .
The year is 1914 and MacDonald & Whigham are credited as authors. June 1914, Volume 1, No. 3, pges 25-27.
David,
Thanks. In Macdonald's article that you quoted, he was talking about the characteristics of the Alps hole he created at NGLA. In reading your post, I mistakenly thought that you meant he was referring to the 10th at Merion.
NGLA's Alps hole does have a bank behind the green. From the picture I posted of the Alps at Prestwick earlier, this does not seem to be the case.
In any case, I think the bank behind the green on #10 at Merion seems to be almost a "fence" to protect shots from #1, particularly based on the finding Tom Paul just reported. It seems quite a bit different than the one at NGLA, seen below;
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/NGLA%203rd%20Green%20Left.jpg)
UPDATE Modification***
I've never been to Prestwick and the original picture I posted of the 17th green seemed to have no high bank behind the green.
(http://www.prestwickgc.co.uk/course/17thgreen.jpg)
I just came across the following, but really can't determine with any authenticity how far behind the green that hillock really is.
For those who have been there, could you confirm whether it's in play in the way Macdonald describes the hill on his Alps version at NGLA?
(http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/thesportswall_1923_330375752)
-
David,
I don't think anyone should be getting sensitive here. But I sense that some feel you have an agenda (I'm not sure if you do or not) to somehow prove that Macdonald and Whigham were the real designers of Merion, and I think that there is nowhere near enough evidence to support that conclusion and much evidence to the contrary.
For all I know, Wilson may have tried to build an Alps on the 10th, and he may have even done it at Macdonald's urging. For one, Macdonald cited a study done in around 1908 that claimed the Alps hole at Prestwick was the finest par four in the game, so he was quite fond of the concept.
However, even if these things were stipulated for purposes of further discussion (they certainly are nowhere near proven as fact), where are the rest of the Macdonald Raynor template holes at Merion?
The "reverse redan" 3rd is a real stretch of the template, even for a guy like me who understands the historical evolution and sometimes really loose practical interpretations of the template holes.
The 13th could possibly pass for a "Short", except for the fact that it's not the original 13th hole at all, but one built in the 20's by Wilson & Flynn.
Other than that, I don't see another hole on the entire property, either now or in 1916 that resembles one of the MacRaynor template holes in any way, shape, or form. Do you?
Also, there is absolutely no evidence of the type of geometric style used by Macdonald and Raynor. Lines are much more curved, even in the old photos going back to the inception of the course.
If Macdonald and Whigham were in fact the "consultants", or "advisers", in a role with any real meat to it, then Merion would have stood as their ONLY course ever built that had a predominance of original holes, as opposed to templates.
I personally love to do historical research, and thus enjoy this discussion greatly, but I also think that's why some folks are scratching their heads wondering how far you're looking to press your case, and what you're ultimately hoping to discover.
Fair enough? ;D
-
Mike I just tried to correct a type in my last message and deleted it. I think I need a secretary for this stuff. If you think I was being too sensitive, then it is probably for the best because I dont feel ike I am being sensitive at all. I actually find it kind of funny that adults would refuse to converse with me because I disagreed with him and offered support for my disagreement . . . .
Mike S. As you can guess I had a more elaborate answer to your question above, and I wont try to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that I am just very curious about what Merion and its influences in its early years. I find the course is absolutely fascinating, and thought the same even before I tried to play it with Hickories. (I lived in Havertown for a time after college and some looks at both Merion courses during that time period.)
-
David,
Straightforward questions..
Do you feel that Macdonald and Whigham had a much greater role in the specific design of the holes at Merion's original course than has been reported or understood?
If so, why are there almost no template holes (possibly one or two, but even they seem in some dispute) and no geometric construction?
I think it's an avenue worth exploring, but personally I keep running into those two dead ends.
-
David Moriarty:
The 10th does not play substantially uphill.
You are wrong about this, Tom, at least according to the United States Geological Survey.
According to a USGS Application, Merion No. 10 has around 15 feet elevation change from the largest tee in the photos above to the site of the old green. This is about the same elevation change as exists between the tee and green at NGLA's alps (according to the same source.)
Do you know precisely where that back tee was in 1930 . . .?
Well, I have Wayne's chart of Jones' shot on No. 10 and he says it is "exact." I have no reason to doubt him. Lining up the chart with the aerial, Jones' apparently teed off of the front of the largest tee in the photos above.
But even if I dont have the tee right, he still didnt hit it 300 yards, unless he teed off from the backyard of the big house behind and above the 10th tees. Otherwise he would have hit it over the road.
As for your last post, I am glad you have come around to see it my way, but I am not sure the others have yet.
Man was that mound behind that green humongous. It looks like it could've been close to 20 feet high.
Interesting. Wayne descibed it as much smaller.
_____________________________________
Mike Cirba said:
But I sense that some feel you have an agenda (I'm not sure if you do or not) to somehow prove that Macdonald and Whigham were the real designers of Merion . . .
I sense that as well, but know that it is absolutely absurd. First, I don't believe it to be the case. Second, I have never said it was the case. Third, if I did believe it I'd just come out and say it. As you are aware, I generally dont mince words (intentionally) when it comes to expressing my opinion.
As a contrary notion of what may be going on, could it be that some are much too protective of those (past or present) who they love, as well as their long held notions, and this makes them way too defensive and unwilling to even consider contrary opinions or anything that might challenge what they feel is sacred? It has certain happened before on this site, some have even accused me of this . . .
. . . and I think that there is nowhere near enough evidence to support that conclusion and much evidence to the contrary.
I agree, and I very seriously doubt any evidence will surface supporting this because I dont think it was the case.
As for the the rest of your post, I dont disagree with much of it. You are arguing against a position I dont hold and never have.
That being said, there is quite a lot of wiggle room between MacDonald designed the Merion and all the holes are templates on the one hand, and MacDonald had nothing to do with anything that happened at Merion (even if indirect) and none of his hole concepts (or their originals) had any influence either. Both these notions are equally absurd, and neither is supported by the evidence.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence of the type of geometric style used by Macdonald and Raynor. Lines are much more curved, even in the old photos going back to the inception of the course.
This is purely an aside, but I think that calling MacDonald's style "geometric" really overstates the case, at least with regard to early NGLA. I dont have them right now, but in the past I have posted a number of early photos which were not geometric at all.
Similarly, I am speculating here, but I think you may overstate the degree to which the MacDonald/Raynor holes were "templates" which were more or less exactly implimented. I've seen very few MacRaynor courses, but what little I have seen makes me think that they were much more concepts than templates, and that they were applied accordingly.
I personally love to do historical research, and thus enjoy this discussion greatly, but I also think that's why some folks are scratching their heads wondering how far you're looking to press your case, and what you're ultimately hoping to discover.
I love this type of research as well. As for the rest, since it is not "my case," I dont know what to tell these people . . . except that they should loosen up.
-
Nowhere here, nor anywhere else, will you find that I claimed the old 10th hole at Merion was an "Alps hole".
You seem to be supporting Lesley's statement that it was an Alps hole. [/color]
Instead, I stated that what Lesley and others were referring to was the fact that the approach was likely blind, but much more pertinently, had to carry a huge crossing bunker, exactly like the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA.
What "others" ?[/color]
I agree with you that this in and of itself does NOT make the old 10th at Merion an Alps hole in the way we normally think of it.
In those above examples, the approach also needed to carry a large, hillside that accounted for the blindness. I believe a true Alps hole needs this feature to be considered an Alps.
I"m glad that you've finally seen the light[/color]
However, Seth Raynor didn't seem to think that was the case. He built a number of "Alps holes" where not only did the approach not need to carry some hillside, but also wasn't blind in any way. I cited the "Alps" at Yeaman's Hall as an example,
and if memory serves, the "Alps" at Yale isn't blind either.
Your memory isn't serving you ! ;D
From George Bahto in "The Evangelist of Golf"
"From the position of the second shot only the mound in front of the green is visible"
"Years ago, teh essential elements of this "Alps" hole was altered dramatically near the green site. Though the hole still maintains the general concept of a blind approach, the deep cross bunker in front of the green was filled in, and the hill-top ridge was flattened to improve target visibility from the fairway. Still a fine hole, but sadly no longer the true Alps as conceived by Raynor"
Mike, I often wonder about the naming of a hole issue.
Did the architect build a replica hole, an "Alps"
Or, was that merely the nomenclature assigned by the club ?[/color]
Instead, as George Bahto points out, what became the distinguishing feature for Alps holes was simply the need to carry a large, "Sahara" type, cross-bunker just short of the putting surface.
If you're going to quote "George Bahto", then you should include his description of the "Alps" hole and its distinquishing features in "The Evangelist of Golf".
One of his comments with respect to the generic Alps is as follows:
"The fascination with the Alps hole is the unknown result of the shot over the HIGH HILL.
A fronting bunker does not an Alps hole make.[/color]
While neither you or I agree that such a hole is a classic "Alps", that's how the terminology evolved back in those days, and it's why a fellow like our Mr. Lesley felt comfortable comparing the 10th at Merion in 1916 to an Alps hole.
I disagree.
I think that Lesley was uninformed and unfamiliar with golf course architecture, and thus his erroneous categorization, was way off base. And, he certainly shouldn't be cited in an effort to offer indisputable evidence on the issue.[/color]
This is really pretty simple stuff, Patrick, unlike my chipping game. I'm not sure why both of us respectively find both of those concepts so darn complex. ;) ;D
-
David Moriarty:
The 10th does not play substantially uphill.
You are wrong about this, Tom, at least according to the United States Geological Survey.
According to a USGS Application, Merion No. 10 has around 15 feet elevation change the largest tee in the photos above to the site of the old green. This is about the same elevation change as exists between the tee and green at NGLA's alps (according to the same source.)
David,
This is silly to measure the height of tees vs tees and green vs green and conclude that the variation is small so it is some sort of Alps. The Alps at National, Yale, Piping and I assume Prestwick is all about the second shot. As I have mentioned and you confirmed, the tee shot at Merion played with hickories and/or modern clubs lands at least 200 yards out from the tee, and thus passes over most of the steepness in that hill. The ball lands above the height of the tee in your diagram!. At 200 yards out, it looks like a 10 foot climb to the old 10th green. I would be interested to see the same chart at National. The ball in the fairway 200-250 yards out at National is probably 20-30 feet below the tee. Then the height carry has to be 30+ feet.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/merionelev2.jpg?t=1164647661)
You have played both shots into the greens at National and Merion. Forget the charts and quotes from 19XX. Is there any real comparison in terms of angles and visuals for those shots? I will make the assumption that you now accept that the old and new 10th greens had little height variation, but visually we all accept the old 10th was visually more intimidating.
-
"Interesting. Wayne descibed it as much smaller."
Really? how much smaller did Wayne describe it? Maybe saying it was 20 feet high in the rear is a bit much---it's not that easy estimating the height of something from well over 300 yards away, even for you ;) but let's just say however high it was it cut off most of a few trees behind it.
-
Do you feel that Macdonald and Whigham had a much greater role in the specific design of the holes at Merion's original course than has been reported or understood?
Straighforward? Reported or understood by whom?
My understanding is that at the time, MacDonald was reported and understood to have advised on the project. For example, in the January 1913 issue of American Golfer, Far and Sure (Travis?) said that MacDonald had been of great assistance in an advisory way.
My further understanding is that, at the time, a number of holes at Merion East were thought to have been modeled (however loosely) on features from some of the holes which MacDonald also used as models.
I have no reason to doubt either poiint, and do not think that much evidence has been produced to the contrary.
As for MacDonald having a direct role in the specific design of holes at Merion, I have not seen evidence of this thus far, nor do I believe it to be the case.
If so, why are there almost no template holes (possibly one or two, but even they seem in some dispute) and no geometric construction?
Since I didnt answer in the affirmative above, I guess I dont have to answer, but I will foolishly offer this . . . . I dont understand why you think this is so significant. I guess if MacDonald had designed the entire course one might expect this but I dont think anyone is making this claim. I certainly am not.
But as to whether MacDonald was an influence? I dont see how your concern matters one bit. Maybe we was an influence on some holes but not on others? Maybe he gave advice on everything but only some of it was followed? I have no idea, but dont see the relevance of there not being 18 MacRayner model holes.
TomPaul said:
"You are wrong about this, Tom, at least according to the United States Geological Survey."
Oh no I'm not. If that's what the USGS says then just screw the USGS. It wouldn't be uphill unless you played from the ladies tees.
This is what I mean about you on this thread.
Well I think we've may have identified a good example of one of our sources of disagreement. I appreciate your knowledge and input as well as the knowledge and input of Wayne, Mike, Mike, Patrick, Tom and anyone else. I realize you all have much more knowledge and experience than me. But you are not infallible, individually or collectively, and when a better source of information exists, I'll always tend go with that information, especially when it is somewhat objective in the sense that it doesnt have a horse in this race.
To my mind, when it comes to information on elevation change and I have a choice between USGS data, on the on hand, and you eyeballing it, on the other, I will go with the USGA every time. Maybe I am wrong . . . so I reserve the right to change my mind if someone shows me that I am. No offense, but your statement that you know you are right doesnt convince me.
-
Mike Sweeney,
You're correct.
The tee shot, other than the need to navigate a series of bunkers is not the relevant or defining shot on an Alps hole.
The approach shots at NGLA and Merion are as different as night and day.
The 3rd at NGLA has a high, massive intervening hill that would obscure the Queen Mary were it docked on the opposite side.
The 10th at Merion has no such feature, NO HILL and, if you add the elevation of the golfer's eyes, the differential is negligible at the most.
Lesley's description is limited and off base, perhaps a description prompted by his unfamiliarity with a "true" Alps hole.
-
I'm looking at Desmond Tolhurst's club history and it shows the tee shot from the back tees. If the fairway is uphill, it looks very slight. He says "The tee is set back in the woods, and you play out of a chute of trees over a depression, then up onto a plateau. From the tee, the ground drops at least 40 feet, and then starts back up again where the fairway begins. The fairway is still rising at the point where the fairway bunkers are placed."
Tolhurst also states "A long hitter who can draw the ball could drive this green." And "The smart play for him is to try to drive the ball about 295 yds. to a position to the right of the green. He can then play up the length of the green."
As a side note, Tolhurst says a famous story has floated around that Dutch Harrison won more money betting that he could hit the green w/ a 4 wood tee shot than Hogan won winning the Open.
I don't know what good this info. does, I just thought I'd cite it.
-
DMoriarty,
The elevation of the tee is irrelevant.
The defining features/elements of an "Alps" are ALL related to the approach shot, not the drive.
Nor is the defining feature/element of an "Alps" hole related to the elevational differentiation between tee and green.
It's solely related to the DZ and its relationship to the green and intervening features.
-
DavidS:
Were you looking at the Tollhurst Merion history book from 1989? If so where is the story about Dutch betting he could drive the green with a 4-wood?
I think I'll have to check with some of my very long-in-the-tooth Merion member friends about what the story is on #10 about various tee boxes over the years because Nebraska's Long John Hurley hauled off from the present tips in the US Amateur and hit a great draw with a 3-wood hole high to the right of the green, and I will absolutely guarantee you that Long John can hit a 3-wood a Nebraska country mile farther than old Dutch Harrison could hit his 4-wood.
Now, I think I've told this story on here before but I'll tell you again and also warn you that it may be somewhat apocryphal but back when Davis Love was still in college he came up here to Merion and never having seen the course, shot a 64. As it's told, Davis was hitting that ultra distance-famous Berrylium 1-iron a lot that he used in the Walker Cup at Pine Valley and on #10 he hit that up into the fairway and seeing how his reputation for length seriously preceded him they got him to tee up another ball and with his persimmon driver that ball was last seen by the Phiily Airport radar as it flew high over Ardmore Ave to somewhere on the other side of the golf course. :)
-
"It's solely related to the DZ and its relationship to the green and intervening features."
Patrick:
You can think whatever you want to think about what an "Alps" hole really means but I submit you have no real idea how that term or description was used back in those days.
It seems to me it was used for all kinds of things that entailed some blind shot;
Witness this:
Father Carr of Pine Valley wrote in the teens that Crump was determined to have a miniature "Alps" for the second shot on #7 when he turned that hole into a double dogleg.
That mound that would've created Crump's "alps" on the second shot on #7 can still be seen on #7.
So, instead of calling an august man like Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent, perhaps you should realize what you mean by an "Alps" hole and what he meant by an "Alps" hole may not be the same thing.
;)
-
"The course was opened in 1912, and plans were decided upon only after critical review of the great courses of Great Britain and America...Many of the hazards are natural, and a creek which winds through the tract is encountered frequently. Probably the most interesting section is found at the very end of the round...Other holes present the characteristics of the famous Redan and the Alps of Prestwick. Ben Sayers, the well-known professional of North Berwick, spends a great deal of time at Merion, where his son George is engaged, and he declares that the course is thoroughly good."
~~AW Tillinghast
Other famous features incorporated in the original design, the Eden green was used at the par-4 15th and there was Principle's Nose complex in the middle of the fairway of the old par-5 5th (the current 4th).
TE
The fact that Macdonald and Whigham advised Merion is well documented ...multiple contemporaneous sourses. You'll also find it in Merion's first club history.
-
DavidS:
Were you looking at the Tollhurst Merion history book from 1989? If so where is the story about Dutch betting he could drive the green with a 4-wood?
I think I'll have to check with some of my very long-in-the-tooth Merion member friends about what the story is on #10 about various tee boxes over the years because Nebraska's Long John Hurley hauled off from the present tips in the US Amateur and hit a great draw with a 3-wood hole high to the right of the green, and I will absolutely guarantee you that Long John can hit a 3-wood a Nebraska country mile farther than old Dutch Harrison could hit his 4-wood.
Now, I think I've told this story on here before but I'll tell you again and also warn you that it may be somewhat apocryphal but back when Davis Love was still in college he came up here to Merion and never having seen the course, shot a 64. As it's told, Davis was hitting that ultra distance-famous Berrylium 1-iron a lot that he used in the Walker Cup at Pine Valley and on #10 he hit that up into the fairway and seeing how his reputation for length seriously preceded him they got him to tee up another ball and with his persimmon driver that ball was last seen by the Phiily Airport radar as it flew high over Ardmore Ave to somewhere on the other side of the golf course. :)
Great story about Davis, Tom. Sadly Davis' career could be defined as "Great unfulfilled potential."
The book is from 2005. I just acquired it. He cites that the Harrison story as a club rumor, whatever that means.
-
This is silly to measure the height of tees vs tees and green vs green and conclude that the variation is small so it is some sort of Alps.
my bolds
Where did I conclude this? I dont recall concluding any such thing. Rather, I posted the facts (as surprising as they seem to me) as I understand them.
The Alps at National, Yale, Piping and I assume Prestwick is all about the second shot. As I have mentioned and you confirmed, the tee shot at Merion played with hickories and/or modern clubs lands at least 200 yards out from the tee, and thus passes over most of the steepness in that hill.
First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.
Second, I dont think I confirmed that even hickories carry at least 200 yards. I said I hit in the bunker, which begins a little less than 170 yards from the tee.
You have played both shots into the greens at National and Merion. Forget the charts and quotes from 19XX. Is there any real comparison in terms of angles and visuals for those shots?
I've tried to play both with hickories. But whatever the club composition, I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.
I think one thing that may be skewing the NGLA chart above is that I measured NGLA straight to the tee to green (I was clear about this as well), but most people play the hole well right of this line and therefor end up further away and at a lower elevation. So you may be right about the difference in distance from 200 yards out, at least from where people actually play. I'll double check when I get the chance.
I will make the assumption that you now accept that the old and new 10th greens had little height variation, but visually we all accept the old 10th was visually more intimidating.
Yes and no. The elevations are currently the same, but so far not that much has come out about the construction of the green site.
For example, Flynn has an arrow left of the green in his sketch, a symbol is apparently used to denote a decline. I assume that this doesnt show really show up on old site, or does it? Further, if this left side was indeed above the green enough for Flynn to denote it with an arrow, then that could have increased the blindness at least from the right side of the fairway (or even from a layup right) since the hole played as a dogleg right.
For another example, We really have no idea how high those three mounds were in that drawing, nor do we know just how high the ground was below those mounds in the bumper structure. Nor do we know how visible the green was in between the gaps in the mounds.
I am still curious as to whether the putting surface actually sat below most of the ground around it, at least in the front, back, and left. If it was, then the hole could be pretty flat but still blind. Where did the dirt come from for the massive berm that Tom notes? could it be that they hollowed out the area where they built the green and pushed the dirt up to make it sort of a punchbowl? It looks like a semi-punchbowl to me in the pic above, but others will undoubtedly disagree.
Another thing I dont quite get yet is Wayne's description of the road and the stairs up from the road (he said this is a few feet but it looks like 6 stairs to me which would more likely have been close to 4 feet.) What I dont understand is when he says there was another stair on the other side. At first I thought he meant up to the road, but now it is clear that he meant down to the road. This seems bizzare to me . . . a road would be in a trough with 4 foot sides? If this was truly the case then it is quite clear why they had to fix the road.
.
-
I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.
D,
I will take this as a moral victory. :D One last question - is this an Alps hole?
(http://www.golfarch.com/Bethpage/black15.jpg)
-
Here are some more excerpts for the 2005 edition of the Tolhurst club history.
"In 1910, the Committee (which comprised of Wilson, Rodman Griscom, Dr. Henry Toulmin, Richrd Francis and Horatio Gates Lloyd) decided to send Wilson to England and Scotland to study their best courses and develop ideas for the new course. Before he left, he visited the site of the NGLA, then under construction in Southampton, NY. While there he discussed an itinerary w/ Macdonald."
"When Wilson returned from England, Macdonald and Whigham freely gave him their advice. So the club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the Committee."
-
""When Wilson returned from England, Macdonald and Whigham freely gave him their advice. So the club had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill and knowledge of the Committee."
DavidS:
Yes, what freely given advice was it? That's what we all would just love to know. The Wilsons were most certainly not hesitant about writing, and for some reason we have so little from them about what Macdonald or Whigam did to advise on the actual design of Merion East. I suppose I should say we have nothing. Maybe what they wrote has all been lost. That is more than just possible. The club's records also report that Hugh Wilson returned from GB after six months with reams of his own drawings, yet unfortunately they've not been found.
There very well may be something out there about all this---I'm certainly not saying that is impossible or even unlikely, particularly after the documentation I've seen turn up in the oddest places---eg in old barns in Bucks Co, Pa, and behind boilers at courses in New York.
But if any of these people on here are going to make those claims then let them produce the documentation, and not just vague references from articles from golf magazines of that time.
-
Tom, do you know Desmond? Perhaps he may have more info in regards to Wilson's sketches?
This is just a thought, but the book says that Francis was a officer of an construction co., an engineer and surveyor and it says "his skills were invaluable." Perhaps Francis family might know what became of the sketches, that is if Francis' co. carried out the work, he would've needed the sketches for reference while the work was being done??
-
"It's solely related to the DZ and its relationship to the green and intervening features."
Patrick:
You can think whatever you want to think about what an "Alps" hole really means but I submit you have no real idea how that term or description was used back in those days.
It seems to me it was used for all kinds of things that entailed some blind shot;
Witness this:
Father Carr of Pine Valley wrote in the teens that Crump was determined to have a miniature "Alps" for the second shot on #7 when he turned that hole into a double dogleg.
That mound that would've created Crump's "alps" on the second shot on #7 can still be seen on #7.
So, instead of calling an august man like Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent, perhaps you should realize what you mean by an "Alps" hole and what he meant by an "Alps" hole may not be the same thing.
TEPaul,
Perhaps you missed the part where Lesley refered to one of the qualifying features of the hole as being a TWO (2) shot hole.
Father Carr's reference to ONE of the features of an Alps hole, albeit, a MINIATURIZATION of that feature, doesn't make the hole an Alps hole.
-
DavidS:
Believe me, I think we've searched everywhere and anywhere for information relevent to the creation of Merion East and West. Probably more than anyone ever has. More than the club or anyone who has written about it to date.
It wasn't that long ago that Merion did not fully understand the significance or what William Flynn did there. They do now and they freely admit it, as they seem glad to do.
-
Oh well, a fool's dream of mine I guess. I should've known you and Wayne would've thought of that! ;)
-
Tom MacWood,
Having the characteristics of a Redan or an Alps hole doesn't equate to being a Redan or an Alps hole.
And, what were those characteristics ?
A fronting greenside bunker doesn't an Alps hole make.
The topography on # 10 at Merion in NO WAY resembles the topography required for a true Alps.
An intervening hill of notable size should be present and no such hill exists between the DZ and the green at # 10.
Having just spent two days playing Seminole I can report, without fear of contradiction, that Seminole is not flat, and more importantly, that you shouldn't believe everything you read.
-
Patrick:
It makes it an "alps" feature.
The fact that you assume there must have been an important and specific distinction in the way they used this term back then is, frankly, laughable.
And don't use Lesley to justify anything you've said about an Alps hole. You're the one who called him incorrect and incompetent in that context, not me! :)
-
"TE
The fact that Macdonald and Whigham advised Merion is well documented ...multiple contemporaneous sourses. You'll also find it in Merion's first club history."
Tom MacWood:
I've read all the Merion history books, and I know precisely what all of them say about what Macdonald did for Merion. The fact that Macdonald & Whigam advised Merion is well documented, I just said that and I also explained what is well documented about his or their advice to Merion.
How can you have a more unimpeachable source of how Macdonald (and Whigam) advised Merion than Hugh and Alan Wilson?
They both explained how much help Macdonald gave them in Southampton during their stay at NGLA for two days, but that was before Wilson traveled to Europe and well before the course was designed and constructed. Furthermore Wilson wrote about Macdonald's help at NGLA before he went to GB well after the course was built.
Try answering my question! If Merion was so effusive in its thanks to Macdonald for that session at NGLA prior to Wilson traveling to GB for six months, then why didn't either Wilson or the club say something about his advice after Wilson returned?
I'm getting a bit sick or your vague 'multiple contemporaneous sources' bullshit. Golf magazine articles can be informational about Merion or anything else to some extent but certainly not as important as the Wilsons and Merion itself.
If you want to be a good researcher then you need to support your opinions with something other than just vague magazine references. If you have more than that, let's hear it or see it.
TE
We went over this on a previous thread...go back and look it up, the exact sitations, dates, quotes, etc...the usual suspects American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, newspapers if you aren't keen on searching the backpages (I recently discovered another - The Golfer Magazine - that mentions Macdonald & Whigham's advising).
Its a fascinating architectural history...good stuff.
-
First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.
That's absolutely untrue.
The topography of A tee shot has absolutely no bearing on the topography of an approach shot. The two are independent of one another and solely dependent upon their seperate topographies.
This is true at # 10 and many other holes at Merion.
Does the topography of the tee shot on # 11 determine the topography of the approach shot on that hole ? # 12 ? # 14 ?
# 15 ? # 16 ? # 18 ?
Are you now going to tell me that the elevation of the tee on
# 17 at NGLA determines and affects the approach shot to the green ? How about at # 16 ? How about # 18 ?
How about # 8 ? How about # 11 ?.
# 1, # 9, # 10 or # 18 at Riviera ?
The 2nd, 4th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th at Pine Valley.
The 2nd, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 17th and 18th at ANGC ?
The segmented topography from tee to DZ and from DZ to the green are independent of one another in many cases.
[/color]
-
Thanks Tom and Wayne
and all, for all this discussion. It will all be there in the Walker Cup Program !
Chaos, panic $& disorder -- my work is done !
-
It makes it an "alps" feature.
Not really.
I'd calll it a faux, pseudo, hybrid or miniature alps feature.[/color]
The fact that you assume there must have been an important and specific distinction in the way they used this term back then is, frankly, laughable.
That's funny[/color]
And don't use Lesley to justify anything you've said about an Alps hole. You're the one who called him incorrect and incompetent in that context, not me! :)
I stand by my evaluation[/color]
-
David Moriarty:
I wonder what in the world is going on with you. Your inaccuracies are getting really serious. If by saying most people play NGLA's "Alps" well to the right on their second shots and consequently to a lower elevation, I wonder what in the world this has to do with anything relevent to this thread, Merion and its old 10th green.
Except that I never said they play their second shot well to the right. Rather, the play well to the right of the direct line off the tee. How do you play the hole, Tom? Straight at the hole from the tee, or to the right?
-
I agree that NGLA is much more visually intimidating at least compared to today's Meroin 10, and I think I have make this clear since first bringing up NGLA.
I will take this as a moral victory.
One last question - is this an Alps hole?
(http://www.golfarch.com/Bethpage/black15.jpg)
Mike Sweeney,
That's a good question for Mike Cirba, who claims that a large intervening cross bunker fronting a green qualifies a hole to be classified as an Alps hole, per his source, Lesley, an uninformed ex baseball writer who was assigned to golf when an outbreak of athletes foot hobbled the Phillies in mid-season.[/color]
-
No Mike that ain't no Alps! You're right, it's the second shot obstacle that matters, not the tee shot.
For the original at Prestwick, the green drops down steeply beyond the dune, more so than at NGLA. From memory my guess is that the tee and green are at roughly the same level.
-
Mike,
The photo, the 15th hole of Bethpage Black, is not an "Alps" hole and wasn't designed with that in mind.
First, there was never a cross bunker in front of the green. Second, there is a pronounced false front to the green. Third the green is multi-tiered and there is no hint of any mounding behind the green as it falls off rather steeply behind and drops down hill.
Rather, it is more similar to the 1st hole at Dellwood where Tilly perched a green on a plateau far above the fairway.
Green height does not an "Alps" make.
-
"It makes it an "alps" feature.
Not really.
I'd calll it a faux, pseudo, hybrid or miniature alps feature."
Patrick:
It seems like very few on here today give a damn what you call it. Do you really think any of those men back then who used the term "Alps" would've given a good God-damn what you'd call it? So the point is, it really doesn't matter much what you call it---all that matters is what they meant by it. ;)
YES.
How many times do I have to remind you of my interesting monthly conversations with Charles B MacDonald and Seth Raynor.
Both are highly interested in my thoughts and views.
And, both continue to inquire about the well being of Coorshaw.[/color]
-
First, the height of the tee compared to the landing area matters very much in determining just how that second shot will be.
That's absolutely untrue. . . .
Patrick you misunderstood what I said. Let me put it this way, the elevation difference between the tee and landing area helps determine how far and where your ball ends up on your drive, and this determines what you have left for your second.
That is one of the issues here, what the old guys faced for a second shot. On merion 10, the golfer who it it just at or past the traps had a much different second than one who drove it all the way to the plateau.
-
"Patrick:
It seems like very few on here today give a damn what you call it. Do you really think any of those men back then who used the term "Alps" would've given a good God-damn what you'd call it? So the point is, it really doesn't matter much what you call it---all that matters is what they meant by it. ;)
Tom,
Don't you know that Patrick has taken it upon himself to unilaterally re-classify all of the template holes that Mr. Macdonald brought back to us from the old country? He not only is the new sole arbiter if a hole is a redan, an Alps, a Biarritz, etc., but he also channels all of the writers of the past and knows specifically what they meant to say, or should have said, something like that, even if it flies in the face of 100 years of conventionally accepted golf understanding among all of those who've studied the game. ;)
If by chance what they said doesn't fit into his narrow, self-defined version of what those holes should be, they are cast out, yay, verily defiled into the pit of fire, and called everything from pea-brains to infidels. ;)
After all, this discussion of historical interest doesn't concern itself with what those writers and early architects might have been trying to convey to us, but all of that is just so much wasted intellectual effort because if we'd only just gone to Patrick in the first place, we'd have our answer on everything! ;)
Now Patrick is saying the 15th at Bethpage would be an Alps hole by my definition when Mr. Young just mentioned that there is simply no crossing bunker in front of that green!
It doesn't seem to matter how many times I prove him wrong. He just comes back again and again and has more reiterations of the same tired points than I have shanks, skulls, and scuffs with my sand wedge. ;D
-
"Except that I never said they play their second shot well to the right. Rather, the play well to the right of the direct line off the tee. How do you play the hole, Tom? Straight at the hole from the tee, or to the right?"
I play the tee shot directly at the hole and directly at the "alps" hill. I do that because I'm not even close to long. To go to the right needs to carry farther to clear the diagonal bunker, particularly into a stiff wind. The long ball player generally tries to hit the tee shot well down to the right because there's more fairway distance down that way and you will have less distance on the approach in from down to the right. I will guarantee you that playing the ball to the right off the tee is not a lower elevation than playing a tee shot directly at the green.
If you play the hole straight at the hole all the way to the hole, then my previous NGLA profile is for you. Others who go right might have a different experience.
If you try to give me or anyone else an argument about that because of something you've determined through USGS or some other extraneous crap, then like Wayne decided to do, I see no other reason to continue to discuss any of this subject with you for the simple reason you are both wrong and completely intransigent towards people who really do know these holes better than you, as well as completely unreceptive to people who know these holes pointing out the truth about them to you.
Wayne refused to converse further with me because I informed him that the Google application measures the hole quite differently than his Jones shot chart. Of the two measures, my measurement is seems more consistent with Flynn's drawing which shows the hole level past the 250 note, not the 300 yard marker.
Would you guys really have me ignore the Google distance measure which seems more consistent with the Flynn sketch?
If ignoring relevant information and taking your words for everyting makes me intransigent, then so be it.
-
DMoriarty,
I understand.
Mike Cirba,
What do you call those white things in the photo ?
Perhaps you're confusing the 4th hole with the 15th.
And, you should know that I have in depth conversations with CBM, SR and CB on a regular monthly basis.
It is only after I receive confirmation from them that I post on these matters, with their blessings.
In fact, I don't know if you heard about it or not, but, several weeks ago, highly sensitive equipment, meant for earthquake assessment detected significant seismic activity in the Eastern end of Long Island.
At first it was thought to be a minor earthquake until the epicenter was pinpointed at the Southampton cemetary.
Seems that olde CBM and SR were spinning in their graves at about 50,000 rpm's. It seems highly coincidental that this activity was detected immediately after you posted that the 11th at LACC was a Redan.
In my subsequent conversation with them, they asked that you refrain from making these quantum architectural leaps and stick to improving your chipping.
-
I would strongly advise not arguing with TE or Pat on this subject. Based on their level of effort it is apparent neither has an interest in finding the truth.
-
Again, even if you seem to ignore it on this thread I think someday you may find that your hypothesis was proven perhaps ninety years ago.
It may well have been proven 90 years ago, or at least documented by some of the biggest names of the period. This is one reason that I quite suprised by the strong negative reaction this hypothesis received when I first mentioned it almost a year ago. Unfortunately, some on here think that these guys from 90 years ago were apparently talking out of school, and didnt know what they were talking about. Go figure.
No, David, that kind of trivial argument has no interest for me at all.
Trivial? Merion 10's actual distance is not trivial in terms of this conversation.
What I do know is the way the hole was, the way the ground was back then and is today. I doubt any of you on here really are even aware that dogleg holes are measured distance-wise down the centerline of the hole that clearly turns dramatically. If it was the same back then obviously Jones's tee shot was not hit the actual distance that some may've thought by the distance of the hole on the card (which was probably down the centerline that turns dramatically).
You aren't telling me anything new here, Tom. I know how holes are measured, and I know the hole was a dogleg.
Once again, though, you and Wayne are in disagreement. In fact Wayne refuses to continue the conversation because I told hin what you just told me-- that Jones' drive on Merion 10 was not 300 yards.
-
Mike Cirba,
And, you should know that I have in depth conversations with CBM, SR and CB on a regular monthly basis.
It is only after I receive confirmation from them that I post on these matters, with their blessings.
In fact, I don't know if you heard about it or not, but, several weeks ago, highly sensitive equipment, meant for earthquake assessment detected significant seismic activity in the Eastern end of Long Island.
At first it was thought to be a minor earthquake until the epicenter was pinpointed at the Southampton cemetary.
Seems that olde CBM and SR were spinning in their graves at about 50,000 rpm's. It seems highly coincidental that this activity was detected immediately after you posted that the 11th at LACC was a Redan.
In my subsequent conversation with them, they asked that you refrain from making these quantum architectural leaps and stick to improving your chipping.
Patrick,
Too funny!!! ;D ;D ;D
Thanks for starting my day off with a good chuckle! :D
-
p.s. Patrick...
That is the 15th at Bethpage, not the 4th.
What are those white things? I'm not sure; perhaps Rees knows? ;)
-
Wayne
Did Hugh Wilson incorporate any famous holes or features of famous holes at Merion-West, Seaview or any of the other designs he did right after Merion-East?
-
"Wayne refused to converse further with me because I informed him that the Google application measures the hole quite differently than his Jones shot chart. Of the two measures, my measurement is seems more consistent with Flynn's drawing which shows the hole level past the 250 note, not the 300 yard marker."
You got that wrong as well, David. I refuse to converse with you because your arguments don't merit doing so. Your measurements are wrong, you either don't know how to use the Google measuring tool or you fabricate the results. I do know how to use it and I didn't do so with any agenda or bias in mind. That's one of the most serious problems you have and others fall into at times.
Fabricate results? That is a pretty serious allegation, Mr. Morrison. Care to offer any proof?
-
Tom Macwood,
I can't think of a single hole at Merion West, Seaview (although changed quite a bit by Tilly & Ross), or Cobbs Creek that I would call an incorporation of some famous design theme or variation of a standard template.
-
The only things I can see at even Merion East that supposedly mimic holes abroad even slightly are that some said the 3rd mimicked a redan, the old 10th mimiced an Alps, the 15th green mimicked an Eden and the 17th has a mimic of the Valley of Sin in front of it. Other than perhaps the last two I don't really recall Wilson or anyone from the original committee claiming something like that though.
Furthermore, some on here who seem intent on proving Macdonald's design contribution AT Merion East seem to choose to continue to overlook the fact that after a time even Hugh Wilson admitted that Macdonald was just not easy to approach about most anything.
-
I agree with Tom and Mike that Wilson did not engage in template designs. Did they incorporate any features? Many of the UK courses have archetypal designs and of course had an influence on subsequent designs. But were the influences as direct as they could be with Macdonald and Raynor? I would say no.
Yer, it seems clear that the definitions of templates can be very loosely applied. Some see conceptual hole copies in strange places. Inherently golf holes have commonalities, people differ in how they are viewed.
If people with an agenda look hard enough, maybe they will find, for example, a Maiden green on the 1st at Merion West. I don't see a direct connection, but nothing surprises me from some on this board.
Look, Wilson went to the UK to learn about golf designs. He depended upon Macdonald and Whigham for a preliminary understanding of golf course architecture and to direct him to courses he should see. That meeting and the itinerary of courses were surely an influence. He learned a lot from the men and the courses. But he applied that knowledge in a very different way from Macdonald and Raynor. Thankfully in my opinion.
Wayne
I find it very interesting that Merion-East was the only course Wilson was involved with that reproduced famous holes or famous features. And it appears he removed them all in a matter of a few years:
Alps - redesigned
Eden green - redesigned
Principles Nose - redesigned
Valley of Sin - redesigned
Redan - ? (I suspect it was redesigned too)
In the club history claims that Wilson was having difficulty laying out the course [understandible considering he had never done it before] and Wilson later gave credit to the advice he received from Macdonald & Whigham. Perhaps on further reflection Wilson did not completely agree with the template idea that Macdonald & Whigham were famous for.
-
The 3rd, 15th and 17th at Merion redesigned???
Hmmm. I don't think so. ;)
-
I see. So would you call what took place on the 15th green a "redesign"? ;)
-
You are going to post defamatory comments without offering any support whatsoever? I can't say I am surprised. You are a real gentleman, Mr. Morrison. Your son should be very proud.
-
Too many on here get so fixated on the details of what those hole names really meant, in my opinion.
I've alluded to that for years.
And, I've asked the question, "who named the holes, the architect or the club ?"[/color]
For Pat Mucci to call Robert Lesley incorrect and incompetent for calling the old 10th an Alps hole is preposterous.
It's just a matter of the fact that Pat Mucci doesn't understand what Lesley meant by that term.
And you do ?
My powers of observation, my reading and my reading comprehension skills remain keen and I've toured Prestwick from 1952 to 1992 and NGLA from the 1960's to current date and have a reasonable understanding of what an "Alps" hole is.
For Lesley to classify that hole as an "Alps" hole is a gross overstatement and reflects a lack of understanding with respect to the dimensions of the critical features and their relevance in the play of the hole.[/color]
-
TEPaul & Wayne Morrison,
One must be careful when it comes to the issue of template holes and with the identification of the component features that comprise a template hole.
Some would claim that the presence of a tee and a green would cause a hole to qualify as a template hole.
-
Patrick -
I recall we had this same discussion a few months ago regarding the 18th at SLCC, which clearly is an Alps hole, despite your protestations to the contrary. It now seems you've changed your stripes.
Alps holes, in my opinion, do not have to resemble Prestwick or NGLA identically or be disqualified. These are interpretations of qualities, not replicae. An effective Alps hole can be laid over flat ground (see Camargo #7) or even land where the green is sits at a lower elevation than the DZ. I think the only key criteria is a sandy expanse fronting the green and some measure of blindness. It seems that Merion could have possessed some of these qualities, irrespective of all of these opinions about elevation change, etc.
-
Bill Clinton played a few rounds at ANGC. And he probably had a few pops after the round. So clearly, he must have had some influence on Fazio's movement of the bunkers on #18, and of course, the tee. After all, he was highly influential at the time, as leader of the free world.
Nice try, but lets stick to apples and apples.
Instead of Clinton, let's make it Rees Jones. And lets have a handful of the most prominent and knowledgeable men in golf architecture and journalism (like RTJ Jr, Doak, Coore, Ron Whitten, etc.) all write in major golf publications that Rees had an influence, advised on the changes, and/or that the changes were modeled after concepts that Rees had been recently and readily endorsing. Also, let's put essentially the same information in Augusta's own club history, and even splash some consistent information in the NYTimes.
Now, let's skip ahead about 90 years. Who would you be more likely trust when it comes to trying to figure out what really happened . . .
. . . On the one hand, the sources above, all of whom had first-hand knowledge . . .
. . . Or, on the other hand, two locals, neither of whom were even alive at the time of the changes and both of whom cover their ears and shot "blah, blah, blah, blah" like spoiled children whenever anyone offers any information that challenges what they want the truth to be?
Hypothetically, of course.
-
David,
That all sounds nice, but I am still not convinced. What would convince me and probably others is if you took the time to do a "In My Opinion" piece that was well thought out and laid out your pieces of evidence for your theory of Macdonald's influence at Merion. I still think that one of the most interesting pieces on this website was Tom MacWood's piece on Crump and Pine Valley, which clearly changed some views of Pine Valley's history.
Trying to sway opinion in the middle of personal attacks will not work, IMO. If Tom and Wayne are off base, let's see it in a well executed and well written essay that is written with passion rather than anger during a pissing match with our resident Flynn biographers.
Thanks
PS. While the Board at Merion may not agree with my view ;), I consider Merion a "home course" of sorts, and as a MacRaynor fan, I am interested in your theory.
-
Mike Sweeney,
Everything in my above post is not only accurate, it is also appropriate given the name-calling and rudeness I have put up with for almost a year from the those who you loosely characterize as the “Flynn biographers.” Nonetheless, I agree that it is best to deal with these matters with a minimum of personal invective. So, while I am angry (go figure, being called incompetent and/or a liar tends to make me angry) I have modified the above post a bit. While you and others may believe that the edited version is still a personal attack, I am sticking with it as it accurately encapsulates their behavior. After all, these guys behave like children, so why not?
Case in point, the factual matter of the distance of the 10th hole. If we accept the points marked on the Jones’ shot chart (and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy with regard to the shots marks) then Jones’ driving distance on the 10th hole in 1930 is a question of fact, not of opinion, and certainly not an issue justifying a temper-tantrum, or the absurd accusation that perhaps I am fabricating data. Yet when I told Wayne that my google measure showed the drives on Merion’s 10th to be around 260 yards and not 300 yards as he claimed, he threw a mini-fit and refused to play with me any more . . .
If you think Jones's drives were "around 260 yards, or a little less," then I will not continue a conversation with you as you have a problem with analysing information presented to you. There was a study done of every one of the 18 holes Jones played twice in qualifying for the 1930 Amateur and there are many examples of distance equal to the shots he hit on #10; a distance much greater than you consider. I have no idea why your analysis is so flawed and I no longer care that it is.
Anyone can go on google and check the distance simply by measuring from the front of the middle tee (from where the chart shows Jones hitting) and a point right of the green in line with the top edge of the first bunker. In fact, given the discrepancy of our two measures and Wayne’s absurd overreaction, I am surprised that anyone still following this thread hasn’t already done so. But then even if they did they would likely never confirm my measure online, given that Wayne is an access point in the Philadelphia area and we wouldn’t want truth and accuracy to interfere with access to golf courses.
As for TEPaul’s childish, boorish, and entirely unacceptable behavior on this website, we are all very aware of it , so going into it would be a complete waste of time. Unfortunately for the quality of the website, TEPaul also seems to be off limits, perhaps again because of access or his perceived standing the Eastern golfing communities.
-
Mike S
Thanks for your suggestion that I write an In My Opinion piece on this issue, but no thanks. I witnessed the incessant unconscionable barrage of abuse that TEPaul heaped on Tom MacWood while Tom MacWood researched Crump, and I don’t have time to deal with that.
Plus, I don’t really have a theory, especially not one of “MacDonald’s influence at Merion.” My thoughts are not necessarily profound or even original, and in my opinion don’t justify an In My Opinion. Plus, my thoughts are preliminary and subject to drastic change as I learn more, which is why I sometimes refer to them as hypotheses or working hypotheses (I’ve even been ridiculed for this.)
1. Before Merion, golf in the Philadelphia area was pretty horrible, and can best be understood as “Dark Age” or “Victorian.”
2. Merion, needing a new course for practical reasons, set out produce something different and better, so they sent Wilson to Europe in learn about what was going on over there (which was largely a rejection of the same type of Dark Age stuff) and a return to the principles and features of the great links.
3. Before he went, he spent some time at NGLA with MacDonald, learning about golf design and planning his trip.
4. MacDonald had also been crusading against the dark age stuff and for a return to the older, better links inspired stuff. He had built NGLA at least in part as an exemplar of how to apply the great ideas of links golf into American design.
5. According to the commentators of the time (and apparent from early photographs) the early version(s) of Merion East were a radical departure from what had come before in Philadelphia (and most of America.)
6. According to many of the most respected voices of the time and Merion’s club history, MacDonald advised on the design of Merion and had an influence on its early design.
7. According to many of the most respected voices of the time, Merion’s early design incorporated features that were also common on MacDonald’s ideal golf holes. Some commentators even went so far as to suggest that some of the holes could be characterized by the same names as some of MacDonald’s template holes.
8. Interestingly, according to Travis, Wilson may have been incorporating features directly from the originals, rather than MacDonald’s interpretation of the originals. Travis describes the original 15th green at Merion as “an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at Saint Andrews.” Had Wilson been copying MacDonald one would think that it would have been an attempt to copy the Eden green at NGLA. To me this raises the issue as to whether we ought to be looking for similarities not just with MacDonald’s holes but with the with the original holes, as well. Perhaps MacDonald told Wilson “these are the models at which to look” and Wilson took his advice and tried to emulate a few of the originals.
9. Given the overwhelming evidence of the above two points, we at least must assume that these men sincerely thought that what they were saying was correct. Accordingly, we ought to make an effort to understand WHY THEY THOUGHT WHAT THEY DID. This entails thoroughly understanding, not what exists now, but what existed then long before any of us were born. This includes an understanding of ACCURATE distances, ACCURATE elevation changes, and ACCURATE feature placement and size.
10. TEPaul and Wayne Morrison think they already know all this and will hear nothing that suggests otherwise. Given how wrong they have proven to be about so many issues on this thread alone, their level of hubris is inexplicable.
11. We don’t know just how much influence MacDonald had and we likely never will in full, but we do know that a pretty impressive list of men all thought that MacDonald, his golf holes, and/or the holes that inspired him had a fairly major impact on the Early Merion. And to ignore, dismiss, and/or disregard these mens' words without overwhelming evidence to the contrary is an arrogant and unjustified fictionalization of history, a slap in the face of the reputations of these great men, and frankly, a incredibly poor research methodology.
-
Mr. Morrison, now that you are apparently conversing with me again, let me ask you one question.
How far is it, in yards, from the front portion of the middle tee to the point(s) where Jones' drives ended up on the 10th Hole at Merion during the 1930 Amateur?
____________________
If anyone else can figure this out using google or any other accurate measuring device, I'd love to know, because my measure has been called into question and for the life of me I can't figure out the basis for the disagreement.
-
Shivas
Don't tell that to Michael Moore. I questioned his Yale distances and he went off the deep end.
I tried Google Earth and I have no measure feature. What gives?
PS- David M - please don't insult the rest of us just because you are fighting with Wayne and TEP. To insuinuate that we all would not post what we believe to be accurate distances because of potential access is not worthy of discussion. Shame on you!
Does anyone have a yardage book from the US AM? I'll check my regular one at home but I don't think it has the same measurement points.
-
Dave, your post #236 was a well-reasoned and persuasive.
But I have to tell you something: I just went out and paced a 300 yard distance to a friend's house down the street (and I'm either blessed with, or have honed through necessity, a gate that is exactly 36 inches long ;D).
Then I Google-earthed it. It was off by 26 yards.
So I went and paged in the other direction to a different house. Wrong by 22.
And here's the best part. I paced the total (600), and Google was wrong by 41, which you will quickly realize is goofy since in segments it was wrong by 48!. . .
Shivas, it could well be that the Google ruler is not accurate. I've checked it out on a few things that had been plotted with GPS, but I didnt have the shivas perfect gait to go by. From the beginning I've been clear on my source, and requested correction if the google measure off. If it is off (and I am yet to be convinced it is, despite the shivas perfect gait test) then let's by all means get better information.
First things first. though. My guess is that while you were on Google you measured the distance on the 10th at Merion for yourself and came up with a number around 260 yards or a little less. Is this the case? If not could you do it for me? At least then we will know whether I am a liar, or in the alternative, that the only issue is whether Google is accurate or not.
[By the way, your theory on google is interesting. Mr. Morrison claimed that he knew how to measure on Google, implying that he had actually measured the hole and the result was consistent with what had claimed.]
Geoffrey Childs posted:
I tried Google Earth and I have no measure feature. What gives?
My measure feature is in the tools pull down menu (at the top of screen) and called "Ruler."
PS- David M - please don't insult the rest of us just because you are fighting with Wayne and TEP. To insuinuate that we all would not post what we believe to be accurate distances because of potential access is not worthy of discussion. Shame on you!
You are correct Geoffrey, I shouldnt have used such broad language. I apologize to you and anyone I may have offended. Not that it excuses my comment, but I do find it very frustrating that these guys (especially TomPaul) are allowed to try to browbeat, ridicule, and denegrate other posters into submission and no one ever says a peep, even when they are obviously in the wrong. Whether or not it is about not taking on someone considered to have great access I dont know, but there must be a reason because most other posters certainly arent treated with same kid gloves.
Bottom line is that putting up with this kind of garbage is bad for the site. Potentially good threads (like this one) get derailed and people who might otherwise contribute something interesting and meaningful will likely think twice, especially if their post might address a few Philadelphia area landmarks.
Does anyone have a yardage book from the US AM? I'll check my regular one at home but I don't think it has the same measurement points.
Wayne Morrison apparently has an aerial with every one of Jones' shots marked (unless he made it himself and didnt bother to include that fact.) Trouble is, the measures of those shots apparently accurate, at least on the 10th hole. Plus, Mr. Morrison claims that most of the old measurements were off by about 10% or more. Of course that apparently doesnt apply to the measure of Bobby Jones drive, as those are apparently beyond reproach.
_______________________________
I see Wayne Morrison deleted his recent post where stood by his previous defamation. Does anyone else find it interesting that since Wayne threw his fit about my google measurement, that he hasnt posted his own google measurement? After all, he assured me in an earlier post that he knows how to accurately use the google measurement tool.
-
TEP: don't get your panties in a bunch....Tom Macwood loves to do this!.
"My only interest is getting at the truth. It is a documented fact that Macdonald & Whigham acted as advisors at Merion..."
He made pretty much the exact same argument with respect to Harry Colt and Indian Hill about 6-8 months ago.
For the life of me, I can't figure out how people put two and two together anymore. Back then, there were about 10 courses worth a sh*t, and the guys with the means visited a bunch of them (just like what goes on today, except there are 200 of them!). So Harry Colt got bombed at the bar at Indian Hill and said "these hole suck and it'd be better if you did X, Y and Z to them" and for some unknown reason, Tom wants to hand the guy design credit on a silver platter, regardless of whether or not Colt was the impetus for any changes, regardless of whether the changes were ever actually even made, regardless of whether any changes were made that resembled the drunken ramblings of a Scotched-up Harry Colt, etc.
Go figure. Or better yet, don't. It's beyond figuring at this point.
Bill Clinton played a few rounds at ANGC. And he probably had a few pops after the round. So clearly, he must have had some influence on Fazio's movement of the bunkers on #18, and of course, the tee. After all, he was highly influential at the time, as leader of the free world.
GMAFB. This is all goofey-talk hooey nonsense. Back then, given the limited pool of places to go and people and courses to see, these guys saw (and probably commented on) each others' stuff. BFD. That doesn't mean they all influenced each others' designs to the point bordering on design credit...to conclude otherwise is beyond silliness.
I agree with you, Tom, 100% that it's really outlandish the way people drum up these cockamemie theories about how Golden Age Architect X was really the double-secret force behind Course Y just because they either visited there and made some liquored-up comments or had lunch with the actual architect within 5 years prior to construction of the course at some downtown athletic club and said something after 3 martinis like "I really miss blind second shots to the left because they remind me of the good ol' days in the homeland at Prestwick" or "you know, it's been years since I played the Eden and I miss her all the time; we should be building more holes like that, don't ya think?".
DE
Speaking of getting your pannies in bunch....that's quite a rant. I'm sorry Colt's involvement came as a surprise, but if you had checked with the club you would see they list Colt, Ross & Barker as the resposible architects. Please don't shoot the messenger, especially when architectural history ain't exactly your strong suit, which is not entirely your fault since Chicago golf architecture history is not that well documented.
Here couple excerpts that support the club's claim:
"Chicago will add another golf club to its list when the Winnetka CC will open next summer, President Douglas Smith announced that the course will be ready to play about July1. The length of the course is to be 6400 yards and the membership of the club is limited to 200. Mr. Colt of England and HH Barker laid out the course, and it is to be one of the best in the West." ~~American Golfer December 1913
"Permanency of another local golf course has been assured by the purchase of the Indian Hill club of the 140 acres on which the cours is located...A syndicate of forty members subscribed $5000 each and bought 200 acres locateded Winnetka on the west side of the Ridge road. The Indian Hill club then was formed and Donald Ross and Henry Colt, the English architect, were given carte blance in planning a golf course. They were told to have the skeleton of a championship course and with these liberal orders produced a course 6,444 yards in length, which took in practically 140 acres." ~~Chicago Tribune Dec. 18, 1918
If you are interested there is also a rare sketch Colt made of the 15th & 16th holes at Indian Hill in the April 1917 issue of Golf Illustrated (US). The sketch is reproduced in Shackelford's Golden Age if you have that book.
-
Wayne:
It seems without question that the golf course must have been remarkable dry, hard and fast in that 1930 Amateur.
And I completely agree with you---if David Moriarty can't get his act together and dispense with the type of posts about us he made today, I sure won't have much to say to him either and certainly not much nice to say about him.
Frankly, I think his hypotheses that he outlined in that 10 point post above are slightly comical---not that they aren't true, it's just that they are comical in how he acts as if he's discovered something original. He acts as if we and others like us here in Philadelphia are and have been totally unaware of these obvious facts he seems to think he is uncovering about Merion East and the Philadelphia golf architecture that preceded it.
God only knows where he thinks he might eventually want to go with all this. If it's going to be some defense of the importance and influence of the English Arts and Crafts Movement on Philadelphia golf architecture, I will absolutely guarantee him I will always be here to counterpoint him and his contentions. ;)
That's what this website is all about, or should be. I spoke to Ran Morrissett not long ago about this kind of thing and he totally agrees.
Discussion and debate about architecture, particuarly its history and evolution, is the essence of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!
Wayne:
See if you can turn in early tonight, and I will as well, since according to Professor Moriarty we are nothing more than spoiled children. ;) ;)
-
1. Before Merion, golf in the Philadelphia area was pretty horrible, and can best be understood as “Dark Age” or “Victorian.”
David - I'm not certain how the state of affairs in Philadelphia pre-Merion was any different than the rest of the country. Sure there were a couple of courses that were notable for their design quality, but wasn't the entire country (and not just philadelphia) caught in a victorian or dark age w/r/t golf courses?
Often, it seemed, clubs simply hired Scottish golf pros cum architects who simply laid out courses without giving it much thought. You saw this all over america, up to and including the time Merion was laid out. I don't view Merion or NGLA as reactionary. To me they simply represented the state of the art.
Sorry for the interruption.
-
This is my issue with Tom MacWood too. He offers all these detailed opinions of some of these courses and the quality of their restorations and such and he's never even seen them---not once. Is it possible that either of you can take some offense if I point something like that out to you?
Tom MacWood on that Aronimink issue is really where I took issue with him, and you probably think I'm being boorish towards him for that. Not at all. Tom MacWood is frankly being remarkably insulting to architects like Ron Prichard for the things he said about that restoration with zero first hand knowledge.
We just saw Ron today and he just laughs about people like that. He does this every day---he's really detailed and research oriented in his restoration work which he's been doing for thirty years and he has to listen to people who know nothing about these courses who criticize them and him?? ;)
You guys should realize better that we are not being defamatory towards either of you, and we are not acting as if we don't want to hear any new information. We simply do not believe you are accurate or correct in much of what you've said on this thread about the old or even the present 10th hole at Merion.
TE
Wrong. You mistake judging the historic accuracy of a restoration with judging the quality of a restoration. Often a course is improved by inaccurate restoration (or redesign) often because the course was in such bad shape to start. The question is the new and improved redesign better or equal to the course at its architectural highpoint. [Bethpage-No, Engineers-No, Aronimink-No, Riviera-No, Hollywood-No, IMO]
And as far as my comments about the accuracy of a restoration, accuracy is not something you seem to care about (ironically) or frankly are able to determine (ironically).
I've stayed away from personal comments about the restoration architects on projects like Aronimink, Bethpage, Hollywood, etc...critical yes, personally insulting no, unless criticism is personally insulting. Somebody has to stand up for these dead guys.
What does your boorish behavior have to do with this thread?
-
David,
I think I keep a very open mind when it comes to architectural research and attributions, and it's always interesting to hear new material as it comes to light here.
I would encourage more of it.
However, I'm not understanding the point of your exercise. Merion has always been known as one of the first of the really great American courses, and one of the first real attempts to create something superb; following in the model of NGLA and what Macdonald did there..what Travis was doing at Garden City...what Fownes was doing at Oakmont. This is indisputable, and hardly news. That these excellent courses were a clear attempt to model after the best in Britain is also well known and documented, and I'd argue that it was less a reaction to the state of architecture in the country at that time than simply an earnest attempt to build an excellent course, giving the growing interest in the game, a burgeoning membership at Merion, and the luxury of building a brand new course while still playing daily at the old. It gave them the time to do things well and studiously; thus, Wilson's trip to visit Macdonald and his subsequent lengthy stay studying courses in the British Isles. Again, nothing new here.
But, I think where I really am missing your point is concerning the role of Macdonald and Whigham. When I asked you straight out a few days ago whether you believed that these two had much more to do with the design of the original course at Merion, you stated that you didn't. Yet, you seem to keep coming back to trying to prove some point that they did have heavy direct involvement. Which is it?
CB Macdonald was clearly renowned at the time as the preeminent person in golf. That Wilson would have visited with him is not surprising. What's more, mentioning Macdonald as a "consultant", or "advisor", would certainly have added gravitas to the project. Why would Wilson or anyone at Merion not try to maximize the role of the greatest character in US golf at the time? It would certainly be something the membership would have expected of him as part of the due diligence of what was asked of him.
I think one fundamental question that has not been asked here to my knowledge is simply this; Macdonald and Whigham were regular contributors to Golf Illustrated, writing often about their courses like NGLA and Piping Rock, the template holes they built, and often in terms almost braggadocio in nature, and probably justifiably so. Macdonald was certainly no shrinking violet.
So, if those two had a major role in the creation and design at Merion, a course that was so highly acclaimed and regarded upon inception that it warranted so much press in the same magazine, why wouldn't Macdonald or Whigham take due credit? Why did neither of them mention a single word about Merion in any of their articles?
I think the reason is clear. Out of 18 holes at Merion, you have one hole that may have been modeled after an "Alps" (10). You have one hole that is a very, VERY loosely based redan (3). And you have the 15th green, supposedly modeled after an Eden, although a par four. That's it, and even that is really a stretch. There are also some Valley of Sin features on 16 & 17, but I have to ask this. Isn't it much more likely that Wilson would have emulated all of those features based on the 8 months he spent overseas studying than on the 2 days he spent visiting with Macdonald?
The course at Merion features none of the stylistics that clearly identified the Macdonald/Raynore style, and used almost none of the templates that they were pushing as the exceptional models for design.
Built in 1912, the course was so well regarded that it was awarded the US Amateur by 1916, which was the most important US tournament at that time.
Why wouldn't Macdonald take credit if he believed that he actually made a major, or even significant contribution to the ultimate design there?
-
Just for interest, I hope Geoff doesn't mind. Colt's neat drawing of two parallel holes at Indian Hill.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/misc/Indian_Hill.jpg)
-
Paul/Shiv/MacWood,
Do either of those holes exist today at IH, in any form?
Just curious.
-
Mike
I have no idea. Would love to know if the club owns the entire routing plan (or the hole detail booklet like the PVGC one).
-
"David - I'm not certain how the state of affairs in Philadelphia pre-Merion was any different than the rest of the country. Sure there were a couple of courses that were notable for their design quality, but wasn't the entire country (and not just philadelphia) caught in a victorian or dark age w/r/t golf courses?
Often, it seemed, clubs simply hired Scottish golf pros cum architects who simply laid out courses without giving it much thought. You saw this all over america, up to and including the time Merion was laid out. I don't view Merion or NGLA as reactionary. To me they simply represented the state of the art."
SPDB:
I couldn't agree with you more. Who can name multiple golf courses in America that were considered really high quality architecture that preceded Merion East?
From everything I've ever read there were probably a handful if even that many. We do know of Myopia and NGLA but what else? Oakmont in those days was probably very little like it became. Brookline? I don't think so, not then.
You call it the state of the art at that time and I call it the evolution of golf architecture in America. Moriarty seems to want to call it a rejection.
Whatever. ;)
-
I recall we had this same discussion a few months ago regarding the 18th at SLCC, which clearly is an Alps hole, despite your protestations to the contrary. It now seems you've changed your stripes.
Not at all.
It's also interesting the George Bahto refers to the 5th hole at SLCC as possessing the "Alps" featues and makes no mention of the 18th, named "Oasis" as an "Alps"
[/color]
Alps holes, in my opinion, do not have to resemble Prestwick or NGLA identically or be disqualified.
That opinion would seem to be in conflict with MacDonald's understanding of what constitutes an "Alps" hole.
[/color]
These are interpretations of qualities, not replicae. An effective Alps hole can be laid over flat ground (see Camargo #7) or even land where the green is sits at a lower elevation than the DZ.
An interpretation of a "quality" does not an "Alps" hole make.
[/color]
I think the ONLY key criteria is a sandy expanse fronting the green and SOME measure of blindness.
Are you therefore declaring, uniquivically, that the 16th hole at NGLA is an "Alps" hole ?
After all, it meets your criteria ?
How about the 17th at NGLA ?
Again, it meets your criteria.
How about the 8th hole at NGLA ?
Again, it meets your criteria.
With respect to your qualifier of "some" measure of blindness ?
Please quantify "some" for us ?[/color]
It seems that Merion could have possessed some of these qualities, irrespective of all of these opinions about elevation change, etc.
How so ?[/color]
-
Tom, those snipets are fabulous! Really and truly! But, at best, the course that Colt may or may not ever have built does not exist anymore and hasn't existed for 90 years. The first course was redesigned a year after it was built, and then that course was reworked another 7 or 8 years after that.
A year later? Who redesigned the course?
So even if Colt planted every single seed of grass on the place by hand, that work simply isn't there anymore. It's no different than claiming that Medinah 3 is still a Bendelow or that Chicago Golf is still MacDonald.
So answer me this: if Harry Colt, the most famous architect of his day, really designed a course for the wealthiest men in Chicago (ie, great customers), do you really think he'd have built such a piece of junk it needed to be scrapped a year later? What makes much more sense to me is that he didn't do squat but somehow got his name involved in the project because he did a quick tour and made a couple of comments on the way to the Indian Hill train stop on his way to or from Old Elm, which is about 5 miles up the same train line and that was that.
I don't know, I'll take your word for it. Actually Ross built it and Colt designed it. I take it you don't think much of Colt for whatever reason.
Tom, you've got a lot of pride in your research skills, but I suggest with respect to you that you really can't take shots at mine.
You have no idea what I have seen or haven't.
I've actually played the course probably 50 times and read the stuff on the walls in the clubhouse. Have you? No.
What you rely on are old scraps and stories that may or may not be the truth. Why don't you just cite "Dewey Defeats Truman" and get it over with?
Yes, I am aware that Indian Hill lists Colt, Harry Barker and Ross. I just have no evidence that Colt did much of anything there. The holes in the ground don't support any legitimate argument that the course is a Colt course.
Is researching or indentifying who designed what in Chicago a strength of yours?
OH, PS: ranting is my second favorite game...
...to scrabble?...juggling?...bitch slapping?
Actually, the best evidence that he may have been involved more than people think is utterly circumstantial evidence that you have never once cited (because you simply wouldn't be in a position to know this): Old Elm and Indian Hill have a very, very large amount of dual-membership members and always have, and the fact that they're on the same train line.
Nice recovery.
-
"What does your boorish behavior have to do with this thread?"
Tom MacWood:
Good question. Why don't you direct it at Moriarty? ;)
TE
He's one of the few who has the courage to comment on your boorish behavior.
Mike Sweeney: I found your comments about DM especially ironic when to my knowledge you've never objected to anyting TE has said.
-
Here is what Indian Hill looked like in 1939. The two holes in the middle just below the pond bear some resemblence to the drawings Paul posted.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/GCA%20posts/IndianHill24042.jpg)
-
TE
Was Ross's Aronimink course from 1929 restored accurately? Yes or no?
-
Tom Paul,
You asked, "Tom MacWood: I may've asked you this before but I don't remember what you (or Paul Turner) said, so I will ask you again----When was the last time Harry Colt was in the United States? If you do have an answer I'd like to see some solid documented evidence for it."
To partly answer that question, especially as it pertains to Colt's work in the Chicago environs, please look up the GolfUSGABulletin of June 1913. In it, in his column titled, Our Chicago Letter, Mr. Chick Evans wrote of Colt's trip to Chicago and some of the work done there and then refers to his earlier visit some 2+ years before.
He wrote, "Every rresult has a cause, so we must mention that Mr. H.S. Colt, the great English architect has been with us lately and left a deep impression. He spent nearly two weeks visiting all our larger courses, and it is easy to tell what he has suggested might be done to them to their advantage.
"A fine new club named the Old Elm Golf Club; its membership is wealthy and influential and its course is up on the North Shore. I think Mr. Colt came here especially to plan its construction and the superintendence of the construction is to be done by Donald Ross. Nothing will be spared in the attempt to make this the finest course in America."
I hope this is of some help.
"
-
"TE
Was Ross's Aronimink course from 1929 restored accurately? Yes or no?"
Tom MacWood:
After about two years on this subject I think we both know the answer to that.
However, here is what you said above:
"You mistake judging the historic accuracy of a restoration with judging the quality of a restoration. Often a course is improved by inaccurate restoration (or redesign) often because the course was in such bad shape to start. The question is the new and improved redesign better or equal to the course at its architectural highpoint.”
I don’t think I mistake judging the quality of a restoration with judging the historic accuracy of a restoration at all, but I most certainly know that’s what you constantly do because you do almost nothing other than that on here.
But one more time, Tom MacWood, my question to you is, how in the world can you judge the architectural highpoint , the shape a golf course was in before a restoration or the quality of a restoration if you have NEVER SEEN THE GOLF COURSE AT ANY TIME?
-
Philip:
Sorry, I didn't phrase that question about Colt in the USA to Tom MacWood very well.
I know full well that Colt was in the US in 1913 and I know what his entire itinerary was on that trip here in 1913. And I know he was in this country and Canada on another trip a year or two before 1913.
My question is if Tom MacWood or Paul Turner know whether he ever returned to the US after 1913 or if they really do know that he never did return again.
-
"The articles are factually flawed, yet you're relying on them like Gospel."
Dave:
You're absolutely right--Tom MacWood treats all old articles as gospel. The man believes everything he reads if it's old enough for him to call it "research". ;)
Frankly, it gets worse than that. If someone didn't write something down in the past Tom MacWood actually believes there is no way it could've happened. :)
-
Tom,
No problem because I see that I left out what Evans wrote next. This is important because if my interpretation of what he wrote is accurate, than Colt did NOT design Indian Hill.
After he wrote, "A fine new club named the Old Elm Golf Club; its membership is wealthy and influential and its course is up on the North Shore. I think Mr. Colt came here especially to plan its construction and the superintendence of the construction is to be done by Donald Ross. Nothing will be spared in the attempt to make this the finest course in America...", he wrote the following:
"Still another course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka Country Club and it is planned on excellent lines..."
It is my understanding that the Winnetka Country Club changed its name to Indian Hill before 1918 as there are photographs of the clubhouse in the archives of the Chicago Daily News taken in that year and it is titled "Clubhouse building at Indian Hill Golf Club in Winnetka."
Also, from the article titled, "Master Landscape Gardeners Help Shape Winnetka" By Barbara Geiger, M.A.L.A., the following is found:
"Master designer O. C. Simonds was the creator of such legendary landscapes as... Still farther west, the Winnetka Country Club (now Indian Hill) called on Simonds in 1914 to work on drainage problems and to create a landscape more attractive than that designed by its golf course architect. While he was working there, Simonds also drew residential subdivision plats for the land surrounding the club, and the winding roads and patches of forest that still exist there are in keeping with those plans."
It seems fairly obvious to me that after announcing that Colt was to design Old Elm with Ross supervising the work, that in the very next paragraph where he mentions that also another
"course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka Country Club and it is planned on excellent lines..." If Colt was the designer, he would have had done it during this very same trip where Old Elm was created because Evans wrote that it "IS PLANNED!"
Yet he makes no mention of Colt or anyone else as the designer! It seems unreasonable to me that if Colt did the design that he would not have made mention of this fact after mentioning him desinging Old Elm and highjly praising his work throughout the column.
What also makes this seem as the logical conclusion is how the lanscape designer Mr. Simmonds was hired just 3 years later, maybe even only two after the course was built to, " create a landscape more attractive than that designed by its golf course architect."
It doesn't seem reasonable with how well received Colt's work at Old Elm was that it would be viewed so poorly at Winnetka immediately after his departure.
If I have read too much into this feel free to tell me, but I'm having a hard time seeing any other conclusion that can be drawn.
-
At the risk of getting caught in the crossfire - I checked Google Earth's ruler function. First against the practise field at Jax's stadium (and also the Orange Bowl) to get a reference point that is accurately measured on the ground. Google's ruler is accurate.
(http://www.bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5980_1024.ts1164874125639.jpg)
I also checked it against some par 3's on a local course here that I have lasered. It was accurate to the yard. For a well known golf hole reference I measured the 17th at Sawgrass. It was accurate according to the measurements on the Sawgrass web site.
(http://www.bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5981_1024.ts1164874259468.jpg)
I'm not even going to hazard measuring Merion's 10th since I know not where the tees or Jone's landing zone were those many years ago. But, I do think that Google's ruler is accurate (unless of course, there's something twisted about the Philadelphia area ;D).
-
Thanks Brian. Good idea with the football field, but are you sure it isnt Canadian Football? Now if only someone could figure out how to measure the 10th at Merion . . . .
_____________________________________________
I am sure you will understand if I try to check Google’s accuracy by some other means, like Brian's above. It would be a really silly thing to have wrong, as it ought to be just a matter of scaling their ruler to the degree of magnification of the photograph.
Like you, I don’t trust Google’s altitude function, which is why I used a USGS application for those measures. If I cant trust the US government, who can I trust?
_________________________________
SPBD,
Don't be sorry. Posts about golf design are certainly welcome by me.
I agree with you that bad Victorian architecture was the norm all over America. I concentrate on Philadelphia, because the men in question were most familiar with Philadelphia design, yet they chose another direction. But I could and should have added that this was the prevailing design approach across America (I think I have said as much more than a few times above, but at this point that is probably all lost in the clutter.)
IMO most people underestimate just how widespread and common the dark ages stuff was because almost all of it has been wiped completely off the map, literally.
One thing I don’t understand, what do you mean when you say you don’t view Merion and NGLA as reactionary? At least in MacDonald’s case, his writings indicate a level of disgust with American design and an explicit attempt to replace it with something else. To my mind, that is not only reactionary, it is somewhat revolutionary. But perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by reactionary?
___________________________
I think I keep a very open mind when it comes to architectural research and attributions, and it's always interesting to hear new material as it comes to light here.
I think you do, too. And since we are in agreement about the importance of openly sharing and discussing our research, perhaps you will do me a favor: Go to google earth, pull up the 10th at Merion, and measure from the front of the middle tee to a point just left of the green, even with the greenside edge of the front greenside bunker. After all, part of quality research is peer review.
However, I'm not understanding the point of your exercise. Merion has always been known as one of the first of the really great American courses, and one of the first real attempts to create something superb; following in the model of NGLA and what Macdonald did there..what Travis was doing at Garden City...what Fownes was doing at Oakmont. This is indisputable, and hardly news. That these excellent courses were a clear attempt to model after the best in Britain is also well known and documented, . . .
Which exercise is that? Mike Sweeney asked me to clarify my thoughts on these issues and I did. I told him up front that my thoughts weren’t profound or groundbreaking or even all that original. But he asked so I told him. TEPaul’s repeated ridicule notwithstanding, I am making no grandiose claims.
That being said, I want to get something straight. However mundane and trivial the points on my list may seem now, they certainly weren’t viewed as such by the Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul when I suggested them, nor are the accepted by Wayne Morrison even now. For example, almost all of my “conversations” with Wayne Morrison have revolved precisely around the hypothesis that Merion represented a substantial departure from the Victorian style design which dominated Philadelphia and America, and an attempt to return to the style of the great links courses and the recent (such as NGLA and the Heathland courses) which had done the same thing.
Now this may sound trivial and mundane to you, but to Wayne Morrison it is some sort of blasphemy. Same goes for TomPaul, at least some of the time. He has switched directions so many times on these threads that I get dizzy just trying to read his posts.
So instead of asking me why I am bothering with such mundane and trivial and obvious points, perhaps you should ask Wayne Morrison the basis on which he rejects them.
. . . and I'd argue that it was less a reaction to the state of architecture in the country at that time than simply an earnest attempt to build an excellent course, giving the growing interest in the game, a burgeoning membership at Merion, and the luxury of building a brand new course while still playing daily at the old. It gave them the time to do things well and studiously; thus, Wilson's trip to visit Macdonald and his subsequent lengthy stay studying courses in the British Isles. Again, nothing new here.
You are correct, there is nothing new in what you are saying, here, as this is the conventional wisdom. But in my opinion, the facts don’t support the conventional wisdom. If they wanted to build something better, why not just improve upon the style which was all around them? Why not do what everyone else was doing, only better? And if they weren’t rejecting what was around them, then why go all the way to Europe to study? By this point there were hundreds of courses in America, so certainly they had a lot to learn if they were at all satisfied with what was going on around them. And why spend the money to train someone new? If they were at all satisfied with what was around them, then they simply could have hired one of the experienced Scottish professionals and simply pay them extra to do a really good job?
And why on earth go to MacDonald to plan the Euro Study Abroad trip and to learn about golf design? MacDonald wasn’t plodding along trying to gradually improve on what he saw around him. He was trying to replace it all, at one fell swoop. His writings indicate a level of contempt for most American design. He was actively encouraging other designers and clubs to trash what they had and to replace it features and ideas based on the great links courses.
Also, read what the writers said about Merion. They didn’t talk about gradual evolution in quality, they are talking about a leap in an entirely different direction.
But, I think where I really am missing your point is concerning the role of Macdonald and Whigham. When I asked you straight out a few days ago whether you believed that these two had much more to do with the design of the original course at Merion, you stated that you didn't. Yet, you seem to keep coming back to trying to prove some point that they did have heavy direct involvement. Which is it?
I think you might want to reread my answer. I just did and the answer is entirely consistent with what I am saying now. I acknowledged the contemporary evidence which suggests that MacDonald had an influence, then I said: “as for MacDonald having a direct role in the specific design of holes at Merion, I have not seen evidence of this thus far, nor do I believe it to be the case.”
Lots of evidence of MacDonald’s influence, but little or no evidence of MacDonald playing a direct role in the specific design. In other words, whatever influence MacDonald may have had, I don’t think he designed the course.
As for the rest, it seems a bit of a stretch. First, there was plenty written about the connection between Merion and MacDonald and/or his design ideas. Why should MacDonald toot his own horn if everyone else was doing it for him? Second, if the description of the course and MacDonald’s influence on it were untrue and inaccurate, then wouldn’t Wilson or someone else have set the record straight?
But really, before we can answer your questions about specific holes and features, we have to understand what was there when the course opened. I think we are far from this understanding, but any efforts aimed at figuring this stuff out are, shall we say, less than well received.
Why wouldn't Macdonald take credit if he believed that he actually made a major, or even significant contribution to the ultimate design there?
Again, he got plenty of credit. And I seen little or no evidence that any of it was undeserved.
-
Another classy rhetorical move, Mr. Morrison . . . ridicule me because I dont have every old golf magazine memorized. Funny you trust the numbers written on the drawings but not the words on the pages.
But to the task at hand . . . I dont care how long Jones' drives were. I never have. I do care how long Merion No. 10 was, and merely pointed out that on google those drives on the 10th measure about 260 yards, not 300, because the hole is not as long as you thought.
I'll let you disprove Jones' driving distances yourself. I suggest you use google, since you know how to use google's distance function and have already measured the 10th:
Your measurements are wrong, you either don't know how to use the Google measuring tool or you fabricate the results. I do know how to use it and I didn't do so with any agenda or bias in mind.
(my bold)
Since you already made the measure with google and “an open mind,” why not share your result? Prove me either incompetent or a liar. Back up your words. Here’s your chance, Mr. Morrison. . . . Mr. Morrison? Mr. Morrrrrriiiiison, are you there?
Oh, I almost forgot, you are no longer conversing with me— again. At least until you decide to pop in and take another shot at me. A cynical mind might wonder why you quit speaking to me now, with your fabrication claim still polluting the air, and proof only a click away.
_____________________________________
TEPaul, I find it interesting that you now want to turn to other measuring mechanisms besides google to measure the 10th. A good idea, but I don’t think it is necessary.
Mr. Morrison knows how to work the Google Earth distance application; he has already measured the 10th without bias or agenda. (After all, what other basis could he have for calling me either incompetent or a liar?)
Now that Brian has shown us that the google distance tool is accurate, Wayne need only tell us the results of his unbiased and accurate measures.
Discussion and debate about architecture, particuarly its history and evolution, is the essence of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!
I agree. But you rarely discuss or debate. Go back and read your own posts, especially the posts directed at posters who aren’t afraid to disagree with you. You will find very little that is appropriate for polite debate.
So, while I welcome your civil discussion and debate, I encourage you to carry out your threat of boycotting me if you cannot leave the rest of the baggage behind. Will the boycott include posts about me as well as those to me?
-
[=Mike Sweeney: I found your comments about DM especially ironic when to my knowledge you've never objected to anyting TE has said.
Now Tom just because #1 Ohio State and The Big Ten took it on the chin last night from the ACC is no reason to pick on the one guy who complimented you on this thread. :D See Mike "Voice of Reason" Cirba's post, I am latchin onto his bandwagon right now.
By the way, my wife considers it more a double standard than some sort of irony with me. I am sure she will be happy to talk/vent with you if you want to do more research! Also when Tom Paul wanted to go examine the seed structure of Sand Hills at 5:00 AM in the morning with the greenskeeper, I clearly disagreed with Tom. ;)
-
David
Colt and Ross had loose parnership or arrangment while Ross was in the midwest. They were at Old Elm together, they were at Indian Hill together, they were at Glen View together, Ross even went to Detroit to help Colt with some details there as well
Henry was Colt's given name, like most Harrys. The article in 1918 (written by Joe Davis who was the man in Chicago golf writing for the Tribune) was to announce the club's purchase of the land from the trust company (Central Trust) who owned it. The author was giving a brief history of the course.
As far as the evidence that Colt & Ross designed and built the course if American Golf, the Chicago Tribune, Golf Illustrated, the USGA Golf Bulletin and the club itself are not good enough then we'll just have to mark you down as unconvinced and move on. I have no idea why you make a mockery of good honest research, did I hurt your feelings before when I have corrected you or is there some unwritten rule where someone outside the Chicago area should not be researching and/or sharing historical information on her courses?
-
Tom,
Please take it easy on Shivas today. He is going to wake up this morning and finally realize when he sees that Google measurement that the "Shivas Gait" was flawed and was the reason that he kept missing greens. Thus, he had to give up tournament golf to become a lawyer. :'(
-
Phil
You are correct Indian Hill was originally formed as Winnetka CC.
TE
Its not difficult to compare and contrast the course Ross built at Aronimink and the course Prichard built and conclude that it was not an accurate restoration. Anyone with two eyes can see that.
We know what the low point was at Aronimink.....when club decided to restore the course (after numerous tinkerings). Judging the highpoint is subjective no doubt, it requires historical research, and based on what I've seen, the highpoint was between 1929 (when the course was opened) and the 1939 aerial. What was its architectural highpoint in your estimation?
Mike
I appreciate your complement a lot, but I find it a little disturbing that TE has been insulting people (mostly me) on here for years, with much worse comments than anything DM wrote and not word from you, or just about anyone else for that matter.
I can take it (and have taken it), but I agree with your wife it is a double standard. Is that becasue TE is looked upon as the site's wacky uncle, who has and will say just about any thing, but who really shouldn't be taken seriously?
-
Well said, Mike, but he has his brilliant "Dewey Beats Truman" riposte to Tom MacWood to sustain his ego for a while..... :)
-
Here is what Indian Hill looked like in 1939. The two holes in the middle just below the pond bear some resemblence to the drawings Paul posted.
(http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f385/troonster/GCA%20posts/IndianHill24042.jpg)
I agree with you...those holes you pointed out on the aerial are #15 and #16. Colt was very keen on diagonal hazards and Indian Hills appeared to have plenty of them.
-
Tom Mac, A couple of questions.
First I admit I have no personal knowledge of either Old Elm or Indian ill, but Your comment, "those holes you pointed out on the aerial are #15 and #16..." have me more than a bit confused.
If those two are 15 & 16, can you explain the routing as the clubhouse (I assume it is the same one built in the teens) which I believe is that rather large structure that matches the photograph used in the 1918 Chicago Daily News article and can be clearly seen (unless I am mistaken) up in the far right corner, has quite a few more holes than two between it and what you seem to be refering to as the 16th.
Am I looking at the same two holes that you are refering to? The ones on the very bottom left side of the map that also appear to have a par three left of them? Wouldn't this make the routing have this par-3 play before one and after the other therefor making it impossible for those holes to be 15 & 16?
Also, after my second post about Chick Evans article and my interpretation that his wording left no doubt that Colt didn't design Indian Hill (Winnetka), you wrote in two different posts, "As far as the evidence that Colt & Ross designed and built the course if American Golf, the Chicago Tribune, Golf Illustrated, the USGA Golf Bulletin and the club itself are not good enough then we'll just have to mark you down as unconvinced and move on." and "Colt was very keen on diagonal hazards and Indian Hills appeared to have plenty of them..."
It appears that you disagreed with my conclusion, and I freely admit it may have been incorrect, but may I ask what articles are you refering to that specifically state that Colt designed the course?
Also, do you have any idea why Evans would praise Colt so highly in announcing him as the designer of Old Elm and in the very next paragraph where he announces that Winnetka was also "planned" he wouldn't mention Colt as the architect if he had the job?
-
Tom Paul, heck, I don't know what all this fuss is about with you and MacWood over which Aronimink the course should have been restored to.
You're both wrong. If I had my way the mebership would knock down a bunch of homes and restore Tilly's Aronimink!
;D Just having some fun!
-
Phil
Yes, you are right. Actually the routing was changed slightly at some point, and those two holes are #16 and #17 in the aerial. There are two par-3s on the otherside of the clubhouse. The top par-3 is the 10th in the aerial...followed by another par-3 the 11th. Back to back par-3s to start the second nine. The top par-3 was not part of the original plan; I'm not sure what the reason was for the change or when it happened.
Those comments regarding the evidence were directed to DE not you. DE doubts Colt's involvement at Indian Hill (Winnetka). I think we are on the same page.
-
Philip:
Would you criticize a restoration if you'd never even set foot or cast your eye on the golf course whose restoration you were criticizing? ;)
-
Tom Mac, I guess you misunderstood what I meant because I too took exception to the idea that Colt designed Winnetka.
I based this on two articles only, and I freely admit that I may be very wrong, but here again is what I wrote and quoted from:
This is important because if my interpretation of what he wrote is accurate, than Colt did NOT design Indian Hill.
After he wrote, "A fine new club named the Old Elm Golf Club; its membership is wealthy and influential and its course is up on the North Shore. I think Mr. Colt came here especially to plan its construction and the superintendence of the construction is to be done by Donald Ross. Nothing will be spared in the attempt to make this the finest course in America...", he wrote the following:
"Still another course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka Country Club and it is planned on excellent lines..."
It is my understanding that the Winnetka Country Club changed its name to Indian Hill before 1918 as there are photographs of the clubhouse in the archives of the Chicago Daily News taken in that year and it is titled "Clubhouse building at Indian Hill Golf Club in Winnetka."
Also, from the article titled, "Master Landscape Gardeners Help Shape Winnetka" By Barbara Geiger, M.A.L.A., the following is found:
"Master designer O. C. Simonds was the creator of such legendary landscapes as... Still farther west, the Winnetka Country Club (now Indian Hill) called on Simonds in 1914 to work on drainage problems and to create a landscape more attractive than that designed by its golf course architect. While he was working there, Simonds also drew residential subdivision plats for the land surrounding the club, and the winding roads and patches of forest that still exist there are in keeping with those plans."
It seems fairly obvious to me that after announcing that Colt was to design Old Elm with Ross supervising the work, that in the very next paragraph where he mentions that also another "course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka Country Club and it is planned on excellent lines..." If Colt was the designer, he would have had done it during this very same trip where Old Elm was created because Evans wrote that it "IS PLANNED!"
Yet he makes no mention of Colt or anyone else as the designer! It seems unreasonable to me that if Colt did the design that he would not have made mention of this fact after mentioning him desinging Old Elm and highjly praising his work throughout the column.
What also makes this seem as the logical conclusion is how the lanscape designer Mr. Simmonds was hired just 3 years later, maybe even only two after the course was built to, " create a landscape more attractive than that designed by its golf course architect."
It doesn't seem reasonable with how well received Colt's work at Old Elm was that it would be viewed so poorly at Winnetka immediately after his departure.
If I have read too much into this feel free to tell me, but I'm having a hard time seeing any other conclusion that can be drawn.
So I would certainly appreciate if you can give a quick bit of the history of how and when Colt designed it. With Evans reference to the Winnetka CC already having been planned at the time of the 1913 Colt visit and no mention of him being the architect, and if the date listed in the Simonds article is correct in his changing the landscape design in 1914, the club had to have been built after his two week visit at that time when he designed Old Elm and visited all of the major courses in the Chicago area (Evans words) and before Colt returned once again to the States.
That is why I was asking about the articles and histories you mentioned giving credit to Colt.
To design two major courses and visit many others in that short a time is quite impressive.
-
I think the restoration job Prichard did at Aronimink was terrific. I play the course frequently. I honestly don't get the "many bunkers would be better there" theory. To me, the bunkers are fair, challening, well sized and well placed (as too many of my approach shots find out).
The green complexes, some brute length and now very consistent rough are the best part of Aronimink, IMO. The course maintenance is outstanding.
At the end of the day, I really agree with what Wayne Morrisson said in another post (correct me if I'm wrong Wayne!) ... the members are pleased with the restoration and that's the bottom line.
-
Tom MacWood:
I may've asked you this before but I don't remember what you (or Paul Turner) said, so I will ask you again----When was the last time Harry Colt was in the United States? If you do have an answer I'd like to see some solid documented evidence for it.
Thanks
Tom
Colt came back in spring 1914.
-
Hi Paul,
You stated that, "Colt came back in spring 1914."
Would you then agree that if he designed Winnetka/Indian Hill as has been alleged, he would have to have done so during his earlier two week visit that Chick Evans article mentioned?
So I was wondering what your take on Evans not mentioning Colt as the designer of Winnetka/Indian Hill when he praised him and announced him as the designer of Old Elm that was about to be built in the paragraph prior to his mentioning Winnetka/Indian Hill?
I'm trying to learn here as I know nothing other than the articles that I posted and am now deeply curious how and when Colt may have designed the course.
-
"Tom
Colt came back in spring 1914."
Paul:
Wow, that's the first I've heard of that from anyone, including you the last time I asked you. Very interesting. Do you know much of where he went and what he did when he returned in 1914?
Thanks for that.
-
Wayne:
Regarding your post #295, the real point with doing the Aronimink bunkers to the Ross drawing instead of the multi-sets that show up on the 1938 aerial is neither Prichard, nor the club was completely sure before the project that really was the way the bunkers were originally built and they very much wanted to do real Ross bunkers.
So, they had his drawings in hand and no real evidence that the course was not done that way (to Ross's bunker drawings) and then changed to multi-sets at some point between 1929 and 1938.
That was certainly the first thing Ron Prichard asked me regarding my opinion when I first heard about the project.
Tom MacWood, on the other hand, came in a few years after all of this and after the project was done and just played the typical "Monday Morning quarterback" which he seems pretty good at doing---eg criticizing something after the fact with no involvement before the fact. He was not aware of anything that could've helped with the uncertainty of the way the bunkers were originally built before the project got underway.
But as for how often Ross was around here or around Aronimink in those years, it appears he may've been around here more than most suspect.
The reason I believe that is Janet Morrissey, J.B. McGovern's daughter told me she saw him a lot and that she felt like he was her favorite uncle. Her best friend was the daughter of the super at Aronimink who lived in the house that is still the maintenance office. Janet also mentioned that Lillian, Ross's daughter had gotten married and lived above the Ross office in Wynnewood.
Ross was also at my course to do a comprehensive master plan in 1927.
But we must all recognize that it seems pretty certain that that multi-set bunker style was McGovern's and not Ross's. McGovern was a significant member of Aronimink and on its green committee.
The club understood that but wanted Ross bunkers, not McGovern bunkers, and again they had Ross's single bunker drawings in hand.
But again, MacWood has never seen Aronimink and has no idea of the quality of it now. So how can he compare and contrast the present restoration with the way the course was at any other time?
The correct answer is of course he can't, no matter how he tries to rationalize that fact away.
And the same is true with Moriarty and Merion East. If he's so damned fascinated with the golf course, then the first order of business should be to come here and really study it on the ground as some of us have, instead of just arguing trivial points with us.
If Moriarty wants to call me or us boorish and childish for suggesting that, then let him----who cares?
And MacWood seems to want to know on a post above why nobody on here has criticized me for criticizing the modus operandi of he and Moriarty. Perhaps MacWood should just consider the fact that most thinking I'm some 'wacky uncle' type is not the reason they haven't criticized me. Maybe the logical reason they haven't criticized me is they actually think I'm right about the modus operandi of MacWood and Moriarty on here.
-
Tom Mac, I guess you misunderstood what I meant because I too took exception to the idea that Colt designed Winnetka.
I based this on two articles only, and I freely admit that I may be very wrong, but here again is what I wrote and quoted from:
This is important because if my interpretation of what he wrote is accurate, than Colt did NOT design Indian Hill.
After he wrote, "A fine new club named the Old Elm Golf Club; its membership is wealthy and influential and its course is up on the North Shore. I think Mr. Colt came here especially to plan its construction and the superintendence of the construction is to be done by Donald Ross. Nothing will be spared in the attempt to make this the finest course in America...", he wrote the following:
"Still another course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka Country Club and it is planned on excellent lines..."
It is my understanding that the Winnetka Country Club changed its name to Indian Hill before 1918 as there are photographs of the clubhouse in the archives of the Chicago Daily News taken in that year and it is titled "Clubhouse building at Indian Hill Golf Club in Winnetka."
Also, from the article titled, "Master Landscape Gardeners Help Shape Winnetka" By Barbara Geiger, M.A.L.A., the following is found:
"Master designer O. C. Simonds was the creator of such legendary landscapes as... Still farther west, the Winnetka Country Club (now Indian Hill) called on Simonds in 1914 to work on drainage problems and to create a landscape more attractive than that designed by its golf course architect. While he was working there, Simonds also drew residential subdivision plats for the land surrounding the club, and the winding roads and patches of forest that still exist there are in keeping with those plans."
It seems fairly obvious to me that after announcing that Colt was to design Old Elm with Ross supervising the work, that in the very next paragraph where he mentions that also another "course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka Country Club and it is planned on excellent lines..." If Colt was the designer, he would have had done it during this very same trip where Old Elm was created because Evans wrote that it "IS PLANNED!"
Yet he makes no mention of Colt or anyone else as the designer! It seems unreasonable to me that if Colt did the design that he would not have made mention of this fact after mentioning him desinging Old Elm and highjly praising his work throughout the column.
What also makes this seem as the logical conclusion is how the lanscape designer Mr. Simmonds was hired just 3 years later, maybe even only two after the course was built to, " create a landscape more attractive than that designed by its golf course architect."
It doesn't seem reasonable with how well received Colt's work at Old Elm was that it would be viewed so poorly at Winnetka immediately after his departure.
If I have read too much into this feel free to tell me, but I'm having a hard time seeing any other conclusion that can be drawn.
So I would certainly appreciate if you can give a quick bit of the history of how and when Colt designed it. With Evans reference to the Winnetka CC already having been planned at the time of the 1913 Colt visit and no mention of him being the architect, and if the date listed in the Simonds article is correct in his changing the landscape design in 1914, the club had to have been built after his two week visit at that time when he designed Old Elm and visited all of the major courses in the Chicago area (Evans words) and before Colt returned once again to the States.
That is why I was asking about the articles and histories you mentioned giving credit to Colt.
To design two major courses and visit many others in that short a time is quite impressive.
I have the article written by Evans dated June 1913, he wrote: "...so we must mention that Mr. HS Colt, the great English architect, has been with us lately and has left a great impression. He spent almost two weeks visiting all out larger courses, and it is easy to tell what he has suggested might be done to them to their advantage.
A fine new club called the Old Elm GC has just been formed; its membership is wealthy and influential and its cours is up on the North Shore. I think Colt came here especially to plan its construction and the superindence of the work is to be done by Donald Ross. Nothing will be spared in the attempt to make this the finest cours in America.
Still another course is being constructed out on the fortunate North Shore. This is the Winnetka CC, and it is planned on excellent lines. With these two new addditions I believe that Chicago has a total of forty-six or so golf clubs....."
Phil
I think you are reading too much into it. How do you infer from this quote that someone other than Colt designed Winnetka (Indian Hill)? Evans goes right from talking about Old Elm to Winnetka. If this was the only evidence you had to judge of Colt was involved at IHCC, I would agree you could draw any conclusion one way or the other. However reading this with the knowledge that American Golfer, Golf Illustrated and Chicago Tribune reported Colt designed Indian Hill only lends more support IMO.
Ossian Simonds was a civil engineer, landscape architect and planner. He laid out the subdivision for Indian Hill. To my knowledge Simonds did not design any golf courses. The author you quoted above seems to be saying he was hired to beautify the landscape at IHCC in 1914, to improve on what the golf architect had done. Colt was in Chicago in 1913....that is when he designed Indian Hill, supported by the article in American Golfer December 1913.
From what I've been able to gather the drainage issues were handled by William Hibbard....a local legend in his own right. It was reported in the Chicago Tribune that he built the lake on the property.
The Colt-Indian Hill connection is a strong one IMO -- numerous independent sources.
-
Tom, you scare me with how fast and loose you are with your conclusions and reasoning.
Fast and loose, four independent sources including the club itself?
I agree that they had a loose arrangement. I've seen the letter Colt wrote to Old Elm. I know that Ross did the field work. But to be clear, you have corrected me on nothing. What you've done is draw a conclusion based on poor evidence - newspaper articles, which are by definition heresay unless there are quotes in them from direct sources, and even then, guess what? They're still heresay!
The Chicago Tribune, American Golfer and Golf Illustrated are pretty good sources. Colt's drawing is pretty strong supporting evidence too. Are sure you are a lawyer? :)
Again I ask: where is the evidence that Harry Colt designed Indian Hill? Is there anything that Colt wrote that said he did it? Is there anywhere where Ross says "Harry did a great job laying the course out." Is there any picture of Colt doing anything at Indian Hill? Anything at all?
No, I don't have anything Colt wrote that says he designed the course...unless you include his plan! No pictures of him on the grounds...I'm sure if I did you'd question its authenticity. :)
I hate to say this, but the more you dig up old, inaccurate articles as the only thing there is to support the hypothesis that Colt designed Indian Hill, the more inclined I am to believe that there simply is no such evidence.
Colt wrote a letter to Old Elm. Why wouldn't he do the same for Indian Hill?
Hell if I know. Writers block? No change to buy postage? World war and armageddon? I don't know he did or didn't write one. Why don't you check their archives?
And more to the GCA point, Old Elm actually exhibits Colt characteristics!! I see absolutely nothing in Indian Hill that exhibits any Colt characteristics. Not even in the 1939 aerial.
If you compare Colt's plan for Old Elm with the old aerial of Indian Hill you will see a number diagonal hazards - a favorite Colt ploy. They both also have a hole with bunker that wraps entirely around half the green (IH #11 & OE #15). Another common characteristic is the use of bunkers en echelon.
The only possibility that remains is that Colt designed the course in the teens, but that it was radically modified to such a great extent that by 1939, it looks nothing like a Colt.
When did you become a Colt expert? What are some of the other Colt courses you are familar with?
Now, if that were the case, where are the old articles describing THAT??
And moreover, why would a Colt design be soooo bad that it is completely whitewashed immediately after it's built? Particularly since Colt was so famous and he knew he was working for big-time clients who wanted the best of the best? The only possible answer to this is that he either "mailed it in" or didn't actually do it and let someone else do it.
So even if he designed a course that no longer exists, ala CB MacDonald at Chicago Golf, why do we want to believe that he's somehow responsible for what was in the ground in 1939 or today? He's not. Chicago Golf is a Raynor and Indian Hill is a Ross, as modified over the years by the usual list of Chicago area architects.
Huh? When did Ross design Indian Hill?
And yes, I am distraught today at the excellent proof that Google Earth's measuring device actually works. Maybe I was sloppy in my use of the tool. I dunno. I know the Gait is accurate, though, and nothing will convince me otherwise. ;D
You really shouldn't conduct historical dissertations when you are out of sorts.
-
Tom Mac,
Thanks for the reference to the December 1913 American Golfer. It is pretty straightforward in stating that "Chicago will add another golf club to its list when the Winnetka Country Club will open next summer... Mr. Colt, of England, and H.H. Barker laid out the course..."
I knew I was missing something with only those two references. Thanks for the help! ;D
-
Professor Moriarty . . . Where did I ever say that Merion East was not a departure and improvement on the overwhelming majority of existing golf courses?
Ahhh . . . the old TomPaul Shuffle: Discount, resist, obfuscate, browbeat, bully, condescend, ignore (when it suits you) and insult. Then, if your opposition is somehow still standing, claim his position as your own, and immediately belittle him for the triviality and obviousness of his comments. Well executed.
Almost a year ago, I said something very similar to what I listed for Mike Sweeney in the post above. You immediately attacked my qualifications, attacked my knowledge base, and have attacked and ridiculed just about everything I’ve said on the issue since. Among other things, you have claimed that Merion East was much closer to the old Haverford Merion than I knew. You claimed that it looked more like the geometric courses at first, and that it only took is current form over time. And you have consistently claimed that I have overstated the difference between the earliest Merion (in its current location) and the prior geometric designs. In this thread you said:
The original East Course was not nearly as radical a departure as you credit it. It was a great improvement but not finished for another 25 years. It wasn't until Wilson and Flynn began collaborating that it began to resemble what you think of today. It took about 10 years after it opened that it began to take familiar form.
Even in this thread you refer to the first iteration of Merion East as a “mid-step,” so please don’t insult our intelligence by now pretending that you have never denied that Merion represented a significant departure from the prevailing style of the time.
Some of your numbered statements are very well documented, very well known around here and elsewhere and are not in dispute. Why bring them up and mix them with your false conclusions? If you put incorrect information next to correct information it does not make it correct.
Even if we set your ever-present condescension aside, this criticism is still preposterous. Any coherent theory must draw upon well-established information. Had I left out the well-established information you’d criticize my post for its lack of foundation and context.
What tee do you think Jones was hitting from in the 1930 Amateur?
I think he played from the tee marked in the 1930 Jones shot chart. The chart you said was exact. What tee do you think he played from? Surely you haven’t changed your tune on the accuracy of the shot charts have you?
You ridicule my sarcastic reply when I posted other photographs of Jones's results on other holes yet you do not recognize those drives. Why is that?
If you mean that I ridiculed you for ridiculing me, then you are correct and I will continue to do so until you clean up you act. Do I recognize these other drives? Recognize them as what? I told you, measure them yourself if you want to see just how off they are. Maybe do them one at a time, though, I wouldn’t want your whole world to come crashing down all at once.
Honestly, instead of thinking you must be right and that's why I don't wish to converse with you, you should consider the more obvious reason and that is your original ideas are flawed and you do not accept that possibility. I choose not to address this or any other matter with you in the future. The fact that it irritates you doesn't really matter to me.
I am more than willing to accept that my ideas may be flawed, and have done so many times, even in this thread. But I do require more proof than just a pronouncement by you or TEPaul, Rather, I prefer verifiable facts,
Why don't you get a yardage book from Merion and see what that tells you. That and a better effort at understanding where Jones hit from in the 1930 Amateur and what the implications would be if Jones were hitting it 30 yards down the line of play as would be played from the 1916 tee.
Is the yardage book based on historical hole length or has it been accurately revised using modern measuring mechanisms? Seems like if it was the latter then you’d already know just how off those Jones’ drives are.
From the 1916 tee to the road I get a straight line measurement of 291 yards. From the current back tee (where Jones played in 1930) the distance is 300 yards to the spot marked on the Golf Illustrated photos. It is clear to me that under dry and fast conditions, prevalent throughout the year, that the best players of the 1916 era would have been able to come pretty close to the road.
As any competent research would, I have been very specific in my methodology when doing posting measures. I invite you to do the same. The reason being is that, together, your two measures make absolutely no sense.
If it is 291 yards to the road, then it is impossible for Jones mark to have been 300 yards. In fact, simple trigonometry tells us that, given the 291 yards to the road, a 300 yard drive on Jones’ line would have been over the road, or past. To stay on the right side of the road, the drive would have to at an angle of at least 14 degrees off of your straight line measure. In other words, it would have to be at least 71 yards left! (If your “straight line measure” was at a slightly acute angle to the road, then he would have to be even further left.)
Surely you didn’t use google to measure to the road, then rely on a yardage book or an old shot chart to measure the Jones drive? That would be an unacceptablebush league research technique, and one that is obviously misleading. You wouldn’t be trying to mislead us here, would you Mr. Morrison?
I believe, with a slightly raised green in the front and well raised in the back that little would have been obscured between the mounds fronting the green in the sand waste and that much if not all of the back half of the green would have been visible regardless.
Yes you believe this, but it based on some photos from 90 years later of a spot well left of the green (you couldn’t photograph in the correct spot because there were mounds in the way), a dismissal of contemporary first-hand sources, a discounting of features such as the mounds in front, a complete misunderstanding of the accurate distance of the hole, and a drastic overestimation of how far people hit the ball around around 1912-1916. Now it could be that your mistakes omissions and guesses all offset each other and that your conclusion is somewhat correct, but this would just be dumb luck, not competent research.
Wilson praised Macdonald for his efforts prior to his trip to the UK but did not mention anything again afterwards. Isn't it possible because there were nothing of substance offered afterwards? Unlike Macdonald, Wilson was a humble man and not one to seek the spotlight nor avoid sharing credit.
It is possible, but not proven. It is also possible that, Wilson was so influenced by MacDonald on this first trip that no subsequent input was necessary. MacDonald apparently helped him plan his trip and also taught him about architecture. This in and off itself is enough to establish influence, at least absent a specific denial by Wilson or others.
Any specific influence needs to be proved and our research standards require more proof than you put forward. The bar you set for proof is clearly of a lower nature. It isn't because we are protecting our own, it is because that is proper research.
IMO you approach this completely backwards. Your working hypothesis is that Wilson was not influenced by MacDonald, even though there is an established historical record to the contrary. You’ve stacked the deck. You dismiss all the contemporary sources outright, then ask us to disprove you without reference to them. IMO, the burden is on you here, as it is on all social scientists attempting to forge new ground. And you have not met your burden. The historical record and contemporary accounts ought to be considered accurate until you disprove them, I don’t see that you have done so. Not even close.
By the way, have you ever read Alan Wilson's (Hugh's brother) account of the origins of Merion East? You may find that interesting.
No I haven’t but I am sure I would. If you lend it to me, I’m sure I would enjoy it. But then you were more likely taking one last shot at attacking my knowledge base, weren’t you . . . If so, then tell me what in the book specifically contradicts me.
Now, let me be done with you on this subject.
Done with the subject? I thought you were writing a book? Surely all of this only makes the book better.
-
Tom, you just don't get it. The Chicago Tribune gave us "Dewey Defeats Truman". You are citing secondary sources. You are citing sources that are often wrong. Don't you read the retractions section of newspapers?
Once again, you're also citing aerial evidence that Indian Hiis a Colt because you've never been there. So now the fact that it had a diagonal hazard makes it a Colt? I think not.
Also, you want to talk about the Club itself? Go talk to Chicago Golf and see how willing they are to lose their CB MacDonald heritage? As you are infinitely aware, lots of courses claim things that are simply not true -and for a variety of reasons. Chicago Golf likes the foothold they have on being the oldest 18 in America. Others do so simply because they don't know any better.
You've got a copy of Colt's plans? Show me Colt's plan for the course. Then I'll believe he designed it. Not two holes that don't look anything like what was there just 20 years later. The whole course. Short of that, there's nothing to conclude except that the intention to have the course built by Colt never materialized, and that it was designed by someone else.
I've played 11 Harry Colt courses (13 by your count ::) ). You?
DE
Your understanding of Colt (or lack of it) is reflected in that you do not differentiate between Colt and Alison. I think once you dig a little deeper into golf architecture and the history of GA you will discover Colt and Alison have completely different styles. They are two unique and separate golf architects. But that's beside the point if you want to go on believing Ross designed Indian Hill (in the absence of any documentation) and Colt had nothing to do with it (despite considerable documentation) thats fine with me.
As far the weight of the documentation this is how it breaks down:
MacWood, 5 independent sources of documentation
Schmidt, zip
Certainly no surprise to those who regularly follow this site and no surpise those who honestly understand and appreciated golf architecure.
If you have anything of substance to add to the Indian Hill CC architectural history debate (other than the your humorous anecdotes of fiction) - even the slightest little bit documentation would suffice - I think we would all be gald to consider it but until then you and I will have to agree to disagree.
-
Wayne
From the excerpts I have read of some of your early drafts on the history of Merion (in your Flynn book) you did not mention the Alps, Redan, Eden, Valley of Sin, Principle's Nose, etc (although you did mention the Mid-Surrey mounding at the 9th)...is that still the case (that those features aren't mentioned) and if that is still the case, why did you chose not to mention them?
-
Moriarty you argumentative little twit, how about measuring the distance Jones's drives went in 1930s with a couple of sophisticated rangefinders? If we can agree where he teed off from on those holes why would you have a problem with determing as 'verifiable fact' the distance he hit those drives that way? Don't you think it would be a bit more reliable measuring a drive on the ground than via Google Earth or the USGS? ;)
No I dont think it will be more reliable. If done honestly and correctly I think it will produce the same result I came up with on Google, or one extremely close to it. But, nonetheless, knock yourself out with your range finder . . . perhaps then we will get confirmation that my yardage quote was accurate. Or, if you guys dont get a number you like, why dont you get an extremely accurate gps unit and figure it out that way? Or if you still get the yardages I posted, get a surveyor. I hear the USGS has some good ones so you might want to try there.
Actually it doesnt matter to me one way or another. Given your and Mr. Morrison's unwillingness to even admit that my posts have reported the accurate google measure, I somehow doubt we will ever hear the results if they don't comport to what you have already said.
An aside: Why do you put a winking face after all your posts? You arent kidding when you call me a twit, are you? Do you think that the Winker addition excuses or lessens your boorish behavior? For example, hypothetically, if I were to refer to another poster as a a pompous boob but follow it by a ;) , would that make my behavior any less obnoxious or rude? And would it matter if the person in question really is a pompous boob? Verifiably, a pompous boob?
____________________________
Questions for both TEPaul and Wayne Morrison:
Is this really the research methodology used to research your book? If you two cannot even accept and admit that you were wrong about something as mundane and objective as a yardage measure, why should anyone ever believe anything you say about the more subjective interpretations in your long-promised book?
If nothing else, this little exercise ought to demonstrate to all, including any potential publishers, that your objectivety is seriously compromised when it comes to Merion Golf Club.
-
Professor Moriarty,
You are an idiot. Stop trying to convince me with your rambling posts, I believe it already, OK?
If you could think clearly, I said that from the 1916 tee it was 291 yards to the road. The measurement you see in the 1930 Jones photograph was from a different tee, approximately 30 yards behind the 1916 tee. This may give you some idea why your are so infuriating. You are dense, poor in analytical skills, full of yourself yet with a sense of being a victim, emotional to the point of losing objectivity and your are boring. Those are bad traits to have individually. Combined, they make me want to ignore you completely. I shall.
Yardage BS aside, let us not lose sight of your other failings. Your hypothesis is a rehash of well established knowledge. Your original findings are full of contradictions.
Gee, and I was hoping for co-author credit on your yet to be published book, or at least a nice acknowledgement thanking me for my help and hard work . . .
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt with the 291 measure . . . It is approximately 291 yards from the tee Hogan played, according to your 'exact' shot chart. But then I suspect you know this. After all, you arent seriously contending that Hogan played from a tee that was 321 yards to the road in a straight line??? Give me a minute and I'll show you where that tee would have to have been.
And before I go back and check what you have said in the past about the distance to the road, do you want to revise what you said above?
-
Tom, ;) I think you're observations are concise ;), well thought out ;), and extremely informative ;). And further more, ;) should I need to ever ask ;) about the 10th at Merion ;) I will surely know who to ask! ;) ;D ;) ;D ;) ;D ;) ;D
-
Anytime DavidS, anytime at all---just ask away to your heart's delight.
Judging from you last post it seems you are in a remarkably cheery mood today. That's good, good, good. :)
-
Wayne
Are you saying you re-wrote the Merion chapter and you now mention the Redan, Alps, etc?
In my view the 7th is Redan because just about every source at that time said it was...including Macdonald, Whigham, Lesley, Tilly and Far & Sure (Travis?). Thats true with all the features except the Principles Nose. Since we can not go back in time all we have go on are the descriptions and comments of respected judges of golf and golf architecture.
That is why I was surprised you originally discounted them all. In my view that early version is one of the reasons the story of Merion is so interesting. One, the involvement of Macdonald & Whigham as advisers - theoretically, in guiding Wilson where and what to see and practically, assisting the committee on the ground. And two, the fact that those features do not appear on any of Wilson's other architectural efforts and that he eventually removed them all.
PS: You should not discount the Principles Nose.
-
Yes, I meant Jones. A mistake I make, silly as it is. I also call my wife by my daughter's name and visa versa, but I assure you I know the difference between the two. Nervous? What do I have to be nervous about? Bored is more like it.
So the tee was 291 yards from the road in 1916? In 1930 it was 30 yards in back of that. So in 1930 the road was 321 yards from the road.
Let me show you where that tee must have been . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/321-yards-Merion-10.jpg?t=1164926520)
I admit. I have learned something from you Wayne. I dont think I have ever seen that tee. But surely this is not as indicated on the 1930 shot chart.
-
Anytime DavidS, anytime at all---just ask away to your heart's delight.
Judging from you last post it seems you are in a remarkably cheery mood today. That's good, good, good. :)
You mean I don't get a winking face? :'(
-
"You mean I don't get a winking face? :'(
No sir, that time called for the full beatific smile. :-*
-
Take a look at this one as well . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Jones-drive-10-capture.jpg?t=1164927753)
Look familiar? It is pretty close to Jones' drive on the 10th. From the tee marked on the shot chart.
Just how long are you going to keep up this charade? Are you going to publish the wrong distances in your book now that you know you are wrong? Why do you bother to discuss anything with anyone if you cannot accept that you will sometimes be mistaken?
-
Wayno, this is not a good sign at all. This does not bode well. At this point I'm not prepared to believe a single thing this man says, including his assurance that he knows the difference between his wife and daughter. What can we possible say regarding architecture to someone who doesn't even know the difference between his wife and daughter? Do you suppose after all this time and app 320 posts it could be the 10th at Riviera Moriarty has been meaning to measure? ;)
Your reading comprehension is as off as my occassional writing gaffs. I said I know the difference.
-
Where's the plans, Tom?
Sorry DE, I only know of the plans for the 15th and 16th. To my knowledge those are two sketches more than any Ross sketches for IHCC.
Are you from the TEPaul school logic, that says the fact that there are only plans for two holes, that proves that someone else designed the other 16 holes (despite overwelming other evidence to the contrary)?
Why can't you come up with anything other than your "considerable" second-hand heresay information.
Since when are multiple independent written accounts heresay? Answer: when they don't jive with your version of things.
We can for Old Elm, you know. There, Colt wrote a nice letter than said "I have designed you a really great course, and you're in great hands with Ross building it".
There are also multiple independent accounts that state Colt & Ross were involved at Old Elm ironically by the same people who said Colt (and Ross ) was involved at Indian Hill. They are right about the one, but wrong about the other. Go figure.
At Indian Hill, there is NOTHING!!
Thats true if you discount local newspaper accounts, major golf magazine accounts, and Colt's plan for Indian Hill.
You are histerical, or is that hysterical?
Say what?
And, to cap it all off, you bring Alison into this equasion??
You brought Alison into the equation...which I knew you would do because all you see is Colt & Alison, not Colt or Alison.
I gather that's some sort of loose assertion (so what else is new! ;D ) that I don't know which courses were Charles Alison courses borrowing Colt's name, ie, that Alison did North Shore and a few of the others attributed to Colt. I most certainly DO know the difference, Tom!!
Good.
Ever been to Rye, Tom?
I have.
I'm happy for you. Do you see any similarities between Old Elm and Rye?
Naaaah, that can't be it. The correct answer is that he forgot to write anything about ever designing Indian Hill.
No letters.
No articles.
No nothing.
I wouldn't exactly say there is nothing. What exactly do you have that proves Ross designed the course?
Maybe he simply didn't like to write, and that letter to Old ELm was an exception.
You're really into letters aren't you? Since you are so hell bent on correcting the record at Indian Hill why don't you ask the club if they have any letters from anyone? Maybe you'll find a letter from Ross or better yet a letter from Colt saying I wouldn't design this course if it were the last project on earth.
OOPS, there goes that theory!! The guy only authored THREE books on golf course design (all after he supposedly built Indian Hill).
And you don't find it at all strange that he didn't say a peep - ever!! - about designing Indian Hill!!
Three books? Have you been drinking? I don't think he metioned any course in Chicago in his only book. Have you read it. I think you'd like it, there are quite few letters published in it.
BTW, if you're soooo impressed with secondary sources, Whitten and Cornish and Brad Klein attribute the golf course to Ross (presumably as a remodel of whatever garbage was originally laid out there in 1913), first in 1914 and then again in 1922.
Is this your only evidence?
One last thing: do you have any evidence that Barker was EVER in Illinois?? The reason I ask is that you rely awefully strongly on an article that says he co-designed it (or was planning to co-design it)(or was supposed to co-design it)(or somebody said to somebody who told a reporter that he was going to co-design it) with Colt. The only problem with that is that he never did anything else anywhere around here, so it's like saying Perry Maxwell designed Seminole or something.
Barker was also in Detroit at that same time. And Cleveland before that. And in Oregon. And in the South. He got around.
Oh, Christ, TEP, I'm sorry....next thing you know, he's going to try to attribute Seminole to Colt, too. After all, Colt and Ross had a loose affiliation and at some point they must have spoken of the need for a great course with a diagonal bunker in Florida...and as you know, the existence of a diagonal bunker that can be seen from 80,000 feet by the Google Earth satellite, particularly on a golf course that Colt once set foot, on CLEARLY indicates that he designed the golf course;D
Clearly you have nothing but insults...perhaps you did go to the TE school of architectural research.
-
"Questions for both TEPaul and Wayne Morrison:
Is this really the research methodology used to research your book? If you two cannot even accept and admit that you were wrong about something as mundane and objective as a yardage measure, why should anyone ever believe anything you say about the more subjective interpretations in your long-promised book?
If nothing else, this little exercise ought to demonstrate to all, including any potential publishers, that your objectivety is seriously compromised when it comes to Merion Golf Club."
This is why Moriarty started this thread in the first place. It's his attempt to prove us wrong about something trivial and to then claim that proves we basically know nothing of this entire subject.
Nice try twit but it's just another of your embarrassing failures. ;)
Yes, Tom you are on to me. I scoured old issues of every paper in the land, finally found a 1916 article describing the 10th at Merion. I then posted it and waited, just hoping that Mr. Morrison would post those Jones shot charts (that I had never even seen.) Then, when he finally posted them I knew I was close . . . All I had to do was post the accurate yardage for the hole and wait . . . wait for the inevitable overreaction, name calling, and unsupportable defamation. . . .
. . .I didnt have to wait long. Wayne not defamed me as I planned, he also he also pretended that he knew I was lying because he had done the measures himself. Of course he had not. . . . .
. . . But then I got yet another surprise. You guys still werent done. Post after post you foolishly stick to your guns, even though you both know you've been shooting blanks all the while.
No Mr. Paul, this wasnt my plan. My plan was to share an interesting article I found in the NYTimes. I should have known that you two would want nothing to do with it because it doesnt fit into your mainlineocentric view of golf architecture.
You guys are making fools of yourselves all on your own. I cant say I am not enjoying it, though.
______________________
As for your last post, you've got me again. I misread your post. I readily admit that I rarely read your posts at all, much less in full, even when they are directed to me or are about me. But then who does?
-
"Are you from the TEPaul school logic, that says the fact that there plans for two holes, that proves that someone else designed the other 16 holes (despite overwelming other evidence to the contrary)?"
Tom:
I'm trying to figure out the significance of that remark but nothing is coming to me. ;)
By the way, Tom, I didn't want to mention this but are you having some problem with prepositions, adverbs and verbs lately? You're writing that way on some of your posts really sucks. Try reading what I just cut and pasted from you above.
You're beginning to sound like some furiner who's trying to learn English.
I've been eating turkey for seven frieken days...its affected my grammar....give me a break.
-
You will notice that Wayne once called the original Merion East something of a "mid-step". Of course the twit Moriarty was apparently thrown for a complete loop by that one and landed on his head which prompted another hissy fit.
Perhaps you understand now the significance of Wayne's stressing just how important it is to understand the architectural evolution of Merion East from it's beginning to the mid-1920s and finally to perhaps 1934 when it really was finished. That's quite a duration by the original architects.
Not to mention the fact that Wayne Morrison has never really seen the sophistication in the look of Macdonald/Raynor architecture in the context of naturalism in architecture that was rapidly and interestingly evolving in those times and up to perhaps the Crash. The fact that Merion East may've had some ramifications of Macdonald's style at that early time only to be removed later may account for the meaning of his label "mid-step". (Moriarty, don't even bother---this stuff is way over your head ;) ).
Nice try, Mr. Paul. The mid-point to which Mr. Morrison refers is likely the mid-point he has been referring to for almost a year now, at least. Mr. Morrison views the early Merion not as a truly unique course representing a clear change in direction in American architecture of the time. Rather, he views Merion East as somewhere in between geometric and natural, a mid-point, but by no means a quantum departure from the old Victorian courses.
This is why it is so odd that he now says he agrees with most of the points I listed above.
-
DE
American Golfer is a puff-piece rag the equivalent of People magazine? I see. This after skimming one or two issues? Hmm.
I don't see Walter Travis or Tilly or Henry Leach writing for People magazine, but who knows, maybe you're on to something.
Perhaps we should write off Tilly's accounts of how PV evolved as heresay, drivel and useless.
-
"Perhaps we should write off Tilly's accounts of how PV evolved has heresay, drivel and useless."
Tom MacWood:
I don't think we should write Tilly's accounts off as hearsay, drivel and useless, but I think you should read what he did say, when he said it, and what that actually means with a bit more care and consideration than you apparently did.
If you had I doubt you would have been so off the mark in your contention that Pine Valley was out to glorify Crump at the expense of Colt.
I'm happy to say I feel although it took plenty of time and effort I managed somehow to disabuse you of that silly an inaccurate notion. I feel that the record has now been analyzed well enough to assign credit properly to those who were responsible and in a measure that indicates almost precisely what they were responsible for.
"I've been eating turkey for seven frieken days...its affected my grammar....give me a break"
That's funny! :)
Tom
That's not fair or your memory is failing. Tom Macwood was the first, here on GCA, to highlight and accurately analyse the Tillinghast reports on Pine Valley.
-
Tom
Tom me and you were debating the whole PVGC club stuff with Tillie's articles some time before you discovered Finegan's mistake.
-
Tom
Here's maybe the very first thread where the 3 of us debated PVGC:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=12132
It's an interesting read (Tom M first mentions Tillie's articles)
-
"Tom
Tom me and you were debating the whole PVGC club stuff with Tillie's articles some time before you discovered Finegan's mistake."
I'm not the best at remembering how much time has gone by Paul, but I don't think so. I read Jim's book as soon as it came out and realized that mis-analysis of that date on that topo. His book came out in 2000 and that's getting to be six or seven years ago now. I sure don't think that debate we had on here was six years ago. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com didn't even start until the summer of 1999.
I even remember informing Jim of the old alternate fairway on #17 that I believe GeoffShac and Ben Crenshaw both were the first to realize perhaps within two weeks of one another and ironically totally independent of one another. I remember Jim saying: "Now you tell me just months after the book went to press".
As I'm sure you couldn't possibly miss, Tom MacWood and I have a lot of issues on a number of subjects and he doesn't hesitate to criticize me as not being particularly interested in research. So, I'm sure you can understand that about the last thing I'm going to do is ever let him try to take credit for research that was mine and my discovery and particularly about Pine Valley.
What he knows about the details of the creation of that course was from material I gave you and you gave to him. There was no one else out there that I know of who had anything from PV's archives before Jim Finegan, Gil Hanse and me. If there is someone else I don't have any idea who it might be. And I know neither of you two got anything from Gil or Jim. And without info from those archives there is not real way the creation or who did what and when on that golf course could be understood.
And of course, not to overlook the inevitable fact that no one can truly understand the creation of the details of a golf course without knowing the actual golf course. By that I mean going to a course and completely familiarizing oneself with all the details of it. I think I remember the first time you went to PV and the second time. And once again, Pine Valley is another significant course Tom MacWood has all kinds of opinions about and another one he has never been to, never seen at all.
If I do anything on this website vis-a-vis Tom MacWood it's going to continue to be to reiterate the importance of the fact that he just can never pass himself off as all that informed about any golf course he has never even been to.
-
Tom
Please read the thread in the link above (all of it).
(Tom's instincts were correct)
-
"Tom
Please read the thread in the link above (all of it).
(Tom's instincts were correct)"
Paul:
I did read it---all of it, and carefully.
Thanks a lot for finding that thread. I know I couldn't.
I don't think you quite understand a few things about that thread back then. You should read it again carefully.
Tom MacWood may've been the first to mention Tillinghast's articles on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on that thread but if you will notice that very long thread of mine before Tom MacWood ever arrived on that thread I explained what I knew before that of how the design of the course and various holes began to come into being. There is no concievable way that anyone could know that without being totally familiar with all Tillinghast's articles and by that I mean John Arthur Brown, Warren Shelley, Jim Finegan and me.
I may not have mentioned Tillinghast's articles on that thread but I was completely familiar with all of them way before that thread or there is no way at all I could have said what I did. Many references to those articles of Tillinghast's were in Shelley's and Finegan's books anyway which I had and had read quite some time before that thread. And I recall getting all those articles from the Tillinghast Society and its guys.
So be careful who you assign credit too for various things, particularly about Pine Valley.
If you will notice Tom MacWood didn't know much about Pine Valley at that time and you can tell from his posts he didn't have any of that material I eventually gave you and you gave him.
Again, thanks for finding that thread. It was over five years ago---amazing, time flies. It was pretty good, don't you think? We sure were more civil then. I'm impressed with the info and the chronicle of events on that thread. It should be cut and pasted somewhere. Those may have been our finest hours on here.
But I will tell you something else. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about Pine Valley that I've ever learned from Tom MacWood but I did learn a thing or so about the creation of it from you after I gave you that material.That overlay you once did of the two topo routings did show how the 17th hole got interestingly shifted slightly to the right.
Good show Paul, and good night.
-
Dave:
Your post #331 is terrific, and it's got humor, thank God. Keep it up with your interrogation of this sham MacWood. Perhaps someday he will learn to really engage and get real on these discussions. As for Moriarty, I wouldn't waste my time, if I were you, he's become a hopeless case of cyclical hissy fit irrationality. ;)
-
DE
American Golfer is a puff-piece rag the equivalent of People magazine? I see. This after skimming one or two issues? Hmm.
I don't see Walter Travis or Tilly or Henry Leach writing for People magazine, but who knows, maybe you're on to something.
Perhaps we should write off Tilly's accounts of how PV evolved as heresay, drivel and useless.
What's funny, Tom, is that I'd read dozens and dozens of articles written for that magazine by serious guys like Travis and Tillie and always figured the magazine for serious stuff. But I guess that's because I always just read the serious articles.
Serious articles? I prefer puff.
But in reality, when you read garbage like the stuff I read today (it was actually after finding out you can read and search the magazine on the internet from both the USGA and the AAFLA), I got a flavor for the rest of the magazine, and the rest of it is drivel, for example this "Lochnivar" who wrote about the Western US. It reads like the Suze column in the Post or Sneed in the Tribune. Sorry, but that's the truth.
Thats fine, no one is forcing you to read the stuff. I reckon I'm not the only one who has been facinated by that drivel...Dan Wexner, Geoff Shackelford, George Bahto, Tommy N, Phil the Author, Wayne Morrison, Bob Crosby, TE Paul, Paul Turner, Sean Tully, etc. Etc.
The point, however, is that searching a magazine on the internet from the comfort of your den should not be mistaken for SERIOUS, REAL, PAINSTAKING research. It's a starting point at best.
Thanks for sharing your researching advice.
Citing American Golfer as the truth of the early 20th century golfing world is the equivalent of citing Playboy as the truth of the late 20th century male world just because it's got the occasional good, serious, well-reasoned article - or so I'm told. ;)
Playboy? You said you only read serious magazine articles...Praise Hadji!
-
"Citing American Golfer as the truth of the early 20th century golfing world is the equivalent of citing Playboy as the truth of the late 20th century male world just because it's got the occasional good, serious, well-reasoned article - or so I'm told.
Playboy? You said you only read serious magazine articles...praise hadji!"
Come on MacWood, if anything you've got a helluva imagination. Compare and contrast the early days of American Golfer and Playboy magazine. I'd say both pioneered getting down, getting naked and getting natural, wouldn't you? ;)
-
Wayne Morrisson,
With respect to the 3rd hole at Merion being categorized as a Redan, I think that's nothing more than a generalization.
A categorization of convenience.
Whom, in early American golf had a thorough grasp of architecture ?
Certainly not the general public.
But, catchwords, especially if they used of the names of template holes, brought with them instant recognition in terms of general golfing concepts
The 3rd at Merion doesn't FUNCTION like a Redan.
It has few of the playing characteristics or interrelated qualities of a redan.
As an old teacher said, "all collies are dogs, but all dogs aren't collies", and the tendency on the part of some is to see a hole that remotely resembles one of the famous template holes and immediately annoint it as being one and the same, despite the fact that it lacks critical features or the playing function assoaciated with that "true" template hole.
We had SPDB declaring that any hole with "SOME" blindness and a crossing bunker qualifies as an "Alps" hole.
Yet, the 16th, 17th and 8th holes at NGLA all have those features, but, MacDonald designed and named them and we know them as the Punchbowl, Peconic (Leven) and The Bottle hole. None of them have ever been called or categorized as "Alps" holes. But, had SPDB written an article for a golf publication in 1916, 1924 or 1930, and used HIS definition, wouldn't the reader, the non-knowlegeable general public been misinformed and misled ?
And, wouldn't Tom MacWood, Dave Moriarty or any of us be incorrect if we cited that article as proof positive of the existance of an "Alps" hole ?
Instead of discussing # 10 at Merion, if we were discussing either # 16 or # 17 at NGLA couldn't one cite SPDB's article as proof positive that those holes were "Alps" holes ?
So, again, I think you have to discount the written word in the face of the physical evidence. And, you have to remind yourselves that the American public knew very little about golf and that it was easier to lump a hole into a catchall, recognizable phrase than it was to explain it's complicated architectural configuration and playability in detail.
If one wanted to say that a hole had some features or looks that resembled those found on a template hole, I don't think that anyone could fault them for making that inference.
But, to absolutely declare and categorize holes whose design is clearly removed from the originals or benchmarks, as "true" templates is beyond stretching the understanding and definition of the template holes.
In many of the early writings, It would seem that the categorization was more a matter of convenience in communication, since the mention of the template hole would draw "name" recognition and a basic understanding of what the general look and play of the hole was like.
To rely on some of the earlier pronouncements rather than the actual detailed configuration of the holes is an error.
The physical properties should outweigh the rhetoric.
I don't mean to employ overkill, but, when Ross is quoted as stating that Seminole was flat, anyone who's ever been to Seminole knows that that description is grossly inaccurate, that the configuration of the land is quite the opposite.
I suspect that Ross's alleged quote was taken out of context by the writer/editor. If Ross made this statement, I'll guarantee you that he was talking about the centercut of the property, starting at the left side of the 12th fairway and heading directly south until he reached the right side of the 9th fairway, along with the waterway that winds its way through that midsection, effectively providing a drainage channel that empties the golf course and itself on the southern border.
First and foremost, one must personally observe and analyze the land in question, and that physical analysis must take precendence over the written word of yesteryear.
Healthy debate usually produces enlightenment, and that's a good thing.
-
Tom Paul, you said, "Compare and contrast the early days of American Golfer and Playboy magazine. I'd say both pioneered getting down, getting naked and getting natural, wouldn't you?"
Unfortunately the only leg garters and stockings to be found in the early issues of the American Golfer and Golf Illustrated were those for and modeled by men! ;D
-
Amongst all the mud-slinging I'm still perplexed about the real story on the length of #10 and Bobby Jones' 300 yard drives. So, herewith a dispassionate, neutral look at the various information provided in one sub-thread of this debate. It's based on the assumption that Google accurately measures distances (at least within a yard or two).
Wayne Morrison said: "Today the hole is measured as 310 yards". In the following picture I have used Google to measure it as it stands. From the front of the back tee I get it as 315 yards on the line shown. I don't know where the 310 yard tee block is, but it appears to be reasonably close to reality.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5990_1024.ts1164939700061.jpg)
Wayne Morrison also said: "If you could think clearly, I said that from the 1916 tee it was 291 yards to the road. The measurement you see in the 1930 Jones photograph was from a different tee, approximately 30 yards behind the 1916 tee."
On the following picture I have superimposed the 1930 Jones aerial on the current layout. The Golf Illustrated graphic seems to indicate that Jones drove from the middle of what appear to be three current tee blocks.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5992_1024.ts1164947551468.jpg)
Wayne indicates that it should be 321 yards (291+30) to the road from where Jones drove the ball. I have superimposed a blue line of 321 yards from the road down the line of the fairway to the tee. It requires going back to the back of the back tee to get 321 yards out of it. Wayne, is that where you measured it from? The Golf Illustrated graphic you posted seems to suggest Jones drove from the middle tee, not the back one.
Assuming that Golf Illustrated accurately located the teeing area, I have used the middle teeing ground to measure 200 and 300 yards from that (red) point. I've marked the 200 and 300 yard points with white blobs. The Golf Illustrated 200 and 300 yard notations are a good 20 to 30 yards too short. Perhaps the graphic artist took a little too much artistic freedom in placing them on the picture.
I've used the Google ruler to measure from the presumed teeing ground to a (red) point near the shorter of the two Jones' drives. It measures to 254 yards or so.
So, what are the conclusions?
a) The GI artist placed the 200 and 300 yard text too close to the tee?
b) The GI artist placed the teeing ground erroneously on the middle teeing ground and it should really have been on the back tee?
c) There was another tee 25 yards further back than the current back tee?
In either case a) or b) the drives were not 300 yards. If the middle teeing ground is correct, then the drives were 250 -260. If Jones really used the current back tee, then the drives were 265 to 275.
Given these measurements, it's hard to fathom the hole playing at 385 or even 350 in 1916. Given the green's juxtapostion to the road and the tee apparently being 291 yards to the road (according to Wayne) it's hard to see the hole at anything more than 320 to 330 yards to the middle of the green (unless the green was super deep.
As a further check that Google ruler doesn't distort Philadelphia area distances, I measured the foul lines at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia. It's symetrical at 327 feet down each each foul line. Any ball fans out there who can confirm that?
-
"Tom
Please read the thread in the link above (all of it).
(Tom's instincts were correct)"
Paul:
I did read it---all of it, and carefully.
Thanks a lot for finding that thread. I know I couldn't.
I don't think you quite understand a few things about that thread back then. You should read it again carefully.
Tom MacWood may've been the first to mention Tillinghast's articles on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com on that thread but if you will notice that very long thread of mine before Tom MacWood ever arrived on that thread I explained what I knew before that of how the design of the course and various holes began to come into being. There is no concievable way that anyone could know that without being totally familiar with all Tillinghast's articles and by that I mean John Arthur Brown, Warren Shelley, Jim Finegan and me.
I may not have mentioned Tillinghast's articles on that thread but I was completely familiar with all of them way before that thread or there is no way at all I could have said what I did. Many references to those articles of Tillinghast's were in Shelley's and Finegan's books anyway which I had and had read quite some time before that thread. And I recall getting all those articles from the Tillinghast Society and its guys.
So be careful who you assign credit too for various things, particularly about Pine Valley.
If you will notice Tom MacWood didn't know much about Pine Valley at that time and you can tell from his posts he didn't have any of that material I eventually gave you and you gave him.
Again, thanks for finding that thread. It was over five years ago---amazing, time flies. It was pretty good, don't you think? We sure were more civil then. I'm impressed with the info and the chronicle of events on that thread. It should be cut and pasted somewhere. Those may have been our finest hours on here.
But I will tell you something else. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about Pine Valley that I've ever learned from Tom MacWood but I did learn a thing or so about the creation of it from you after I gave you that material.That overlay you once did of the two topo routings did show how the 17th hole got interestingly shifted slightly to the right.
Good show Paul, and good night.
Tom
You're right the tone was much better. An you can see that we were debating this before you took a closer look ar the topo map and the blue/red lines.
None of the Pine Valley history books were analysing the early Tillie reports correctly i.e. fitting them in with what Colt did. Tom Macwood was the first to start analysing them correctly because his instincts were correct that Finegan's analysis didn't fit with Tillie's report.
Which is why I thought you were being unfair to Tom in the comments above
-
DESchmidt,
That's been my contention for some time.
You cannot acccept, as infallible, quotes from publications, without confirming them through multiple sources.
Even when architects are quoted, the authenticity and/or accuracy of their alleged statements have to be questioned and reconfirmed.
Exhibit "A" in my position is the alleged quote by Ross that Seminole is flat. The FACTS contradict and prove that the alleged quote is false, totally fictitious, or more likely, incomplete and taken out of context at best.
100 years from now, when golfers read that the Trump courses were the best courses in Florida and New York, should they accept those pronouncements as The Gospel.
-
Bryan Izatt,
Hole measurements are done from the tee, down the centerline of the fairway, to a pivot point, and from that pivot point to the middle of the putting surface, and not outside of the fairway lines to an arbitrary turning point within the fairway.
If you measure the hole that way, you'll come into conformance with the score card measurements
-
Bryan Izatt,
Thanks for sharing your research.
I've looked at Google Earth and I've looked at the Merion yardage book.
From the middle tees, I'm seeing 253 yards to the middle of the last bunker on the right (which was recently removed but still visible on Google earth as dark shading). From the center of the fairway there, it is 55 yards to the center of the green, or roughly the 310 yards the hole is measured at. The back tee, which goes all the way back to the fence and property line, adds 19 yards according to the book, making it 272 to the center of the last abandoned bunker, and making the hole play about 330 at max.
From the middle tee, it appears to be about 300 to the road, on a straight line to where the old 10th green would be, which would make the measurement of the old 10th about 330, not 385 (I'm not sure where this yardage came from during this discussion?), if the middle tee was used. If the back tee was used, it would be around 350, but to Patrick's point, if the hole was a slight dogleg right, it would probably add 10 or so yards.
The Philadelphia Ledger in 1916 called it 365, which if one accounts for the slight dogleg right is probably within reason if the present back tee was used.
What's more interesting to me is their description, however. My online copy is blurry, so I may not get every word right, but this is what it looks like to me;
Hole 10 - 365 yards - Drive and pitch. The tee is up in the woods and is elevated. A long straight drive will give the player an easy pitch over Ardmore Ave. to the green.
This hardly sounds like a daunting Alps hole as has been described. I'm sure a poor drive would have left the player with a blind shot, and probably the high front edge of the fronting bunker made the shot at least partially blind from the top of the hill, but I think the term "easy pitch" is very different than what I think of when I think of the approach to the Alps hole at NGLA.
-
Bryan Izatt,
Hole measurements are done from the tee, down the centerline of the fairway, to a pivot point, and from that pivot point to the middle of the putting surface, and not outside of the fairway lines to an arbitrary turning point within the fairway.
If you measure the hole that way, you'll come into conformance with the score card measurements
Patrick,
I understand that's the way you're supposed to do it. For holes that swing like Merion #10 though, there are multiple turning points if you follow the centreline of the fairway. Are you suggesting that yardages are measured on #10 as below or as in the previous aerial I posted? Since I've not had the pleasure of playing Merion, could you clarify for me where the 310 yard monument is located?
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5994_1024.ts1164987067889.jpg)
And, do you know who did the scorecard measurements for Merion? Were they done by the architect? The greens committee? The super? The local golf association? How did they measure them?
My experience at many courses is that distances on scorecards are inflated, based on using the back edge of tee blocks and using roundabout routings to turning points that nobody ever plays.
-
Bryan,
Please see my post above. I think it's consistent and clears up some questions about the hole both today and in 1916.
-
Bryan Izatt,
Thanks for sharing your research.
I've looked at Google Earth and I've looked at the Merion yardage book.
From the middle tees, I'm seeing 253 yards to the middle of the last bunker on the right (which was recently removed but still visible on Google earth as dark shading). Looks like that to me from the front of the middle tee. From the center of the fairway there, it is 55 yards to the center of the green, or roughly the 310 yards the hole is measured at. It would be maybe 5 yards less than that to the middle of the fairway, rather than the middle of the bunker, but that's probably immaterial. Depends on where the actual 310 yard monument is on the tee too. The back tee, which goes all the way back to the fence and property line, adds 19 yards according to the book, making it 272 to the center of the last abandoned bunker, and making the hole play about 330 at max Looks reasonable based on the Google measurements .
From the middle tee, it appears to be about 300 (Yes, on a line from the middle of the middle tee bisecting the two fairway bunkers) to the road, on a straight line to where the old 10th green would be, which would make the measurement of the old 10th about 330, not 385 (I'm not sure where this yardage came from during this discussion?), if the middle tee was used. If the back tee was used, it would be around 350, but to Patrick's point, if the hole was a slight dogleg right, it would probably add 10 or so yards. The road is maybe 10 yards wide. From the initial photos (and the reference to a 40 foot putt) I would guesstimate the green to be 30 yards deep (so add 15 yards to the hole length to the middle of the green). Also from the photos (although the perspective is difficult to guage) I'd guess that it's maybe 30 yards (equal to the depth of the green) from the edge of the road to the edge of the green. I doubt that a slight dogleg would add 10 yards. Trig would suggest maybe less than 5 yards for a slight dogleg. Add it all up (300 + 10 + 30 + 15 +5) and it looks like 360 +/-. IIRC, many pages ago in the thread, was there not a comment that the 1916 tee was between the current front and middle tees? If so you'd have to deduct some yardage for that.
The Philadelphia Ledger in 1916 called it 365, (360? 365?? Pretty darn close.) which if one accounts for the slight dogleg right is probably within reason if the present back tee was used.
What's more interesting to me is their description, however. My online copy is blurry, so I may not get every word right, but this is what it looks like to me;
Hole 10 - 365 yards - Drive and pitch. The tee is up in the woods and is elevated. A long straight drive will give the player an easy pitch over Ardmore Ave. to the green.
This hardly sounds like a daunting Alps hole as has been described. I'm sure a poor drive would have left the player with a blind shot, and probably the high front edge of the fronting bunker made the shot at least partially blind from the top of the hill, but I think the term "easy pitch" is very different than what I think of when I think of the approach to the Alps hole at NGLA.
Without opening the can of worms on average driving distance vs Bobby Jones 300 yard bombs, if the average drive was 250 then it would be an "easy" 100 yard pitch with not much blindness evident. Doesn't sound too daunting. I'm not familiar with NGLA's Alps hole. Is it longer, creating something more than an "easy pitch"? Or is the rise and rampart significantly higher? In any event, I'm not sure for the pros of that day, or certainly currently, that such a shot would be very daunting.
-
Bryan,
Thanks for the leg work.
Your measurements exactly correspond to mine, so thanks as well for the confirmation.
Mike Cirba,
If we are to trust the shot marks on the 1930 Jones shot chart, then the tee used in the 1930 Open was the current middle tee. See Bryan's overlay above or my overlay a few pages back.
I've said this a number of times, and given that I have not been called a liar, an idiot, or a twit for specifically saying so, I trust that Msrs. Morrison or Paul do not disagree with this. From the middle of the middle tee it is about 286 yards to the road in a straight-line directly over the middle of the green.
-
I hate to get in the middle of this dispute
but
Distance measurements are dependent on the methods used. Google Earth and a standard laser rangefinder will measure distance as the crow flies from point to point without regard to terrain.
Am I correct in assuming that prior to the advent of these wonderful technologies many measurements were made using a wheel of a known diameter and a counter that measured the number of revolutions from point to point?
The tee on #10 at Merion is high above the fairway and then the fairway rises up again to the level of the left fairway bunker. That to my mind would add a reasonable amount of distance to the hole should it have been originally measured with a wheel type device.
Just a thought.
-
Geoff,
Good question as to how they used to measure it. I'd have assumed using surveying equipment during the construction phase. I can't imagine using a wheel. Where are the historians?
-
David,
You're welcome.
In deference to Messrs Paul and Morrison, I don't think they were talking about measuring on a straight line from middle tee over the centre of the green. The fairway is to the right and the original green was to the right of that. Along that line their numbers are right.
Given the erroneous positioning of the 200 and 300 markers in the GI graphic, I'd also be prepared to accept that they got the teeing location wrong too. If Jones used the back tee, then his drives are in the 280 range. Not quite 300, but outstanding for the times.
For whatever it's worth, the GI chart for the 8th hole showing two drives greater than 300 yards appears to be pretty accurate.
-
Without opening the can of worms on average driving distance vs Bobby Jones 300 yard bombs, if the average drive was 250 then it would be an "easy" 100 yard pitch with not much blindness evident. Doesn't sound too daunting. I'm not familiar with NGLA's Alps hole. Is it longer, creating something more than an "easy pitch"? Or is the rise and rampart significantly higher? In any event, I'm not sure for the pros of that day, or certainly currently, that such a shot would be very daunting.
Bryan, keep in mind that the Jones drives were in 1930, not 1916, and that the Jones drives were the stuff of legends, and so were probably quite aways past everyone else, even though they were only around 255-260 yards. I think it way too much to assume a 250 yard average for drives for the old hole, many years earlier. (I dont know what Jones was playing, but weren't steel shafts legal and being used commonly before 1930?)
In MacDonald's book, he describes a 1919 test done by a handful of top players on a couple plays of 5 different holes featuring a variety of slopes and wind conditions, and the average drive for the group was 228 yards. Given that Merion 10 played significantly uphill from where the 1916 tee has been described, the drives may have even been shorter.
In fact if I recall my reading correctly, in the 1916 championship match at least one of the two finalists ended up in the right fairway bunker, and had to lay up short of the road on his second. If the second right fairway bunker was there then (I have no idea) this drive traveled no more than 200 yards. If he was in the current first fairway bunker, then the drive was no more than 170 yards. These both sound like short drives even for hickories, but with hickories, golfers generally relied upon more roll, and roll would be more difficult hitting into an uphill slope.
_________________________
Geoffrey, they were educated men, so it seems odd to me that they wouldn't be able to figure this out. My guess is that for whatever reason, the hole distance was overestimated before the tournament, then the magazine people just worked backwards from the center of the green. The hype around Jones' ability probably didnt increase their objectivity much.
Whatever they did, they were way off.
-
David
Who were educated men?
The distances measured depend on the methods used. Does anyone know exactly how distances were determined on a golf course in 1916 or 1930? The elevation changes could account for the discrepancies.
-
David,
The 10th at Merion doesn't really play significantly uphill due to the elevated tee. I think you mentioned the green being 15 feet higher than the tee, which isn't very much, and that feels about right.
The newspaper accounts from 1916 called it an easy pitch after a long, straight drive. My sense is that most of the competitors had no more than about 120 yards tops for the second shot.
Bryan,
The Alps hole at NGLA is 430 yards, with a second shot seemingly crossing a mountain to a completely blind green in the distance. When I played there last I hit a very good drive, and a 4-iron second shot, which I pulled a bit and ended up hole high.
I can't even imagine reaching it in two with hickories, although it likely played a bit shorter back then, as well.
In any case, I can't imagine anyone ever calling that second shot an "easy pitch".
-
I've said this a number of times, and given that I have not been called a liar, an idiot, or a twit for specifically saying so, I trust that Msrs. Morrison or Paul do not disagree with this. From the middle of the middle tee it is about 286 yards to the road in a straight-line directly over the middle of the green."
David Moriarty:
You trust that Msrs Morrison and Paul do not disagree with what?
Are you still talking about how long Jones's drive was in 1930 and if so why are you still talking about that?
That entire issue is about the most trivially boring issue imaginable and so I ask again, why are you still wasting so much time on that?
Are you still trying to prove Wayne Morrison and me wrong about something or that we may disagree on something? If it's never occured to you Wayne Morrison and I certainly don't agree on everythng. What would give you that odd notion?
Or maybe you're still trying to figure out the 10th hole at Merion, either old or new. If so, knock yourself out, maybe you'll figure it out someday and maybe you won't. As for Wayne and I we've been familiar with that hole, old and new for years.
By the way, about 4-5 pages ago I reminded you that today all holes are measured down the center line of the fairway and if they bend then obviously flying the ball directly at the hole is not as long as the hole may indicate. Now, whether they did it that way in 1930, I can't really say, but it sure wouldn't surprise me.
But again, if you want to know the exact distance from any tee on that hole to any point it's no problem at all to figure that out. All we need to do is what everyone does today---eg just take out a laser rangefinder and shoot it.
But why should a simple solution like that stop you from arguing for about ten pages over a trivial point such as how far various points on that hole are or how far Jones's drive was in 1930? ;)
Originally you mentioned that this excercise was so you could understand this hole better. I suggest you just come here and look at it, as we have for years, and you'd probably understand everything about it just fine.
-
In deference to Messrs Paul and Morrison, I don't think they were talking about measuring on a straight line from middle tee over the centre of the green. The fairway is to the right and the original green was to the right of that. Along that line their numbers are right.
Here is what Mr. Morrison said on the issue:
[From the 1916 tee to the road I get a straight line measurement of 291 yards. From the current back tee (where Jones played in 1930) the distance is 300 yards to the spot marked on the Golf Illustrated photos. It is clear to me that under dry and fast conditions, prevalent throughout the year, that the best players of the 1916 era would have been able to come pretty close to the road.]
He had previously said the 1916 tee was between the front and middle tees, which I assumed was about where the path came up, a spot closer than 291 yards to the road. So, in deference, I assumed that he must have meant 291 yards from the middle tee (the only place his claimed measure makes sense.) His response?
[Professor Moriarty,
You are an idiot. . . . If you could think clearly, I said that from the 1916 tee it was 291 yards to the road. The measurement you see in the 1930 Jones photograph was from a different tee, approximately 30 yards behind the 1916 tee. This may give you some idea why your are so infuriating. You are dense, poor in analytical skills, full of yourself yet with a sense of being a victim, emotional to the point of losing objectivity and your are boring. Those are bad traits to have individually. Combined, they make me want to ignore you completely. I shall.
Yardage BS aside, let us not lose sight of your other failings. Your hypothesis is a rehash of well established knowledge. Your original findings are full of contradictions.] (my bolds added.)
So, cutting through the vitriol, Mr. Morrison claims he measured 291 yards from the 1916 tee to the road, and that the Jones measures are correct at 300 yards. Go figure.
Curiously, some of Mr. Morrison's past posts seem to be missing.
I am not sure we have any reason to doubt the actual shot markings on the 1930 shot chart. That would be a relatively simple matter. It is the measures of those markings that are extremely off, at least on the 10th hole.
______________________
Mike: From the place Mr. Morrison has identified as the 1916 tee, there is closer to 25 or 30 foot elevation change (according to the USGS application). Surely 25 or 35 feet elevation change is significant, especially with low flying hickories.
The NYTimes describes the shot as a long, high pitch and makes it sound none too easy. It also lists the hole at 385 yards, a distance which is consistent with at least two other sources I have read online (one by Tillie, I think.) Is it possible that the blurriness of your article is making the '8' a '6?'
____________________
Geoffrey. You could be right, but not sure if this accounts for a 40+ yard mistake. I think it just as likely that they measured back from the green, discounting the dogleg. (This happens all the time on tv today.) Or they mis-measured some other way.
That being said, I am not sure it matters why they were off, they were certainly very off.
-
Mike,
Here is the elevation profile superimposed over the google aerial, Note that the 1916 would have been quite a bit lower elevation, so that the drives would have looked much more like one was hitting into the side of the hill.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/crosssectionMerion10.jpg?t=1164995666)
-
David,
I'm at work and the browser doesn't let me see certain images, so unfortunately I can't see what you're talking about at present.
From the sounds of the 1916 description, which talks about the elevated tee on 10, I'm guessing it was pretty close to either the middle or back tee today.
As far as the yardage, the blurriness may be an 8 instead of a 6, but I don't think so. I can't imagine anyone calling a 385 yard hole a drive and pitch in 1916 unless it went significantly downhill. Even at 365 that's a stretch, so I'm more inclined to believe the hole was actually around 350.
If the hole was in fact 385 yards, then there is no way that the current tee was being used. It is simply not possible to go back further along the same line of play, and the tee would have had to be lower and to the right.
However, looking at the not particularly detailed map I have of the 1916 course, it looks to be about where it is right now, at least on that line in relation to the 9th green, etc.
So, my best guess for 1916 is an elevated tee probably just short of today's back tee, and a hole that curved slightly right. Good drives would get to the top of the hill and have about 90-120 yards in, and others would have a bit more of a challenge.
-
Mike,
Thanks for the description of the NGLA Alps hole. No, it doesn't sound like an easy pitch (except maybe for today's tour pros). On the other hand a 100 to 125 yard shot to 1916 version of Merion's 10th sounds like it may well have been an easy pitch.
-
For my own edification, is this what the 1916 version of the 10th would have looked like? Or would the faiway and bunkers have been slightly more to the left, and the tee to the right, to create a slightly more left to right movement in the hole, as per the schematic.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5996_1024.ts1165013197249.jpg)
-
From the middle tees, I'm seeing 253 yards to the middle of the last bunker on the right (which was recently removed but still visible on Google earth as dark shading). From the center of the fairway there, it is 55 yards to the center of the green, or roughly the 310 yards the hole is measured at. The back tee, which goes all the way back to the fence and property line, adds 19 yards according to the book, making it 272 to the center of the last abandoned bunker, and making the hole play about 330 at max.
From the middle tee, it appears to be about 300 to the road, on a straight line to where the old 10th green would be, which would make the measurement of the old 10th about 330, not 385 (I'm not sure where this yardage came from during this discussion?), if the middle tee was used. If the back tee was used, it would be around 350, but to Patrick's point, if the hole was a slight dogleg right, it would probably add 10 or so yards.
The Philadelphia Ledger in 1916 called it 365, which if one accounts for the slight dogleg right is probably within reason if the present back tee was used.
What's more interesting to me is their description, however. My online copy is blurry, so I may not get every word right, but this is what it looks like to me;
Hole 10 - 365 yards - Drive and pitch. The tee is up in the woods and is elevated. A long straight drive will give the player an easy pitch over Ardmore Ave. to the green.
This hardly sounds like a daunting Alps hole as has been described. I'm sure a poor drive would have left the player with a blind shot, and probably the high front edge of the fronting bunker made the shot at least partially blind from the top of the hill, but I think the term "easy pitch" is very different than what I think of when I think of the approach to the Alps hole at NGLA.
Mike Cirba,
I"m glad that you're finally coming around to my way of thinking.
What took you so long ? ;D
-
Patrick,
I understand that's the way you're supposed to do it.
For holes that swing like Merion #10 though, there are multiple turning points if you follow the centreline of the fairway.
No, there aren't.
That's just your interpretation on this hole[/color]
Are you suggesting that yardages are measured on #10 as below or as in the previous aerial I posted?
Neither[/color]
Since I've not had the pleasure of playing Merion, could you clarify for me where the 310 yard monument is located?
I'd have to go on site to get it's exact location.[/color]
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5994_1024.ts1164987067889.jpg)
And, do you know who did the scorecard measurements for Merion? Were they done by the architect? The greens committee? The super? The local golf association? How did they measure them?
It's my understanding that they're lasered.
And, it's the club, not the associations that do the measuring.[/color]
My experience at many courses is that distances on scorecards are inflated, based on using the back edge of tee blocks and using roundabout routings to turning points that nobody ever plays.
That's an entirely different issue..
Holes, especially doglegs are not measured by the straightest distance between two points as you allude to.
Have you ever seen a measurement of the 18th at Pebble Beach were the distance is from tee to green and based on the golfers ability to obtain scuba gear ? [/color]
-
From the sounds of the 1916 description, which talks about the elevated tee on 10, I'm guessing it was pretty close to either the middle or back tee today.
Mike, From the description I thought this as well, but I was politely ::) informed that the actual 1916 tee was quite a bit further forward. '30 yards in front of where Jones played from' was the most recent description I think. I think I recall that Mr. Morrison saying that the back tee wasnt even part of the property in 1916 . . . but that may be hard to verify as his posts are mysteriously vanishing.
As far as the yardage, the blurriness may be an 8 instead of a 6, but I don't think so. I can't imagine anyone calling a 385 yard hole a drive and pitch in 1916 unless it went significantly downhill. Even at 365 that's a stretch, so I'm more inclined to believe the hole was actually around 350.
Whatever the hole actually played, I am pretty certain that it was usually was listed as 385. At least Tillie, Travis, and the NYTimes all listed it as 385.
If the hole was in fact 385 yards, then there is no way that the current tee was being used. It is simply not possible to go back further along the same line of play, and the tee would have had to be lower and to the right.
I dont have Geoff's aerial here, so I am taking people's word for it with where the tee plays, but take another look at the flynn sketch and you will see that his major angles (fairway in relation to road and dogleg in relation to the road ) are way off. I am surprised he could be so far off even in a sketch.
So, my best guess for 1916 is an elevated tee probably just short of today's back tee, and a hole that curved slightly right.
Say this at your peril. Beware of the wrath of Morrison.
Good drives would get to the top of the hill and have about 90-120 yards in, and others would have a bit more of a challenge.
I am just not so sure that drives would consistently get to the top. Surely those bunkers were in play at some point in the hole's existence.
___________________________
So far, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Jones played from the back tees in 1930s, much less the 1916 golfers. The shot chart is right at the front of the middle tee.
Perhaps you guys are correct, but as of now the only evidence I have seen is the shot chart. Is there any basis for dismissing the points on the shot chart? (We had good reason to throw away the distances, not sure we do for the locations of the shots.) What about additional evidence? What year did Merion build the back tee? What year did they aquire the additional land? Is the back tee there in the 1924 Aerial? It sure doesnt look like it is in the 1930 magazine photo.
-
Mike Cirba,
I agree with you.
I dont think there's enough real estate there to get the hole to play to 365, let alone 385.
And, I have my doubts about the elevation changes from the mid-point between the front of the fairway bunkers the point 30 yards shy of Ardmore Ave.
Perhaps Wayne could shoot the elevations for us at some point.
-
Patrick,
Seems neither of my turning point approaches is to your satisfaction. Care to suggest where you think the turning point is? Is there a rule documented somewhere that you could point me to that defines how you determine the turning point?
In any event from a total yardage perspective, it's pretty much immaterial where the turning point is on this hole, unless you run the drive line out to the right edge of the fairway.
The two methods I've shown give pretty much the same number. I tried one with a drive line that bisects the fairway bunkers and turns when that line starts to leave the centreline of the fairway. The approach shot cuts the corner and skirts the left greeside bunker. Guess what! It makes a 2 yard difference in total distance. So, what is the point?
-
Patrick,
As for the elevation change, Flynn's sketch indicates that the hole leveled about 250 yards from the tee. Adjusting slightly for their yardage mistakes, this looks to be about the place the hole levels on the elevation profile.
As for 385 yds or 365 yds I doubt the hole played either. And I doubt we'll know how they measured to get some of these absurd distances. But I really dont think either of these things matters much at all. It seems like the more important questions are:
What was the actual layout of the hole? (length, tee location, green location, bunkers, fairway lines, size and location of breastworks, ramparts, trenches, etc. . . )
. . . and . . .
How did the hole play?
______________________________
Bryan and Mike, you guys both think the hole played from the current backs in 1930 and in 1916. I still dont see evidence for either conclusion.
Here is a slightly blown up version of the 1930 shot chart. I've lightened the approximate spot where the back tee is now located (based on the overlay I did earlier.) It sure looks like bushes and trees to me. Bryan you can check the same thing out on your overlay, I would think.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Merion1930-Hole-10-back-tee.jpg?t=1165095433)
Mr. Morrison said the same thing as you guys regarding the 1930 tee, but also said the 1916 tee was 30 yards in front of that, so why dont one of you ask him why he thinks so? I would, but I am too much of an idiot for him to answer me.
-
The tees were between the current forward tee and the middle tee. The yardages back then are not reliable. I think the playing distance was very similar to what it is today, about 350 yards using the measuring tool with Google Earth and the 1916 Flynn drawing. It was a slight dogleg right.
The tee shot was not to a low spot in the valley; the carry and roll to the top of the hill was just over 200 yards. Once at the top of the valley, there is only a very slight elevation change to Ardmore Avenue. The elevation on the other side of Ardmore Avenue is the same as that south of Ardmore Ave.
John,
The club did not own the land all the way back to the present back tee. It owned up to the midpoint between the current forward tee and the middle tee. It may have gone up into the woods, but not as far as today. I do not think the actual yardage was 385, more like 350.
I went back through this thread somewhat masochistically.
I believe the heart of the problem is simply this;
The yardage reported for the 10th hole at Merion in 1916 was wrong...by a lot.
I'm not sure how it was measured back then, but we can clearly see today with modern technology that they were wrong. The hole played no more than 350 yards, at best, and giving the benefit of the doubt in every respect. And, that was probably to the back of the green.
The approach was likely at least partially blind due to the fronting "ramparts". Driving to the top of the hill from the tee in question was not difficult for top players of that era.
I think it goes back very simply to Lesley's description of the front bunker as being an "Alps like feature". It's very clear the hole had very little else that would have made it look or play anything like the 3rd at NGLA or the 17th at Prestwick.
It's also very clear, using the words of George Bahto, that early golfers in the US used the term Alps very loosely;
"In purest form, a blind approach shot over a high hill. More moderate versions provide a partial glimpse of the target. Most common version positions the green over or at a rise in the fairwa with Alps type bunkering, mostly notably the frontal cross bunker."
I have no further questions.
-
Mike Cirba,
So, would you classify and call the 8th, 16th and 17th holes at NGLA, "Alps" holes ?
-
Mike Cirba,
So, would you classify and call the 8th, 16th and 17th holes at NGLA, "Alps" holes ?
No, of course not Patrick, although perhaps our Mr. Lesley would have referred to the front crossing bunkers on 8 and 16 as "Alps-like". Don't you think?
I think George Bahto makes very clear that the original concept was stretched almost beyond recognition.
-
Patrick,
I understand that by your definition (which I am sure you think is THE definition), the 10th at Merion may not have been an Alps.
Setting aside your definition for a moment, why do you think an impressive handful of men thought differently?
Also, what of the breastworks, trenches and ramparts decribed in the NYTimes Article?
_________________________________
Patrick and Mike C.:
Regarding how the hole played, I still disagree that decent drives easily made it up to the flat. I just read the fairly detailed daily coverage of 1916 Am in the NYTimes, and it sure sounds like those bunkers were very much in play.
There are numerous accounts of drives ending up in both the right and left fairway bunkers on the 10th. For example young Bobby Jones (who reportedly was driving about equal to Gardner, considered one of the longest drivers in the land) was bunkered off the tenth tee multiple times.
Gardner himself was in a fairway bunker on the 10th in the semi's.
A quote from the coverage of Chick Evan's semi-match:
Evans played his first shot on the tenth hole from the tenth tee in the woods, his second from a bunker on the hillside, his third from the fairgreen short of the road, and his fourth from a bunker over the green.
In the final, the momentum of the match was reportedly decided on the 10th, where Gardner reached the green in two but only tied Evans, who:
drove in a bunker played shor of the road on his second, barely staid[sic] on the green on his third, and holed a thirty five foot putt for a par 4.
Note that they refer to the bunker as "on the hillside." Also note that these hillside bunkers were very much in play.
If these are the same bunkers and now, you guys are over-estimating how this hole played.
Also, both you guys both seem to put weight on the use of the word "pitch." But back then didn't "pitch" refer trajectory rather than length, and wasnt it used when one had to hit the ball over something then stop it? For example, I have seen reference to a "full mashie pitch over the lake." Certainly a full mashie pitch isnt a short shot, unless I am hitting it.
-
Newsflash:
DE has never read 'Scotland's Gift Golf'. :)
-
David,
Then it sounds as though one of two things is possible.
1) Players drove it much shorter in 1916 then we imagine. I don't have Google Earth on the computer I'm on right now, but have to imagine that if the tee is where we all think, a drive to carry those bunkers would have been about 200 or so?
2) The 10th tee was somewhere else? If guys were hitting 3 shots to get to this green, then something is amiss. Were they using featheries? ;)
We do know that if they were using a tee on the same line as the present tee, and that if it was somewhere between the middle and front tees, the total hole yardage was 350 at max. We also know the Philly paper called it an "easy pitch", which doesn't sound too daunting, but again, we're talking about news accounts and sometimes they must be taken with a grain of salt.
My own feeling is that it probably was a fairly difficult hole. The pictures of the green seem to indicate that it was severely protected, and very undulating. Still, I can't say that it resembles anything like the 3rd at NGLA in the most basic form. I still think Lesley's point was about the front bunker, and I also think that these were guys who were just learning the game and its lexicon.
All it probably took was for one single person to refer to it as "Alps like", and that was repeated by others.
I also have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Macdonald had anything to do with any hole at Merion, or any communications with Wilson post the 2-day visit.
Until we see something surface to the contrary, I think we're speculating and also over-reaching. To say that Macdonald would not have bragged about his involvement at Merion because others were doing it for him is completely inconsistent with his personality, it seems. NGLA was widely lauded by the golf world, yet he wrote about it extensively. He also wrote extensively about what he did at Piping Rock.
I also don't know what others wrote about his involvement, besides some very vague term of "advisor". What did others say his advisory role entailed besides giving Wilson a tour of NGLA, and advising him on what courses to see in GB?
Is there a single word written by anyone, anywhere, that details anything in the least that happened between the two men after that, or even hints at it? Did Macdonald or Wilson write anything about it? Whigham?
No, instead, I think Wilson was perfectly content to have Macdonald and Whigham listed as advisors, simply because;
1) Having the most famous guy in US golf lent credence and cache to the Merion project.
2) I'm sure Wilson was quite sincerely appreciative of the help given to him by Macdonald in preparing for his trip abroad.
Until some other hard evidence of continued communications and "advise" surfaces, then it's pointless speculation, no matter how we try to piece it together.
-
"But back then didn't "pitch" refer trajectory rather than length, and wasnt it used when one had to hit the ball over something then stop it?"
Yes it did. A "ptich" in those days described an aerial shot. We shouldn't confuse that term the way they used it back then as only something like a wedge, as in a pitiching wedge today.
That's also why we shouldn't fixate on what an "alps" hole means to us today. If we are talking about the description of a hole by people back then all we need to concern ourselves with is what they meant by it and how they used it, not by what we mean by it or how we use it.
There were all kinds of terms in both golf and in the culture back then that we don't use anymore and consequently apparently don't understand very well today.
I hope you all are "in the pink" today. ;)
-
Patrick,
I understand that by your definition (which I am sure you think is THE definition), the 10th at Merion may not have been an Alps.
Setting aside your definition for a moment, why do you think an impressive handful of men thought differently?
Dave,
I'm not sure that anyone really knows what they thought.
And, I don't know that you can count on the written word as being unerringly accurate.
My thoughts are that one could make the case that the hole had some "Alps" like features or resemblences at the green end. But, to call the hole an "Alps" hole, is beyond the stretch that Mike Cirba alludes to.[/color]
Also, what of the breastworks, trenches and ramparts decribed in the NYTimes Article?
As I said, I think the green end was comprised of some features that one could say RESEMBLED some of the features at the 17th at Prestwick or the 3rd at NGLA. But, to call the hole an "Alps" hole is to bastardize the concept.
My guess is that the writers of those articles took editorial license in their descriptions of golf features/holes.
Their is nothing remotely "Alps" like about the topography.
If one stands in the middle of the 11th fairway at NGLA, 250 yards from the tee, the green is totally blind due to a rampart between the golfer and the green. But, that wouldn't cause a prudent person to state that the hole has an "Alps" like flavor to it.
However, if someone had heard of "Alps" holes and been told that the name derives from an intervening landform between the golfer and the green, then I can see the misconception perpetuated through the written word.
And, that's what I think happened at Merion.[/color]
_________________________________
Patrick and Mike C.:
Regarding how the hole played, I still disagree that decent drives easily made it up to the flat. I just read the fairly detailed daily coverage of 1916 Am in the NYTimes, and it sure sounds like those bunkers were very much in play.
Dave,
I think you have to consider a few things.
Ball flight in those days.
Doubt as to the listed yardage.
There's just not enough real estate to get that yardage
No automated irrigation systems.
With low ball flight, from a forward tee, up a hill, I can see how those bunkers could be deemed to be in play.[/color]
There are numerous accounts of drives ending up in both the right and left fairway bunkers on the 10th. For example young Bobby Jones (who reportedly was driving about equal to Gardner, considered one of the longest drivers in the land) was bunkered off the tenth tee multiple times.
The article doesn't address the conditions.
Was the wind in their face ?
Was it raining ?
Was it cool ?
Again, ball flight and the topography from the tee to the fairway could have a lot to do with it.[/color]
Gardner himself was in a fairway bunker on the 10th in the semi's.
A quote from the coverage of Chick Evan's semi-match:
Evans played his first shot on the tenth hole from the tenth tee in the woods, his second from a bunker on the hillside, his third from the fairgreen short of the road, and his fourth from a bunker over the green.
In the final, the momentum of the match was reportedly decided on the 10th, where Gardner reached the green in two but only tied Evans, who:
drove in a bunker played shor of the road on his second, barely staid[sic] on the green on his third, and holed a thirty five foot putt for a par 4.
Note that they refer to the bunker as "on the hillside." Also note that these hillside bunkers were very much in play.
If these are the same bunkers and now, you guys are over-estimating how this hole played.
Also, both you guys both seem to put weight on the use of the word "pitch." But back then didn't "pitch" refer trajectory rather than length, and wasnt it used when one had to hit the ball over something then stop it? For example, I have seen reference to a "full mashie pitch over the lake." Certainly a full mashie pitch isnt a short shot, unless I am hitting it.
Dave, you can't draw as support for your position, errant shots that find a bunker.
And, you can't ignore the finite yardages.
Work backwards from the green.
Use 100, 120 and 150 yards and see where that puts the golfer, then relate that position to the tee shot.
Based on your theory, the golfer wouldn't even see the ramparts and features fronting the green, or anything beyond the green from the yardage between the two fairway bunkers, the bunkers which you reference above.
You really need to spend some time on site, examining and analyzing the topography, and then see if your theory flies in the face of the physical properties of the land.[/color]
-
David,
I was thinking about your question of "breastworks, ramparts, and trenches" (Oh my! ;)), and have to think the answer has been right in front of us the whole time, courtesy of the 2 pictures of the 10th green from Golf Illustrated.
I believe the "trench" was in fact, the road, which in 1916 was likely a pebbly, ditch running throught the property, and VERY MUCH in play on the 10th. We also know from seeing the steps that the road was below the surface of the golf course, probably on both sides of the road. You wouldn't want to get stuck down there, especially with then having to pitch over the road edge, and then over the front crossing bunker, and then over the far edge of that hazard (RAMPART), with the fear of skulling that might take your ball into the huge BReASTworks behind the green.
Pretty simple, really, I think. Of course, like the term "Alps", the term "Breastwork" has taken on significantly different meaning in our times, as well. ;D
Now, the question still remains. Was this an Alps, or meant by Wilson to be an Alps? Was it something inspired or instructed from ole CB and Whigham?
I don't know, but I really, really, really doubt it. There is still not a single shred of evidence that I'm aware of that links Wilson to Macdonald after the 2 day visit. It would have been completely contrary to Macdonald's boastful nature to not lay claim to the great success that was Merion had he in fact had anything at all specifically to do with the outcome of what was built. I'm sure with his affinity for the US Amateur that he would have been unable to resist giving himself some credit when that tournament, the most prestigious in the country at the time, came to Merion just 4 years after it was built.
Does anyone out there know differently?? Is there a single document that speaks or even hints at continued conversation between the two men??
Patrick,
Not to prove you wrong again, but;
From George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf";
"The 16th at the National is a combination of a Punchbowl green nestled snugly beyond the peak of a rising Alps fairway. Macdonald seamlessly synthesized these two classic elements together to create an original rendition that is testing of skill without being gimmicky."
I would add the the Alps hole at Fishers Island also features a Punchbowl green.
I think my point Patrick is simply that these terms had a lot of variability, even in those days. That is why a guy like Lesley was comfortable calling a hole like the old 10th at Merion an "Alps", and probably also why those guys called the 3rd hole at Merion a "redan".
The funny thing is that if you built an exact scale replica of the 3rd at Merion today, there is not one person on the planet who would recognize it as a redan, or call it that. ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
The 5th at St Louis CC has the same dual features.
However, despite Uncle George's comments, when playing
the approach on # 16 at NGLA, in the great majority of cases, only the sky is visible. The rise with the bunker fronting the green is invisible. The only golfers who get to see that feature are those lucky few whose drive remains on the spine bisecting the bowls in the middle of the fairway.
-
Then it sounds as though one of two things is possible.
1) Players drove it much shorter in 1916 then we imagine. I don't have Google Earth on the computer I'm on right now, but have to imagine that if the tee is where we all think, a drive to carry those bunkers would have been about 200 or so?
The carry may have been even shorter than 200 yards from the old tee. But with a substantial elevation increase, something like 20 feet to the bunkers.
Keep in mind that in Scotland's Gift, the only driving distances that MacDonald seems to trust at all were those in the 1919 experiment where the average driving distance was 228 yards. Into a slope and up a hill, this would likely be shorter. So I have my doubts about whether many of these guys would have gotten to the crest of the hill, which is one reason why I think there was a good chance that the hole was blind.
My own feeling is that it probably was a fairly difficult hole. The pictures of the green seem to indicate that it was severely protected, and very undulating. Still, I can't say that it resembles anything like the 3rd at NGLA in the most basic form. I still think Lesley's point was about the front bunker, and I also think that these were guys who were just learning the game and its lexicon.
Maybe I am nuts here, but looking at Flynn's sketch and the later aerial photo, sure seems like the green sites are similar to me. This is not to say that the rest of the hole is similar, but the greensites sure seem similar.
All it probably took was for one single person to refer to it as "Alps like", and that was repeated by others.
This would be more more plausible to me if these guys were nobodies as opposed to who they were.
I also have yet to see a single shred of evidence that Macdonald had anything to do with any hole at Merion, or any communications with Wilson post the 2-day visit.
You keep coming back to this but in my mind this really isnt even at issue. I dont think MacDonald designed the hole, and I doubt anyone else does. But this is a far cry from the conclusion that he had no influence. Even if we assume that all MacDonald did was spend a couple of days teaching about basic concepts of golf design and helping Wilson route his trip, this by itself could have had a tremendous impact on Wilson's approach at Merion.
But to your question, I think the Merion history mentions that MacDonald was free with his advice after Wilson got back.
Until we see something surface to the contrary, I think we're speculating and also over-reaching. To say that Macdonald would not have bragged about his involvement at Merion because others were doing it for him is completely inconsistent with his personality, it seems. NGLA was widely lauded by the golf world, yet he wrote about it extensively. He also wrote extensively about what he did at Piping Rock.
We are only speculating or overreaching if we are claiming that MacDonald actually designed the hole, and, again, I really dont know why you keep saying and implying that this is my position, because it isn't.
I also don't know what others wrote about his involvement, besides some very vague term of "advisor". What did others say his advisory role entailed besides giving Wilson a tour of NGLA, and advising him on what courses to see in GB?
Your right, they didnt say much specific about MacDonald's role. But they did refer to an Alps hole at Merion. As I have said before, I am not sure why we dont seriously consider the possibility that Wilson took MacDonald's advice, went and looked at the original holes, and then incorporated some of the features from the originals, as opposed to those at NGLA.
According to MacDonald, the Alps at Prestwick was shorter than NGLA (375 yards or 385 yards), flatter than NGLA (the green is not as much above the fairway,) and a well placed drive at Prestwick (just to the left of the center mound) would leave the golfer with a fairly easy approach.
So maybe the 10 is more of Wilson's version of Prestwick's Alps than NGLA's. Or maybe it is a hybrid of Prestwick's, NGLA's, and Wilson's own original ideas.
Until some other hard evidence of continued communications and "advise" surfaces, then it's pointless speculation, no matter how we try to piece it together.
We may not be able to speculate on specifics, but it is too much to dismiss the likelyhood (based on contemporary sources) that MacDonald did indeed advise Wilson, and that advice likely influenced Wilson, even if it was only in some broad sense.
I was thinking about your question of "breastworks, ramparts, and trenches" (Oh my! ), and have to think the answer has been right in front of us the whole time, courtesy of the 2 pictures of the 10th green from Golf Illustrated.
I believe the "trench" was in fact, the road, which in 1916 was likely a pebbly, ditch running throught the property, and VERY MUCH in play on the 10th. We also know from seeing the steps that the road was below the surface of the golf course, probably on both sides of the road. You wouldn't want to get stuck down there, especially with then having to pitch over the road edge, and then over the front crossing bunker, and then over the far edge of that hazard (RAMPART), with the fear of skulling that might take your ball into the huge BReASTworks behind the green.
You are forgetting the three mounds placed directly in front of the hole. These were apparently removed fairly early on, but they are present in the Flynn sketch. TEPaul and Mr. Morrison dismiss their significance and magnitude, but because of the angle, the one photo I have seen of them is certainly not conclusive as to their size.
Also, IMO, in the photograph the green appears to sit down in a bowl, or at least a bowl on three sides (not necessarily the right.) Take a look at Flynn's sketch and you will see that he designated the ground sloping down to the green from the left.
Now, the question still remains. Was this an Alps, or meant by Wilson to be an Alps? Was it something inspired or instructed from ole CB and Whigham?
Unlike you, I just dont think there is enough evidence to override the views of the men who thought differently. After all, they were there and they knew what they were talking about.
Does anyone out there know differently?? Is there a single document that speaks or even hints at continued conversation between the two men??
As I said above, I am not sure why this is a prerequisite for you. That being said, I think there is a least one such document.
Given MacDonald's personality, and his role in teaching wilson and helping him plan his trip, I find it extremely likely that MacDonald would have stuck his nose in and given advice whether Wilson asked for it or not.
-
I'm not sure that anyone really knows what they thought.
And, I don't know that you can count on the written word as being unerringly accurate.
I agree, but when there are multiple consistent sources, then I dont think they should be dismissed lightly.
My thoughts are that one could make the case that the hole had some "Alps" like features or resemblences at the green end. But, to call the hole an "Alps" hole, is beyond the stretch that Mike Cirba alludes to.[/b]
That may be, but I am not sure that the commentators of the time defined alps holes as strictly as you.
Their is nothing remotely "Alps" like about the topography.
While I generally agree, I think you may be taking this a little too far. Accoridng the the USGS application, he overall elevation change is quite similar. Also, we really dont know what was there then. For example we dont know how big the bunker mounds were or whether they blocked visibility. Nor do we know what other mounds existed on the right, or even how high the backs of the bunkers were built up.
If one stands in the middle of the 11th fairway at NGLA, 250 yards from the tee, the green is totally blind due to a rampart between the golfer and the green. But, that wouldn't cause a prudent person to state that the hole has an "Alps" like flavor to it.
I agree that this is the case, but again, I think they may have been more liberal in their understanding of what is an alps.
However, if someone had heard of "Alps" holes and been told that the name derives from an intervening landform between the golfer and the green, then I can see the misconception perpetuated through the written word.
Calling it a misconception accepts your definition, but otherwise, I agree.
With low ball flight, from a forward tee, up a hill, I can see how those bunkers could be deemed to be in play.
The article doesn't address the conditions.
Was the wind in their face ?
Was it raining ?
Was it cool ?
The fairways were firm and fast and needed water, the greens were firm but not hard.
Again, ball flight and the topography from the tee to the fairway could have a lot to do with it.
This has been my point all along. With the equipment, the tee location, and the uphill slope, I think the hole likely played a lot longer than many have been assuming. My guess is the hole felt like it played around 385, otherwise I would think they would have fixed the distance mistake. Same thing for the 1930 "300 yard" Jones drives. They must have seemed like 300 yard drives compared to how everyone else usually played the hole.
Dave, you can't draw as support for your position, errant shots that find a bunker.
Generally I would agree, but when we are talking bunkers being hit repeatedly by high caliber players, then I think it possible that the bunkers may help identify the landing area, or an area near it.
And, you can't ignore the finite yardages.
Work backwards from the green.
Use 100, 120 and 150 yards and see where that puts the golfer, then relate that position to the tee shot.
I think it is possible that a 200 yard drive here would have been a very good one, so it wouldn't surpise me if many golfers were hitting around 150 yards or more to the green.
I could be wrong though. Maybe a perfect drive got closer and left an easy shot (like MacDonald says about a perfect drive at Prestwick) but even moderate misses would have had a long shot in.
Based on your theory, the golfer wouldn't even see the ramparts and features fronting the green, or anything beyond the green from the yardage between the two fairway bunkers, the bunkers which you reference above.
I agree in part. I think it may have taken an every good drive to completely see the trouble around the green, much less the green itself.
You really need to spend some time on site, examining and analyzing the topography, and then see if your theory flies in the face of the physical properties of the land.
Maybe. But isnt it possible that familiarity with current site and how it plays might be at least partially obscuring people's imagination as to what might have been going on then.
For example, look at the reaction I received when I suggested that it wasnt anywhere near 300 yards to drive up even with where the green is now (the Jones drives.) And look at the reaction I first received when I suggested that the hole played uphill. Yet, even though most familiar with the site vigorously ::) questioned both these premises, both have thus far checked out.
For another example, so far noone that is familiar with the site has yet explained where the dirt came from to build the green site with the massive (according to TEPaul) berm behind, and with the mounds, etc up front. Nor have the explained where this dirt went when they changed the hole. They have simply assumed that because the other side of the road is level now that it was always level.
[/b]For another example, so far no one familiar with the site has even tried to explain why Flynn designated a downslope from the left down to the green surface. [/b]
I think one reason that I am interested in this hole is just how different my impression of this hole was compared to everyone else-- to my mind the hole played significantly uphill. It could very well be that my impression and the USGS application are both really off. But it is also possible that one reason my impression was so different is that I played the hole poorly and with hickories, so I might have had a different viewpoint that those who routinely hit to the top of the hill and beyond.
[Also keep in mind that I did live just down the road from the course. So while I may not have been welcome on the first tee, I did have more than a few chances to sneak a peak at the sections of the course which border the roads. So while knowledge of the layout of the land obviously pales in comparison to any local, I am not completely ignorant of portions of it, either.]
-
David,
I think at this point we're only differing on most points by degrees and I think we're probably only mostly rehashing previously made points.
Unless someone comes up with Hugh Wilson's copious notes and other remembrances of his trip overseas, or some construction field notes we'll likely never know whether his intent was to build some very loosely based pseudo-replica holes.
However, I think the more important point, and the more important question to this discussion, is simply this;
Why, after using Macdonald's work at NGLA as inspiration, followed by eight months studying overseas, did Hugh Wilson decide to chuck the "template model" in favor of virtually all very original holes that only borrowed the overall concept of good strategic design that utilized the land that was there?
-
Why, after using Macdonald's work at NGLA as inspiration, followed by eight months studying overseas, did Hugh Wilson decide to chuck the "template model" in favor of virtually all very original holes that only borrowed the overall concept of good strategic design that utilized the land that was there?
First, I havent seen any proof that Wilson used a "template model." That is part of the misunderstanding in this conversation: I am looking for influences, similarities, and borrowed strategies and ideas, while others keep assuming that I am looking for "templates." A template to me implies more of an exact standard than anything that apparently went on here.
But why did he discard some of what he may have borrowed from MacDonald and/or from holes from which MacDonald also borrowed? I dont know, but here are a few things to consider . . .
Keep in mind that while Merion seems to have been well received, all of its holes weren't. Travis for one was relativley critical of the borrowed (for lack of a better word) holes, compared to the ones which he considered more original. Maybe Wilson ultimately agreed that the more original the better.
Similarly, maybe the borrowed holes just didnt work. For example, maybe the 10th was supposed to be an alps hole, but, for all the reasons pointed out here, it just didnt seem enough like one, so he figured he'd rather do something else than have a bad Alps hole.
Maybe he didnt like MacDonald being credited for what he considered his work.
Maybe the changes were necessitated for merely practical considerations.
Or maybe he simply exhanged one borrowed hole for another . . . couldnt one consider the new green on 10 sort of a cape green?
-
What is all this stuff about the Big Big Game? What Big Game?
I see Huckaby in sack cloth and ashes over a loss to UCLA. Come on, the really big game was Seaside High versus Pacific Grove for the something or other CCS Championship at Spartan Stadium in San Jose. It got a ten point headline in the Monterey Herald...now that is big.
Bob
-
What is all this stuff about the Big Big Game? What Big Game?
I see Huckaby in sack cloth and ashes over a loss to UCLA. Come on, the really big game was Seaside High versus Pacific Grove for the something or other CCS Championship at Spartan Stadium in San Jose. It got a ten point headline in the Monterey Herald...now that is big.
Bob
Bob,
Are you trying to change the subject here? ;)
-
First, I havent seen any proof that Wilson used a "template model." That is part of the misunderstanding in this conversation: I am looking for influences, similarities, and borrowed strategies and ideas, while others keep assuming that I am looking for "templates." A template to me implies more of an exact standard than anything that apparently went on here.
I completely agree. That's why I'm perhaps overly careful about calling any of the original Merion holes an "Alps", or "Redan", etc., when they really are not close approximations. Instead, I've speculated as to the reasons why some of his contemporaries might have called them by those template names.
But why did he discard some of what he may have borrowed from MacDonald and/or from holes from which MacDonald also borrowed? I dont know, but here are a few things to consider . . .
Keep in mind that while Merion seems to have been well received, all of its holes weren't. Travis for one was relativley critical of the borrowed (for lack of a better word) holes, compared to the ones which he considered more original. Maybe Wilson ultimately agreed that the more original the better.
I think that seems to be true with some of the more artificial looking earthworks that were built, such as the dolomite looking things off of nine, which all had a short shelf-life. I'm really not sure that Wilson summarily discarded any other holes that bore template characteristics besides the 10th, and that one went away because....
Similarly, maybe the borrowed holes just didnt work. For example, maybe the 10th was supposed to be an alps hole, but, for all the reasons pointed out here, it just didnt seem enough like one, so he figured he'd rather do something else than have a bad Alps hole.
Maybe he didnt like MacDonald being credited for what he considered his work.
Maybe the changes were necessitated for merely practical considerations.
...Ardmore Avenue, which became much more heavily travelled and which for safety reasons necessitated the purchase of additional property beyond the creek on the south side of the course. Thus went away the old 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th. I'm not sure any of them were bad holes and it seems that perhaps 13 was better than its replacement. However, overall, the move was probably for the better, especially considering the great 11th.
Or maybe he simply exhanged one borrowed hole for another . . . couldnt one consider the new green on 10 sort of a cape green?
The late turning dogleg left with tons of trouble left and short is sort of a Flynn trademark. I think the best example of that type of hole was Pine Valley's 12th, at least before too many trees took away the option of the left side. It's virtually the same hole, albeit on flatter ground at Pv.
-
I think that seems to be true with some of the more artificial looking earthworks that were built, such as the dolomite looking things off of nine, which all had a short shelf-life. I'm really not sure that Wilson summarily discarded any other holes that bore template characteristics besides the 10th, and that one went away because....
Well, Travis was pretty harsh about 15th green. But I am not sure what year it was changed or to what degree.
...Ardmore Avenue, which became much more heavily travelled and which for safety reasons necessitated the purchase of additional property beyond the creek on the south side of the course. Thus went away the old 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th. I'm not sure any of them were bad holes and it seems that perhaps 13 was better than its replacement. However, overall, the move was probably for the better, especially considering the great 11th.
But the changes to the 10th were underway before the move to the other side of Ardmore Avenue. Note that in the aerial posted above the three fronting mounds in the front bunker are already gone, along with some of the other bunkers.
The late turning dogleg left with tons of trouble left and short is sort of a Flynn trademark. I think the best example of that type of hole was Pine Valley's 12th, at least before too many trees took away the option of the left side. It's virtually the same hole, albeit on flatter ground at Pv.
I was not being entirely serious when I said it was now a cape, even though the green could be characterized as such. But maybe you are onto something, maybe Pine Valley is a template course as well . . . Forget about Colt vs. Crump. . . It was MacDonald all the way.
-
Yes, Dave...I think we've pretty much exhausted this subject.
I also think a more relevant subject at this point would be to explore why courses like Merion and Pine Valley largely rejected the template model that Macdonald brought to America with his "ideal course" at the National, and with similar features exhibited at subsequent courses by Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks for the next 20 years.
NGLA was, and is, a stellar effort worthy of study and admiration, as well as inspiration. Why didn't other early architects attempt to latch on to the style, and build their own ideal "Template hole" courses in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, etc.?
-
I also think a more relevant subject at this point would be to explore why courses like Merion and Pine Valley largely rejected the template model that Macdonald brought to America with his "ideal course" at the National, and with similar features exhibited at subsequent courses by Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks for the next 20 years.
NGLA was, and is, a stellar effort worthy of study and admiration, as well as inspiration. Why didn't other early architects attempt to latch on to the style, and build their own ideal "Template hole" courses in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, etc.?
Rejected? This seems much too strong a word, especially at courses where at least MacDonald thinks that his models (or their inspirations) were being utilized at least in part. But again, I think you carry the meaning and purpose of this "template" notion too far.
In his article about NGLA's Redan, MacDonald comments that the Redan "principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course." And look at just how loosely MacDonald classifies his "template" principles when applied on other courses . . . He notes that Piping Rock, Merion, Sleepy Hollow, and Pine Valley all have versions of a Redan. Yet posters on this website will argue vehemently that most if not all of these holes were NOT Redans.
If MacDonald himself was willing to accept modifications and "infinite" original applications of these basic principles, then isn't it a bit too much for us to require exact duplication before we acknowledge any similarity in basic principles between different holes?
Far from rejecting the "templates" of NGLA, it is far more likely that many green committees (and designers) used NGLA exactly as MacDonald suggests in his article on the Sahara hole (his first in the series;) as "a fund of knowledge from which they may gather much that will be helpful to the improvement and added interest of their courses."
Also, while the "template" approach may have been an invaluable tool for helping Americans fundamentally alter their approach to golf and golf design (rejecting a mathematical and formal measure of abilily in favor of strategic 'sport,') the "templates" were arguably somewhat limited with what else they communicated about the links-style approach to golf design. For example, they may not have fully captured the importance of a natural aesthetic, or of nature's randomness and whim, or of making full use of what nature gives you.
Once America designers rejected (yes, rejected) the formal, mathematical Victorian style, they weren't looking to replace it with more formalism. Rather, they were more interested in reviving and continuing the links tradition, and applying it to their unique situations.
-
Speaking of the Redan...I just read an article written by Alex Findlay where he referrred to the Redan at Merion.
-
Speaking of the Redan...I just read an article written by Alex Findlay where he referrred to the Redan at Merion.
Tom,
Do you really think the 3rd at Merion works well as a reverse-redan? I'm all for the loose constructionist theory on the template holes (as evidenced by my "redan" debate with Patrick recently), but to me having the high-side kicker and the stong left-to-right, front-to-back flow of the green is pretty fundamental.
The 3rd at Merion exhibits neither characteristic. I have played any number of redans and reverse redans and I have to be honest; if I didn't know that some of the early guys called it a redan I would have never thought of it that way in a million years.
-
Mike
Its hard to say. I've not seen any good photos of the hole circa 1914-1916, so its hard for me to judge. In the abscence of good photographic evidence I've got to go with the judgement of Macdonald, Whigham, Findlay, Lesley and others.
-
Tom,
You wrote, "Speaking of the Redan...I just read an article written by Alex Findlay where he referrred to the Redan at Merion."
Don't leave it at that. What did the article SAY about the REDAN...
Isn't that the point?
-
Mike
Its hard to say. I've not seen any good photos of the hole circa 1914-1916, so its hard for me to judge. In the abscence of good photographic evidence I've got to go with the judgement of Macdonald, Whigham, Findlay, Lesley and others.
Tom,
The only pic I've seen (which I know you've seen as well) is the old 5th (today's 3rd) from behind the green towards the tee.
I will say that although it isn't a great picture, it truly doesn't look fundamentally different than what's on the ground today. I'll also say that if in fact the green and it's surrounds haven't fundamentally changed since it was built, then those guys had a much, much looser definition than I ever would have believed.
-
Is it possible the 17th once played as a Redan?
Bob
-
Do you really think the 3rd at Merion works well as a reverse-redan? I'm all for the loose constructionist theory on the template holes (as evidenced by my "redan" debate with Patrick recently), but to me having the high-side kicker and the stong left-to-right, front-to-back flow of the green is pretty fundamental.
The 3rd at Merion exhibits neither characteristic. I have played any number of redans and reverse redans and I have to be honest; if I didn't know that some of the early guys called it a redan I would have never thought of it that way in a million years.
I agree that the current version doesnt look much like a redan, at least not like a mirror image of the redan at NGLA. But the fact that at least some of the contemporary scholars called it a redan is compelling evidence that these "template" concepts were not meant to be taken so literally.
IMO, anyone who judges the significance (or lack thereof) of MacDonald's influence at a course like Merion based on how closely the supposed "templates" resembled MacDonald's holes is not only missing the purpose and point of the supposed "templates," but also misconstruing most of what was going on in golf design during this period.
But speaking of the 3rd at Merion . . . I actually hit one of my few good shots of the day there. By pure dumb luck, a few days earlier I had hit what I thought was a good shot a NGLA's Redan, both with hickories. At one of the holes my ball actually ran across at least part of the green, while at the other my ball stayed very close to where it first hit. I'll bet you can figure out which one played at least a little like a redan and which one didnt.
_________________________________
I'm confused TEPaul . . . when you take shots at me in posts to other people does that mean you are ignoring me, or not?
-
Yes, the 3rd was originally the 7th. I'm not sure if the green was altered or not, but I do understand the tee was moved.
-
Tom,
Any idea where the tee was moved from? There really isn't much room to move that tee left or right. At least not enough to change the character of the hole.
-
The third at Merion has a landform that could in fact serve as an ideal spot for a reverse redan. It is slightly uphill from the tee to the greensite. There is a natural drop off on the right that could have created a natural fortress bunker that was VERY deep (the current bunker is still very deep). All the architect needed to do was to manufacture a front left shoulder (kick in) and bench the greensite down from front left to back right and I believe we would have had the world's greatest and natural looking reverse redan.
I know very little of the history of Merion and don't for a second pretend to make this argument from any factual source BUT why does the current hole look and play nothing like a redan when any village idiot could have made it look and play like a world class redan? I'd have to conclude based on common sense that unless there is real solid evidence that #3 at Merion was drastically altered at the greensite then it was never a redan of any sort.
-
Geoffrey,
You're absolutely right.
There is no kicker on the left side, only a fall off into bunkers.
The green does go left to right, but only towards the back half of the green. Absolutely converse to a redan, it also tilts back to front quite a bit.
I suspect what happened is that Wilson didn't "force" it to be a redan. As much as that landform tilts a bit left to right with a steep fall-off right of the green, the land on top slopes mostly back to front.
To achieve a redan, Wilson would have needed to build up the left front slope by moving dirt there, and would have needed to grade the green in the complete opposite way that it was naturally (front to back instead of back to front).
That he didn't do so leads me to believe that he was more interested in building good and natural (and original) golf holes than following the conventional template model that was being developed by Macdonald.
-
Mike Cirba,
I thought there was evidence that the third green was built on top of an old farmhouse or some such structure.
I do agree with your, and Dr. Child's position that if they had any interest in using the redan or reverse redan template as a guide they could have done so without blinking. The fact that all evidence points to them not doing so seems to suggest they were "rejecting" that style.
-
Geoffrey and MikeC;
As a natural landform Merion's #3 would have made a great redan but only if the tee was placed somewhere over on the right side of the 6th fairway and golfers came at the lanform from that direction. If you don't understand what I'm saying simply go out and stand on the back right of it, look around at the entire landform and the slope in that entire area and it won't be hard to understand.
A good and legitimate redan hole pretty much needs to filter down and away all the way to the back in either direction and that #3 landform from the direction of its tee just doesn't do that, and it never has.
But that doesn't mean there was never a reason for people back then to call that hole a redan. Obviously by that they simply meant a green propped up to act as something of a fortress effect to an incoming ball.
-
JES II
I don't recal which direction the tee was moved.
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9900&querytext=merion+and+seventh (http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9900&querytext=merion+and+seventh)
This is one of the better photos I've seen of the hole....page 432.
-
Tom,
I'm confident you are correct that the terms like "redan" were not intended to be precise definitions in those years.
But, why do I get the feeling that this thread is really about whether MacDonald 's templates were used at Merion or not.
Did MacDonald use more construction to get the look as close to his template concept as possible?
Merion does not look like it was constructed to get close to these template ideas.
So, this would lead me to guess that Wilson was more influenced by the time he spent overseas than he was by his brief time with MacDonald.
While you don't have the written evidence, the evidence on the ground seems convincing to me.
-
Mike
I think it is clear the Merion of 1912-1916 was quite a bit different from the famous Merion we appreciate today....the famous Merion perfected by Wilson, Flynn and Valentine.
My point all along has been that Macdonald & Whigham had more influence on that early version than what has been generally believed or stated. That early course was more of throwback which borrowed features from the famous holes abroad...not unlike what Macdonald and others were doing...it was a fad.
Stage 2: Wilson & Flynn it appears got rid of all of that.
-
Sully:
The third green was built on the remains of the foundation of an old "bank" barn---a type of barn that seems to have been fairly unique to Pennsylvania and very common here in the old days. I have one on my farm.
-
Tom MacWood,
I realize that your research approach is heavily dependent on photos and writings. These can create some clear directions for further research. Unfortunately, the best stuff for Merion seems not to be available. As a result, you are depending on what seem to be secondary or worse sources.
My expertise in these matters is not at the level of some , but I when I think of MacDonald I think of more manufacturing to achieve the template goal. If he had a significant impact on Wilson I would expect to see it on the course, even today.
I usually assume the most obvious answer to be the correct one unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary. Because Wilson went overseas and spent some serious time studying the courses I assume that had a more significant impact on his thinking than the short time he spent with MacDonald.
A more productive route of research seems to be how he applied his learning from MacDonald and his travels in such a natural looking way at Merion versus the manufactured look of MacDonald.
In other words, Merion seems like a departure from NGLA and an attempt to assimilate the British courses to the Philly area.
If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.
-
That may be, but I am not sure that the commentators of the time defined alps holes as strictly as you.
They should have been more strict.
How many "Alps" holes existed at the time ?
Very few, and all knew that the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA were the accepted templates in the UK and US.[/color]
Their is nothing remotely "Alps" like about the topography.
While I generally agree, I think you may be taking this a little too far.
Accoridng the the USGS application, he overall elevation change is quite similar.
I take great exception to that statement.
The two holes, their configuration and especially the drive and approach have NOTHING in common.[/color]
Also, we really dont know what was there then. For example we dont know how big the bunker mounds were or whether they blocked visibility. Nor do we know what other mounds existed on the right, or even how high the backs of the bunkers were built up.
We may not know exactly what was there, but, we do know what the surrounding terrain was like, and there are no mounds, rises or ridges that naturally occur anywhere flanking the hole.[/color]
If one stands in the middle of the 11th fairway at NGLA, 250 yards from the tee, the green is totally blind due to a rampart between the golfer and the green. But, that wouldn't cause a prudent person to state that the hole has an "Alps" like flavor to it.
I agree that this is the case, but again, I think they may have been more liberal in their understanding of what is an alps.
Here's where we disagree.
There comes a point where the liberalization of the definition of a hole or feature becomes so far removed from the comparitive model, that the definition becomes erroneous.
You can't take license with the understanding of an "Alps" to the point that the hole doesn't FUNCTION as an "Alps" hole.
Playability, and not just micro resemblances are part of the key to defining the hole.
Being liberal with the definition inherently morphs and invalidates the definition such that almost anything can fit the definition.
Witness SPDB's definition and the holes that would therefore fall into his classification of "Alps" holes.
What perhaps you and other fail to realize is that a hole or feature MUST retain its PEDIGREE if it's to be deemed a purebred. If you want to bastardize the understanding, qualifications and definitions, then, you'll have mutts as pretenders to the throne.[/color]
This has been my point all along. With the equipment, the tee location, and the uphill slope, I think the hole likely played a lot longer than many have been assuming.
I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee. In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors[/color]
My guess is the hole felt like it played around 385, otherwise I would think they would have fixed the distance mistake. Same thing for the 1930 "300 yard" Jones drives. They must have seemed like 300 yard drives compared to how everyone else usually played the hole.
I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with firm & fast fairways. I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with moderate fairways, and with the topography of the land falling back toward the tee, surface drainage would seem to favor dryer fairways[/color]
Dave, you can't draw as support for your position, errant shots that find a bunker.
Generally I would agree, but when we are talking bunkers being hit repeatedly by high caliber players, then I think it possible that the bunkers may help identify the landing area, or an area near it.
I don't think there's sufficient evidence to cite a pattern.[/color]
And, you can't ignore the finite yardages.
Work backwards from the green.
Use 100, 120 and 150 yards and see where that puts the golfer, then relate that position to the tee shot.
I think it is possible that a 200 yard drive here would have been a very good one, so it wouldn't surpise me if many golfers were hitting around 150 yards or more to the green.
I could be wrong though. Maybe a perfect drive got closer and left an easy shot (like MacDonald says about a perfect drive at Prestwick) but even moderate misses would have had a long shot in.
While I generally agree, the critical issue remains the location of the tee and the actual yardage of the hole. [/color]
You really need to spend some time on site, examining and analyzing the topography, and then see if your theory flies in the face of the physical properties of the land.
Maybe. But isnt it possible that familiarity with current site and how it plays might be at least partially obscuring people's imagination as to what might have been going on then.
Yes, it would, if they only confined their thinking to the topography within the fairway lines.
However, I think you have to go far beyond the fairway lines to get a sense of the topography of the area, to see what was left, right and behind the hole. And, if you view the larger area, inclusive of the hole, I think your views would be tempered.[/color]
For another example, so far noone that is familiar with the site has yet explained where the dirt came from to build the green site with the massive (according to TEPaul) berm behind, and with the mounds, etc up front.
I think the answer is fairly obvious, from the nearby quarry on the 16th hole. [/color]
Nor have the explained where this dirt went when they changed the hole. They have simply assumed that because the other side of the road is level now that it was always level.
Again, I think the answer is obvious, back to the quarry on the nearby 16th hole.[/color]
[/b]For another example, so far no one familiar with the site has even tried to explain why Flynn designated a downslope from the left down to the green surface. [/b]
I think one reason that I am interested in this hole is just how different my impression of this hole was compared to everyone else-- to my mind the hole played significantly uphill.
I don't know how you could glean that from the highly elevated tee.[/color]
It could very well be that my impression and the USGS application are both really off.
That's a strong possibility.[/color]
But it is also possible that one reason my impression was so different is that I played the hole poorly and with hickories, so I might have had a different viewpoint that those who routinely hit to the top of the hill and beyond.
That's also true.
But, again, critical to the issue is the tee locaton and the true yardage[/color]
-
JES II
I don't recal which direction the tee was moved.
This is one of the better photos I've seen of the hole....page 432.
My point about the tee being moved was to challenge the assertion I felt you made by saying...
Yes, the 3rd was originally the 7th. I'm not sure if the green was altered or not, but I do understand the tee was moved.
...when in fact there is not room there to move the tee any more than a few yards in either direction. Moving that little would not have a substantial effect on the playing characteristics of the hole.
Re: the photo of #7 / #3 at Merion...any chance you would care to elaborate on just why that is "one of the better photos" you have seen of the hole? Frankly and with all due respect, it doesn't show the hole much at all.
-
Geoffrey and MikeC;
As a natural landform Merion's #3 would have made a great redan but only if the tee was placed somewhere over on the right side of the 6th fairway and golfers came at the lanform from that direction. If you don't understand what I'm saying simply go out and stand on the back right of it, look around at the entire landform and the slope in that entire area and it won't be hard to understand.
The real definition of the "REVERSE REDAN" finally comes out...or is this a "NADER"? totally bass-freakin-akwards.
-
Tom MacWood,
I realize that your research approach is heavily dependent on photos and writings. These can create some clear directions for further research. Unfortunately, the best stuff for Merion seems not to be available. As a result, you are depending on what seem to be secondary or worse sources.
What do you consider a secondary source? If I'm not mistaken Robert Lesley was a well respected local leader and the chairman of the Merion Green Committee...that a pretty good source IMO and he is not the only one. Every golf magazine at the time reported Macdonald & Whigham advising. As did Wilson himself, from the club history: "Actually Macdonald & HJ Whigham of New York gave advice and assistance so Merion had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill of their own committee. Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."
My expertise in these matters is not at the level of some , but I when I think of MacDonald I think of more manufacturing to achieve the template goal. If he had a significant impact on Wilson I would expect to see it on the course, even today.
The Alps was defintely manufactered as was the Mid-Surrey mounding at #9. Both features were later removed from the design. The course was altered often over an extended period. Does the bunker at the Redan in 1916 resemble the bunker there today?
I don't think anyone is claiming Macdonald designed and built Merion...he advised the committee. He met with Wilson at NGLA early on, he evidently assisted him on what to see overseas. He was on site prior to consturction commencing, and he was on site at some point during construction. Is it your opinion that Macdonald & Whigham did not inluence that early version of the course?
I usually assume the most obvious answer to be the correct one unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary. Because Wilson went overseas and spent some serious time studying the courses I assume that had a more significant impact on his thinking than the short time he spent with MacDonald.
A more productive route of research seems to be how he applied his learning from MacDonald and his travels in such a natural looking way at Merion versus the manufactured look of MacDonald.
In other words, Merion seems like a departure from NGLA and an attempt to assimilate the British courses to the Philly area.
If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.
-
JES II
I don't recal which direction the tee was moved.
This is one of the better photos I've seen of the hole....page 432.
My point about the tee being moved was to challenge the assertion I felt you made by saying...
Yes, the 3rd was originally the 7th. I'm not sure if the green was altered or not, but I do understand the tee was moved.
...when in fact there is not room there to move the tee any more than a few yards in either direction. Moving that little would not have a substantial effect on the playing characteristics of the hole.
Re: the photo of #7 / #3 at Merion...any chance you would care to elaborate on just why that is "one of the better photos" you have seen of the hole? Frankly and with all due respect, it doesn't show the hole much at all.
The tee was moved to the left. You don't like the photo...I guess its all relative...its really the only photo I've seen taken from that angle. IMO that bunker looks pretty similar to other Redan bunkers...with its steep grassy face and angular lines.
-
Designs and aerial photos seem primary to me ; articles are secondary.
-
Mike
I'm not sure there are any good aerials circa 1916...that would be pretty early for that. And to my knowledge there are no original plans that survived...at least they haven't found them yet. So we are forced to rely on written accounts of those involved and those familar with the project. One thing it has going for it over other courses is all the publicity and attention it got...it was a high profile design from its inception and an important championship venue.
-
I realize that your research approach is heavily dependent on photos and writings. These can create some clear directions for further research. Unfortunately, the best stuff for Merion seems not to be available. As a result, you are depending on what seem to be secondary or worse sources.
What do you consider a secondary source? If I'm not mistaken Robert Lesley was a well respected local leader and the chairman of the Merion Green Committee...that a pretty good source IMO and he is not the only one.
Every golf magazine at the time reported Macdonald & Whigham advising.
Exactly what advice did they provide ?
Is there ANY record of ANY specific advise that MacDondal & Whigham provided ?
Or, did those articles take liberties when describing the nature and scope of their involvement ?[/color]
As did Wilson himself, from the club history: "Actually Macdonald & HJ Whigham of New York gave advice and assistance so Merion had the benefit of their experience as well as the skill of their own committee.
Exactly what advice and assistance did they provide.
Absent any specifics the writings could be "fluff"[/color]
Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."
What advice was received from MacDonald and Whigham ?
Surely there has to be some evidence of this advice.
Absent same, noone can conclude that they provided any concrete advice.
You may recall that we had this same discussion with Travis and MacDonald at NGLA.
There isn't one iota of specific detail as to the topic, nature or specifics of any advise.[/color]
I don't think anyone is claiming Macdonald designed and built Merion...he advised the committee.
On what ?
What specific advice did he provide ?
Surely, there has to be some evidence of his consultancy[/color]
He met with Wilson at NGLA early on, he evidently assisted him on what to see overseas.
The word "evidently" would lead one to believe that's your conclusion. Would you consider a suggestion to see certain courses overseas "advice on Merion" ?[/color]
He was on site prior to consturction commencing, and he was on site at some point during construction. Is it your opinion that Macdonald & Whigham did not inluence that early version of the course? [/b]
Being on site and offering specific advise on the design and construction of the golf course are two different things.
Is there any evidence, anywhere, that specifically identifies the advice M&W are alleged to have given ?[/color]
A more productive route of research seems to be how he applied his learning from MacDonald and his travels in such a natural looking way at Merion versus the manufactured look of MacDonald.
What did he learn from MacDonald.
Is there any credit given to MacDonald for any design concept or construction methodology ?[/color]
In other words, Merion seems like a departure from NGLA and an attempt to assimilate the British courses to the Philly area.
Whose conclusion is that ?[/color]
If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.
Do we know, in detail, of Wilson's activities overseas ?
His intent ? His learnings ?[/color]
-
Patrick,
I said their definitions were not as strict as yours. Your response? They should have been more strict.
Sigh . . . this is why I try to avoid purely definitional arguments. Take it up with MacDonald if you dont like the way he applied his concepts.
We don't disagree. To disagree we first have to be talking about the same thing.
I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee. In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors
I agree, which is why I have been trying to figure these things out. Apparently, we who think accurate measures actually matter are in the minority in this conversation.
However, I think you have to go far beyond the fairway lines to get a sense of the topography of the area, to see what was left, right and behind the hole. And, if you view the larger area, inclusive of the hole, I think your views would be tempered.
Which views of mine would be tempered if I was more familiar with the site?
What does the current topography tell you about the upslope left of the green in the Flynn sketch?
What is it about the ground left and right of the 10th hole that gives you the impression that 10 doesnt play up a significant incline? The only way to avoid the incline is to drive past it, and (assuming the tee was where Mr. Morrison claims) I have my doubts as to whether this was regularly done in 1916.
You think the dirt obviously came from (and was returned to) the quarry on 16? Is this so "obvious" that ]
Let me guess . . . this is so obvious that will treat it as true even absent any evidence? It isn't obvious to me without some evidence.
______________
Despite the elevation of the tee, the second shot played uphill for me. If you dont believe me drop a ball in the left fairway bunker and hit the shot.
___________
Do you have any factual basis for doubting the accuracy of the elevations from the USGS application?
______________
-
I know very little of the history of Merion and don't for a second pretend to make this argument from any factual source BUT why does the current hole look and play nothing like a redan when any village idiot could have made it look and play like a world class redan? I'd have to conclude based on common sense that unless there is real solid evidence that #3 at Merion was drastically altered at the greensite then it was never a redan of any sort.
Good move leaving the facts out of this, you fit right in.
You disregard the opinions of a number of well-respected experts who witnessed and experienced the original hole first-hand and instead you substitute your own understanding of what is and is not a redan. And you call this "common sense?"
-
But, why do I get the feeling that this thread is really about whether MacDonald 's templates were used at Merion or not.
I thought this thread was about whether Wilson incorporated features from the same great holes as MacDonald . . .
. . . when I think of MacDonald I think of more manufacturing to achieve the template goal.
With all due respect, I always assumed that MacDonald's main influence was not the look of his features, but rather the fact that he brought to America the strategic concepts present in his "templates." His discussions of his ideal holes barely touch on aesthetics. They are devoted to discussions of strategy and descriptions of how the holes played.
Is it possible that you are attributing Raynor's engineered style to MacDonald? In early pictures of NGLA, the features do not appear nearly as manufactured as they do now.
I usually assume the most obvious answer to be the correct one unless there is very compelling evidence to the contrary. Because Wilson went overseas and spent some serious time studying the courses I assume that had a more significant impact on his thinking than the short time he spent with MacDonald.
I an confused as to which answer is "most obvious." Shouldn't we assume that those who were there have provided us with the most obvious answer? Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on those who are trying to rewrite the historical record?
If Wilson had not gone overseas then many of your speculations would be more interesting.
Didn't MacDonald advise Wilson on his itinerary? If so, and if Wilson followed that advice, then doesnt MacDonald deserve at least some credit for shaping Wilson's European vacation?
-
I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee. In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors
My guess is the hole felt like it played around 385, otherwise I would think they would have fixed the distance mistake. Same thing for the 1930 "300 yard" Jones drives. They must have seemed like 300 yard drives compared to how everyone else usually played the hole.
I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with firm & fast fairways. I can't see the hole playing to 385 yards with moderate fairways, and with the topography of the land falling back toward the tee, surface drainage would seem to favor dryer fairways
Vis-a-vis the location of the tee, has anyone checked the local land registry to see where the property line was behind the tenth tee? Was Golfview Rd in existance in 1916? Were there any house lots up there? That would limit how far back the tee could possibly have been.
I don't buy that the hole might have "felt like it played around 385". GI's description of the course conditions were "Just right it was so far as the surface of turf was concerned, but underneath it was more or less adamantine and par values of holes, while not wholly destroyed, were appreciably affected, owing to the extra distance obtained from the run of the ball on the hard-baked fairway. But the putting-greens, carefully watered, were sufficiently soft to hold a properly pitched shot. And what greens they were!" Now, that sounds like optimal conditions for long driving. So, it's hard to credit the concept that the course felt like it was playing long.
With respect to how much elevation change there was and what the surrounding topography was, here's a picture of the ninth green with the tenth fairway in the background.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/6003_1024.ts1165305830256.jpg)
From the picture it looks like the rise is relatively gentle and couldn't be more than 25 feet (using the people out there as a reference point) over 175 to 200 yards, and would certainly not be even that much from an elevated tee to the likely land zone between or beyond the bunkers. It also looks like the clubhouse in the background, and there doesn't appear to be any significant intervening hills or elevations. If you look closely at the bunker left of the white building, there appear to be a couple of people sitting on top of a hillock. Could that be the one behind the green?
-
That may be, but I am not sure that the commentators of the time defined alps holes as strictly as you.
They should have been more strict.
How many "Alps" holes existed at the time ?
Very few, and all knew that the 17th at Prestwick and 3rd at NGLA were the accepted templates in the UK and US.[/color]
Patrick,
Do you consider the UK template and the US template Alps holes to be similar or the same? Are there two templates, or just one for Alps holes?
How strict must the adherance to the template be for another hole to be called an Alps hole? How close do they need to be to be called Alps-like? Or to have Alps features?
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
For fun, here's a picture of one commentators observation of an "alpinization" of a hole. Certainly looks Alps-like in a mountain sense. Doesn't bear much resemblance to either Prestwick or NGLA (in their current configurations). Perhaps different commentators from MacDonald on down had, and have more liberal standards for use of template names.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/6004_1024.ts1165356475116.jpg)
-
Pat
As I spelled out in my previous post M&W advised in four important ways:
1. Wilson spent 2 days at the NGLA with Macdonald presumably going over the course and Macd's versions of famous holes (Wilson is the source)
2. He prepared Wilson for his trip abroad (Wilson)
3. He was brought in prior to construction and gave his blessing to the site (American Golf)
4. Wilson wrote laying out a golf course proved to be difficult and M&W's expertise was invaluable (Wilson)
I'm not sure how you define fluff or taking liberities. If you want to dig further into the history of Merion, Wilson and M&W I would suggest you carry out some independent research on your own.
-
(http://home.comcast.net/~wmorrison11/Merion3rd1916.jpg)
If you look closely you can make out the Principles Nose feature in the background...the second bunker complex in the fairway to the right.
-
You cleverly say that Macdonald was brought in prior to construction as if to say he was asked to come by. How do you know this is the case and that Macdonald didn't visit on his own?
The report said M&W were the guests of RE Griscom (one of the committee members) and both men pronounced the land admirably suited. Usually advisers are invited and based upon my reading of 'guests' that seems to be the case here as well, although I really don't think it makes a difference one way or the other.
You then say he gave his blessing to the site. Did the committee members have to kiss his ring before he gave his blessing?
There is no mention of a ring kissing...there was something about the committee lying prostrate...
He agreed that the site was suitable for golf. Do you think the Club was awaiting his "blessing" of the property before they bought the property?
I have no idea.
What was the timing of this blessing in relation to the purchase of the property? Nobody doubts that Macdonald and Whigham's advice was invaluable.
What you fail to prove, as it is your assertion the burden lies on you, is that specific advice and expertise resulted in specific hole designs at Merion.
Does the same burden fall upon you...are you able to determine which members of the committee did what and what influence Pickering had on the design? Who did what that resulted in specific hole designs at Merion?
Wilson was an able golfer and an intelligent man, I think he was capable of learning a few things on his own. Surely he was aided in his and the committees efforts, including that of Fred Pickering who was involved in a number of courses exceeding the experience of Macdonald and Whigham. So, I present to you the task of demonstrating what at Merion East is directly attributable to Macdonald. I think it would be fascinating if there is something there. I just don't believe it until a higher standard of proof is met. Until then, it remains an interesting speculation.
In any case, like others that were able to do so, the course changed over time--some of it routing, some of it aesthetics and some of it strategic. In any case, the direct influence at Merion that we see on the ground today are clearly that of Wilson and Flynn. Come by and see for yourself, only then does your study have a chance to be as complete as is possible.
-
Tom MacWood,
What you point to is not the Principal's Nose feature. There were 2 left fairway bunkers preceding the PN. I think you are looking at the second fairway bunker. The PN was 350 yards off the tee. If you were familiar with the ground, you'd know that such an area of the hole is further down the line of play than you can see and is just before the downslope, where the large cross bunker exists today. It would be on the ridge you see just above the bunker you cite as the PN.
The PN existed until 1922 or so. The trend towards naturalism was an ongoing process at Merion from the start. It is a design principle that Flynn was exceptional at utilizing. This was the movement that resulted in the loss of manufactured features. What's the mystery in that? This trend moved well beyond Macdonald and particularly the work of Raynor and Banks; one they rarely, if ever, accepted.
I disagree....that is clearly a PN in the photo. The map of the course in the Philadelphia Ledger prior to the 1916 championship shows the precise position of the PN well down the farway from the bunker (or bunkers) in the foreground left of the driving zone. The PN was the only feature in the middle of the fairway of the old 5th (current 4th) in 1916...as is clearly seen in the photo.
I don't disagree with your second paragraph, however there were many 'old fashion' or 'manufactured' features on the early verison. What I don't understand is why the effort to brush the early years under the rug.
-
I don't think we are looking at the same feature. I'm talking about the bunker well down the fairway, just below the horizon...not the bunker in the foreground (with the pronounced grass face) cut into the hillside.
-
Wayne
The first fairway bunker (not seen in the photo) was a large free-form affair...very distinctive with no grass facing. There are a couple of good photos of it in the September 1916 Golf Illustrated. One taken from the edge of the Redan green (its a good picture of the Redan too) and one taken from the old 5th tee.
The bunker with grass facing seen in the foreground is the second bunker and the bunker well down the middle of the fairway is the PN.
-
That bunker you guys are looking at seems awfully close to the big crossing bunker out there today. Just another opinion that may or may not mean anything.
Tom M,
Re: that "redan" bunker you showed the photo of...it goes along with my belief that #3 at Merion would look exactly like a redan from 1000 feet above. The grren and redan bunker match very well. Unfortunately, on the ground it just doesn't play that way. The bunker serves a very similar function to the couple of redan bunkers I have played, but that's where it ends. The approach options and green play nothing like a redan.
-
Tom M,
Re: that "redan" bunker you showed the photo of...it goes along with my belief that #3 at Merion would look exactly like a redan from 1000 feet above. The grren and redan bunker match very well. Unfortunately, on the ground it just doesn't play that way. The bunker serves a very similar function to the couple of redan bunkers I have played, but that's where it ends. The approach options and green play nothing like a redan.
Tom MacWood,
Jim really spells out the problem I think all of us have with calling it a "redan".
I spent several days recently debating with Patrick about redans, with me arguing for a much looser interpretation than his rigid mindset which seems to stop the nomenclature at the gates of NGLA. ;)
But, in the cases I argued, every single one of them had the green that was oriented away from the front edge, and which ran front to back, as well. In every case it was a green where a player could attempt to use those slopes for a running shot back to a back-corner pin. Whether at SLeepy Hollow, Mid Ocean, LACC, or Maryland National, those holes have the fundamental option of either trying to carry the bunker with the heroic shot to a pin tucked behind it, or trying to conceive of the perfect running shot that utilizes the landforms and green orientation.
I can't say that anyone would even remotely think of running a ball on the 3rd at Merion, even in the days of dust fairways and no irrigation. You'd either try to carry it to the left side, avoiding the bunker, or get more daring if the hole was cut right, but in either case, you'd never try to use the landforms to finesse the ball to the hole.
I think that's why most of us in the Philly area are rejecting the analogy, and nomenclature, even if it was known as one in the early days by some pretty famous guys.
If it is, and to my earlier point, then it's the loosest interpretation I'm familiar with, and supports the fact that while I believe Wilson learned from Macdonald, he also was much more inclined to just use what the existing land offered than trying to force certain template styles onto the land by changing slopes, etc.
It seems to me that the fundamental thing he learned in GB is the use of daring a hazard to create strategy and interesting angles, and the use of whatever natural landforms existed on any particular property to create interesting, challenging, and ultimately, unique golf holes.
-
Wayne,
Below is the picture from the 1916 GI. Very similar perspective to the one you posted. What date is yours from? The bunker in the foreground seems much larger in the 1916 photo. And the tree in the foreground looks much larger and older than the one in the 1916 photo. In this photo the tilt of the green looks decidedly from front to back with what looks like a ridge across the green near where the golfers are walking on the green. It certainly looks nothing like the Redan green at North Berwick.
The line down the fairway to bunkers in the distance is clearer implying that the photographer was at a higher elevation than was the one in your photo. Does the land behind the back corner of the green arise abruptly into a hillock? The two pictures appear to be taken from very close to each other.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/6006_1024.ts1165421272584.jpg)
-
This thread is a great indication of why it is so hard to restore a golf course correctly. The same evidence leads to many different interpretations.
-
"This thread is a great indication of why it is so hard to restore a golf course correctly. The same evidence leads to many different interpretations."
TomD:
I couldn't agree with you more on that. And frankly, that is why this thread should probably just cease as it's become an excerise in futilty, circular reasoning and non-productive argumentation, not to mention the fact that Merion East really doesn't need any restoring at this point. ;)
The thing I can't understand is why these people contributing on here haven't all realized about 10 pages ago that people back then obviously used names of holes and such for different reasons and with different definitions than we do today.
I also think it would be a great help and a time saver and huge boon to understanding if some of these people who contribute on here with all kinds of little detailed opinions of Merion East would just come here and take the time to really look at the golf course. I have no doubt that alone would significantly shorten a thread like this one.
I don't think some on here who've never seen the course should weigh in with some of the opinions they do either. I know I sure never do or never would do that with a golf course I've never even laid eyes on. The worst that way is Tom MacWood although David Moriarty seems intent on catching him. ;)
-
Either that or put our energies into something more productive. By the way, I am missing the first 4 pages of Alan Wilson's Oct 27, 1926 letter account of Merion where he cites Alison talking about liking the West Course better. Could you make copies for me when I see you on Sunday?
-
Vis-a-vis the location of the tee, has anyone checked the local land registry to see where the property line was behind the tenth tee? Was Golfview Rd in existance in 1916? Were there any house lots up there? That would limit how far back the tee could possibly have been.
At some point Mr. Morrison described the 1916 tee as having been located just behind the current front tee. At the time I assumed he had some factual basis for so saying, and have kept this assumption since. He also said at some point that the current back tee was not part of Merion's property in 1916. He didnt identify his basis for so saying. He also said that the 1916 tee was 30 yards in front of the tee Jones played 1930. But he claims that Jones played the current back tee, a claim that the evidence (of which I am aware) does not support. Thus far he has not only refrained from backing any of this up with actual sources or facts, he has also ridiculed and rejected any facts or sources with which he disagrees. So I dont quite know how to treat is earlier claims.
I don't buy that the hole might have "felt like it played around 385".
Bryan, I wasnt referring specifically to how the hole played in 1916, but rather to how the hole was meant to play when it was conceived and designed, and how it generally played. Judging by the write-ups before, during and after the Am, Merion was in desperate need of rain and the conditions were not really normal. I still think the location of the bunkers give us some idea of how far these guys were hitting the ball, or at least how far they were carrying it.
But regardless, you may be correct. I am just trying to reconcile how so many could have been so wrong about this hole for so long. If the hole played anything close its real distance (330 to 350?) then it should have been quite obvious that the 385 was well off. Also, even now there seems to have been a real misunderstanding of how far tee shots flew on this hole.
If you don't believe me, go back and look at the comments I received when I first suggested that Jones' drive was only 260 or less from the middle tee. All these guys that who have been hitting this same drive for years all believed that the Jones drive was 300 yards, and measured there drives off of his, so they thought there drives were traveling 20 to 40 yards further than they were, depending on from where they thought Jones hit is 300 yard drives.
From the picture it looks like the rise is relatively gentle and couldn't be more than 25 feet (using the people out there as a reference point) over 175 to 200 yards, and would certainly not be even that much from an elevated tee to the likely land zone between or beyond the bunkers.
The USGS profile shows about 25 feet elevation change from the suggested location of the tee to the suggested site of the old green. The elevation change from the low spot (near the creek) to the suggested site of the old green was around 40 ft., according to the same source.
I think the more relevant issue isnt the elevation change on the drive, but rather the elevation change on the second shot. Specifically, was it large enough to make the shot blind. To determine that we need to properly located the landing area (I agree with you that it was likely between the bunkers) and whether there were any intervening features in between the landing area and the green.
I think that is the hillock you locate is behind the green, the one that Mr. Morrison claims was only 10 feet tall.
-
After seeing the above photos with the "Redan" captioning, what were these early writers looking at or using as a basis for calling that green a Redan?
I've played the original at North Berwick, and other Redan type holes at Somerset Hills and Piping Rock. The current 3rd green at Merion is so far different from these others it's ridiculous to debate. I've played the 3rd at Merion many times, and never once did it ever occur to me that this green would be considered as "Redanish". I honestly don't see where the hole has any of the qualities to qualify it as such. The green itself is world class, it should stand on its own, without being classified as something it's not.
-
When I first saw the third hole at Merion, I thought of it as a Redan, and in fact I believe I had read somewhere that it was ... perhaps in The World Atlas of Golf?
Anyway, I was 19 then and I had not seen the real thing. I wouldn't call it a Redan today. It has some similarities ... it may have even more similarities with MacKenzie's Gibraltar hole ... but it is also markedly different than either of those.
-
Wayne,
Of course, I defer to you on what the green looks like in real life. And, it makes sense to see a course before drawing conclusions on it. Based only on the pictorial evidence, I'd agree that in 1916 it didn't look like the original North Berwick Redan. And, I accept that it doesn't look or play like the Redan today. Clearly, the commentators of the day back then, including MacDonald, played more fast and loose with naming holes after templates, than Mucci would have us do today.
-
Let's be clear, Pat will free wheel the template terminology when it suits his position unabashedly...and likely in the near future. ;)
-
Everyone and his brother called the old 7th the Redan...including Macdonald & Whigham, the inventor of the modern day Redan. Trying to question their use of the term is like telling Calder what he created is not a mobile.
The hole may not play like a Redan today, but as far as I know no one on this thread has any idea how it played in 1916. This Redan debate also misses the general point of this thread, that the original Merion possessed a number of template features: including a Redan, Alps, Eden, PN, Valley of Sin and Mid-Surrey mounding.
Here is better photo of the Redan...I think it is page 432:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9900&querytext=merion+and+seventh (http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf#xml=http://www.aafla.org:8080/verity_templates/jsp/search/xmlread.jsp?k2dockey=/mnt/docs/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1916/ag166d.pdf@aafla_pdf&serverSpec=localhost:9900&querytext=merion+and+seventh)
Wayne
You think those are the same fairway bunkers in those two photos? Wow!
-
Interesting that Professor Moriarty and Tom MacWood would not comment on the 1916 photo of the current 3rd green . . .
I didn't know you posted the photo for my comment . . . I thought you weren't communicating with me ever again. Again.
Thanks for the photo. Here are my comments . . . As far as I can tell, it looks alot like the current green as I recall it. There appears to be a left to right slope, and according to Tom MacWood's photo there was a big deep bunker right.
But I dont understand your point, if you have one. By modern understangs of the term, you dont think this is a Redan, but you acknowledge that commentators at the relevant time viewed this hole as a Redan. So when you are trying to figure out where this hole fits in the evolution of golf course design, which context do you think is more relevant? Theirs or yours? Don't you think you ought to try to understand this hole how they understood it?
I think you are right that the mound and bunker complex is behind the 10th green and is easily seen from such a distance.
I am not sure that Bryan said that the bunker complex was behind the 10th green, nor did he say that it was easily seen from the 1916 tee. In fact he said he didn't know where the 1916 tee was.
To me, it looks like that bunker is in well in front of the mound behind, but I guess it is possible that the large bunker is the one in the backing berm (the one you think is there only to protect the 1st hole) But it sure doesnt look that way to me. And a second bunker is partly visible as well. Do you think this one is also behind the green. By the way, if these bunkers are behind the green, then why cant we see the green?
The 1916 tee, to the right in the photo you posted, would have been higher than the location the photograph was taken. I maintain that a portion of the green, and possibly a majority of it, would have been visible from typical landing areas by accomplished players.
On what basis to you set the height of this tee as higher than from where the photo was taken?? It sure doesnt seem like it would be to me. This photo is from substantially above the 9th green and the 9th green is obviously above the level of the creek. So I dont think your assumption is supportable, or at least has not been supported.
_______________________
TEPaul said:
The thing I can't understand is why these people contributing on here haven't all realized about 10 pages ago that people back then obviously used names of holes and such for different reasons and with different definitions than we do today.
If you are trying to say that the likes of MacDonald, Leslie, and Tillinghast had a much different understanding and usage of these terms, then I couldn't agree more. And this cuts to the main misunderstanding in this tread:
The likes of Morrison, Mucci, Cirba, Childs, and Paul claim to be trying to understand the evolution of golf design at the time and, more specifically, MacDonald's influence on Wilson regarding Merion. Yet they insist on ignoring the contemporary understanding of the words used to describe and define golf design, and instead substitute in their own modern definitions and usage.
Here is an example. Above, partially in jest, I stated that the new Merion 10 was a reverse cape hole. If we apply the modern understanding and usage of the term "cape" as it is used in golf design today, then my statement was absolutely absurd. But if we look at the old understanding of the term cape, then conceptually, my statement makes more sense.
If we are truly trying to understand their motivations, influences, and understandings, we cant just substitute our understanding and usage for theirs!
-
One thing we ought to consider here is that this was a "reverse" redan. If the hole lacked a run-up area, this would be of very little consequence to the vast majority of golfers, who would have the sense to not try and run in a fade.
Geoffrey and Mike Cirba can attest to how hard it is for a lefty to run a fade into the best of Redans. Maybe all these guys (including Wilson) realized that the run-in option was largely superfluous.
Maybe they also realized that a right-hander's draw would have very little chance of holding the green if a reverse redan sloped away like a normal redan.
-
But why wouldn't the green run away from the tee? Especially when the terrain would lend itself to that without too much trouble?
-
If Macdonald called the 3rd at Merion a "redan", he was simply wrong, even by his own definition. Either that, or he was pushing his own "template hole" agenda, which isn't so far fetched from a guy who had a huge ego and probably thought he conceived of every single good golf idea to come to America at that point.
From the George Bahto interview on this site;
What more accurate way to describe a 'Redan' than Macdonald's own words? 'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.' Bear in mind when Macdonald says 'tilt,' he means it. At National, hole #4 falls over five feet from front to rear.
I find it ironically humorous that just a few weeks back I was debating with Patrick about allowing some latitude in the definitions these guys had for template holes, where a redan could theoretically be downhill, uphill, flat, etc., but never once did the fundamental strategic nature of the hole change.
The fundamental strategic role of the hole at Merion is very different than any redan I'm familiar with. Superb players like Jamie and Jim Sullivan are trying to say the exact same thing, and so are architects like Tom Doak.
It seems utterly ridiculous to me that a guy like Macdonald, who so fastidously worked to capture the true strategic essence of holes like the redan and alps when he built his course at NGLA then coming over and looking at the present 3rd at Merion, or the old 10th, and calling them the same name. He would have had to know inherently that neither of those holes presented the same options, strategic challenges, psychological aesthetic, or looks and feel of either the originals in GB or his copies at NGLA.
-
But why wouldn't the green run away from the tee? Especially when the terrain would lend itself to that without too much trouble?
Geoffrey and Mike may also be able to attest to how difficult it is to hold a draw into a real redan which slopes significantly away from the line of play. This would only be moreso for with the old equipment.
In other words, true mirror image redan holes would not work very well at all for right-handed golfers. High fades would not likely run, and low draws would likely run too much.
While I love the supposed reverse redan at LACC (by Thomas, who was also likely very familiar with the concept from his days on the East Coast and in Philly) I also thought that it didnt slope to the back away nearly enough for my tastes. But maybe this was intentional so that a right-hander could still hold the green with a drawing shot.
-
Mike
Are you certain the hole didn't run away in 1916?
-
Mike
Are you certain the hole didn't run away in 1916?
Tom,
No more certain that what I can determine visually in the 1916 picture from the back of the green, which I'd estimate at about 85% accuracy. I also understand that there is no formal record of that hole changing.
-
But why wouldn't the green run away from the tee? Especially when the terrain would lend itself to that without too much trouble?
Geoffrey and Mike may also be able to attest to how difficult it is to hold a draw into a real redan which slopes significantly away from the line of play. This would only be moreso for with the old equipment.
How do you factor in the old agronomy?
In other words, true mirror image redan holes would not work very well at all for right-handed golfers. High fades would not likely run, and low draws would likely run too much.
It could be a different form (an early form?) of this shot testing notion that seemed to evolve sometime in this era.
While I love the supposed reverse redan at LACC (by Thomas, who was also likely very familiar with the concept from his days on the East Coast and in Philly) I also thought that it didnt slope to the back away nearly enough for my tastes.[/color] But maybe this was intentional so that a right-hander could still hold the green with a drawing shot.
That bold blue was my doing. Your use of the phrase "didn't slope to the back enough" implies that it slopes to the back at least a little whereas Merion #3 slopes back to front significantly. So you are right, it would be easier for me to hold a draw into that green than a typical redan.
Tom MacWood,
Do you have evidence that it did?
-
If Macdonald called the 3rd at Merion a "redan", he was simply wrong, even by his own definition. Either that, or he was pushing his own "template hole" agenda, which isn't so far fetched from a guy who had a huge ego and probably thought he conceived of every single good golf idea to come to America at that point.
From the George Bahto interview on this site;
What more accurate way to describe a 'Redan' than Macdonald's own words? 'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.' Bear in mind when Macdonald says 'tilt,' he means it. At National, hole #4 falls over five feet from front to rear.
Mike, note that this quote doesn't say a thing about the hole sloping from front to back.
I find it ironically humorous that just a few weeks back I was debating with Patrick about allowing some latitude . . . but never once did the fundamental strategic nature of the hole change.
And what is the fundamental strategic nature of a reverse redan? Surely not the same a as a redan, was it? You dont think that Wilson was really into catering to leftys, do you? If so, then he was much more a genius than anyone has thus far suggested!
It seems utterly ridiculous to me that a guy like Macdonald, who so fastidously worked to capture the true strategic essence of holes like the redan and alps when he built his course at NGLA then coming over and looking at the present 3rd at Merion, or the old 10th, and calling them the same name. He would have had to know inherently that neither of those holes presented the same options, strategic challenges, psychological aesthetic, or looks and feel of either the originals in GB or his copies at NGLA.
From the concluding paragraph of MacDonald's very detailed article on the Redan (my bold):
There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any
course.
On this I agree with you: When trying to understand the redan concept, what better source than MacDonald himself?
So while MacDonald thought that his Redan was the best, he certainly is not nearly as dogmatic as you guys and your understanding and usage of the term 'redan."
-
I have no idea if it was or wasn't changed. Based on the numberous changes to the course over the years...including rebuilding the old 8th green because it ran away....it would not surprise me.
-
I have no idea if it was or wasn't changed. Based on the numberous changes to the course over the years...including rebuilding the old 8th green because it ran away....it would not surprise me.
Now that's the kind of indisputable evidence we like here.
It wouldn't surprise me either, we might as well assume it happened.
-
JES, I dont think the old Agronomy would have made that much difference, at least regarding the bounce of the ball. In my experience, bounce is determined more by shot shape, spin, ground slope, and ground firmness than by grass height. Also, while the grass may have been longer then, I dont expect the grass was as thick then as it is now.
I am not sure what you mean by an early notion of shot testing? Could what be an early notion of shot testing? A true reverse redan could be, but I am not sure whether there were any true reverse redans built. Does anyone have any examples of a true mirror image reverse redan?
Regarding LACC's reverse redan, My recollection from limited experience was that the hole doesnt really run away (if it does, it is not by much.) But I think I have been informed by those that know better that it either does slope away, or it used to slope away, and I was somewhat deferring to them.
Either way, my point is the same. I dont think that a true mirror-image-redan would jibe with the strategic principles important to MacDonald, at least for the vast majority of golfers.
As I said above, in my very limited experience, Merion's "non-redan" played more like a redan for me than NGLA's real redan, because I am left-handed. I cant imagine even trying to hold a redan on NGLA's green with old equipment.
I am sure you are infinitely better than me, so what do you think? Could you hold a draw into a true mirror image NGLA redan? How about with 1916 equipment?
-
Dave Moriarty,
Bear with this train of thought for a minute. I think it might help...
Taken from Mike Cirba's post quoting MacDonalds definition.
'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.'
To my knowledge, noone argues this basic tenet.
Taken from your post quoting MacDonalds "very detailed article on the redan.
...a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland)
This very strongly implies that a "standard redan" would be approached from the right hand end of the tableland.
Now, please pick up a piece of paper, a book or something that can represent a "tableland" and hold it flat and square to you. Tilt it a bit left with the right side high and the left side low per CBM's instructions. Now turn it 1/8 of a turn clockwise so the front right corner is facing you and tell me whether or not the green slopes away from you.
-
JES, It all depends on whether I tilt the book before I turn it.
-
Ok...so what have we learned here after three zillion pages? ;)
We know that Wilson visited Macdonald prior to visiting GB (already known)
We know that Wilson was very grateful for Macdonald's tutelage and counsel, as well as telling him what courses he should see during his eight month trip (already known)
We know that Wilson did in fact go to spend a full EIGHT MONTHS visiting GB and according to accounts, sketched all sort of features of great holes and holes he admired, which sadly have never been found (already known)
We know that CB stopped by the Merion property. (already known)
We know that despite scores of articles written about the original Merion courses, and how well received they were by their contemporaries, there is not a single sentence anywhere that even implies Macdonald had a hand in designing any hole there (already known)
We know that two of the holes on the east course, of 36 holes built during a two year stretch by Wilson, were named by some important golf folks of the time, including Macdonald, as famed template holes. We also have determined that it unlikely either was anything near to the type of near replicas Macdonald built at NGLA for those two hole concepts. In addition, it appears a single green (the 15th) may have been modeled after the "Eden", but even that seems a stretch because it's not a par three hole, the approach shot is significantly uphill, and the bunkering in front is hardly a "pot" type bunker.
We also know that two greens have "valley of sin" features which exist today. Interestingly, there are no Macdonald "valley of sin" features anywhere that I'm aware of.
Finally, there was a principals' nose bunker feature on what is the 4th hole today. There were also some dolomite type things off to the side of the 9th, and some other unnatural landscape features mentioned that seemed to be quickly removed in the early years.
There are 36 holes at Merion.
Does anyone really see some type of linkage between Merion and copying great holes from overseas, except in some very scant instances?
Or, more importantly, did what Wilson learn in GB is that every course and piece of land is unique, and instead of copying "features", it was more important to apply broad strategic concepts while building unique holes on each unique property?
Personally, I think that was a HUGE architectural leap in understanding for US architecture. It wasn't really feasible to just "copy" great holes that occurred overseas (mostly on linksland) ad nauseam, on each course, but instead get to the fundamental understanding of what made those holes work in terms of strategic interest and concepts, and then apply them in a wholly individual fashion on these shores.
That's what makes Merion so special, and so distinctive, and so historically important.
-
Dave,
Re: my agronomy assertion. I was referring to green speed because the best redan I have played (#7 at Shinnecock) typically repels my shots because of the speed of the greens. Most of my shots (my good shots) filter off the left or back left of the green. The speed in those days would have limited this. True, todays trajectories are much higher so that might account for balls bouncing over easier then.
-
...a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland)
Could it be that MacDonald's idea of a "reverse redan" is not the modern idea of a "reverse redan"?
The modern idea is that the "reverse redan" is a mirror image of the redan, with the playing angle the same but the green configuration reversed.
Could it be that in MacDonald's definition of a reverse redan, it is not the green configuration that is reversed but instead the playing angle (i.e., like playing the hole in reverse)?
Could it be that when MacDonald uses the word "reverse" he really means "backwards", like playing the "Reverse" Old Course at St. Andrews has always meant playing the holes "backwards"?
If that is true, then the "left hand end of the tableland" can be considered in today's terms the "back left" of the standard redan green (just like the "right hand start of the tableland" would be the "front right"), and so in MacDonald's assessment, the 3rd at Merion was a redan green that was approached from a "reversed" or "back left" angle.
That's the only way I can think that the 3rd at Merion could have been called a "reverse redan" (in which case, I'm inclined to agree, because if you approached the green from a different angle--say from the rough between #6 and #7--the green would start to look like a standard redan).
-
Chris,
That might make sense except that Macdonald also called the redan at Sleepy Hollow a "reverse", which tilts significantly front to back and is a simple mirror image of the traditional redan.
-
JES, It all depends on whether I tilt the book before I turn it.
David,
With all due respect, that's the type of response that makes one think you've got an agenda as opposed to an open mind in this conversation. The instructions (from CBM, not me) are to tilt the land and then approach it from the angle. Regardless, it never tilts towards the tee as #3 at Merion does. At best it slopes straight right to left.
-
Chris Brauner,
Anything's possible of course, but that seems like a stretch to me just considering the playability differences.
-
Mike Cirba:
Excellent summation post that #474.
Can you believe I actually said post #474?? ;)
I wish it was post #47 and then we wouldn't have had another twelve pages on this thread.
Seems to me Merion East is significant in the type and style of architecture it had INLAND in that early time for sophisticated architecture in America, and particularly after the course got rid of some of that rudimentary copy stuff like the Mid-Surrey mounds on #9 and the unnatural looking 10th green. We should probably add to that the apparently fluky green on #8.
But Ron Prichard may be right. The thing that may really put Merion East's architecture on the map was the unique style of those bunkers in that early time---sort of multi-form sand dishes really with the evolving grass surrounds. Ron thinks that the Merion bunker style may be the prototype for so much of the bunkering in American architecture to follow. That Merion and Wilson may've created a generic "American" bunker style with Merion East, in fact.
So the real question is where did he get that idea and that bunker style (and playablility) from? Did he get it in the Heathlands or some of that and some of just thinking it up himself?
That may be the most interesting aspect of all with Merion East in the context of its importance in the evolution of American architecture. The "sand flashed" style American bunker that seems to have come out of the Philadelphia School of Architecture of which Merion East may've been almost the first enrollee.
I say "almost the first" advisedly. What about those few inland courses around here that preceded Merion East that may've been the very first example of a new type and style of a more natural looking golf architecture on inland sites?
Maybe we should try to take a very close look at the architecture and the architectural features of at least two that preceded it---eg Tillinghast's Shawnee (1908) and George Thomas's Mt Airy (Whitemarsh Valley) (1908).
What did their architecture and architectural features such as bunkering look like a full 3-4 years before Merion East?
Isn't it interesting to note that George Thomas (Whitemarsh Valley) called Hugh Wilson one of our best architects, professional or amateur, and mentioned how much Wilson taught him with Merion and Philadelphia Municipal and that he remained his helpful advisor when Thomas removed to California in 1919.
Wilson had a lot of help from Macdonald in the beginning before sailing to GB for his six months of study and Wilson was the first to say so about that two days in Southampton. But for whatever reason it didn't seem to take Wilson, Flynn et al at Merion East and West long at all to grow completely out of any connection to the style of C.B. Macdonald in what they were doing.
Is this why Wilson didn't have much to say about Macdonald in the years following his return?
And also, it's probably true to say that back then one probably shouldn't have tried to compete with Macdonald by using the unique architectural type and style he developed over here (template holes from GB).
Why would that be? Because as George Bahto has said a number of times the last thing Macdonald wanted to see is for anyone to try to top his NGLA---ironically including Raynor or even himself. ;)
-
" Nothing new is being presented and the guys in OH and CA should continue believing what they want.
Hey now, don't lump ALL us Cal. guys together, Wayne! ;)
-
No worries there, David. I should have said the guy in OH and the guy in CA ;)
-
Chris B brings up a good point about the "reverse redan". The only way the current 3rd green would be considered any type of a Redan is if the hole was played from the fairway of the 6th hole back toward #3.
The only problem with Chris' point is that if that was Macdonald's loose description, there are countless other greens on courses all over the country that you could loosely call a Redan, a reverse Redan, an upside down Redan, a sideways Redan or any other goofy connotation you choose depending on the angle you think it should be played from. The fact is, the hole is approached in the direction that it is and that is not going to change...so the 3rd can be called whatever you wish, just not any type of "Redan"! ;D
-
Also boys and girls, as far as all those on here who claim that all those people back then should've listened to Macdonald's description and definition of what a redan was and should be, do any of you know when it was that Macdonald first weighed in with that definition of his of what a redan hole was, should be or how it should be defined?
I know his definition of a redan is in his book but he didn't write that book until around 1926-27. ;)
What if he never offered a definition of what a redan was before that?
Timelines, my children! Everything must be applied to a timeline. ;)
Tom,
I thought you said this thread is way too long?? ;)
You're really enjoying yourself here, aren't you?? ;D
-
There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any
course.
Tom P,
Any idea when this article quote by MacDonald is from?
Dave M,
Obviously, this question can be directed to you because I believe I pulled this from your post up above.
-
I said their definitions were not as strict as yours. Your response? They should have been more strict.
Sigh . . . this is why I try to avoid purely definitional arguments. Take it up with MacDonald if you dont like the way he applied his concepts.
Dave, you can't dismiss and/or dilute definitions either.
You can't have them bent beyond the scope of their meaning.
You can't have people taking great license and liberties with defining terms.[/color]
I think the critical issue on the tee shot and how the hole played is the location of the tee. In that regard, elevation and actual yardage are the critical factors
I agree, which is why I have been trying to figure these things out. Apparently, we who think accurate measures actually matter are in the minority in this conversation.
Then A critical issue, if not THE critical issue is:
Where was the tee ?[/color]
However, I think you have to go far beyond the fairway lines to get a sense of the topography of the area, to see what was left, right and behind the hole. And, if you view the larger area, inclusive of the hole, I think your views would be tempered.
Which views of mine would be tempered if I was more familiar with the site?
The "alpine" nature of the terrain you allude to.
The topography of the fairway as it relates to the topography of the surrounding land, especially in the DZ.[/color]
You think the dirt obviously came from (and was returned to) the quarry on 16? Is this so "obvious" that ]
Let me guess . . . this is so obvious that will treat it as true even absent any evidence? It isn't obvious to me without some evidence.
You asked where the dirt came from, and where it went.
With a quarry a few hundred yards removed from the site,
I don't think it's imprudent to believe that the quarry was the supply source and the ultimate resting place for the dirt.
When one considers how frugal these designers and contractors were, finding FREE dirt, indigenous dirt, having minimum hauling expenses and efforts makes the quarry a strong default option. Do you have any information to refute my position ? Likewise, when removing the dirt, the process works perfectly in reverse. What better place to return the dirt to, than it's source ?[/color]
______________
Despite the elevation of the tee, the second shot played uphill for me. If you dont believe me drop a ball in the left fairway bunker and hit the shot.
Where did you tee off from ?[/color]
___________
Do you have any factual basis for doubting the accuracy of the elevations from the USGS application ?
Yes, standing and walking in the fairway to the green and Ardmore Ave more than a dozen times.
I believe a refreshment stand used to occupy land immediately adjacent to Ardmore Ave.[/color]
______________
-
Do you consider the UK template and the US template Alps holes to be similar or the same? Are there two templates, or just one for Alps holes?
They're sequential, evolutionary.
The template hole in the U.S. evolved DIRECTLY from the 17th at Prestwick[/color]
How strict must the adherance to the template be for another hole to be called an Alps hole?
It has to have ALL of the component features of a true "alps"
such as # 17 at Prestwick or # 3 at NGLA.[/color]
How close do they need to be to be called Alps-like?
See my answer above[/color]
Or to have Alps features?
Any hole can have one, or some of the component elements, but, in order to be classified as a true Alps hole, they have to have them all.[/color]
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]
For fun, here's a picture of one commentators observation of an "alpinization" of a hole. Certainly looks Alps-like in a mountain sense. Doesn't bear much resemblance to either Prestwick or NGLA (in their current configurations). Perhaps different commentators from MacDonald on down had, and have more liberal standards for use of template names.
There's a big difference between a feature described as "alpinization" as seen in AWT's Shawnee, or AWT's mini-alpinization as seen at Somerset Hills, and an "ALPS" hole.[/color]
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/6004_1024.ts1165356475116.jpg)
-
Pat, are you stating that there is only a single proper form of an "alps" hole? If so I say you are wrong. Wasn't the mounding at Mid-Surrey viewed as a form of "alps" hole?
Tilly must have believed this to be the case as he refered to the "Mid-Surrey scheme of mounding" to prove that he was the first in the U.S. to bring "alpinization" to golf course design, something that you even refer to with your comment, "There's a big difference between a feature described as "alpinization" as seen in AWT's Shawnee, or AWT's mini-alpinization as seen at Somerset Hills, and an "ALPS" hole."
-
Pat
As I spelled out in my previous post M&W advised in four important ways:
1. Wilson spent 2 days at the NGLA with Macdonald presumably going over the course and Macd's versions of famous holes (Wilson is the source)
Again, you use the term "PRESUME"
You don't know what they discussed. None of us do.
It could have centered on financing, establishing a membership or a variety of topics.
I agree that it wouldn't be imprudent to ASSUME that they might have discussed architecture, design, construction, etc., etc.., But, we have absolutely NO EVIDENCE of any specific discussions on those topics.[/color]
2. He prepared Wilson for his trip abroad (Wilson)
He might have told him what clothes to pack, where to stay, where to eat, who to meet, where to sight see, where to play, etc. etc.. Again, there's not one IOTA of specifics to confirm the specifics of their conversations.[/color]
3. He was brought in prior to construction and gave his blessing to the site (American Golf)
What does that mean ?
What if he didn't give his blessing ?
Would they have abandoned the site ?
Stopped the project ?
Looked for new land ?
You continue to accept as The Gospel quotes that may be totally inaccurate. One only has to review your quote with respect to Donald Ross stating that Seminole is FLAT to know that you can't believe everything you read.
Perhaps that comment was a "fluff" piece, trying to give credibility, or the "Pope's" blessing to the project in an effort to promote it.[/color]
4. Wilson wrote laying out a golf course proved to be difficult and M&W's expertise was invaluable (Wilson)
Exactly what "expertise" ?
Don't you see that these articles continually use vague, nondescript terms and references, never clearly identifying exactly what was done ?
Is there anywhere where Wilson cites a specific hole,, a specific feature ?
Absent that vital information, everything else is speculation.[/color]
I'm not sure how you define fluff or taking liberities. If you want to dig further into the history of Merion, Wilson and M&W I would suggest you carry out some independent research on your own.
That's not the issue.
The issue is your taking non-specific, vague references and imputing substance to them where no evidence exists to support your conclusions.
Let's go back to the Ross quote on Seminole being FLAT.
I don't have to do any research, I've played there since 1960 and can tell you Seminole is anything but flat. It's got some of the steepest, highest hills in South Florida.
Yet, you took this quote at face value, insisting that Ross said that Seminole was FLAT, therefore, it had to be FLAT, which as we all know, isn't true.
While I applaud your research, I don't agree with your conclusions.
You tend to draw a conclusion first and then look for support for your conclusion, rather than do the research and base your conclusion on what you find.
I don't think that you can make these leaps of faith absent more concrete evidence to support your position.[/color]
-
Pat, are you stating that there is only a single proper form of an "alps" hole?
A single proper form ?
NO, but certainly all of the component elements must be present to create a true Alps hole, in look and playability.[/color]
so I say you are wrong. Wasn't the mounding at Mid-Surrey viewed as a form of "alps" hole?
A "form" of, and a "true" Alps hole are two different things.[/color]
Tilly must have believed this to be the case as he refered to the "Mid-Surrey scheme of mounding" to prove that he was the first in the U.S. to bring "alpinization" to golf course design, something that you even refer to with your comment, "There's a big difference between a feature described as "alpinization" as seen in AWT's Shawnee, or AWT's mini-alpinization as seen at Somerset Hills, and an "ALPS" hole."
As I said above, I don't consider the insertion of an "alpinization" feature sufficient to categorize a hole as
a true Alps hole.[/color]
-
There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any
course.
Tom P,
Any idea when this article quote by MacDonald is from?
Dave M,
Obviously, this question can be directed to you because I believe I pulled this from your post up above.
Jim,
The quote comes from the July 1914 edition of American Golfer.
The article also states about NGLA (my bolds):
"Curiously enough the Redan existed at the National
long before the links was thought of. It is a perfectly
natural hole. The essential part, the tilted tableland
was almost exactly like the North Berwick
original. All that had to be done was to dig the
banker in the face, and place the tee properly."
David,
The tilted tableland seems to be an essential part according to this part of the article.
The people most familiar with the ground at Merion say the hole doesn't have (and never had) a tilt in the way MacDonald described it for the standard replica Redan, or more importantly the way it actually is at North Berwick, the mother of all Redans.
Your quote says the "principle" of the Redan could be used with variation. Do you see where he has defined the "principle"? Do you think the "essential" tilted tableland is a feature than can be varied?
The NB Redan, as described by others slopes down a line on the long axis of the green. You can debate all you want about whether that is front to back or right to left. Depends on the angle you look at the green.
From the tee NB is blind.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5921_1024.ts1155540437062.jpg)
Looking from the the mound that is front right of the green you can see the tilt of the green. It is as Jim has tried to point out to you.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5922_1024.ts1155540583515.jpg)
-
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]
Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?
Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much. How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?
-
Bryan:
Thanks for that post and photos above.
With any legitimate redan I've ever seen or played, whether right to left of reverse the green basically slopes down and away somewhere and somehow from the incoming shot. That is just not the case at all with Merion's #3. I have never seen a redan that doesn't slope down and away somehow at least a little bit.
In my opinion, the original, North Berwick's 15th is different from every other redan in the world I've seen because of it's basic blindness along at least the right half of it but at least it does slope somewhat down and away from right to left.
I was telling Wayne tonight I played North Berwick's redan only one time. It was in high wind and I said to the guy I was playing with; "Watch this, I'm going to aim about 75 yards right of where it looks like I should and power hook a ball onto and down that right to left orientation" To my horror the ball didn't hook at all, it went straight out but very solid in a direction that looked like I might hit something off the course. When I got up there my ball was about two feet from the far left pin. I don't know how that happened because I couldn't see it but that hole is something else. It's obviously a ton of fun and challenge. But it's very little like any redan I've seen in the States although at least is does slope down and away right to left--no doubt about that.
-
Ok...so what have we learned here after three zillion pages? ;)
We know that Wilson visited Macdonald prior to visiting GB (already known)
We know that Wilson was very grateful for Macdonald's tutelage and counsel, as well as telling him what courses he should see during his eight month trip (already known)
We know that Wilson did in fact go to spend a full EIGHT MONTHS visiting GB and according to accounts, sketched all sort of features of great holes and holes he admired, which sadly have never been found (already known)
We know that CB stopped by the Merion property. (already known) More than once.
We know that despite scores of articles written about the original Merion courses, and how well received they were by their contemporaries, there is not a single sentence anywhere that even implies Macdonald had a hand in designing any hole there (already known)
Thats true. We also know there is also not a single sentence that implies any single person had a hand in designing any hole of the East....including Wilson.
We know that no one on the committee had ever designed and built a golf course before.
We know that Merion-East was the only course Wilson was involved with that attempted to include famous features.
We know that Merion-East was the only course in which Wilson collaborated with Macdonald/Whigham.
We know Wilson and Flynn later removed (or remodeled) all the famous features at Merion-East.
We know Whigham claimed Macdonald was involved in the design of Merion.
We know that two of the holes on the east course, of 36 holes built during a two year stretch by Wilson, were named by some important golf folks of the time, including Macdonald, as famed template holes. We also have determined that it unlikely either was anything near to the type of near replicas Macdonald built at NGLA for those two hole concepts. In addition, it appears a single green (the 15th) may have been modeled after the "Eden", but even that seems a stretch because it's not a par three hole, the approach shot is significantly uphill, and the bunkering in front is hardly a "pot" type bunker.
At the time Merion-East was designed and built how many template holes existed in America beyond NGLA?
We also know that two greens have "valley of sin" features which exist today. Interestingly, there are no Macdonald "valley of sin" features anywhere that I'm aware of.
Finally, there was a principals' nose bunker feature on what is the 4th hole today. There were also some dolomite type things off to the side of the 9th, and some other unnatural landscape features mentioned that seemed to be quickly removed in the early years.
There are 36 holes at Merion.
Does anyone really see some type of linkage between Merion and copying great holes from overseas, except in some very scant instances?
Absolutely I do, other than the NGLA what other course in America had more features borrowed directly from overseas?
Or, more importantly, did what Wilson learn in GB is that every course and piece of land is unique, and instead of copying "features", it was more important to apply broad strategic concepts while building unique holes on each unique property?
I don't think he had to go overseas to learn that lesson. He could have learned that lesson at the NGLA.
Personally, I think that was a HUGE architectural leap in understanding for US architecture. It wasn't really feasible to just "copy" great holes that occurred overseas (mostly on linksland) ad nauseam, on each course, but instead get to the fundamental understanding of what made those holes work in terms of strategic interest and concepts, and then apply them in a wholly individual fashion on these shores.
The NGLA was not a great course because it copied holes from overseas. The NGLA was great because CBM recongized great design ideas from overseas and adapted them to what Mother Nature provided. Macdonald was more about adopting interesting strategic ideas and adapting them to the land...some times the result was something close to the original, some times the result was something completely different, some times the result was something better than the original.
That's what makes Merion so special, and so distinctive, and so historically important.
-
Tom M
Maybe the answer is embedded in here somewhere but I've kept pretty good tabs on this thread...kind of like the 8 car pile up across the median in the oncoming lanes...can't look away...do you have any evidence (other than what you think you see in photos) that Hugh Wilson (and whomever else might have had a hand in laying out Merion) actually intentionally implemented these template ideas you so strongly assert are/were there?
It seems logically possible to me that CBM would have strongly recommended specific holes for Wilson to study while abroad. This should have made an impression on Wilson and these hole concepts may well have struck a cord with Wilson. Just show me Wilson writing about a Redan, an Alps or whatever these other templates are.
-
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]
Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?
There could be a variety of explanations.
First, I doubt that CBM would give credit to a poor imitation.
Secondly, the article could have been written based on a conversation, or editorial license could be the culprit.
Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much.
Then, you're not familiar with Southern Florida.
Stand on the 9th green or 10th tee at Jupiter Hills and tell me that.[/color]
How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?[/color]
NO, it's not possible.
The hills are sharp and high, rising 30, 40 or perhaps 50 feet or more, abruptly.[/color]
-
There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any
course.
Tom P,
Any idea when this article quote by MacDonald is from?
Dave M,
Obviously, this question can be directed to you because I believe I pulled this from your post up above.
Jim,
The quote comes from the July 1914 edition of American Golfer.
The article also states about NGLA (my bolds):
"Curiously enough the Redan existed at the National
long before the links was thought of. It is a perfectly
natural hole. The essential part, the tilted tableland
was almost exactly like the North Berwick
original. All that had to be done was to dig the
banker in the face, and place the tee properly."
David,
The tilted tableland seems to be an essential part according to this part of the article.
The people most familiar with the ground at Merion say the hole doesn't have (and never had) a tilt in the way MacDonald described it for the standard replica Redan, or more importantly the way it actually is at North Berwick, the mother of all Redans.
Your quote says the "principle" of the Redan could be used with variation. Do you see where he has defined the "principle"? Do you think the "essential" tilted tableland is a feature than can be varied?
The NB Redan, as described by others slopes down a line on the long axis of the green. You can debate all you want about whether that is front to back or right to left. Depends on the angle you look at the green.
From the tee NB is blind.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5921_1024.ts1155540437062.jpg)
Looking from the the mound that is front right of the green you can see the tilt of the green. It is as Jim has tried to point out to you.
(http://bizatt.photosite.com/~photos/tn/5922_1024.ts1155540583515.jpg)
WOW, you mean to say that Fairy Ring has gone unchecked for what looks like weeks and the course has remained playable?
Those brits, must be practicing some form of voodoo!
-
Tom M
Maybe the answer is embedded in here somewhere but I've kept pretty good tabs on this thread...kind of like the 8 car pile up across the median in the oncoming lanes...can't look away...do you have any evidence (other than what you think you see in photos) that Hugh Wilson (and whomever else might have had a hand in laying out Merion) actually intentionally implemented these template ideas you so strongly assert are/were there?
There is no evidence that Hugh Wilson designed any of the original holes at Merion, much less the template holes that were asserted by comtemporary reports a part of the early course.
It seems logically possible to me that CBM would have strongly recommended specific holes for Wilson to study while abroad. This should have made an impression on Wilson and these hole concepts may well have struck a cord with Wilson. Just show me Wilson writing about a Redan, an Alps or whatever these other templates are.
To my knowledge Wilson never wrote about the Redan, Alps, etc. If you are interested in reading about those holes I'd recommend the writing of Macdonald and Whigham.
-
There is no evidence that Hugh Wilson designed any of the original holes at Merion, much less the template holes that were asserted by comtemporary reports a part of the early course.
Is this accurate?
Would the club agree with you on this?
-
JES
What holes did Wilson design on the original Merion-East?
-
Re: my agronomy assertion. I was referring to green speed because the best redan I have played (#7 at Shinnecock) typically repels my shots because of the speed of the greens. Most of my shots (my good shots) filter off the left or back left of the green. The speed in those days would have limited this. True, todays trajectories are much higher so that might account for balls bouncing over easier then.
I understood that you were talking about green speed, but thanks for the clarification. Again, I dont think it would make much of a difference. If it did, then NGLA's Redan would have been much less interesting than MacDonald describes.
Certainly, the slower green speeds would impact how far the ball rolls once it quits bouncing and settles onto the green. But my understanding is that conditions were much firmer back then, through the green. Firmer ground leads to bigger bounces; and firmer ground which falls away leads to much bigger bounces. Combine this with the equipment they used in those days (not only a somewhat lower trajectories, but also less backspin) and I cant imagine the slower greenspeed making much of a difference.
I guess it is possible that the harder ground actually allowed the lefty (or a righty on a reverse) to hit a fade and still get the ball to take the slope, or even for the grass to slow down a ball so much that a lefty could hold a draw into NGLA's redan. But if this is true, it would strip the hole of much of its interest. Plus, it sure doesnt sound like the green speed made much of a difference in MacDonald's description of how NGLA's redan played.
David,
With all due respect, that's the type of response that makes one think you've got an agenda as opposed to an open mind in this conversation. The instructions (from CBM, not me) are to tilt the land and then approach it from the angle. Regardless, it never tilts towards the tee as #3 at Merion does. At best it slopes straight right to left.
So far as I know, I have no agenda, but am rather trying to understand these terms in in the context of how they were used at the time.
With all due respect, I think your interpretation of MacDonald's quote is quite stretched. The quote is the first sentence in his GI article on the Redan. MacDonald was not providing "instructions" as to how to build a Redan, but was rather simply describing a Redan. Moreover, while your exercise was fun and has a certain logic to it, its validity depends upon the assumption that the order in which MacDonald listed the features has special significance, and I dont think the order had any special significance.
As far as your implication that this is evidence of some secret agenda on my part, I am not sure how you get that from what I posted. If a tableland naturally slopes slightly up and tilts one way or another, then approaching it from an angle doesnt create a downslope, but rather a sideslope. That was the point of my response.
As far as the hole at Merion goes, I could be wrong, but my recollection was that the green does slope from left to right, toward the bunker. I don't think that it falls away and I havent seen any compelling evidence that it used to fall away. But MacDonald considered it a Redan anyway.
MacDonald's usage of the word 'Redan' is entirely consistent with my intepretation of the quote. But don't worry, I won't infer bad faith on your part for construing the quote in a manner which MacDonald contradicts in the very same article.
-
JES,
It is from an article entitled "Redan Hole at the National Golf Links" in the July 1914 edition of Golf Illustrated, and was one of four MacDonald articles that Golf Illustrated published in May - August of that year. All focused on a different hole at NGLA (Sahara, Alps, Redan, Cape.) He does heap the praise on his own holes, but there is absolutely no discussion of these being "templates" to be copied exactly. To the contrary, the articles focused on principles, concepts, strategies, and options. An example from the Sahara article:
The principle
of the hole is to give the
player on the tee a great
number of alternatives according
to his strength and
courage. If he plays for
the green and succeeds he
has an advantage of at least
one stroke over the opponent
who takes a shorter carry to the right, and
probably more than one stroke over the player who
avoids the carry altogether. But if he fails he is
bunkered and may easily take a five or six and lose
to the short player who goes round.
The introduction to the series preceded the first such article ("Sahara Hole at the National Golf Links") and sets forth MacDonald's stated purpose in writing the articles. Some would say he built NGLA for the same reasons he wrote the articles:
This is the first in a series of representative American golf holes to be a monthly
feature of the magazine. Each will be illustrated with a full-page plaster of Paris model
worked out from an especially prepared topographical map. This allows a visualization
of the character and interesting difficulties of each hole not possible if only
a survey chart were given. To this the photographic illustrations will be a further
aid, as the position and direction of the camera will be found indicated upon the
model. It is hoped that as time goes on these examples of the great holes of
American golf courses will furnish to Green Committees the country over a fund of
knowledge from which they may gather much that will be helpful to the improvement
and added interest of their courses.
--My bold added.
Here are a few photos for those who think that MacDonald's style was geometric and manufactured . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/AlpsCrossBunker.jpg?t=1165472204)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/SaharaWide.jpg?t=1165472316)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/CapeGreen2.jpg?t=1165472378)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/ngla18bunkers.jpg?t=1165472430)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/nglaSaharaGreensideBunker.jpg?t=1165472508)
-
Jim S,
The fact that Professor Moriarty could not understand the implications of your question is of no surprise. For him to say, after you've explained the thrust of the point, that the old agronomy wouldn't make a difference is consistant with his inability to understand anything related to this subject.
Professor Moriarty says,
"Merion's "non-redan" played more like a redan for me than NGLA's real redan, because I am left-handed."
This is all we need to know about his ability to tackle this subject matter. About as poorly as the Eagles' defense.
. . . I hope the community at large makes their determinations on their own and do not follow MacWood and Moriarty on faith. That would be a mistake, but one everybody is free to make.
Mr. Morrison. I understood exactly what JES meant, and if you weren't so gung ho on trying to find something about me to ridicule, you'd would understand my response as well as my comment you quote above.
So far with me you have been defamatory, rude, and wrong. And now with this inconsequential drivel you are well on your way to pathetic.
-
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]
Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?
There could be a variety of explanations.
First, I doubt that CBM would give credit to a poor imitation. But he did. Read the July 1914 GI. He credited Merion as a Redan.
Secondly, the article could have been written based on a conversation, or editorial license could be the culprit.[/color]Or, he could have written the words himself, and they were unedited. Why can't you accept the obvious answer? It has his byline on it. Are all his other writings to be discredited too? Or is this the only one?
Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much.
Then, you're not familiar with Southern Florida.
Stand on the 9th green or 10th tee at Jupiter Hills and tell me that.[/color] I am familiar with South Florida - more the Gulf coast, though, where there are no 25 or 50 foot "hills".
How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?
NO, it's not possible.
The hills are sharp and high, rising 30, 40 or perhaps 50 feet or more, abruptly.[/color] Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci. Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so. Where do you think it's 50 feet? Perhaps Ross thought that overall the property was still relatively flat. It certainly is not hilly compared to many locations in the northeast.
-
JES
What holes did Wilson design on the original Merion-East?
I don't know that he did any. Whom would you assign credit to if it had to be one architect? How about if you could list two? Or three? Care to lay out your case?
-
Based on the reports at the time the course was designed by the committee (five gentlemen) headed by Wilson advised by Macdonald & Whigham. Beyond that we have no idea who did what.
-
David,
A couple points in response to your reply #509:
1) Are you of the opinion that todays golf balls spin more than those of 90 years ago?
2) When discussing the orientation of The Redan as CBM describes, you state....."its validity depends upon the assumption that the order in which MacDonald listed the features has special significance, and I dont think the order had any special significance".[/i] To change the sequence would be to change the sequence of how the hole is actually developed. In other words, turning the axis for the approach direction and then tilting the green equates to building the tee and then building the green. Do you think CBM established his tee complexes for his one-shotters and then tried to find somewhere to put a green? Or do you think maybe he found a green complex and then found the best way to approach it? In my exercise, when you tilt the book left and then turn it you are essentially building (or finding if you prefer) the green and then turning the book clockwise to establish the approach direction (or tee position if you prefer). The sequencing is of utmost importance.
3) Care to post the entire REDAN article by CBM? I would not know where to find it so it would be much appreciated.
4) When I say responses like yours give the appearance of an agenda it's because you did not answer the question. I now understand where you were coming from, and I hope my response 2) above helps.
5) A couple of weeks ago Pat M and Mike C battled about where to draw the line when pooling different holes in a certain "template" category. Frankly I could care less what a hole is called. For me it comes down to playability. I would call the bunker on the front right of Merion's #3 a Redan bunker. Unfortunately, that is the only characteristic of the hole that is similar to the rest of the Redan concepts I know of. The green sloping away from the tee at an angle is, to me, the most important of these playability concepts. That feature dictates the types of shots that might be successful and clearly illustrates the demand on those shots. A green sloping towards the tee does not have similar demands.
-
Based on the reports at the time the course was designed by the committee (five gentlemen) headed by Wilson advised by Macdonald & Whigham. Beyond that we have no idea who did what.
So what exactly is your position here?
None of this sounds odd to me, and I don't think condradictory to what Wayne and Tom have said. How much credit can be given to CBM when all that is documented (correct me if I'm wrong) is a two day visit by Wilson prior to leaving for his time in Europe? What good would it be to speculate, or worse, over speculate his contributions. Are you suggesting Wilson to be so vain as to not give credit where it's due?
-
It seems to me there has been attempt to downplay the evidence that points to a stronger influence on the part of Macdonald & Whigham. The Alps was not really an Alps. The Redan was not really a Redan. We are not going recognize or acknowledge the Principles Nose. So on.
When M&W's name is brought up as being an influence...you'll get: what evidence to you have that he designed any hole at Merion-East. The anwser is there is no evidence other than the existance of some of his pet features and his involvement as an advisor. Of course that same question could just as easily be asked of Wilson, what evidence do you have that Wilson designed any of the holes on the early course and the answer would be the same, no evidence.
In many ways the West course was the more revolutionary golf course. It was designed by Wilson. It seems to me it was the first course made in the Wilson/Flynn image (in contrast to the East) and became the model for the redesigned East.
When we sweep under the rug the true nature of the early East and the influence of M&W - in contrast to the West - I think we are missing a big part of the story.
-
To make the statement that "we sweep under the rug the true nature of the early East and the influence of M&W", you need evidence that this has happened. A poorly conceived Redan is hardly evidence.
I wonder if it's possible that CBM made very strong suggestions to Wilson prior to his trip on which holes to study. These holes are probably great in their original form but once on the ground in the inland USA the committee decided to pursue another direction with respect to CBM's recomendations.
If that is the case, The Merion committee could very easily have felt they wasted a good deal of time, energy and resources all thanks to following the recommendations of one CBM.
Just a thought.
-
To make the statement that "we sweep under the rug the true nature of the early East and the influence of M&W", you need evidence that this has happened.
Have you been following this thread? ???
-
I must have missed the post in which you provided actual evidence supporting your position of the true influence of M&W? Care to link that post?
-
"It seems to me there has been attempt to downplay the evidence that points to a stronger influence on the part of Macdonald & Whigham. The Alps was not really an Alps. The Redan was not really a Redan. We are not going recognize or acknowledge the Principles Nose. So on."
Firstly, there is no dispute at all, and never has been that there was a Principal's Nose feature on the current 4th hole. Why do you claim there was?
When I first brought up the PN as a feature on the early course...you disputed it. You claimed a PN must be a certain distance from the tee and therefore this feature couldn't be a PN.
If it is to bolster your other claims, it is counterproductive to include a falsehood. Secondly, you say there is a stronger influence (and isn't that the implication of the title of this thread--a piece of a puzzle that you two seem to know the answer to?) but the holes you cite are poor examples.
Thats your opinion. It was not the opinion of Macdonald, Findlay, Lesley and others. Trying to claim Macdonald & Whigham didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to what was and wasn't a Redan is pretty amusing.
Just because somebody, even those you regard as illustrious, calls something a Redan or an Alps or a Valley of Sin or an Eden doesn't make it one. You seem to refuse the notion that their contemporary concepts and definitions may differ from our own and may differ from Macdonald's more robust definitions for his book.
I think the problem is you are trying to judge these holes in a modern context. We have an abundance of protype holes to compare these holes to today. At that time we had the NGLA, the entire idea of protype holes was new and not fully developed. The other problem is trying judge holes that have been altered or completely removed. Its very difficult to judge these holes based on the limited number and quality of the photographs.
Don't forget, you proposed that the features that don't seem evident were likely altered. When evidence is presented that the 3rd green was not altered you ignored it. When evidence was presented that the so-called Eden green wasn't altered until 1934 (long after the accounts you cite were made)--and that was only an expansion of the left rear corner of the green, you say nothing. When it was called into question that the old 10th "Alps" really didn't play like one nor closely resembled one, your response and that of your cohort was particularly lame. Frankly, you follow the written word too closely and don't conduct a broader research effort including the all-important SITE VISIT.
Again based upon the quality of the photographs its not a good idea to judge any of the holes as poor reproductions, especially when you have contemporaneous reports to the contrary.
"When M&W's name is brought up as being an influence...you'll get: what evidence to you have that he designed any hole at Merion-East. The anwser is there is no evidence other than the existance of some of his pet features and his involvement as an advisor. Of course that same question could just as easily be asked of Wilson, what evidence do you have that Wilson designed any of the holes on the early course and the answer would be the same, no evidence."
It has long been acknowledged that credit goes to M&W for the advice given at an early meeting at NGLA and vague references afterward. If you think that there was more of an influence, where is it? To say that there are no other attributions of record doesn't prove your claim at all. You must do that. We don't know who was involved with what designs in the earliest iteration of Merion East. Alex Findlay gives an awful lot of credit to Fred Pickering, a man you ignore on here, though you did provide details of his marriage and other census records. I suspect we will never know for certain who did what until we we get to the changes over time made by Wilson/Flynn and later Flynn--there are drawings and other archival information that help fill in the gaps after the opening of the course.
You quick demand evidence of M&W's involvement in the design of any hole at Merion. I'm still waiting for you to tell us which hole or holes Wilson designed on the first course.
"In many ways the West course was the more revolutionary golf course. It was designed by Wilson. It seems to me it was the first course made in the Wilson/Flynn image (in contrast to the East) and became the model for the redesigned East."
Your revisionism is constantly showing in your attempt to make a name for yourself in "discovering new truths" even if they are false or unsupported under careful inspection. Following your line of inquiry, how do you know Wilson designed the West Course? Where is that proved for you to make such a statement? What do you know of the relationship between builder, designer and committee at that time?
I call as I see it. If I had opportunities to make a name for myself in the past...its not something that guides me. I suppose you are going to tell us Flynn designed it.
"When we sweep under the rug the true nature of the early East and the influence of M&W - in contrast to the West - I think we are missing a big part of the story."
You are missing a lot, including the big part of the story. You are making Hollywood style reproductions of documentaries that play better to the general public that doesn't have the time or knowledge to see through your flawed conclusions. I think you two are the Oliver Stones of golf research.
Thats your opinion, I don't see it that way. My goal is always to get at the truth, and I think I do a pretty good job of it.
Its been my expeience that getting at the truth when a legendary figure is involved (or an often told story is involved)can be very challenging....people resist altering a story they've become comfortable with. For example all the heat I got when it was learned I was researching Crump....there was pretty much a full court press to destroy my credibility (you were involved) before I'd even finished and presented my essay.
The truth is almost always more interesting than the legend.
-
I must have missed the post in which you provided actual evidence supporting your position of the true influence of M&W? Care to link that post?
JES
Are we going to go around and around on this track again....the same response could be turned on you in regards to Wilson.
With all due repsect I do not recall you adding any historical evidence on the massive thread or any other thread for that matter.
-
That's the problem here Tom, I am not promoting Hugh Wilson as the architect. You, however, are stating that CBM's influence has been swept under the rug. Yet you cannot provide any evidence of this influence.
-
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]
Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?
There could be a variety of explanations.
First, I doubt that CBM would give credit to a poor imitation.
But he did. Read the July 1914 GI. He credited Merion as a Redan.[/color]
No, it's alleged he did. There's a difference
You should also know that CBM often contradicted himself.
[/color]
Secondly, the article could have been written based on a conversation, or editorial license could be the culprit.[/b]
Or, he could have written the words himself, and they were unedited.
Why can't you accept the obvious answer? [/color]
Because I've learned that quotes and statements attributed to others in articles are not to be taken as The Gospel.
It has his byline on it.[/color]
That doesn't authenticate it
Are all his other writings to be discredited too? [/color]
Each has to be examined on its own merits.
Or is this the only one?
You'll find that CBM not only contradicted others, but that he contradicted himself in his writings.
Each statement has to be examined in order to assess its validity.
Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much.
Then, you're not familiar with Southern Florida.
Stand on the 9th green or 10th tee at Jupiter Hills and tell me that.[/color]
I am familiar with South Florida - more the Gulf coast, though, where there are no 25 or 50 foot "hills".
As I said, you're not familiar with the land where Seminole resides as well as the nearby land.
How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?
NO, it's not possible.
The hills are sharp and high, rising 30, 40 or perhaps 50 feet or more, abruptly.[/color]
Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci. Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so.
Where do you think it's 50 feet? [/color]
From the 11th tee to the 11th fairway is one spot..
6th green to 7th fairway. 4th green to 1st fairway.
If a basketball rim is at 10 feet, and I'm 6'3" I couldn't throw the ball from the fairways to the tee heights, but, I can throw a ball 25 feet into the air.
Perhaps Ross thought that overall the property was still relatively flat. [/color]
That's absurd. Just ask anybody who's played the 4th 5th, 6th and 7th holes, not to mention # 2, # 3, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15, # 17 and # 18.
It certainly is not hilly compared to many locations in the northeast.
And I bet those locations in the northeast aren't as hilly as the Rockies.
Ross knew where he was and Ross knew what the definition of "FLAT" is.
Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Seminole and that you're wrong on this issue.
Thanks
-
That's the problem here Tom, I am not promoting Hugh Wilson as the architect. You, however, are stating that CBM's influence has been swept under the rug. Yet you cannot provide any evidence of this influence.
Did I say you were promoting Wilson as the architect? What I'm saying is you (and many others) on this thread have not approached this in an even-handed way....Wilson's influence on the original design has not recieved the same amount of scrutiny as Macdonald's (no one has questioned it at all as far as can tell).
It appears Wilson's influence is a given (no similar demand for evidence regarding what holes he is responsbile for), while Macdonald & Whigham's influence is questioned strenuously (the common refrain where is the proof he designed any of the holes).
I see this approach as trying to sweep one guy under while letting the other fellow rests comfortably on top of the rug.
-
1) Are you of the opinion that todays golf balls spin more than those of 90 years ago?
I was more thinking of the clubs. I've never hit a ball of 90 years ago, but I have hit modern balls (and balata balls) with old clubs. And while it is definitely possible to put quite a bit of spin on balls with the old clubs, I think the new clubs probably put more spin on the balls. I may be wrong about this though, I am not the best judge, because I dont have a very consistent game. Have you ever hit new balls with old hickories?
To change the sequence would be to change the sequence of how the hole is actually developed. In other words, turning the axis for the approach direction and then tilting the green equates to building the tee and then building the green. Do you think CBM established his tee complexes for his one-shotters and then tried to find somewhere to put a green?
Do you really think it was common practice for designers to build greens without having any idea where they were going to put the tee? I think they have a good idea of the location of the tee and green before they build anything.
In my exercise, when you tilt the book left and then turn it you are essentially building (or finding if you prefer) the green and then turning the book clockwise to establish the approach direction (or tee position if you prefer). The sequencing is of utmost importance.
But it all depends on the nature of the slope. If it slopes slightly up in addition to right to left, then placing the tee at an angle isnt going to change that, and that is my point. The sequencing isnt going to change that.
Care to post the entire REDAN article by CBM? I would not know where to find it so it would be much appreciated.
Posting it might prove difficult but here is a link:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi4h.pdf (http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi4h.pdf)
Frankly I could care less what a hole is called. For me it comes down to playability. I would call the bunker on the front right of Merion's #3 a Redan bunker. Unfortunately, that is the only characteristic of the hole that is similar to the rest of the Redan concepts I know of. The green sloping away from the tee at an angle is, to me, the most important of these playability concepts.
I understand what you are saying, and for the most part agree with you. But realize that while you may not be attaching a name to your description, you are still defining the hole, based on your conception of the most important playability concepts.
I wouldnt call the hole a redan either, using a modern understanding of the term. But many any of the most knowledgeable men of the relevant time period did call it a redan, and for this there are three potential explanations, one of which is improbable, one of which is likely, and one of which is absurd. In that order:
1. Their definition was the same as yours, and at the time the hole fit that definition. Or . . .
2. Their definition was different that yours, and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .
3. Their definition was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.
The first is the approach that Tom MacWood seems to suggest at least some of the time. With all due respect to Tom, at this point I think it is improbable. I have seen no evidence that the hole slanted away, other than that it was called a redan.
I think the second approach is the most likely. It fits with MacDonald's definition (which talks of side slope but not front to back slope) and it fits with the usage by MacDonald and others which allowed for the departure from other hole characteristics which could be deemed as critical [for example, a relatively level or slightly uphill tee shot, a tee shot of at least a certain distance, or a setting which commonly experiences strong and variable winds.)
The third is the approach that Mssrs. Morrison, Paul, Mucci, Childs, and Cirba have taken, and in my opinion it is unsupportable. As has been pointed out on here before (by Patrick, no less) these guys had a very solid handle on their use of language. And when multiple parties are using the same words to describe the same features, it would be absurd to simply assume they were all mistaken, at least without substantial proof.
-
The only thing I disagreed with is where on the photograph you think the Principal's Nose was, not its existence. I never claimed the PN must be a certain distance off the tee, I simply told you where it happened to be located on that particular hole.
On a previous thread when the possiblity was brought up that the PN existed based on the map in the Ledger you vigorously disagreed...I remember Sean Berry being involved in that debate as well.
I'm not saying the men you cite didn't generally know what they were talking about. But according to any informed understanding, the 3rd hole never played like a Redan. It had a deep bunker on a slope below the green, but that's it. As for Valleys of Sin (the Merion ones being in the green), please tell me how that is indicative of anything to do with Macdonald. What Valleys of Sin is there in any of the National School architects?
I have no idea if the Valley of Sin existed on any Macdonald & Whigham courses...perhaps George Bahto knows. Did Wilson reproduce the VoS on any other golf courses to your knowledge?
I have been saying what they say is a certain feature often differs from our perspective today. Their definitions were a lot looser back then so we should avoid making direct links with Macdonald as a point of origin since the concepts were not formal enough to allow this. You seem particularly dense on this subject.
Seems to me you've lost perspective, trying to compare Merion to courses that were built years later (by Raynor and others) and not appreciating that the NGLA & Merion were really covering new ground, the first to use famous holes and famous features as inspiration.
So you don't wish to use photographic evidence due to the quality of the photographs yet you take the written word on face value. I think it suits your case so you choose to do so. If the situation were reversed and the photos supported your case and the written word did not, you would likely take an opposite view. That is just an opinion.
Use both, but IMO the quality of the photographic evidence does not warrant your strong condemnation of these holes.
I don't need to tell you which holes are Wilson (East or West). You make the claim that M&W had a great deal of influence on the East Course and not so on the West. What specific influence do you refer to? Don't shift the onus on others that call you on your unsupported claims, that is not a proper response and is a sign of weakness. You make the claim that we really don't know who designed which holes on the East but you know for a fact that Wilson designed the West. Please offer the proof you have of this. Don't put the onus back on me. This is your claim in the context of no attributions on the East, so you prove it.
You don't need to tell me what holes Wilson was responsible for the orignal East course, but you demand evidence on M&W? It seems to me you are opperating under a double standard.
I firmly believe your goal is to end up with the truth. I don't believe that you have reached your goal.
As for the Crump piece, I think you are straying off topic to deflect real issues with your statements. I happen to think your article was excellent. What I did argue against was your unproven and erroneous claim that PVGC was trying to subordinate the work of Colt in favor of their own Crump. That was a dumb premise then and it remains one now. If anything, the Club overestimated Colt's involvement. Maybe because the routing map, a copy of which we purchased, was well known to the Club as Tom Paul speculates. If there was a full-court press, it was against your notion of provincial regard for everything being Crump. In fact, the opposite was true. Some of us around here might have left the dead to their rest and not unearthed a private matter regarding how he died. It is interesting but there are evident reasons why no one bothered until you to confirm the rumors. Tom Paul later determined the location of the suicide, which differed from your own findings and found on the death certificate.
The Crump piece illustrates the emotional attachment people have for their legends and legendary figures.
-
Tom/Dave,
If the requirements for being called a template hole back then were so fast and loose, then how do we know that many of the holes Wilson built at Merion West, Cobbs Creek, and Seaview wouldn't have been similarly titled as replicas, or "resemblances", had they each hosted famous tournaments soon after inception, as was the case with Merion East, and had the subsequent press and reporting that went along with it?
If I apply the sort of loose guidelines for what we're calling holes that we seem to be in this thread, then the present 17th at Cobbs Creek could easily be called an Eden. Frankly, in thinking about it, that would make as much sense easily as calling the 3rd on the East course a Redan. The 4th hole on Merion West has some real similarities to a Biarritz, with the long, narrow green, depression right in front of the surface, and mounding along the sides of the green simulating the elongated bunkers on most Biarritz's.
I think we can even call the 11th or 9th at Merion West sort of a Double Plateau, and the 15th there also bears some characteristics of a reverse redan.
-
I hereby nominate Pat for the most COLORFUL poster on GCA.
-
Tom/Dave,
If the requirements for being called a template hole back then were so fast and loose, then how do we know that many of the holes Wilson built at Merion West, Cobbs Creek, and Seaview wouldn't have been similarly titled as replicas, or "resemblances", had they each hosted famous tournaments soon after inception, as was the case with Merion East, and had the subsequent press and reporting that went along with it?
Mike, you act as if we made up the fact that these guys had a much looser understanding of these terms that we do now. You arent seriously questioning this, are you? The terms weren't necessarily "fast and loose" but they are obviously different than what we now believe. Otherwise these guys were all idiots.
And you speak of template holes as if there was some sort of registry for them. MacDonald did some holes which could be considered templates, and Rayner certainly did. But other than that I have no idea what the fascination on here with figuring out whether these were or were not templates. I dont see any evidence that they viewed MacDonald's holes as exact blueprints for other designers to follow, so I have no idea of why you would use the "template" requirement as any sort of guage of MacDonald's potential influence.
MacDonald's importance isnt limited to a few "templates." He brought over concepts, strategies, principles, and an entirely new (for america) approach to golf course design.
Why did Merion decide to go in such a different direction? The likely answer is that MacDonald had at NGLA, and that he had encouraged others to do so.
Why did they decide to send Wilson to Europe? Likely because MacDonald had turned to Europe and emphasized its importance.
Why did Wilson go see MacDonald before his trip? Because Merion likely thought that he could learn a lot from MacDonald.
Why did they have MacDonald inspect the property? Why did Wilson credit MacDonald for helping with some routing issues? Why did Wilson use some similar principles at Merion?
All arrows point back to MacDonald and NGLA. To dismiss the man's influence is absolutely preposterous. And whether or not certain holes are similar enough to be considered to be a template by some modern notion is absolutely beside the point.
As for your reference to the other holes and courses, maybe MacDonald's influence was greater than we thought. Maybe his influence can be seen throughout all of Wilson's design. If you guys would drop this silly template notion, you might find MacDonald's approach to golf design throughout Wilson's design. Maybe No. 18 on Merion East has a giant Biarritz inspired swale in front of the green.
Or maybe not. But the relevant contemporary community attributes many similarities to the course at which MacDonald was allegedly involved. This hurts your argument more than it helps it.
-
David,
Tom MacWood is trying to prove CB's involvement with the East course by contending that this is the only one of Hugh Wilson's courses that had either Template holes or Features from the Old Country, and used the "template" comments by a few of the old guys to bolster his contention.
My counter to that is simply that if the other Wilson courses had the same press scrutiny that the East did early on, by virtue of being selected for the biggest tournament in the country, they those folks might have found other "template" examples on his other courses, particularly given the very fast and loose standards (by our estimation) that they seemed to apply to their definitions..
There is no doubt that CB had a big important role in American golf and there is no doubt that he helped Wilson get started at Merion.
However, I still think that any copies of holes, or features of holes, had way more to do with the EIGHT MONTHS that Wilson spent overseas STUDYING and SKETCHING courses and great holes than it did with the 2-4 days? he spent with Macdonald.
That's all.
-
Mike,
Your post was to me as well as Tom MacWood. While I do think that Tom has posted much important, interesting, and accurate information, I think our views on these issues do differ in some respects.
Even so, you are mischaracterizing his position, which is based on more than just the use of certain similar features at Merion, or "a few" of the old guys commenting on them. But he is more than capable of defending himself.
David,My counter to that is simply that if the other Wilson courses had the same press scrutiny that the East did early on, by virtue of being selected for the biggest tournament in the country, they those folks might have found other "template" examples on his other courses, particularly given the very fast and loose standards (by our estimation) that they seemed to apply to their definitions..
Except that Merion West was used in the 1916 Amateur, and a discussion of the relative merits of both courses as well as the USGA's decision to use two courses were both hot topics for press coverage before, during, and after the event.
However, I still think that any copies of holes, or features of holes, had way more to do with the EIGHT MONTHS that Wilson spent overseas STUDYING and SKETCHING courses and great holes than it did with the 2-4 days? he spent with Macdonald.
You are ignoring much of the contemporary historical record regarding MacDonald's potential influence. Wilson acknowledged that MacDonald helped him with routing problems. Whigham apparently discussed MacDonald's involvement. MacDonald made one (or multiple?) site visits.
Plus, more importantly, why do you think Wilson went to Europe to study? Why were they looking back to Europe in the first place? You dont think that MacDonald should be credited trail blazing in this regard? Do you think that it is conceivable that while Wilson was at NGLA that the topic of what he should study in Europe wouldnt have come up? That they wouldnt have discussed the strategic principles present in the holes around them?
Had Wilson instead chosen to study under one of the hack Scottish pros who had been building courses around Philadelphia, Wilson could have gone to Europe for a year and come back and built nothing more impressive than the Haverford Merion.
______________
Mr. Morrison said:
Mike,
You need to use smaller words I have given up.
Yes Mike, please use smaller words, for I am just too stupid to understand your gihugic vocilarium. I need simple one syllable words like FACT, and a few two syllable words like MANNERS. Words in which Mr. Morrison has no interest. He prefers larger words like de-faaaam-aaaa-toeee-rrrrrry and riiiiiddd-iiii-culllle.
-
My humor index is nearing a yearly low. I've been on the phone with Microsoft for 5 hours trying to resolve a worm or virus problem.
Maybe the virus got into Google and caused you to mis-measure Merion's 10th by 40 yards . . . did it also cause you to call me a liar and/or an idiot for measuring it correctly?
-
In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?
I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]
Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?
There could be a variety of explanations.
First, I doubt that CBM would give credit to a poor imitation.
But he did. Read the July 1914 GI. He credited Merion as a Redan.[/color]
No, it's alleged he did. There's a difference
You should also know that CBM often contradicted himself.
[/color]
Who are you saying "alleged" that he called it a Redan. The article is titled:
"REDAN HOLE AT THE NATIONAL GOLF LINKS
By C. B. MACDONALD and H. J. WHIGHAM"
In the article it says
"There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland."
Are you saying someone else alleged that CBM said this and then wrote it under CBM's byline? Or are you saying that CBM wrote it, but didn't mean it because he was being self-contradictory? Are you a conspiracy theorist?
Secondly, the article could have been written based on a conversation, or editorial license could be the culprit.[/color]
Or, he could have written the words himself, and they were unedited.
Why can't you accept the obvious answer? [/color]
Because I've learned that quotes and statements attributed to others in articles are not to be taken as The Gospel.
It has his byline on it.[/color]
That doesn't authenticate it
Are all his other writings to be discredited too? [/color]
Each has to be examined on its own merits.
Or is this the only one?
You'll find that CBM not only contradicted others, but that he contradicted himself in his writings.
Each statement has to be examined in order to assess its validity.
So, where are you landing on this (if anywhere)? Did he write it and he's contradicted himself? Or, someone else wrote it and used his byline and that he was misquoted? What merits do you see when you assess this article?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much.
Then, you're not familiar with Southern Florida.
Stand on the 9th green or 10th tee at Jupiter Hills and tell me that.[/color]
I am familiar with South Florida - more the Gulf coast, though, where there are no 25 or 50 foot "hills".
As I said, you're not familiar with the land where Seminole resides as well as the nearby land.
Actually you said "Southern Florida" not "Seminole". More revisionist history.
How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?
NO, it's not possible.
The hills are sharp and high, rising 30, 40 or perhaps 50 feet or more, abruptly.[/color]
Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci. Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so.
Where do you think it's 50 feet? [/color]
From the 11th tee to the 11th fairway is one spot..
6th green to 7th fairway. 4th green to 1st fairway.
If a basketball rim is at 10 feet, and I'm 6'3" I couldn't throw the ball from the fairways to the tee heights, but, I can throw a ball 25 feet into the air.
Huh???? Is that how you measure elevation change? By throwing a basketball in the air? How do you know how high you throw a ball? How do you measure that? Measuring elevation change is very hard to do accurately. If you're doing it by reference to other things, consider that 50 feet would be about the height of a 5 story building. Have you used any kind of measuring device? The USGS application says they're between 25 and 30 feet above sea level - not 50.[/color]
Perhaps Ross thought that overall the property was still relatively flat. [/color]
That's absurd. Just ask anybody who's played the 4th 5th, 6th and 7th holes, not to mention # 2, # 3, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15, # 17 and # 18.
It certainly is not hilly compared to many locations in the northeast.
And I bet those locations in the northeast aren't as hilly as the Rockies.
Ross knew where he was and Ross knew what the definition of "FLAT" is.
So, Ross was just being absurd in calling it flat. What definition of flat do you know that Ross knew. How do you know he knew it. Why was he so absurd as to say Seminole was flat? Or is this another conspiracyto misquote the golden age architects?
Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Seminole and that you're wrong on this issue.
Thanks
-
David,
Virtually everything you've said in conclusion has been stipulated previously.
There is no question that the Wilson visit to Macdonald was important for;
1) Visiting and seeing NGLA
2) Understanding the concepts of strategic golf and some of the examples Macdonald was most familiar with
3) Helping Wilson with his itinerary for his 8 month trip overseas.
4) At least one site visit upon Wilson's return.
5) Some further advisement of an indeterminate nature that may have included routing, agronomy, membership issues, but that has no other documentation.
But, I'd once again contend that there is nothing NEW here at all that hasn't been reported over the decades. Perhaps I don't understand your goal or Tom's?
Is it that Macdonald should be given greater credit for the architecture of the East course at Merion? If so, where is the documented proof?
Wayne is right that it is the burden of proof lies with those who advance a hypothesis, and conjecture about two template holes and an eden green are hardly definitive in any way, shape, or form.
I can almost understand if like Joe Burbeck, Charles Macdonald was a man who didn't like to be in the spotlight, but was really a "behind the scenes" guy.
However, you would have to look far and wide to find a guy who was more boastful, self-assured, and self-promotional than Macdonald in those days. He and Whigham wrote extensively about the architectural work CB was doing, and all throughout this period.
The course at Merion was so well-received on inception that it hosted the country's premier tournament a few years later. Yet, the only mention I can find from Macdonald about Merion is where he calls today's 3rd hole a "redan" in making a more general point about the hole type.
Why is that? If what we're trying to prove is Macdonald's greater influence at Merion, then why was Macdonald strangely silent on this topic.
Even George Bahto's book about CB has a single very brief mention of Merion, once again talking about the 3rd as a Redan. George has researched CB extensively and has reams of documentation.
What is being presented here that is new, David? What is it that we're supposed to be understanding based on the evidence presented to date?
I don't get it. ???
-
But, I'd once again contend that there is nothing NEW here at all that hasn't been reported over the decades. Perhaps I don't understand your goal or Tom's?
Tom can speak for himself, but I agree that there is little or nothing new here. In fact, I think that the evidence I have seen infers that it has been well-known and largely accepted since the beginning that MacDonald, his ideas, and his golf course, all had a major influence on Wilson at Merion East, especially early on.
Wayne is right that it is the burden of proof lies with those who advance a hypothesis . . .
Again I agree. The one with the hypothesis bears the burden of proof. But the hypothesis is Mr. Morrison's, not mine. He has repeatedly denied and diminished MacDonald's influence regarding Merion East. He is the one who is trying to rewrite history and shine even more of a light on his hometown hero's. But where is his proof? He has none. Instead of actually trying to challenge the historical record he simply ignores it.
One cannot simply say, So what if the contempary first-hand accounts say XYZ . . . I dont believe what I read, so you have the burden of proving XYZ. This is historical research and in historical research contemporary first-hand accounts are the proof! At least until someone proves them to be inaccurate.
An example from this thread: Mr. Morrison relied completely on the a magazine shot chart of Jones' 1930 drives at Merion's 10th to calculate the distance of Merion's 10 hole. He needed no further evidence and treated the shot chart as all the evidence he needed. I questioned the article and Mr. Morrison made it quite clear who he believed had the burden of proof. Me. And I met that burden by offering not my speculation or personal experience or hopes or wishes, but with better, more accurate evidence. I had the burden and I met it.
Never mind Mr. Morrison's rudeness or his defamatory comments or his failure even now to acknowledge he was wrong. He was correct that I had the burden of proof in that circumstance because I was the one with the hypothesis which, if true, would alter the conventional wisdom.
Likewise, Mr. Morrison has the burden of proof here, and he hasn't even come close to meeting it. All I am doing is reminding us of what we already know, even if Mr. Morrison kicks and screams and demands we ignore what has long been known.
What is being presented here that is new, David? What is it that we're supposed to be understanding based on the evidence presented to date?
Just what the historical record has long told us. And nothing has come remotely close to challenging the historical record yet.
With all due respect, your pathologizing about MacDonald's motivations and personality do not meet the burden required to rewrite the historical record.
-
I wouldnt call the hole a redan either, using a modern understanding of the term. But many any of the most knowledgeable men of the relevant time period did call it a redan, and for this there are three potential explanations, one of which is improbable, one of which is likely, and one of which is absurd. In that order:
1. Their definition was the same as yours, and at the time the hole fit that definition. Or . . .
2. Their definition was different that yours, (CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland.". How is this definition different from the current definition?)
and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .
3. Their definition was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.
4. Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.
The first is the approach that Tom MacWood seems to suggest at least some of the time. With all due respect to Tom, at this point I think it is improbable. I have seen no evidence that the hole slanted away, other than that it was called a redan.
I think the second approach is the most likely. It fits with MacDonald's definition (which talks of side slope but not front to back slope)
You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.
and it fits with the usage by MacDonald and others which allowed for the departure from other hole characteristics which could be deemed as critical [for example, a relatively level or slightly uphill tee shot, a tee shot of at least a certain distance, or a setting which commonly experiences strong and variable winds.)
CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan. The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.
The third is the approach that Mssrs. Morrison, Paul, Mucci, Childs, and Cirba have taken, and in my opinion it is unsupportable. As has been pointed out on here before (by Patrick, no less) these guys had a very solid handle on their use of language. (I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it). He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline. And when multiple parties are using the same words to describe the same features, it would be absurd to simply assume they were all mistaken, at least without substantial proof.
Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.
-
David,
Again, I think you and I are just differing by degrees.
For instance, I might proffer that Macdonald was responsible for say, 60% of the strategic inspiration for the Merion course, and perhaps 10% for what was eventually put on the ground.
I say that because I believe his role was diminishing. First, I believe that Wilson learned much more in 8 months overseas than he could possibly learn in 2 days with Macdonald at NGLA. Macdonald's important role was in telling Wilson WHAT to look for, and how those courses, holes, and features played a role in great design.
However, I don't see much in the way of continuing education from Macdonald and virtually nothing in the way of specific hole or feature design from Macdonald after Wilson came back. Evidently there is some mention of helping with a routing issue, and he and Whigham continued to be referred to graciously as "advisors", but I think that was more in gratitude to their original help than any ongoing collaboration. However, he likely did have some involvment, which I'm going to objectively, and probably generously estimate at 10%.
The fact that there is no written or historical evidence in either the Merion archives OR Macdonald's records goes a long way to suggest that to be true.
Perhaps in your thinking, and perhaps in Tom's, those number might like more like 80/30%, but I think that's a serious overestimation, again, based on the lack of any real documentation at either Merion or from Macdonald's papers that there was anything much beyond the initial visit and some intermittent future correspondence.
-
Tom, do you think that there was the possibility that the club allowed these loose commets about Macdonald's involvement with the course to drum up interest for potential members? This would make sense given his reputation in American golf at the time. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I thought it might answer part of the question in regards to "advisement" and "blessing" being used in the interaction of Macdonald and Wilson. In other words, his name lent clout and because the mebers didn't know a thing about what made a great course, Macdonald merely being "involved" on the periphery would somehow put the members minds at ease in regards to Wilson, a rookie, taking on the job.
-
Bryan, as usual a thoughtful and insightful analysis, but one with which I dont entirely agree.
I think you are putting too much weight on the notion of there having been a formal definition, probably because I used the word. I should have been more clear and said "understanding" or "definition and usage." I think I usually have said the latter, but will try the former.
The reason I distinguish this from your formal definition is that, when it comes to understanding what is meant by words, looking at how the words are used is really 'where the rubber hits the road,' as our friend Matt Ward would say. This is especially true when we have the examples of usage from the person who set forth the supposed definition, and more true still when such usage occurs contemporaneously (in the same article) with the supposed definition.
So let me reprhase the three possible scenarios:
1. Their understanding of the term was the same as yours, and at the time the hole was consistent with this understanding. Or . . .
2. Their understanding of the term was different than yours, and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .
3. Their understanding of the term was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.
CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland."
You call this a definition, JES thinks it is a construction manual, and I think it is simply descriptive. I see no reason to believe that MacDonald meant to limit himself so specifically, especially given the examples he cites and also his continued description. For example, he says the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course. It is hard for me to reconcile this with trying to apply an extremely formal definition.
But setting all this aside and assuming he meant this introduction to his article as a specific definition, your this old 'definiton' is different from the modern understanding in that it does not mention the front to back slope, and after a quick reread of the article I dont think the article does either.
4. Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.
I'd definitely place this under my third scenario. One problem with this theory is that MacDonald was far from the only one to compare the Merion holes to holes which MacDonald also used for inspiration. What was in it for them? Filthy Lucre?
Also, your theory is way too speculative. Where is your proof?? It is beyond pop-psychology to simply attribute a lie to the guy because he was arrogant and we dont like what he was saying. And as far as I know there is no evidence that anyone ever disagreed with him or called him on this. And people were certainly not afraid to take an MacDonald-- there are some extremely critical reviews of NGLA. One would think that they would have jumped at the chance to prove him an idiot using one of his own holes to do it.
You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.
I am surprised you make a point of posting what you call the definition, and then you almost immediately move beyond that definition. He doesnt say the tilt from the tee, he says a tilt a benchland right-to-left. If we buy JES's theory of taking these things in order, then the right to left reference has nothing to do with the tee, which hasnt even been located yet.
My point is that you guys are obviously twisting (literally?) to try to get what MacDonald said to fit into your definition. If the definition is unclear to you, look at the usage. Which contradicts what you guys are saying.
So, while I understand that we now all think that the hole needs a downslope, that is not really what MacDonald said, at least not in this article. And his usage may indicate that this is not what he meant either, (at least for reverse redans and at least at this time.)
If the benchland had even the slightest back to front slope then the hole could easily tilt left but not away. And with hard ground the hole would still play generally as he suggests. Keep in mind that he is very clear that it was the wind which was the primary determinate of how the hole played, and the wind would have a very similar impact on the tilting hole with a slight upslope as with one which slopes away, provided that the ground was hard.
CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan. The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.
There you go again, messing with your own definition. He says left-to-right tilt, not front to back tilt. What evidence suggests that the "essential" tilt is front to back, as opposed to right-to-left?
(I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it). He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline.
He presently is. In the past, he has quoted these MacDonald articles as gospel. I think he may have gone off the deep-end with this time! That being said, in the past he has been a stickler for insisting that these guys were very much in control of their language and word usage.
Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.
Bryan, in other contexts you have asked me to support my claims with facts. So with all due respect, let me ask you . . . WHAT EVIDENCE?
--What is the evidence that MacDonald didnt mean what he says in this article?
--What is the evidence that he was trying to bolster his own reputation, aside from amateur pathologizing. (And if this hole was so obviously not a redan even then, how would taking credit for a crummy redan that didnt work as a redan bolster his repuation?)
--What is the evidence that the other commentators, all respected and knowledgeable men, would misuse the term as well?
People keep talking about the evidence, but the only evidence I have seen is that the present hole doesnt fit the present definition of a redan. That surely is not enough to rewrite history, or impose our modern understandings on the past.
-
However, I don't see much in the way of continuing education from Macdonald and virtually nothing in the way of specific hole or feature design from Macdonald after Wilson came back. Evidently there is some mention of helping with a routing issue, and he and Whigham continued to be referred to graciously as "advisors", but I think that was more in gratitude to their original help than any ongoing collaboration.
Mike, you've obviously bought into Mr. Morrison's rhetorical deck-stacking here. There is evidence of continued involvement, but you dismiss it entirely because "you dont see much in the way of continuing education from MacDonald." The facts you site (the visit, the acknowledgements, the help on the issue, the "advisors" comment, whatever Whigham said, the multiple references to the MacDonald-like design principles. This is all important EVIDENCE of continued involvement and influence. And you have given no justification for dismissing this in favor of your baseless speculation.
For example, you think that all this other stuff was in gratitude? Based on what? What is your EVIDENCE of this?
However, he likely did have some involvment, which I'm going to objectively, and probably generously estimate at 10%.
You cant seriously think you can throw out an objective percentage on this, can you?
The fact that there is no written or historical evidence in either the Merion archives OR Macdonald's records goes a long way to suggest that to be true.
This just isnt true. Wilson acknowledgde that he helped and was an "advisor." Why doesnt that count as written and historical record. And what of Leslie's article? Wasnt he the chairman of the same green committee that is partially credited with the design? And what about all of the other stuff above. Whigham?
I think you may be confusing whether MacDonald was an influence, on the one hand, with determining exactly what Wison learned from him, on the other.
There is ample evidence of the former, but little way to accurately determine the latter. But we shouldnt discount the evidence of influence just because it is now impossible to determine what that evidence was.
Mike, why do you dismiss all this stuff as not being part of the historical record?
Using made up numbers, wouldn't it be more fair to say the following:
We are 80% positive that MacDonald had a major influence on Wilson regarding Merion East, but we can only identify about 5% of what Wilson may have learned from MacDonald
-
However, I don't see much in the way of continuing education from Macdonald and virtually nothing in the way of specific hole or feature design from Macdonald after Wilson came back. Evidently there is some mention of helping with a routing issue, and he and Whigham continued to be referred to graciously as "advisors", but I think that was more in gratitude to their original help than any ongoing collaboration.
Mike, you've obviously bought into Mr. Morrison's rhetorical deck-stacking here. There is evidence of continued involvement, but you dismiss it entirely because "you dont see much in the way of continuing education from MacDonald." The facts you site (the visit, the acknowledgements, the help on the issue, the "advisors" comment, whatever Whigham said, the multiple references to the MacDonald-like design principles. This is all important EVIDENCE of continued involvement and influence. And you have given no justification for dismissing this in favor of your baseless speculation.
For example, you think that all this other stuff was in gratitude? Based on what? What is your EVIDENCE of this?
However, he likely did have some involvment, which I'm going to objectively, and probably generously estimate at 10%.
You cant seriously think you can throw out an objective percentage on this, can you?
The fact that there is no written or historical evidence in either the Merion archives OR Macdonald's records goes a long way to suggest that to be true.
This just isnt true. Wilson acknowledgde that he helped and was an "advisor." Why doesnt that count as written and historical record. And what of Leslie's article? Wasnt he the chairman of the same green committee that is partially credited with the design? And what about all of the other stuff above. Whigham?
I think you may be confusing whether MacDonald was an influence, on the one hand, with determining exactly what Wison learned from him, on the other.
There is ample evidence of the former, but little way to accurately determine the latter. But we shouldnt discount the evidence of influence just because it is now impossible to determine what that evidence was.
Mike, why do you dismiss all this stuff as not being part of the historical record?
Using made up numbers, wouldn't it be more fair to say the following:
We are 80% positive that MacDonald had a major influence on Wilson regarding Merion East, but we can only identify about 5% of what Wilson may have learned from MacDonald
DM, Allow me to cite some examples of advisement and whether or not this warrants design credit.
George Thomas wrote of Wilson, "I always considered Wilson, of Merion, Penn., as one of the best of our architects, professional or amatuer. HE taught me many things AT Merion and Coob's Creek and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly ADVISED me by letter when I wrote him concerning them."
Are we to give Wilson credit for Rivieria, Bel Air, LACC, etc.?
In turn Thomas returned the favor. "...in the ultimate show of respect to his fellow Philadelphians, Flynn asked that George Thomas travel east to share his expertise for the project." Geoff Shackelford, Golden Age of Design, in regards to the work Flynn performed at the Ninth hole at Pine Valley. Who gets credit for what?
There is a photo of Mackenzie making sketches at Riviera w/ Thomas and Bell looking on. Are we to give Mackenzie credit for Riviera? No. Why? We don't know what the sketches suggested nor do we know if Thomas used any of the ideas. Can we deduce that Mackenzie MIGHT have had an influence, sure. He was there, and we know this by documentation and by photo and , in additon, Mackenzie was asked to come for advisement (little to his knowledge, he thought he was asked to come to design a project).
WE DON"T KNOW WHAT MACDONALD SAID TO WILSON. And because there is some evidence, whether real or percieved, of Redans, Principles Nose's and the like, doesn't mean Macdonald gets credit for that. Hugh Wilson made his own trip to the British Isles and saw them for himself. American architecture was trying to find it's own way at that time, and while it used "templates" from Britain in it's infancy, it quickly started to develop it's own style, while still using some of the principles from Britain. And so it is today.
-
Does anyone know if CBM built a "redan" which sloped from back to front?
Could the commonality of naming golf holes (individual names like Thom's elbow for #14 at Shinnecock, as opposed to category names like "redan") in those early days account for a wider more inclusive description of a hole like #3 as a "redan" when it seems far removed from that type today?
-
David,
We're both plainly speculating here based on very, very thin evidence.
Yes, we do know that Macdonald did have a big influence on Wilson. He pointed him in the right direction, taught him all he could over two days, told him where to go in GB to see some of the greatest stuff over there, and....and that's where the picture gets fuzzy.
We know of at least one site visit, but the nature is unspecified. We know that Wilson was grateful but not for anything beyond the initial push in the right direction and an account of being available for consultation afterwards. We also know that some of the leading golf people of the day called one hole a redan, one an Alps, and Travis evidently said the 15th green was based on the Eden green.
That's all well and good, but that's all there is to hang your hat on. Any of those things could have been learned by Wilson from his extended (8 months is a long, long time to look at golf courses every day) stay in Great Britain than from anything Macdonald may have imparted. He also built features that I've never seen from Macdonald such as Valley of Sin features, but that existed in Scotland. Where do you think that idea may have come from?
Again, speculation, but in lieu of any formalized records or documentation, that's all we have.
I'm inclined to think that what David Stamm suggests about Macdonald giving the project instant cache to the Merion membership and prospective onlookers as very, very plausible. After all, Macdonald was the most important and well-known man in American golf at the time. Why wouldn't Wilson want him to be known as "advising" on the project, in whatever capacity, if even just for PR purposes; especially given Wilson's "first time" architectural status?
Also, I'm sure Wilson would have been very interested from Macdonald to learn about construction techniques, agronomy, maintenance standards, and a whole host of things having nothing to do with architecture directly.
To me, the most weighty evidence in this whole matter is the actions, or inaction of Macdonald himself. Knowing his tremendous ego, I find it incredulous to believe that if he had a great deal to do with the actual design and building of the Merion East course, he would have trumpeted that news widely. He was a huge self-promoter, and with very valid evidence to back up his boastfulness. The fact that he said almost nothing about Merion, the fact that there is not a single shred of written evidence about his involvement with Merion in any of the voluminous files that have been unearthed over the years, and the fact that the course itself bears virtually none of the type of close replications to "ideal golf course" standards originated and duplicated countless times by Macdonald and his disciples all tend to make me believe that once he pointed Wilson in the right direction, the rest is history.
-
David,
Tom MacWood is trying to prove CB's involvement with the East course by contending that this is the only one of Hugh Wilson's courses that had either Template holes or Features from the Old Country, and used the "template" comments by a few of the old guys to bolster his contention.
I'm not trying to prove his involvement...he was involved. I'm trying to preserve is involvement.
My counter to that is simply that if the other Wilson courses had the same press scrutiny that the East did early on, by virtue of being selected for the biggest tournament in the country, they those folks might have found other "template" examples on his other courses, particularly given the very fast and loose standards (by our estimation) that they seemed to apply to their definitions.
The East and West were both selected together to host the biggest tournament in the country. Both designs recieved a great deal of attention. On the lead up to the tourney both courses were described in detail. The East course had templates; the West did not. Seaview was another course that recieved a good amount of publicity...no templates.
And speaking of templates I recently discovered Sleepy Hollow (1912) had an Eden that was also a par-4. The 17th - Eden.
There is no doubt that CB had a big important role in American golf and there is no doubt that he helped Wilson get started at Merion.
However, I still think that any copies of holes, or features of holes, had way more to do with the EIGHT MONTHS that Wilson spent overseas STUDYING and SKETCHING courses and great holes than it did with the 2-4 days? he spent with Macdonald.
That's all.
-
I might add the purists who complain that the Alps at Merion was not an Alps would not be pleased with the Alps at Sleepy Hollow. It featured a series of chocolate drop mounds down the left side that loop right across the fairway to other side (this feature must be 150 yards long and must have at least twenty mounds in succession). The green is further down over the edge of a ravine...with a large bank built up behind the green.
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm sure you know I both understand and respect your position. We tend to agree more often than not.
However, isn't it entirely plausible that Wilson learned just as much and probably more about the great holes during his 8 month visit to GB than from Macdonald directly?
As a fellow who knows a redan from an eden, I'm not sure you would wander upon the 3rd hole at Merion today, without any knowledge that some called it a redan back then, but in full knowledge of Macdonald and Raynor's redans, and then honestly recognize the hole as one of that breed? Similarly, what was called the Alps at the time, the 10th hole, was far different from both the Alps at Prestwick, as well as it's namesake at NGLA in overall look, style, length, and likely playability. Even Lesley only directly compared the front bunker on 10 to an Alps like feature...not the entire hole.
Finally, you know that Macdonald was very much a gregarious, self-promoting extrovert. What do you make of the fact that he didn't mention Merion or his involvement there at all, in any of his records, in any of his articles, or any of his correspondence that has been found to date?
-
Tom MacWood,
If you can't define "involvement", and you can't qualify and quantify the nature and scope of his alleged involvement, and you can't cite a single specific reference detailing his involvement, how can you conclude that he was ever involved ?
With all that CBM wrote, and with CBM's ego, why is there absolutely NO evidence of his specific involvement at Merion ?
He certainly wouldn't be bashful or modest when it came to detailing his efforts at any golf course.
There's not one specific mention, from anyone, of a feature or hole he routed, designed, suggested or constructed.
That void would tend to suggest that his "involvement" might have been akin to that of a cheerleaders.
-
Mike
After looking at old photos of the Alps and Redan (a reverse) at Sleepy Hollow I suspect you'd be questioning if Macdonald had any involvement there too. You can not compare Raynor's work in the 20s to the courses Macdonald & Whigham built in 1912-1914.
I don't know why he didn't mention Merion. He was involved at Greenwich and East Lake and didn't mention those courses either.
There could be a couple of reasons. First he did not take credit for courses he advised on...like Womens National. And Merion-East was completely remodeled.
-
Tom,
I've played Sleepy Hollow and the reverse redan there is terrific and very much in the spirt, look, and playability of other redans I've seen, even if Patrick objects that it's downhill.
I believe the original Alps hole there no longer exists, so unfortunately I can't compare that one.
-
Who are you saying "alleged" that he called it a Redan. The article is titled:
"REDAN HOLE AT THE NATIONAL GOLF LINKS
By C. B. MACDONALD and H. J. WHIGHAM"
In the article it says
"There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher.
A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland.
Are you saying someone else alleged that CBM said this and then wrote it under CBM's byline? Or are you saying that CBM wrote it, but didn't mean it because he was being self-contradictory? Are you a conspiracy theorist?
It's clear that CBM was contradicting himself, again.
A redan has to have a front portion of the green higher than the rest of the green, with a kick or deflection feature that would redirect balls down to the putting surface. It's the angled, diagonal tilted tableland that CBM references.
CBM was aware of the requirement to have that feature and the others in a redan.
Yet, the 3rd at Merion doesn't contain them. It's just the opposite.
The front of the green is the LOW point on the green, and in no way can serve to kick or deflect incoming shots toward the rest of the putting surface.
In addition, the putting surface at the 3rd hole at Merion is visible from the tee, another non-redan feature.
As to the 3rd hole at Pine Valley, have you ever seen it.
If so, what about the hole has a redan quality ?
CBM is describing a hole that doesn't yet exist, and yet, he describes it as a redan hole. That's a stretch by anyone's standards.[/color]
You'll find that CBM not only contradicted others, but that he contradicted himself in his writings.
Each statement has to be examined in order to assess its validity.[/b]
So, where are you landing on this (if anywhere)? Did he write it and he's contradicted himself? Or, someone else wrote it and used his byline and that he was misquoted? What merits do you see when you assess this article?
It's obvious that he's contradicted himself.
The article could also have been edited.
My assessment of the article is that it's inaccurate.
[/color]
Huh????
Is that how you measure elevation change? By throwing a basketball in the air? [/color]
Sometimes I use a baseball or a golf ball[/color]
How do you know how high you throw a ball? How do you measure that? [/color]
It's fairly simple, I use Euclidian Geometry.
I stand next to a tall building.
I measure a finite distance away from the building.
I go back, next to the building and throw a ball up in the air that comes very close to hitting the building. I then identify that point when the ball is at its highest and shoot the angle from the end of the finite distance I measured to the point where the ball reached its highest point..
Then, through simple Euclidian Geometry, knowing two angles and the length of a side, I calculate the other angle and length of the other two sides of the triangle.
For example, if the angle shot is 45 degrees and the measured distance from the building to that angle is 50 feet, I know that the ball reached a height of 50 feet. I also know that the distance from the measured distance on the ground to the spot on the building wall where the ball reached it's highest point is 70.71067811 feet [/color]
Measuring elevation change is very hard to do accurately. If you're doing it by reference to other things, consider that 50 feet would be about the height of a 5 story building. [/color]
It's probably closer to 4 stories[/color]
Have you used any kind of measuring device? [/color]
YES[/color]
The USGS application says they're between 25 and 30 feet above sea level - not 50.[/color]
What does the USGS say is the height of the clubhouse ?
[/color]
So, Ross was just being absurd in calling it flat. [/color]
IF Ross said that, YES.
But, it's doubtful that Ross ever said that.
ANYONE who has ever seen the property knows that it's FAR from FLAT, having some of the highest elevations in Palm Beach County, if not the highest elevations in Palm Beach County.[/color]
What definition of flat do you know that Ross knew.
[/color]
The same one that I do.[/color]
How do you know he knew it. Why was he so absurd as to say Seminole was flat? [/color]
Because it's incredibly hilly, with steep elevation changes.[/color]
Or is this another conspiracyto misquote the golden age architects?
I see that in spite of your being completely wrong, completely off base, that you've doubled your efforts.
You've NEVER seen Seminole, but, you're going to defend a reference, allegedly made by Ross, stating that Seminole is FLAT. Only an IDIOT could make that assertion.
But, the more you insist that the alleged quote was correct, the more you detract from the total sum of human knowledge on the subject of golf course architecture.
Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Seminole and that you're wrong on this issue.
Thanks[/color]
-
Mike Cirba,
We've been down that road before and you still haven't gotten a bigger boat
-
DM, Allow me to cite some examples of advisement and whether or not this warrants design credit.
Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit? I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again: I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East.
That being said, with the exception of your underlying premise about design credit, I found your post quite interesting. In particular, I found your discussion of George Thomas to very pertinent to today's conversation.
When discussing Thomas, you cite one of Geoffrey Shackelford's book. I am sure you know that Geoff also wrote a book called "The Captain" which is devoted to the life and work of Thomas, and another called "The Riviera Country Club: A Definitive History."
I wish I did, but I dont own a copy of the Riviera book. I do own a copy of the Captain and find it interesting how Goeff treats Thomas' influences. His coverage is quite generous in both tone and volume, for as Geoff bluntly acknowledges in the first sentence of the chapter: Virtually every golf architect has a mentor in the design field. According to Geoff, Thomas had many, including Leeds, Wilson, Flynn, Ross, Tillinghast, Crump, Colt, and Bell, all of whom are discussed in the book not only for their influence but also for their own work.
Moreover, Geoff was able to find at least one example of an area of influence from each of these men in Thomas' work and/or approach to design. At the risk of trivializing their influence, here is a very partial list. Leeds for bunker placement; Wilson for bunker visibility, among other things; Flynn for naturalness of appearance; Ross for strategic style; Tillinghast as a kindred design spirit and for the thrill of nature; Crump for most of what he did at Pine Valley; Colt for much of his design philosophy, and Bell for design ideas and beautiful bunkers.
Geoff not only documented these influences, he wrote a compelling and convincing account of them. The amazing thing is, he didn't have to find one "template hole" to do it. No Wilson Template. No Crump Template. No Colt Template. No templates at all.
_____________
As for MacKenzie at Riviera, I believe I read somewhere that MacKenzie was hoping to be involved, but that Thomas gave him the high hat to that, and that an annoyed MacKenzie later dissed Thomas' par three course as a result. Any EVIDENCE that something similar happened with Wilson and MacDonald?
________________
As for us not knowing what MacDonald said to Wilson, I reiterate:
There is a difference between knowing that there was influence, on the one hand, and specifically identifying every way that influence manifested, on the other. Mr. Morrison, et al, confuse these two concepts and treat verifiable proof of every specific influence as a prerequisite for crediting any significant influence whatsoever.
WE DON"T KNOW WHAT LEEDS-WILSON-FLYNN-ROSS-TILLINGHAST-CRUMP-COLT-BELL SAID TO THOMAS, either-- at least not what they specifically said to influence any of Thomas' designs. So would you conclude that Geoffrey Shackelford should have omitted his discussion of Thomas' influences?
Had Geoffrey Shackelford taken that approach, his Thomas book would have been much shorter, much less interesting, and much less important in the Canon of books on golf course design.
But even though Geoffrey obviously loves Riviera and admires Thomas, he was able to create enough critical distance to give credit where credit is due. I've seen no EVIDENCE that our resident Merion/Wilson experts are able to do the same, and ample EVIDENCE that they are not.
-
What if Geoffrey Shackelford had taken our resident Merion/Wilson "Experts'" approach when writing about Thomas?
Here are some possible snippets from the book . . .
. . . Some ill-informed armchair historians might think that Thomas was influenced by some of the designers in Philadelphia long before he built is California masterpieces. However, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that this was the case.
. . . Thomas and the Philadelphia designers did say nice things about each other in publications and books, but this isn't EVIDENCE. You cant believe everything you read!
. . . You've all heard stories of Philadelphia lawyers? That's because all Philadelphians are dishonest people and too arrogant for their own good, so these guys were undoubtedly lying and just trying to bolster their reputation by latching onto Thomas' success.
. . . Thomas, a true gentleman, was obviously just being polite.
. . . There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that anything in these publications is true. Unless these contemporary first-hand accounts by those involved can be proven accurate beyond any reasonable doubt we should discount them all together.
. . . Look at the holes in the ground. Not a single exact replica among them. Without exact replicas, there is NO EVIDENCE of much influence at all.
. . . Moreover, unless there is substantial evidence that these guys actually designed Thomas' holes for him, they shouldn't be given any credit whatsoever.
. . . The burden of proof is on those who think that Thomas had an influence. Unless they meet their burden by proving a cause and effect relationship between these guys and specific features on Thomas' courses, then the burden has not been met. And never mind using the historical record, because they have the burden of proving that accurate as well. . .
I for one am glad that Geoff wrote the book on Thomas and not our resident Merionomaniacs.
-
Bryan, as usual a thoughtful and insightful analysis, but one with which I dont entirely agree.
I think you are putting too much weight on the notion of there having been a formal definition, probably because I used the word. I should have been more clear and said "understanding" or "definition and usage." I think I usually have said the latter, but will try the former.
The reason I distinguish this from your (It's not my definition, it's CBM's. I'm happy to call it an understanding or description. In essence he leads the article describing what a Redan is) formal definition is that, when it comes to understanding what is meant by words, looking at how the words are used is really 'where the rubber hits the road,' as our friend Matt Ward would say. This is especially true when we have the examples of usage from the person who set forth the supposed definition, and more true still when such usage occurs contemporaneously (in the same article) with the supposed definition.
Can we agree on some terminology? The template for Redan holes is the North Berwick hole of that name. The NGLA Redan is a replica of it. When CBM "described" the Redan concept/principles as the lead in to the article, I think he intended to have it describe the original NB Redan as the template for all the rest.
........................................................
CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland."
You call this a definition, JES thinks it is a construction manual, and I think it is simply descriptive. OK, let's call it descriptive. Perhaps he didn't mean it to be prescriptive. Although that raises the question (that no one here can answer) as to whether CBM had a minimum bar before he'd call a hole a Redan. Based on the Merion example, perhaps he set the bar pretty low. I see no reason to believe that MacDonald meant to limit himself so specifically, especially given the examples he cites and also his continued description. For example, he says the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course. It is hard for me to reconcile this with trying to apply an extremely formal definition.Or it could mean he was just blathering and talked himself around from a particular description to almost anything goes. There is nothing in the article that limits the variations, or describes a threshold, or for that matter describes the so-called "principle". The only thing he describes as essential is the tilt.
But setting all this aside and assuming he meant this introduction to his article as a specific definition, your this old 'definiton' is different from the modern understanding in that it does not mention the front to back slope, and after a quick reread of the article I dont think the article does either.
I think this is where you seem to wilfully continue to miss the point. Do you nor think that his description/definition was written within the context of the North Berwick template, i.e. the original? The NB original template slopes neither right to left or front to back. You approach the front left corner of what is essentially a rectangular green. Consequently, from the tee perspective, the green tilts away and to the left at a 45* angle. Not right to left or front to back. That's why CBM said "approach it diagonally", as I've highlighted in red above. CBM knew what NB looked like and how it played, and that context lies behind how you must interpret his definition/description. Have you seen the NB redan? Does that knowledge inform your interpretation of CBM's description?
4. Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.
I'd definitely place this under my third scenario. One problem with this theory is that MacDonald was far from the only one to compare the Merion holes to holes which MacDonald also used for inspiration. What was in it for them? Filthy Lucre?
How many of those who called it a Redan were persuaded because that's what CBM called it. Like lemmings off the cliff. How many do you suppose had gone to North Berwick and studied the original? How many would have cared about this pssing comment about the Merion reverse Redan. They certainly didn't have the Internet, discussion groups, or probably the time to debate these minutia
Also, your theory is way too speculative. Where is your proof?? It is beyond pop-psychology to simply attribute a lie to the guy because he was arrogant and we dont like what he was saying. And as far as I know there is no evidence that anyone ever disagreed with him or called him on this. And people were certainly not afraid to take an MacDonald-- there are some extremely critical reviews of NGLA. One would think that they would have jumped at the chance to prove him an idiot using one of his own holes to do it.
You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.
I am surprised you make a point of posting what you call the definition, and then you almost immediately move beyond that definition. He doesnt say the tilt from the tee, he says a tilt a benchland right-to-left. If we buy JES's theory of taking these things in order, then the right to left reference has nothing to do with the tee, which hasnt even been located yet.
You're being a little (maybe even a lot) obtuse on this point. CBM knew the original template and he knew the angle of the tilt relative to the tee. And it sure wasn't just right to left. I'm not expanding it. I'm reading it in the context that CBM would have written it. The angle of the green (and hence the tilt) to the tee is a fundamental part of the NB Redan. Go see it, if you haven't already. If CBM talked his way around at the end of the article to you can do infinite variations and still call it a Redan, so be it. That completely destroys the whole concept of templates and replicas.
It sure should be a fun debate when Doak et al do Old MacDonald. What happens if the only way we know that a certain hole is a Redan or an Alps replica or was inspired by them, is if they tell us that's the name of the hole.[/color]
My point is that you guys are obviously twisting (literally?) to try to get what MacDonald said to fit into your definition. If the definition is unclear to you, look at the usage. I'd prefer to go back to the original Redan for context.[/color] Which contradicts what you guys are saying. Which supports what I'm saying.[/color]
..............................................
Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.
Bryan, in other contexts you have asked me to support my claims with facts. So with all due respect, let me ask you . . . WHAT EVIDENCE?
I did put evidence in quotes. Use "balance of probabilities" if you wish. There has been a dearth of real evidence in this whole thread.[/color]
-
In the spirit in this thread of acknowledging influences on our work where it's appropriate to do so, I hereby recognize David's influence in getting me to find and utilize the USGS elevation profile software. It's neat the number of tools available on the Internet to help discuss and debate almost any subject.
Now, for the Luddites out there who will dispute the efficacy of such modern tools vs on the ground study, I can only say that the technology helps when you can't get out on the ground. And, in some cases it sure beats throwing basketballs in the air ;)
Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci. Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so.
Where do you think it's 50 feet?
From the 11th tee to the 11th fairway is one spot..
I assume you meant the 11th green, not the fairway. Using the USGS application it appears to rise 27'.
6th green to 7th fairway.
I presume this is not actually in play, but in any event, it's a fall of 23'.
4th green to 1st fairway.
Again, it's not in play, but it is a drop of 21'.
None are anywhere near 50 feet.
If a basketball rim is at 10 feet, and I'm 6'3" I couldn't throw the ball from the fairways to the tee heights, but, I can throw a ball 25 feet into the air.
-
DM, Allow me to cite some examples of advisement and whether or not this warrants design credit.
Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit? I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again: I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East.
I'll concede that that was an erroneous presumption, Nevertheless, then what has this whole thread been about? That a few here won't acknowledge Macdonald's influence? Because Wilson incorporated "Redan" features, "Principle Nose" bunkers, as I mentioned, etc. real or percieved? These features were not Macdonald's "brain child". He got them from Britain. Are we to then discredit Macdonald for "ripping off" other's work? They were "interpretations" of those holes and features. There is no doubt about Macdonalds role in growing golf in America. And there is no doubt the man had definite ideas on things in reagrds to golf and things in general for that matter. All the things that Macdonald loved about British links golf he wanted to emulate at NGLA and other designs. But that doesn't mean they were his ideas. If Wilson replicated any of Macdonalds suggestions, that doesn't mean they were his ideas in regards to the previously mentioned design philosophies. (Redans, Alps, Eden, etc.) He got them from someplace else! Britain! And so did Wilson!
Let's suppose for a moment that I was an architect (god help us), and you were just getting started in the business. You had a project, your first and I paid you a visit. I suggested to you that a certain hole needed small mounds, chocalate drops if you like, and told you to go visit Somerset Hills so you could study what I was talking about. You decide to use the idea. Be honest, would it be reasonable to think that the chocalate drops were my creation for the hole? I suggested something, but pointed you in the direction of where to find them. It was Tillingahast's creation that you studied and copied (exact or otherwise). Not mine. I don't think anyone is disputing (I think) that Macdonald possibly suggested some things to Wilson, but the features in question were never Macdonalds original ideas to begin with. Wilson went there, also, probably at Macdonalds urging, and spent 8 months looking at the great courses there. Whether Wislon used the features at Macdonald's urging or because of what he saw in Britain, IT DOES NOT MATTER. They both originated from the same place.
-
We're both plainly speculating here based on very, very thin evidence.
See Mike, I just dont think that is the case. Perhaps if you told me exactly what it was I am speculating about, I'll agree but I just dont see it. Sure I have speculated about some things, like whether they might have been looser with the defn. for reverse redans because the strategic concerns are so different, but on the main point I dont think I am speculating.
You've said so yourself, I am just setting out what has been known for years. It is your dismissal of this historical record that is speculative and unsubstantiated.
We know that Wilson was grateful but not for anything beyond the initial push in the right direction and an account of being available for consultation afterwards. We also know that some of the leading golf people of the day called one hole a redan, one an Alps, and Travis evidently said the 15th green was based on the Eden green.
Dont forget Leslie, who was by no means a distant observer.
That's all well and good, but that's all there is to hang your hat on.
That's all there is??? The guy taught Wilson about architecture, helped him plan his itinerary, advised on the appropriateness of the site, gave assistance with a routing problem, and acted as an advisor during design and construction. He also trail-blazed (in America) the design movement of turning back to the links principles, and even built a course at least in part so others could learn about architecture. Your response to this is: "that's all there is."
Just what more should there be? Really, absent designing his course for him, what else could you possibly expect?? Unless proof exists that MacDonald actually designed the course, you guys will continue to discount his contribution and influence. Why? I have absolutely no idea.
Any of those things could have been learned by Wilson from his extended (8 months is a long, long time to look at golf courses every day) stay in Great Britain than from anything Macdonald may have imparted.
Wow. Are you really saying that MacDonald shouldn't be credited because Wilson might have been able to learn on his own what MacDonald taught him? And on a trip that he likely would never have taken were it not for MacDonald's influence? Wow.
He also built features that I've never seen from Macdonald such as Valley of Sin features, but that existed in Scotland. Where do you think that idea may have come from?
So if Wilson had a single independent thought in his head, or if he learned more from MacDonald that what was at NGLA, then MacDonald deserves no credit. Now that is an exaggerated burden of proof.
Again, speculation, but in lieu of any formalized records or documentation, that's all we have.
Except that we have plenty of documentation. You just choose to ignore and dismiss on more speculation.
The rest of your post is again blind shots in the dark about why someone might have done or said something. Again, completely unsupported and unsupportable.
If I said, I think that MacDonald designed No. 10 and it is definitely an Alps, you guys would blow your tops demanding proof. I couldnt prove it (probably because it isnt true) but at least I'd have the skeleton of an argument to 'hang my hat on.' In contrast, you guys just throw out these theories and explanations and you don't even pretend to support them.
Yet it is your burden. You are the one trying to rewrite history.
_____________________
Bryan,
This might hurt to hear, but you are doing the exact same thing Patrick is doing. You are ignoring what MacDonald himself said about the concept because his understanding doesnt fit with your understanding.
I dont think I am being 'intentionally obtuse' at all. Rather I am merely trying to understand the term as he used it. That means reconciling his description with his examples. Your understanding does not allow for this. Mine does.
Sure the description was of NB's Redan. And of NGLA's redan. But he also includes Merion's Redan and some other Redans. This may be why he doesnt emphasize the 'tilt-away' aspect of the hole and instead emphasizes the sideways tilt of the hole.
Or maybe I was being unintentionally obtuse and he really meant that the ideal Redan tilts away as well as sideways. [I was very surprised that he did not mention the tilt-away nature in the article.] If so, it really makes no difference, because MacDonald immediately includes holes which were less than ideal. Like Merion.
If MacDonald thought the Merion hole was a Redan, then either the hole used to tilt away, or while it may have made the hole less than ideal, a tilt-away green was not a prerequisite for a Redan.
Unfortunately, I havent seen NB's redan in person. But I do understand that it tilts away.
__________
Near the end of your post you say that MacDonald's broad use of the term "completely destroys the whole concept of templates and replicas." I agree 100%. But then I dont think that MacDonald meant for others to treat his holes (or the originals) as templates or replicas. I think he was teaching about concepts and strategies, not looking for copies.
That is what is so strange about this entire conversation. Every thinks it is about whether there were exact replicas of templates at Merion and I dont think that was ever intended by either side.
-
David Stamm,
While there is quite a bit more evidence of MacDonald's influence than just supposed Redan, Alps, etc. features, I do agree (and have said repeatedly) that if those features do exist at Merion, then then may well have been Wilson's take on the originals rather than on MacDonald's version. Nonetheless, based on the evidence so far, I see MacDonald as a major influence on Wilson, especially at Merion East.
This is where the context of the time comes into play. For the most part, American golf design was truly dismal at the time. And the concepts we are talking about were non-existant. MacDonald changed that. He brought this stuff to America, and that was huge. Without MacDonald, Wilson likely doesnt know where to go or what to look for, and he probably never even would have considered going in the first place.
So to make your hypothetical more accurate, we'd have to assume that you were a truly revolutionary designer who had set out to change the landscape (pun intended) of american golf, and that you had introduced notions that, while not original, were entirely groundbreaking and earth shattering to those of us who weren't familiar with the originals. In that circumstance, if I came to you and you taught me what you knew, helped be plan a trip to learn more, helped me pick my site, helped me with a routing issue and otherwise advised me during the design and construction, then yes, I think you would deserve a heck of a lot of credit.
Think of it in terms of art. If MacDonald had revolutionized art in America, had taken Wilson under his his wing to teach him a new way to create art (even if only for a couple of days,) helped Wilson plan a trip to the great museums of the world and gave him instructions on what to see and look for, advised him on his subject matter, and continued to advise him throughout the creative process, and while the final result was certainly not a copy, what if some influence could be seen or inferred, if only conceptually? Would you deny that MacDonald was a huge influence in that situation?
I don't think anyone is disputing (I think) that Macdonald possibly suggested some things to Wilson, but the features in question were never Macdonalds original ideas to begin with.
You'd be surprised what has been disputed here. Some on here dont think that MacDonald deserves any credit at all. Or at least that is what they used to think. They are starting to come around a little, but they will never admit it.
___________________________
In the spirit in this thread of acknowledging influences on our work where it's appropriate to do so, I hereby recognize David's influence in getting me to find and utilize the USGS elevation profile software. It's neat the number of tools available on the Internet to help discuss and debate almost any subject.
I take full credit for all your posts from here on.
Isnt that the coolest thing? Mine keeps crashing, but still it is freaking amazing.
-
___________________________
In the spirit in this thread of acknowledging influences on our work where it's appropriate to do so, I hereby recognize David's influence in getting me to find and utilize the USGS elevation profile software. It's neat the number of tools available on the Internet to help discuss and debate almost any subject.
I take full credit for all your posts from here on.
Isn't that nice. I try to acknowledge you in a positive way, and now you want design credit. I'm only prepared to admit to a minor one-time influence ;)
Isnt that the coolest thing? Mine keeps crashing, but still it is freaking amazing.
Yeah, it seems to crash frequently, but just the access and availability is cool.
-
_____________________
Bryan,
This might hurt to hear, but you are doing the exact same thing Patrick is doing. You are ignoring what MacDonald himself said about the concept because his understanding doesnt fit with your understanding. How so?
I dont think I am being 'intentionally obtuse' at all. Rather I am merely trying to understand the term as he used it. That means reconciling his description with his examples. Your understanding does not allow for this. Mine does.
Sure the description was of NB's Redan. And of NGLA's redan. But he also includes Merion's Redan and some other Redans. But he doesn't say the Merion's et al are replicas; it's in the context of the many variations thought. I guess we'll disagree on what the minimum requirement for a Redan is. Apparently almost anything goes for CBM. To me that's not very useful. This may be why he doesnt emphasize the 'tilt-away' aspect of the hole and instead emphasizes the sideways tilt of the hole. I think you are adding that emphasis in your reading. You can't ignore the angled approach. That's clear to anyone (including CBM) who has (or had) seen the original template.
Or maybe I was being unintentionally obtuse and he really meant that the ideal Redan tilts away as well as sideways. [I was very surprised that he did not mention the tilt-away nature in the article.] An understanding of the original template and the comment about the angled approach I think makes it clear enough. Just concede the point. If so, it really makes no difference, because MacDonald immediately includes holes which were less than ideal. Like Merion. Don't you think it odd that he leads off with a description of the Redan features/principles and then ends by essentially saying they don't matter because variations are good as long as you stick to the "principle" that he doesn't describe. And then uses Merion as an example, even though it apparently has the wrong tilt to it.
If MacDonald thought the Merion hole was a Redan, then either the hole used to tilt away, or while it may have made the hole less than ideal, a tilt-away green was not a prerequisite for a Redan.
The people on the ground there say it never tilted away. So, what do you suppose was the prerequisite for a hole to be a Redan in CBM's mind? An angled green? A deep fronting bunker? Surely those were common to many many holes.
Unfortunately, I havent seen NB's redan in person. But I do understand that it tilts away.
__________
Near the end of your post you say that MacDonald's broad use of the term "completely destroys the whole concept of templates and replicas." I agree 100%. But then I dont think that MacDonald meant for others to treat his holes (or the originals) as templates or replicas. I think he was teaching about concepts and strategies, not looking for copies. Then what are the concepts and strategies inherent in a Redan? Which features would be a minimum for those concepts and strategies to be brought out in a new hole by that name?
That is what is so strange about this entire conversation. Every thinks it is about whether there were exact replicas of templates at Merion and I dont think that was ever intended by either side.
-
Lord...I'm at a loss here. This thread has become much too unintentially humorous.
David,
WHO is saying that Macdonald didn't have any influence on Wilson? That's preposterous, and I haven't heard it from anyone on this thread. Could you please point me to the definitive post?
WHO is denying the historical record of Wilson's 2-day visit to Macdonald, his tour of NGLA, Macdonald suggesting an itinerary? Tell me, and I'll hunt them down and correct them for starting this train wreck!!
Who is denying that Macdonald was known to have had some advisory capacity of an indeterminate nature during the construction process? Who said he didn't help with a routing problem? I'll get some ammo together and go after them pronto...just show me where they said it!
Who is denying that some of the authorities of them time; Macdonald, Lesley, Whigham, and perhaps Travis, called today's 3rd hole a Redan (however loosely, as has been proven and stipulated), the front bunker on 10 an "Alps like feature", and I believe someone quoted Travis talking about the 15th green being like an "Eden"? How could anyone possibly deny the written documented words those men used? If they did, point me in their direction and prepare to plug your ears as protection for my forthcoming verbal blast!
No, I don't think that's what happened here. I think instead you came forward and speculated that the old 10th hole was very, very similar to the Alps at NGLA, in elevation change, length, and shot values. Some of us said, no, that's not really possible. I went so far as to defend the fact that I understood why Lesley would call it an Alps due to the fronting bunker, and the likely blindness of the approach, but it ain't an Alps in the way Prestwick is and NGLA is.
I think what also happened is that the fact that the 3rd was called a redan was questioned, because it is frankly not a redan that anyone with a objective reasoning would state. Yes, Macdonald called it a redan, and the name stuck, but it bears almost no playability relationship to any redan hole overseas, or any that Macdonald, Raynor, Banks, or anyone else ever built.
Why would you have forwarded this hypothesis about the 10th hole if not to try to prove that Macdonald had some actual design input to Merion? I'm not understanding what you're trying to assert?
We know that Macdonald did have an influence, and he certainly pointed WIlson in the right direction and probably helped him with questions of indeterminate nature along the way. NO ONE is denying that, unless you can show us otherwise.
However, David...when all is said and done, we know that Macdonald had at least 72 hours of influence over Wilson. It may have been more but there is NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IN EITHER THE MERION ARCHIVES OR MACDONALD'S PAPERS, FILES, ARTICLES, QUOTES, etc.
I'm sure that his advice was invaluable. We all are. Without Macdonald's advice and early direction, Merion may have gone on a far different course. That's stipulated.
However, after Wilson left Macdonald and NGLA he went to study overseas for EIGHT months. I don't know the exact days, but let's think about it...
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
What did Wilson learn during all that time? Perhaps he saw the ALps hole...the redan...the Valley of Sin...Principal's Nose...the Eden? Of course he did, David, and when he returned to the states he built a course that were less direct copies of those templates, straying from Macdonald's more direct copying model, and instead utilized their strategic aspects on the unique piece of ground that was located inland at Merion.
Now, if he had come back and built a course similar to NGLA INLAND, I'd have to believe Macdonald's input was far greater than what has been recorded. However, he didn't, and instead continued the forward evolution of American architecture using old world principles in a new and different way.
That's all I can say on this topic. You've exhausted me. ;)
-
Wayne
To my knowledge no one knows who routed Merion-East, but I did find this in the Merion history: "Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice he recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."
-
Wayne
To my knowledge no one knows who routed Merion-East, but I did find this in the Merion history: "Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice he recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."
Tom,
Doesn't that quote answer your question of who routed the course?
Who had the problems laying out the golf course?
Who received advice of some form from M&W in how to do so?
Who credited M&W for their advice that helped who lay out the golf course?
-
Mike
Thats how I would read it...but I lack ballanced, prepared and cogent ideas.
-
Tom,
I believe we've come to opposite conclusions.
Wilson was the one who had trouble laying out the course, but he was the one who laid out the course and who was charged with same. It's self-evident in the quote you mentioned.
He did credit Macdonald with helping advise him in the task, but we don't know if that was in general terms of routing principles or some specifics around particulars of hole configurations at Merion.
-
Wayne,
Are you so dense? Can you see the only good (I mean real great and effective) way for Wilson to "unstuck" himself (from a routing perspective) out on the property line by the creek near the ninth green was to build a MacDonald conceptualized ALPS hole straight up through the center and across Ardmore Ave? Were you drinking some of TEP's red out at Happydale this morning?
-
Laying out "a" golf course can be far different than laying out "the" golf course in this case.
Wilson could have been talking very hypothetically, very much as an intellectual exercise, considering the property constraints, construction techniques, actual routing, agronomic issues, maximizing strategic values, etc., of any golf course in Macro terms, given that he had never done it before and now was tasked with the chore.
That's very very different than "he had trouble laying out Merion East", as a work in progress.
-
Mike,
It specifically says "Hugh Wilson had problems laying out the East Course".
-
Mike,
It specifically says "Hugh Wilson had problems laying out the East Course".
Sully,
Are you sure?
I thought it said, "Hugh Wilson had problems laying out the East Course so he had his good buddy CB Macdonald do it for him instead while he sold insurance." ?
-
I guess that makes the most sense. My reading comprehension is so bad you are surely correct, that was clearly implied. The hell with defining Redan or Alps, we just found the new and accurate definition of ADVISE.
-
Yes, Jim; you just have to know how to read between the lines to uncover the great conspiracy that's existed for the past 96 years to deny CB Macdonald his rightful place as the Father of Merion.
It has to do with those obstinate, territorial, know-it-all Philly guys and probably cheesesteaks and Yuengling on some level, as well. ;)
-
I did ask a serious question last night on here about a Redan's built by CBM that slope from back to front. This quote by George Bahto, on this site spurred the question:
What more accurate way to describe a 'Redan' than Macdonald's own words? 'Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan.' Bear in mind when Macdonald says 'tilt,' he means it. At National, hole #4 falls over five feet from front to rear. Redans are usually around 190 yards (a formidable distance in the early days of golf) with numerous strategic options depending on wind direction and course conditions: Fly it to the green if you are able, lay-up and chip on hoping to make three, hit a running shot at the banked area fronting the green or even play left of the Redan bunker hoping for a better approach angle (not recommended!). Behind the green are usually deep sand pits to catch aggressive play. To identify the best renditions, I would have to agree with this site's 'Discussion Group.' National's 4th and Piping Rock's 3rd are the most outstanding they built. Macdonald stated: 'the strategy of the Redan cannot be improved on.' The Redan strategy is used by nearly all architects - even as the green complex on par-4 holes. Redan traces its origin to the 15th at North Berwick where Davie Strath first built the hole while revising and formalizing the course. Sir David Baird, a former British Guards officer and a member at North Berwick, remarked that the escarpment Strath used at the 15th hole reminded him of the fortification he had stormed in Crimea 20 years before - the hole was immediately christened the 'Redan'.
My two hypotheses with regards to #3 are:
1) MacDonald misunderstood the historical significance of the term "REDAN" and labeled anything with similar appearances regardless of what the ground actually did as such. (which seems dangerous to me)
2) Sir David Baird was really only talking about the fronting defenses of the "REDAN" in Crimea when labeling #15 at NB and there is no reason to limit the iterations so long as that fronting bank and bunker are present. (This would include the sloping away green that I have always believed is a requirement)
Does anyone have more writing on the actual military installation used in Crimea? Once over the fronting defense, did the surface run away? What would be the military significance of that? Would it obscure the total force size defending that position? Is there more writing on Sir David Baird about what exactly may have reminded him of the site in Crimea?
-
Bryan,
This might hurt to hear, but you are doing the exact same thing Patrick is doing. You are ignoring what MacDonald himself said about the concept because his understanding doesnt fit with your understanding. How so?
He included Merion as a redan.
But he doesn't say the Merion's et al are replicas; it's in the context of the many variations thought. I guess we'll disagree on what the minimum requirement for a Redan is. Apparently almost anything goes for CBM. To me that's not very useful.
I agree that these were not replicas. In fact this is a large part of the point I am trying to make. They weren't replicas and werent intended to be, which is why this whole insistence on looking for replicas of templates is misguided.
As for the "anything goes" comment I think this is a bit of an overstatement. The merion "reverse redan" is on a tabletop, I believe it tilts left to right, there is a large deep bunker right, I dont know where the tee was, but I think there is a debate above about whether the approach was from an angle. The green doesnt fall away, but with the left to right slope it is possible for a left-hander to run the ball across the green with a draw. And if the tee was at a diagonal, then any shot moving right to left over or near the bunker would be quite daunting. So while it certainly isnt a duplicate and certainly doesnt completely conform with either our modern notions of the hole or with the NB original, I just dont think that "anything goes" is accurate.
I think you are adding that emphasis in your reading. You can't ignore the angled approach. That's clear to anyone (including CBM) who has (or had) seen the original template.
Maybe I am just still being obtuse, but isnt possible-- even with the diagonal approach-- for a green to tilt from side to side and back to front? I am holding up a book as JES suggested and it seems quite possible to me. And would not this hole still share many of the playing characteristics of the original, but in a less extreme form? Wouldnt left to right balls (on a reverse) still release? Wouldnt the bunker still be ominous on right to left balls?
Also Bryan, remember we are talking about an reverse here. So many of the really neat aspects of the redan dont really apply for most golfers anyway, do they?
Don't you think it odd that he leads off with a description of the Redan features/principles and then ends by essentially saying they don't matter because variations are good as long as you stick to the "principle" that he doesn't describe. And then uses Merion as an example, even though it apparently has the wrong tilt to it.
No I dont think it odd, not if you keep in mind what he purports to be doing in these articles. He says he is trying to encourage good architecture in by providing examples of great holes and describing the strategic principles inherently therein. He is not demanding duplicates or absolute adherence to the original or best. While the Merion hole doesn't have the one feature that we all think is most important, it still has many similarities in principle with the redan concept, and it is a good golf hole in the links tradition (as opposed to the Victorian tradition of slightly earlier.) So it seems that MacDonald was happy to include it as a redan.
The people on the ground there say it never tilted away. So, what do you suppose was the prerequisite for a hole to be a Redan in CBM's mind? An angled green? A deep fronting bunker? Surely those were common to many many holes.
I doubt he ever thought of it in these terms . . . but if he had it seems he would have required a one shot hole with a tabletop green which sloped in a manner that would allow a running draw to run and high fade to stop; and a deep large bunker on the inside of the table top; and a diagonal tee shot which brought into play the bunker and forced the golfer to turn his ball and control his spin and trajectory if he wanted the ball to bound the right distance.
Then what are the concepts and strategies inherent in a Redan? Which features would be a minimum for those concepts and strategies to be brought out in a new hole by that name?
Bryan, I think the same way about the principles of a redan as you, and have roundly criticized new "redans" without the features you deem important. But in MacDonald's day they apparently thought of it differently.
-
(CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan. [/color]
Then by MacDonald's own definition he contradicts himself with his classifying the 3rd at Merion as a Redan[/color]
I think the second approach is the most likely. It fits with MacDonald's definition (which talks of side slope but not front to back slope)
If it's tilted from right to left, but approached on the diagonal that equates to a front to back slope[/color]
You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.
Again, this is something NOT found at # 3 at Merion.
It's clear that CBM has contradicted himself[/color]
CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan.
And that tilt doesn't exist at # 3 at Merion.
If CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan then he's contradicted himself in classifying # 3 at Merion as a Redan.
You can't have it both ways[/color]
The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.[/color]
That's correct, and one of my points I've been trying to get across to you. It's apparent that CBM has contradicted himself, something I indicated that he'd done on occassion.[/color]
The third is the approach that Mssrs. Morrison, Paul, Mucci, Childs, and Cirba have taken, and in my opinion it is unsupportable.
As has been pointed out on here before (by Patrick, no less) these guys had a very solid handle on their use of language.
That's correct Dave, however, we also know that MacDonald and others contradicted themselves on occassion. When CBM states that the tiltled putting surface, canting away from the golfer, is the essential ingredient in a Redan, we all know that that feature is NOT found at # 3 at Merion, and as such, can't be classified as a Redan.[/color]
(I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it). He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline.
What I said was that you can't take what was written in an article as The Gospel or irrefutable evidence of a fact.
One only has to see the absurdity in the alleged quote by Ross stating that Seminole was flat to understand the need to be cautious when reading articles, allegedly by, or about architects and golf courses
Bryan's produced two seperate quotes from CBM, yet, they conflct and contradict each other[/color]
And when multiple parties are using the same words to describe the same features, it would be absurd to simply assume they were all mistaken, at least without substantial proof.
Dave, it's clearly not a Redan, however, it has some of the component features of a Redan, thus, I can see how it would be easier, in discussing the hole, to simply call it a Redan.
Afterall, who, in the intended readership, would know the difference ? Or the distinctions that seperate it from being a Redan ?
To also call # 3 at Pine Valley a Redan is more than a stretch.[/color]
-
To my knowledge no one knows who routed Merion-East, but I did find this in the Merion history:
"Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice he recieved from Macdonald & Whigham."
What, exactly, did he write in 1916 ?
Let's examine those writings and clear some of the issues up.[/color]
-
Bryan Izatt,
You didn't answer a previous question.
What's the height of the Seminole Clubhouse ?
27 feet, 23 feet, 21 feet ?
How can it be below the level of some of the high points on the golf course if it's higher than 27, 23 or 21 feet. ?
Are you still insisting that the alleged Ross quote that Seminole is flat, is accurate ?
-
Guys,
This may sound like a very stupid question, and certainly if it is it isn't my first, but WHY are you arguing over whether the 3rd green is a Redan when there is a wonderful photograph on p.25 of the September 1916 issue of Golf Illustrated of the 7th green.
Beneath it reads:
The finals on the seventh, the REDAN GREEN in the afternoon round...
What am I missing in this discussion? Why is the 7th green called the Redan in 1916 and yet the discussion here is arguing over the 3rd?
I REALLY am quite confused...
-
Philip,
I believe the old 7th is now the current 3rd.
-
WHO is saying that Macdonald didn't have any influence on Wilson? That's preposterous, and I haven't heard it from anyone on this thread. Could you please point me to the definitive post?
You are kidding right? Mr. Morrison has been questioning and denying just about every aspect of MacDonald's influence for at least two years now (as long as I have been in this particular conversation.) As far as finding the definitive post on this thread, that is likely impossible, as many of Mr. Morrison's posts have mysteriously disappeared. Either he deleted them himself out of embarassment about his own inaccuracies and rudeness, or they were deemed so obnoxious and inappropriate that they were deleted by the gca.com censors.
WHO is denying the historical record of Wilson's 2-day visit to Macdonald, his tour of NGLA, Macdonald suggesting an itinerary? Tell me, and I'll hunt them down and correct them for starting this train wreck!!
Again Mr. Morrison has denied and downplayed these events throughout, and insisted that no actual influence came from these contacts whatsoever. Surely you recall the we don't know what they talked out . . . what advice about the trip? MacDonald was uninvited to Merion . . . there is no proof he listened to a single thing MacDonald said . . . what's the proof they actually looked at NGLA during Wilson's visit? type "inquiries" from Mr. Morrison and others. This is his methodology for minimizing and ultimately dismissing the influence altogether. He ignores the overwhelming evidence of contact and influence and instead insists on impossible proofs of actual conversations and specific on course copies of MacDonald's holes. And this is the methodology that you and others have bought into.
Just look at what he is doing now regarding the routing issue!
Who is denying that some of the authorities of them time; Macdonald, Lesley, Whigham, and perhaps Travis, called today's 3rd hole a Redan (however loosely, as has been proven and stipulated), the front bunker on 10 an "Alps like feature", and I believe someone quoted Travis talking about the 15th green being like an "Eden"? How could anyone possibly deny the written documented words those men used? If they did, point me in their direction and prepare to plug your ears as protection for my forthcoming verbal blast!
Are we reading the same posts? Throughout these conversations Paul and Morrison have downplayed these articles, implying that they are on par with some journalistic hack's misinformed account, suggesting that they aren't to be trusted, downplaying the fact that these are contemporary first-hand accounts by some of the foremost experts in the land. And others have followed suit. Patrick even denied that MacDonald said what is in a MacDonald bylined article!
Contemporary first-hand accounts are a historian's wet dream. Rarely does evidence get any better. Yet you guys treat this evidence like it all needs to be independently proven and like it is inherently untrustworthy. And all you base this on is some amateur psychoanalysis of MacDonald and others.
No, I don't think that's what happened here. I think instead you came forward and speculated that the old 10th hole was very, very similar to the Alps at NGLA, in elevation change, length, and shot values. Some of us said, no, that's not really possible. I went so far as to defend the fact that I understood why Lesley would call it an Alps due to the fronting bunker, and the likely blindness of the approach, but it ain't an Alps in the way Prestwick is and NGLA is.
Mike, although I wish you had done it before you posted this, I encourage to go back and look at my posts. This is a complete misrepresentation of what I have said. My posts are still there. Look at them and you will see that
-- I NEVER said it was very, very similar to the Alps.
--I said that the the newspaper account described it similarly, which it did.
--I also said that the overall elevation changes are similar, which they are, but readily acknowledged from the very beginning that the Alps hole was much more intimidating and felt like it played much more uphill.
--I NEVER said anything that would even suggest that the length was similar. In fact, I correctly pointed out that the drive on the 10th at Merion was about 20-40 yards shorter than you guys thought (depending on the tee.) And was resoundly verbally attacked and defamed for so doing. (Where was your sense of setting things straight then, by the way?) My measure would make the old hole shorter than thought, not longer!
-- I NEVER said it was an Alps in the way National or Preswick are. All I did was to try and understand why the contemporary experts thought it was an alps and called it an alps. That is what one does in historical research. But not what goes on here.
I find it amazing that the same people who will not draw even the most obvious conclusions on what Wilson learned from MacDonald are so willing to infer thoughts and motivations to me without any basis whatsoever.
Why would you have forwarded this hypothesis about the 10th hole if not to try to prove that Macdonald had some actual design input to Merion? I'm not understanding what you're trying to assert?
Again Mike, you are inferring motivations and agendas which never existed. I've explained to you what I am trying to do numerous times so if you havent figured it out I guess I will stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and simply infer that you have no interest in really understanding. After all, if you cant beat them, join them.
NO ONE is denying that, unless you can show us otherwise.
Not true. A large part of that Mr. Morrison and Paul are doing is trying to rewrite the history of MacDonald's influence.
I'm sure that his advice was invaluable. We all are. Without Macdonald's advice and early direction, Merion may have gone on a far different course. That's stipulated.
Are you joking? This has never been stipulated, at least not in any meaningful and lasting form.
However, after Wilson left Macdonald and NGLA he went to study overseas for EIGHT months. I don't know the exact days, but let's think about it...
Dont patronize me Mike.
David, and when he returned to the states he built a course that were less direct copies of those templates, straying from Macdonald's more direct copying model, and instead utilized their strategic aspects on the unique piece of ground that was located inland at Merion.
MacDonald's was not intended to be a direct copying model, at least not by others besides MacDonald and Raynor. By treating it as if it was, you have completely distorted the conversation.
-
Pat,
Thanks VERY much for clearing that up for me as I got lost among the volume of posts.
Since that is the case then, acn anyone look at that photograph (and perhapeven post it) and explain to me how a green that CLEARLY runs left to right and DOWN and away (this can be seen by comparing the two caddies standing one front right the other middle back right) from the player and has a bunker smack in front of the back right portion of the green not be considered at least Redan-like?
-
David Moriarty:
In my opinion, while there is little question that Macdonald and his revolutionary NGLA was very notable in America around 1910 when Wilson traveled to GB for six months (and again Wilson and his committee gave Macdonald ample credit for what he helped and advised them on during that two day stay in Southampton), I don't know that you should just conclude that it was Macdonald who made every budding American architect become aware of the Scottish linksland and English heathland architecture and travel to GB to look at it, play it and study it.
After-all, I think most of those early American architects such as Emmet, Travis, Leeds, Crump, Tillinghast, Hunter and perhaps even Fownes and Thomas were able to find their way to the linksland and the heathlands without the help and itinerary of Macdonald.
Your point is well taken and I agree with it. I was somehwat oversimplying for clarity. But keep in mind that Wilson went to MacDonald, not to Leeds or any of the others. He could have spoken with any number of people, but he went to MacDonald. Also, keep in mind that Merion was relatively early on the evolution chain of non-Victorian courses, and some (but not all) of these guys followed.
But I have yet to see any of them mention that they once looked at the Atlantic Ocean and wondered what was on the other side of it.
I know you are joking, but I am not sure we see the same joke. To me this seems like a pretty accurate parody of the way you and Mr. Morrison are approaching the issue of MacDonald's influence at Merion.
Like my Thomas parody above.
-
For the love of God! :P
THE 3RD GREEN AT MERION GC in ARDMORE, PA DOES NOT RESEMBLE A REDAN. IT SLOPES A BIT FROM LEFT TO RIGHT BUT NOT AT ALL FROM FRONT TO BACK. It has some great internal contouring, none of which would you ever confuse for being a Redan.
Philip,
I don't know what photo you may be looking at to determine this alleged "front to back" slope, but it is simply not the case. Perhaps you are looking at the photo that gives a view of this green from BEHIND.
That is it, I can't make the point any clearer than this. I'm done! Finished! Kaput! :)
-
The nature of the course boundaries dictated a lot of the routing. It is so narrow on the north side of Ardmore Avenue that you couldn't route the course in any other way. The hole lengths and the resulting use of features were the real routing brilliance on that side of the road. The problem was on the other side of the road.
In Richard Francis's 1950 recollections the real routing problem was solved by some late night inspiration.
"Except for may hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made buy one important contribution to the layout of the course.
The land was shaped like a capital "L" and it was not very difficult to get the first 13 holes into the upright portion---with the help of a little ground on the northside of Ardmore Avenue--but the last five holes were another question.
I was looking at a map of the property one night when I had an idea. Not realizing it was nearly midnight, I called Mr. Lloyd on the telephone, found he had not gone to bed, got on my bicycle and rode a mile or so to see him. The idea was this: We had some property west of the present course which did not fit in at all with any golf layout. Perhaps we could swap it for some land we could use?
Mr. Lloyd agreed. the land now covered by fine homes along Golf House Road was exchanged for land about 130 yards wide by 190 yards long--the present location of the 15th green and the 16th tee. Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is and blasted off the top of the hill so the green could be built as it is today."
Hmmm... no mention of Macdonald and Whigham helping them with routing problems at the East Course. I feel confident that the help with routing problems was in a general sense before the design process was begun in earnest.
As to the timeline of Macdonald and Whigham "giving their blessing" on the land for golf, was that before the property was purchased? Is it known if they disapproved of the property that the golf course would not have been built there anyway? For Tom MacWood and Professor Moriarty to claim that was substanitive advice, it would be helpful if they answered these questions to see how much they knew before proclaiming the advice as significant and thus how much credibility is merited in their assertions.
Wayne
I don't believe Mr. Francis mentioned Wilson either...should we conclude Wilson was not involved in the routing of the course. When did the Francis epiphany take place?
It seems to me you're hell bent on trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives...yikes. You guys in Philly are tough.
-
David,
If your initial post was just to continue some internecine warfare with Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul you should have just addressed it to them.
Because, frankly, I've never understood what you're trying to prove here. If you're coming at this with the mindset that those two guys are claiming Macdonald had absolutely no role in influencing Hugh Wilson, and then trying to prove otherwise, then it's no wonder that the rest of us are doing mental gymnastics trying to understand where you're coming from.
From reading this thread, I don't think that's their position. I think both have acknowledged that Macdonald did play a role, particularly around Wilson's trip, etc., and also around spending time with WIlson to go over strategic hole concepts. It's also clear he played some ongoing "advisory" role of indeterminate nature.
What I think they are both objecting to is the inference that any holes on the ground are somehow linked to specific Macdonald influences without some type of additional documentation beside the fact that Lesley said the front bunker on 10 "resembles the Alps", and that the 3rd hole was called a redan, when it clearly is quite different than anything Macdonald, et.al. built with the same nomenclature.
What are you looking for as an end result here? Macdonald's role, as much as can be determined, has been acknowledged, and I don't think that's disputed by anyone.
What is being disputed is the inferred notion that Macdonald either routed significant portions of the course, that he had Wilson build specific holes modelled after the ones he favored, or that he had any hand in creating the original features on the course.
There is simply not a shred of evidence of any of that, in either the Merion archives, Macdonald's files, or contemporaneous literature of the time.
To suggest otherwise is at best pure supposition and at worst simply revisionist history, without any supporting documentation.
I like and admire all of you guys, but if this was just part of a war between you all, then I wish you were just clear about this upfront and not wasted a lot of other people's time.
-
Pat,
Thanks VERY much for clearing that up for me as I got lost among the volume of posts.
Since that is the case then, acn anyone look at that photograph (and perhapeven post it) and explain to me how a green that CLEARLY runs left to right and DOWN and away (this can be seen by comparing the two caddies standing one front right the other middle back right) from the player and has a bunker smack in front of the back right portion of the green not be considered at least Redan-like?
Philip,
That is from the back of the green favoring the left side.
-
David Moriarty,
Would you agree that CBM contradicted himself in describing what constitutes a Redan, especially in reference to the essential component, and his classifying # 3 as a Redan ?
-
Let us review:
* The Redan at Merion was not a Redan
* The Alps at Merion was not an Alps
* The Eden at Merion was not an Eden
* CB Macdonald did not understand the defintion of a Redan
* CB Macdonald's review of the site was inconsequential
* CB Macdonald may have advised on the layout but he had nothing to do with the layout of the course
* CB Macdonald's mother wore army boots
I think that pretty much sums up where we are right now.
-
Let us review:
* The Redan at Merion was not a Redan
* The Alps at Merion was not an Alps
* The Eden at Merion was not an Eden
* CB Macdonald did not understand the defintion of a Redan
* CB Macdonald's review of the site was inconsequential
* CB Macdonald may have advised on the layout but he had nothing to do with the layout of the course
* CB Macdonald's mother wore army boots
* You forgot to mention that she could scratch the bottom of her feet with the second toe on that same foot...think about it.
I think that pretty much sums up where we are right now.
-
Tom MacWood,
The funny thing to me is that Philip, who I take it isn't familiar with the hole, thought the hole was a redan because he was looking at it completely backwards, thinking the back left of the green was the front right!! ;)
C'mon Tom...you can admit that it's not a redan. ;D
Tom..remember me...I'm the guy who spent way too much time arguing with Patrick a few weeks back that MORE latitude should be given in what constitutes some of the named template holes, specifically the REDAN. ;D
We argued about the one at MidOcean, the one at Sleepy Hollow, the one at LACC, and so on. I'm all for Macdonald's "infinite variations" WITHIN THE GUIDELINES AND DEFINITION he established, which includes the runaway tilted green!
However, in my most liberal interpretation of what a redan is, there is no way that either you or I, with no prior knowledge that Macdonald referred to it as such, would come across that hole today, yesterday, or in 1916 and thought to ourselves, "Gee...what a nice redan".
No way.
-
Let us review:
Let's properly rephrase your remarks.[/color]
* The Redan at Merion was not a Redan
The 3rd at Merion was/is NOT a Redan[/color]
* The Alps at Merion was not an Alps
The 10th at Merion was/is NOT an Alps hole.[/color]
* The Eden at Merion was not an Eden
The 15th hole at Merion is not an Eden hole[/color]
* CB Macdonald did not understand the defintion of a Redan
CB MacDonald's use of the term in descibing the 3rd at Merion and the 3rd at Pine Valley is in direct contradiction to CB MacDonald's own definition of a Redan[/color]
* CB Macdonald's review of the site was inconsequential
We have NO idea as to the detailed nature, scope and influence of CBM's review of the site[/color]
* CB Macdonald may have advised on the layout but he had nothing to do with the layout of the course
We have NO evidence with respect to any detailed or specific advice that CBM is alleged to have provided with respect to the layout of Merion[/color]
* CB Macdonald's mother wore army boots
That's true, they were Size 5 EE[/color]
I think that pretty much sums up where we are right now.
I think I summed it up more accurately.[/color]
-
Hey, I just noticed something, but perhaps I've lost my mind from participation in this thread.
On page 16 of the September 1916 Golf Illustrated that Philip Young just cited, you can see Bob Jones approaching the 8th green.
BUT, more importantly, and more germane to this discussion, you can see what looks to be the 10th green in the background, with the high mounding behind it and the bunker embedded in that back wall.
You can then look back down the 10th fairway and get a really, really good sense of what the approach must have looked like.
Look specifically at the total elevation change between the fairway bunkers (drive zone according to David Moriarty) and the green. What do you see?
Except for the fact that the fronting bunker probably had a high front wall that limited visibility, does anyone want to still say that this hole has any resemblance at all to the Alps at Prestwick or the Alps at NGLA?
-
Jes,
Thanks for helping me orient myself with regard to that photo. The reason I wrongly assumed orientation is the crowd of people watching the match in the photo would then be at the front of the green whereas no on is shown standing near where the photo was being taken (the back side).
It was the gallery that confused me. This also points to the importance of having "walked the ground" when attempting to understand a golf course design that one has never been to.
Sorry to confuse if I did....
-
Without MacDonald, Wilson likely doesnt know where to go or what to look for, and he probably never even would have considered going in the first place.
"IN 1920, THE COMMITTEE DECIDED TO SEND HUGH WILSON TO ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND TO STUDY THEIR BEST COURSES AND DEVELOP IDEAS FOR THE NEW COURSE. BEFORE HE LEFT, HE VISITED THE SITE OF THE NGLA, AMERICA'S FIRST MODERN COURSE, THEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK. WHILE THER HE DISCUSSED AN INTINERARY WITH CBM, THE DESIGNER OF NGLA. MACDONALD HADE MADE A SIMILAR JOURNEY FOR THE SAME PURPOSE 8 YEARS EARLIER."- GOLF AT MERION, DESMOND TOLHURST, 2004.
WILSON WAS SENT BY THE CLUB, NOT BY MACDONALD. MACDONALD HELPED HIM WITH SUGGESTING WHERE TO GO. SO, YES, HE WOULD'VE CONSIDERED TO GO BECAUSE THAT'S THE TASK THE CLUB PLACED ON HIM.
So to make your hypothetical more accurate, we'd have to assume that you were a truly revolutionary designer who had set out to change the landscape (pun intended) of american golf, and that you had introduced notions that, while not original, were entirely groundbreaking and earth shattering to those of us who weren't familiar with the originals. In that circumstance, if I came to you and you taught me what you knew, helped be plan a trip to learn more, helped me pick my site, helped me with a routing issue and otherwise advised me during the design and construction, then yes, I think you would deserve a heck of a lot of credit.
WHAT, IN A NUTSHELL, SHOULD MACDONALD BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR AND PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF. EXAMPLE: CITE THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WAS TOLD BY CBM TO WILSON.
Think of it in terms of art. If MacDonald had revolutionized art in America, had taken Wilson under his his wing to teach him a new way to create art (even if only for a couple of days,)
SO WOULD HE LEARN MORE FROM CBM IN A COUPLE OF DAYS OR FROM SPENDING 8 MONTHS IN BRITIAN.
helped Wilson plan a trip to the great museums of the world and gave him instructions on what to see and look for, advised him on his subject matter, and continued to advise him throughout the creative process, and while the final result was certainly not a copy, what if some influence could be seen or inferred, if only conceptually? Would you deny that MacDonald was a huge influence in that situation?
HUGE IN REGARDS TO POINTING HIM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION ABOUT AN INTINERARY, YES. BUT WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE? WE NEED SPECIFICS. IE TANGBILE IRREFUTABLE PROOF. DOCUMENTATION. NOT "THERE'S A REDAN, SEE", WHEN IT EXISTS ELSEWHERE WELL BEFORE MACDONALD WAS AROUND.
BTW, IF WILSON WAS NOT CAPABLE OF KNOWING WHAT TO LOOK FOR, SHOULD WE CREDIT MACDONALD FOR THE WICKER BASKET FLAGSTICKS?
-
A passage from Desmond Tolhursts "Golf at Merion", 2004 edition and the offical club histroy.
"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen IN Scotland and England: the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with it's swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole. Yet, none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command.
It has been said that Hugh Wilson grasped these principles of Scottish and English course design and conveyed them in his work better than CBM did. However, to compare Merion to the NGLA is somewhat of an 'apples and oranges' proposition. Macdonald set out to 'model each of the 13 holes (at NGLA) after the most famous holes abroad', that is, to duplicate these holes. Wilson never intended to design Merion under such constraints. His objective was to build a course that would rival the finest British parkland course in beauty and shot values."
-
If your initial post was just to continue some internecine warfare with Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul you should have just addressed it to them.
There you go again, Mike. Speculating about my motivation with absolutely no basis. Perhaps instead of trying to read in between the lines, you should try the lines. I posted the NYTimes article because I found it interesting and because it seemed to offer more information about a hole which had been much discussed but little understood. I briefly considered forwarding the article to Mr. Morrison since I have heard he has a project, but the interest in Merion is more broad than Mr. Morrison so I posted it here. I did my best to be civil with Mr. Morrison until became boorish and bullying and accused me of being an idiot or a liar.
If you're coming at this with the mindset that those two guys are claiming Macdonald had absolutely no role in influencing Hugh Wilson, and then trying to prove otherwise, then it's no wonder that the rest of us are doing mental gymnastics trying to understand where you're coming from.
Mike they are absolutely trying to diminish MacDonald's role as much or more the record will allow. Even when they are trying to pay lip service to MacDonald's influence they still make an effort to diminish it and wipe the slate clean as possible. Let's break down what Mr. Morrison said a few posts ago, prior to his tired pot-shot at me.
I'm not at all hell bent in trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives. What gives you that idea. I admit over and over that he was a key figure in the early stages of Wilson's preparation for his trip to the UK and his understanding of golf course building and design principals. We just don't have any information beyond that. I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of. You go on your flights of fancy, I'll stay here and conduct further research based on long-proven principals of scientific method. (my bolds)
The only thing he acknowledges is Wilson's early trip to Merion. [In the past he has even tried to cast doubt on what if anything Wilson learned there!] Then he says:
We just don't have any information beyond that.
This is absolutely FALSE. We have quite a bit of information beyond that: The routing issue. The advisor comment. The Wilson acknowledgement. The site approval. The Whigham comments. The Leslie article. The other articles by experts of the time. The Merion History.
Yet Mr. Morrison dismisses every bit of it with his next line:
I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of.[/b]
This is the not so subtle slight of hand I have been talking about . . . Dismiss all of the evidence as "extrapolaitions of vague phrases." Just like that he has wiped all the evidence past the visit to NGLA off the board. I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of.
The problem is, while this evidence is not nearly as specific as is ideal, it is EVIDENCE, and it surely creates a strong inference that there was more involvement that just Wilson's visit to NGLA! Yet because he doesnt have every detail of that involvement, Mr. Morrison pretends there is no evidence of involvement at all.
Such a position is as intellectually dishonest as it is preposterous. You cant just throw away evidence because it isnt as specific as we would like it! Doing so makes proof impossible, because all one needs to do is demand more and more specifics, and given my conversations with Wayne he is certainly willing to do this.
What is being disputed is the inferred notion that Macdonald either routed significant portions of the course, that he had Wilson build specific holes modelled after the ones he favored, or that he had any hand in creating the original features on the course.
Mike, please quit telling me what I am disputing. You have been wrong every time. Just look at my words. It is all there, and has been from the beginning.
-
David Stamm,
It sounds like Tolhurst has a lot better grasp on what happened than Mr. Morrison ever will.
But again, I suggest you read what I right BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO ME WITH SUCH VIGOR.
I didnt say that MacDonald sent him. I know who sent him. But they probably would never have sent him if it werent for MacDonald blazing the trail regarding "modern architecture" in America.
As for him copyng the originals as opposed to MacDonald's copies, if you gave me a quarter for each time I have said or suggested this during this thread, I might have enough for a double-half-decaf-latte-with-a-twist.
As for your demand for specifics, what you ask for is impossible. This all happened a long time ago, and what you are asking for is not not the way influence in the Arts works.
Review Geoff's writing on Thomas' influences. Studying influences takes an open mind, creativity, and a certain generousity of spirit. These are apparently traits that our Merionomaniacs do not possess.
______________________________
NGLA's early membership is published. Has anyone compared it to Merions? Just curious.
-
GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT!
That's rich!
-
But again, I suggest you read what I right BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO ME WITH SUCH VIGOR.
I'M A PASSIONATE MAN. I HAVE READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY ANYTHING, WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING SAYS IT ALL. OR AM I TAKING THIS W/ TOO MUCH GENEROUSITY OF SPIRIT. ;D
I didnt say that MacDonald sent him. I know who sent him. But they probably would never have sent him if it werent for MacDonald blazing the trail regarding "modern architecture" in America.
PROBABLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Review Geoff's writing on Thomas' influences. Studying influences takes an open mind, creativity, and a certain generousity of spirit. These are apparently traits that our Merionomaniacs do not possess.
I'VE READ EVERYTHING GEOFF HAS EVER WRITTEN AND HAVE THE ABSOLUTE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THE MAN. BUT IT'S UP TO THOMAS HIMSELF TO LEAD US TO HIS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION. GEOFF IS SPECULATING WITH THE INFO HE HAS, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THOMAS AT THIS TIME. ALL WE HAVE TO GO BY IS THE COURSES HE LEFT BEHIND AND WHAT HE WROTE. OF COURSE AWT, CRUMP, WILSON INFLUENCED HIM. THEY HAD EXCHANGED IDEAS WHILE THOMAS WAS STILL IN PHILLY. BUT DOES THAT MEAN HE OWES IT ALL TO THOSE MEN BECASUE WE SEE INFLUENCES OF ANOTHER'S ORIGINAL IDEAS? DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY! MACDONALD TRIED TO DUPLICATE WHAT HE SAW IN BRITAIN AND MADE NO SECRET ABOUT IT. THAT'S NOT ORIGINAL! SURE, SOME OF THESE FEATURES INFLUENCED THEM, BUT THEY PROGRESSED AND EVOLVED THE IDEAS ON THEIR OWN. THEY WERE EXCHANGING NEW IDEAS. CBM WAS INTO COPYING WHAT WAS DONE ALREADY. MACDONALD'S PASSION OF WANTING TO COPY THOSE GREAT HOLES IS WHAT IGNITED OTHERS IMAGINATION AND WE ALL ACKOWLEDGE CBM'S ROLE IN AMERICAN GOLF. BUT ART MUST PROGRESS AND THE MEN AFTER HIM DID JUST THAT. CREATING THE WHITE FACES OF MERION BECAUSE OF THEIR FEELINGS (FLYNN, WILSON) ABOUT HIDDEN POT BUNKERS CERTAINLY DIDN'T COME FROM CBM.
______________________________
NGLA's early membership is published. Has anyone compared it to Merions? Just curious.
-
GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT!
That's rich!
JES, have you read the Shackelford book to which I refer? Specifically, the discussion of Thomas' influences? If not, why don't you take a look and then tell me if you still consider my characterization of Geoff's approach to the topic to be "rich?"
If so, I'll gladly change the quote to "generosity and richness of spirit." Either way, our Merionomaniacs are seriously lacking.
-
I'M A PASSIONATE MAN. I HAVE READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY ANYTHING, WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING SAYS IT ALL. OR AM I TAKING THIS W/ TOO MUCH GENEROUSITY OF SPIRIT. ;D
Perhaps your passion is warping your reading ability and your overflowing generosity of spirit is sapping your ability to accurately infer much at all. Because you have been consistently wrong about what I have written and have absolutely no idea what, if anything, I am implying.
PROBABLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I dont know. That is why I said probably. This blind speculation looks like so much fun when everyone else is doing it, I thought I'd give it a try.
BUT IT'S UP TO THOMAS HIMSELF TO LEAD US TO HIS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.
Why on earth is it up to Thomas himself?
GEOFF IS SPECULATING WITH THE INFO HE HAS, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THOMAS AT THIS TIME.
So then you obviously think that Geoff went much too far with his information on Thomas' influences, because his descriptions and speculations go far beyond what could ever be absolutely proven by the standards you are trying to apply here. Interesting. I rather enjoyed the chapter myself.
BUT DOES THAT MEAN HE OWES IT ALL TO THOSE MEN BECASUE WE SEE INFLUENCES OF ANOTHER'S ORIGINAL IDEAS? DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY!
I agree 100%. All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due. Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.
I think perhaps you are arguing with ghosts of Merion's past here. At least you aren't arguing with me. Of course Wilson had his own ideas. Of course he put his own spin on things. Of course he deserves great credit for Merion. Of course they he contributed a great deal to golf design.
But this is not a zero sum game. Properly crediting MacDonald does not mean that Wilson, Flynn, or anyone else has to be dissed. Mr. Morrison, et al, dont seem to be able to comprehend this.
And you are mistaken if you think that Mr. Morrison is giving MacDonald the credit he deserves.
-
Everybody is wrong and poor little Professor Moriarty is right. I can see him now stamping his feet and crying, "Mommy, nobody likes me."
Mr. Morrison, your derogatory comments are getting too hard for a pea brain like me to follow. Just who is it that I am supposed to think is picking on me? Besides you, of course-- your attempts don't count because they are so pathetic and transparent that they only reflect poorly on you.
And if I was here to make friends, I'd kiss your ass like everyone else does.
Now, put on your dunce cap and go home and take your ball with you.
Ironic coming from a guy who refuses to address me directly merely because I corrected his misconception about a golf hole distance.
-
David,
I have not read the book you referrence. If you would like to hold of on this discussion until I do I'd tell you not to hold your breath. With all due respect to Mr. Shackelford, I am not going to run out and buy his book so as to continue a conversation with you. If you require me to understand the exact context you used the term GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT you ought to clarify yourself.
As I read it, and I assume how it was intended, you think it appropriate to allow a bit of leeway in the interpretations of what exactly went on 95 years ago at Merion, NGLA and the UK.
I'll tell you what that sounds like to me...it sounds like you want the merionomaniacs to buy into a certain degree of influence CBM imposed on HUgh Wilson and the committee responsible for creating the first iteration of Merion East.
I'll tell you what you are saying to those merionomaniacs...you are saying that the person, and committee, responsible for the project to research and learn about the great golf courses of the British Isles in hopes of re-creating as strong a course here in the states were so vain and self promoting that they would not recognize and pay his due one of the important individuals in the process of developing Merion East into what it was originally..a course deserving of a National Amateur Championship in its fourth or fifth year.
Correct me if necessary, and if so please include the location which I can read the facts, but didn't Wilson recognize some education and advisement CBM may have provided while in Southampton, NY prior to his trip overseas?
Didn't Wilson also recognize in writing that CBM saw the site and approved? This on its own is evidence that CBM got his just recognition. You see it as proof of a slight because why on earth would CBM show up on site and not provide as much advice as possible, right? Why on earth would a club committee and its novice architect not try to pull as much help and information as possible from the top name in the American golf world at the time? I'll tell you why. Their own ego and CBM's respect for it and of it.
I am a good golfer, not great, but good which is my impression of Hugh Wilson's golf game at the time. I am also a member of a very nice country club in suburban Philadelphia. If the club were ever in a situation which warranted relocation and decided they would like to use me as the architect for our new golf course I would want to do it myself. I would try as best I could to pick the brain of the best, most informed people I could, but I would want me and my committee to build the course. There is a certain sense of accomplishment in actually doing something, especially something like this.
I would also expect these top experts I might consult with to respect my interests and not overstep their bounds. Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?
Now, you may very well turn and ask about the later involvement of William Flynn. My only answer right now is that he/they just changed their minds. Nothing more than that.
-
TEPaul,
I"m available for consultation and will waive my usual fee.
Where should we meet ?
How about Rachel's on 45th St ?
-
I'M A PASSIONATE MAN. I HAVE READ WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT AND SAY ANYTHING, WHAT YOU ARE IMPLYING SAYS IT ALL. OR AM I TAKING THIS W/ TOO MUCH GENEROUSITY OF SPIRIT. ;D
Because you have been consistently wrong about what I have written and have absolutely no idea what, if anything, I am implying.
WOW! ENLIGHTEN US! WHAT ARE YOU IMPLYING?
PROBABLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
I dont know. That is why I said probably. This blind speculation looks like so much fun when everyone else is doing it, I thought I'd give it a try.
IT SUITS YOU!
BUT IT'S UP TO THOMAS HIMSELF TO LEAD US TO HIS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.
Why on earth is it up to Thomas himself?
OH I DON'T KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HIM AND HE DID AFTERALL HAVE HIS NAME ATTACHED TO THE COURSES MENTIONED IN THE BOOK YOU'RE REFERING TO. GOD FORBID WE SHOULD DEFER TO THE MAN !
GEOFF IS SPECULATING WITH THE INFO HE HAS, WHICH IS EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT THOMAS AT THIS TIME.
So then you obviously think that Geoff went much too far with his information on Thomas' influences,
DID I SAY THAT? WHOSE IMPLYING WHAT NOW, BUBBA!
because his descriptions and speculations go far beyond what could ever be absolutely proven by the standards you are trying to apply here. Interesting. I rather enjoyed the chapter myself.
AND I DIDN'T SAY I DIDN'T ENJOY IT. I'VE BEEN QUOTING FROM THE BOOK EARLIER ON THIS THREAD.
BUT DOES THAT MEAN HE OWES IT ALL TO THOSE MEN BECASUE WE SEE INFLUENCES OF ANOTHER'S ORIGINAL IDEAS? DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY!
I agree 100%. All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due. Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.
SO WHAT DO YOU WANT? YOU MUST THINK AN AWFUL LOT OF MORRISON AND PAUL TO KEEP THIS THREAD UP AND GET THEM TO AGREE WITH YOU? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?
-
TEPaul,
I"m available for consultation and will waive my usual fee.
Where should we meet ?
How about Rachel's on 45th St ?
Go for the Strip, best in the county!
-
David Moriarty,
Both of the following quotes came from your sign in name.
All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due. Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.
"Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit? I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again: I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East."
Care to take one of them back?
-
JES II,
I've heard that.
I've asked Ran to include it in his "Courses by Country" section.
Wayne, TE, Tom and Dave,
Passionate debate is healthy, let's keep it at that.
-
JES II,
I've heard that.
I've asked Ran to include it in his "Courses by Country" section.
Should be a great photo tour...
-
Fellows,
Patrick speaks some very wise words here.
We are all very passionate about a subject that we have such interest in, and healthy debate is just that, and very useful in terms of education and helping to shed light from all angles.
However, we seem to have degraded here to a lot of personal acrimony and tawdry comments that really don't portray any of us at our personal best.
To my friends in Philly; I know David personally and I know you'd enjoy his humor, temperament, humility, and devotion to learning about the game. Anyone of you would enjoy sharing a few beers in his company, and you couldn't ask for a nicer, more unassuming guy in person. I'd hope that we could be a little less defensive about his motivations (me included) and slower to rush to judgement about the nature of his questioning. I'm also pretty certain we'd all feel the same way about Tom MacWood if we can ever drag him to the City of Brotherly Love for a few days.
And David...I think that sometimes you let your passion for winning a debate exceed your ability to accept reasoned criticism. We are all wrong at times...well, except for Patrick, that is ;), and sometimes it's easier to concede a point or at least grant that those who might be closer to a situation have an advantage in personal knowledge.
However, we all get on here and sometimes the impersonal nature of this forum puts all of us on our high horses and we tend to write things that we'd never say to each other in person. That cuts both ways, and sometimes it makes us brilliant and sometimes it makes us ignorant, belligerent, and obnoxious. I don't think there's many of us who post here often who aren't guilty of that at least once in awhile.
So, I'm done with this thread. I'm hoping that even this post doesn't come off as ridiculously condescending, because that's not my purpose.
It's just that when you weigh bruised feelings and angry diatribes and lost personal friendships against whether Macdonald was given enough credit for what happened at Merion, it's really not all that friggin important.
-
Mike, agreed.
Now I'm going to take my ball and go home! ;) ;D
Seriously, I don't think any good can come if this continues. Let's all agree to disagree and move on. And it only took us over 600 posts to reach this point! ;D ;D ;D
-
Bryan Izatt,
You didn't answer a previous question.
Sorry, must have missed it. This thread has gotten way too dense.
What's the height of the Seminole Clubhouse ?
27 feet, 23 feet, 21 feet ?
I can't answer that - the USGS database does not give elevations of buildings. I won't even pretend to know why, but it doesn't.
How can it be below the level of some of the high points on the golf course if it's higher than 27, 23 or 21 feet. ?
So, how tall is it? How was it measured? If you wish to escort me I'll bring my altimeter down and use that to measure it within a meter. I'm in FL next week, and could be available ;D
Are you still insisting that the alleged Ross quote that Seminole is flat, is accurate ?
I was arguing that Ross may have had a different understanding of flat than you do. Similar to CBM and some of the rest of us on the Redan subject. I am prepared to accept that there is more elevation change at Seminole than I would have thought. I'd still be surprised at 50', but me and my trusty altimeter are available to prove you right.
Do I get the last post on this thread?
-
JES and Mr. Stamm,
I've dont know either one of you and have no negative feeling about you whatsoever. If I have been insulting to either one of you personally, I apologize. Believe it or not I am discussing this stuff just because I find it interesting. But the tone has veered off track and for my role in that, I apologize.
I will try to watch my tone and address your posts as best I can, because it is obvious to me that there may be some big misunderstandings, presumably in both directions.
If you doubt my sincerity, motives, or intentions or think I am driven by some secret agenda, then I am sure my disagreeing will not change your minds. Regardless, I will read your words without preconceived notions or suspicions, and would ask you to do the same for mine. This, by the way, is probably pretty close to what I meant by generosity of spirit, above.
___________________________
JES said:
You are saying that the person, and committee, responsible for the project to research and learn about the great golf courses of the British Isles in hopes of re-creating as strong a course here in the states were so vain and self promoting that they would not recognize and pay his due one of the important individuals in the process of developing Merion East into what it was originally..a course deserving of a National Amateur Championship in its fourth or fifth year.
(my bolds)
I beg your pardon but this is not what I am saying at all. The persons involved did give credit where credit was due. They acknowledged MacDonald's influence, recognized him as an advisor, and noted his involvement, etc.
. . . didn't Wilson recognize some education and advisement CBM may have provided while in Southampton, NY prior to his trip overseas? . . . Didn't Wilson also recognize in writing that CBM saw the site and approved? This on its own is evidence that CBM got his just recognition.
I agree.
You see it as proof of a slight because why on earth would CBM show up on site and not provide as much advice as possible, right? Why on earth would a club committee and its novice architect not try to pull as much help and information as possible from the top name in the American golf world at the time? I'll tell you why. Their own ego and CBM's respect for it and of it.
I dont think Merion slighted MacDonald. At least I have not seen evidence of any such slight.
Mr. Morrison is the one slighting MacDonald. Wayne Morrison completely dismisses the notion that MacDonald had any influence at all after Wilson's pre-trip visit to NGLA. (In the past he has even denied that this trip influences Wilson!)
If the club were ever in a situation which warranted relocation and decided they would like to use me as the architect for our new golf course I would want to do it myself. I would try as best I could to pick the brain of the best, most informed people I could, but I would want me and my committee to build the course. There is a certain sense of accomplishment in actually doing something, especially something like this.
I am sure that you would also freely acknowledge any help your mentor(s) gave you and influence they had in your preparation, in your site selection, in your routing, and in whatever other areas they might have influenced you. Like Merion and Wilson did with MacDonald.
But what Mr. Morrison is trying to do is to act as if these acknowledgements were all empty and meaningless. He simply ignores them all (except for the trip to NGLA,) because proof of specific, in-the-ground influences does not (and could not ever) exist.
Based on the contemporary historical record (as you describe in-brief above) we know that there were contacts, that MacDonald had some influence, and MacDonald had some limited involvement (some sort of routing problem and also approving the site.) To deny this would be intellectually dishonest and insulting not only to MacDonald, but also to Merion and Wilson.
Yet this is exactly what Wayne Morrison is doing.
________________________
I would also expect these top experts I might consult with to respect my interests and not overstep their bounds. Have you read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged?
I have read them both, but I am not sure I follow you here. Are you suggesting that MacDonald thought he should have received more credit or acknowledgement? If this is what you meant, I was not aware that this was an issue.
Now, you may very well turn and ask about the later involvement of William Flynn. My only answer right now is that he/they just changed their minds. Nothing more than that.
I am sorry, but again, I dont follow you. My understanding was that Merion was always a work in progress (as were most of the quality american courses around this time, including NGLA.)
-
David Moriarty,
Both of the following quotes came from your sign in name.
All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due. Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.
"Hold on a minute . . . Why are you asking me what warrants design credit? I surely have never said nor even suggested that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. If that is what you think then let me set the record straight once again: I do not believe that MacDonald deserves design credit for Merion East. Nor do I believe that MacDonald deserves credit for designing a single feature or hole at Merion East."
Care to take one of them back?
JES
I dont care to take either back because I think they are both true and accurate.
In the second quote, Mr. Stamm had mistakenly assumed that I thought MacDonald deserved design credit for Merion. I clarified that I did not see any evidence that MacDonald should receive design credit. I still do not.
In the first quote Mr. Stamm and I had been discussing Thomas' many influences. Mr. Stamm said of these influences: "DO THEY DESERVE CREDIT? ABSOLUTELY!" My complete response was:
I agree 100%. All I ask is that MacDonald be generously given the credit that is his due. Mr. Morrison and others are giving much less than that.
I think Mr. Stamm will agree that neither of us were talking about design credit here, but rather the kind of more general credit that Shackelford gives Thomas' influences in "The Captain." Like the acknowledgements you note above.
I've said throughout that I've seen no evidence to suggest that MacDonald deserved design credit. My point is only that he ought to be allowed to keep the credit Wilson and Merion already gave him without Wayne Morrison and the like completely discounting it.
-
SO WHAT DO YOU WANT? YOU MUST THINK AN AWFUL LOT OF MORRISON AND PAUL TO KEEP THIS THREAD UP AND GET THEM TO AGREE WITH YOU? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT?
Mr. Stamm,
I know they will never agree with me, or at least admit to agreeing with me about anything. (If you dont believe me I've got a story for you about a measure of a golf hole.) This is a large part of why I am doing this. They do not seem at all interested in really, truly, getting to the bottom of all of this, but rather only seem interested in new information if it supports their view that MacDonald has received too much credit and Wilson not enough. They apparently view this as a zero-sum circumstance where it is impossible to appropriately acknowledge MacDonald's influence, while at the same time properly crediting Wilson, Flynn, and Merion with their fantastic and ground-breaking accomplishment. They also have a nasty habit of bullying, belittling, and ultimately ignoring anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of the validity of the disagreement.
So what do I want?
I want to see that MacDonald's influence continues to be recognized. That it not be dismissed or discarded.
I also am interested in process, and proper process is being corrupted here by a shoddy and biased research approach, strongman tactics, a misunderstanding of the evolving use of language and meaning, and an inversion of normal analytical burdens of proof.
So I think we all can learn to be better historical researchers by thoroughly examining Mr. Morrison's mistakes, which of course he will never admit he makes.
-
Mike, I'm all for well-reasoned criticism. But let's be honest here. You and I both know that I havent received a bit of "well-reasoned criticism" from Mr. Morrison since I correctly corrected the Jones' driving distance, and have received only a bit more than that from Mr. Paul.
As far as your well-reasoned criticism (well, I guess it is reasoned) I am all for it. I just havent been convinced. As you say, we are all wrong some of the time. It just happens to be your time.
Seriously, I agree that our differences are a matter of degrees. Where we do disagree, though, is your belief that there is a concensus that MacDonald should be acknowledged for his influence after the NGLA visit. I hate to go all Socrates Mucci on you, but I am really curious as to how you could think this.
Here is the recent statement by Mr. Morrison regarding MacDonald's influence on Wilson:
I'm not at all hell bent in trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives. What gives you that idea. I admit over and over that he was a key figure in the early stages of Wilson's preparation for his trip to the UK and his understanding of golf course building and design principals. We just don't have any information beyond that. I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of. You go on your flights of fancy, I'll stay here and conduct further research based on long-proven principals of scientific method.
-Where in this statement does Mr. Morrison acknowledge any influence past the NGLA visit?
-What do you suppose Mr. Morrison means when he says "We just dont have any information beyond that."?
-When Mr. Morrison says he "awaits facts" isnt he implying that no such facts yet exist?
-But isnt it a "fact" that Merion and Wilson acknowledged some involvement and influence by MacDonald upon Wilson's return from Europe?
-And isnt it a "fact" that others (Leslie, Whigham, the Merion history) also acknowledge MacDonald's influence?
-Does this approach leave any room for acknowledging that MacDonald may have had a role in approving the site? In helping with the routing? In advising in other matters?
Thanks in advance for your answers and your patience , Mike. I hate to make you answer for others, but you are the one who asked me to show you who didnt agree and you would hunt them down like the dog they are, or some such thing.
I'd rather have Mr. Morrison answer directly himself, but since I corrected him on those Jones' drives he only converses about me, not with me.
-
David Moriarty,
Would you agree that CBM contradicted himself in describing what constitutes a Redan, especially in reference to the essential component, and his classifying # 3 as a Redan ?
Sorry for the delay in answering Patrick, I saved the hardest one for last.
The reason I am having trouble answering is that I am still having trouble with just what this "essential component" is. I understand why everyone is saying that the "essential component" is the slope away. I agree that, as I view a redan, that is certainly an essential component, perhaps even the essential component. And if this is what MacDonald meant, then the description contradicts the inclusion of the Merion reverse redan. But if we take him literally to mean a side-slope, then there isn't necessarily a contradiction, at least for reverse redans.
You likely know the other holes. Are there other contradictions with other features? For example do the distance or elevation changes on the other holes fundamentally alter the way the hole is described, or the way it would play?
Shouldnt all this be cleared up somewhat by Mr. Stamm's recent post from the Merion history, where Tolhurst writes that Wilson apparently acknowledged that the hole was inspired by the NB redan?
Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen IN Scotland and England: the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with it's swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrews' 18th hole. Yet, none of the holes at Merion is an out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command.
-
Dave Moriarty,
There's a big difference between one hole INSPIRING another and one hole being a TEMPLATE of another. That's the distinction I think you're failing to make.
While the 15th at NBerwick may have been the inspiration for the 3rd at Merion, it's NO Redan.
And, the inspiration may have come in the form of a lower tee to a volcano topped putting surface sitting above the tee.
A Redan isn't sloped side to side, It tends to be sloped along the diagonal from the high front corner to the low back corner.
That is the tilt that CBM said was essential, and that tilt doesn't exist at # 3 at Merion.
In addition, the tilt has to feed the ball toward the green, and once on the green, further onto the green.
That element doesn't exist at Merion.
With respect to your comment that you want to make sure that MacDonald's influence continues to be recognized, how can you make that statement when you can't identify, qualify or quantify the extent of CBM's involvement.
His involvement may have been inconsequential.
It may have been non-specific
It may have been as a cheerleader.
Hence, until his "involvement" can be identified, qualified and quantified, I don't know how you can give him any credit beyond general recognition for his visit and meeting.
Byran Izatt,
The Seminole Clubhouse is large/high, higher than 21,23 or 27 feet, yet, it sits below the elevation points I mentioned.
-
Dave Moriarty,
There's a big difference between one hole INSPIRING another and one hole being a TEMPLATE of another. That's the distinction I think you're failing to make.
Patrick: YES!! I have been making this distinction throughout. And suggesting others do so as well. There are NO TEMPLATES at Merion. There may be holes and features inspired by what Wilson learned in Europe and/or from MacDonald, but NO TEMPLATES, or COPIES OF TEMPLATES.
While the 15th at NBerwick may have been the inspiration for the 3rd at Merion, it's NO Redan.
By our definition, I agree. But this is where they differed. Apparently the inspiration was enough for them to call it a Redan.
This is what I have been saying and saying. We are talking about inspirations here. About subtle influences. Not about exact copies. And any attempt to find exact copies, or to make any proof turn on whether there are exact copies, was doomed from the beginning, because their use of the words makes it clear that they were not talking about exact copies.
With respect to your comment that you want to make sure that MacDonald's influence continues to be recognized, how can you make that statement when you can't identify, qualify or quantify the extent of CBM's involvement.
Because there is a huge difference between recognizing someone's influence and cataloging ever aspect of the influence. One can easily recognize the former without having finished the latter.
His involvement may have been inconsequential.
It may have been non-specific
It may have been as a cheerleader.
The historical record is that Merion, Wilson, Leslie, and Whigham all recognized that MacDonald had an influence. It would be much too disrespectful to them and Merion to disregard this just because we cannot catalogue every aspect of the influence.
Think of Wilson and the Redan. If HE considers it an inspiration, who are WE to disagree. We may never be able to catalogue the specific inspiration, but to deny that the NB Redan "inspired" the 3rd at Merion is intellectually dishonest and a rewrite of history.
And to deny that MacDonald had an influence over many aspects of Wilson's involvement of Merion (after the initial vist) is likewise intellectually dishonest and a rewrite of history.
-
I give up. ::)
So much for starting that second career as a marriage counselor. :P
Have at it guys. I'll try to ignore this thread, but I have a hunch that much like a car wreck, it'll be difficult not to check in on the blood and gore now and then. :-\ ;)
-
I give up. ::)
So much for starting that second career as a marriage counselor. :P
Have at it guys. I'll try to ignore this thread, but I have a hunch that much like a car wreck, it'll be difficult not to check in on the blood and gore now and then. :-\ ;)
I dont get it, Mike . . . Was there something unfair or unreasonable in the questions I asked you or the way I asked them?
Before you go, you might take a look at my last exchange with Patrick, because I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter on a number of levels.
-
"Before you go, you might take a look at my last exchange with Patrick, because I think it really cuts to the heart of the matter on a number of levels."
Yup, his last exchange with Patrick really cuts to the heart of the matter on a number of levels, don't you think MikeyC? :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(
-
David,
I understand and appreciate your discussion with Patrick and I've been trying to educate him in this area, as well. ;) I've been right there all along in agreement about the template holes and the "inspiration" factor. I'd just go a HUGE step further and say that Wilson, much more than Macdonald, "American'ized" them, if that's a word. By that, I mean he took the inspiration of what he learned from Macdonald and what he saw overseas to a completely new level for architecture in this country by using that inspiration to create completely new holes based on old concepts. This doesn't make Merion superior to NGLA, just another step in the evolutionary chain.
Where we have no evidence frankly, is what Macdonald's role may have been in that landmark decision...to take the famous holes overseas and just utilize their strategies and very little of their look and feel. Did Macdonald have anything to do with that distinctive and original concept? Not from anything we can tell, and certainly not from his continued use of the template model on his subsequent courses.
I'd also leave you all with one question. At the time it was built, Merion West was as highly regarded as Merion East, and it was only after a few evolutions and years later that the East became the clearly superior course. And, that was by intent...at the time of it's opening the West was hailed as Merion's "Second Championship course".
If Wilson had been so beholden and influenced by Macdonald in building the East course, why did Wilson and the Merion committee not go to Macdonald again when they broke ground on the West course a year after the East opened?
Would they not want to benefit from the same level of advice with routing, with hole concepts, with features, with construction techniques, or any of the multitiude of things that we've speculated he may have helped Merion with on the East? Why go it alone after the success of the East course?
-
God...I'm incorrigible. ::)
I'm heading out now and going to find some rehab center to check into. They don't have computers in those things, do they? ;)
-
Tom,
Speaking purely from a scientifically statistical standpoint, I'd say it looks like Johnson/Goldwater all over again.
-
Where we have no evidence frankly, is what Macdonald's role may have been in that landmark decision...to take the famous holes overseas and just utilize their strategies and very little of their look and feel. Did Macdonald have anything to do with that distinctive and original concept? Not from anything we can tell, and certainly not from his continued use of the template model on his subsequent courses.
Well if he never used the template model at Merion East, I have no idea why you would expect to see it on subsequent courses.
As for Merion West and the later courses, I am not aware of substantial evidence which suggests that MacDonald was involved and had an influence on Merion West. Given that you agree that such evidence does exist with regard to Merion East, I am sure you can understand why I think that recognition is appropriate at one and not at the other.
I'd also leave you all with one question. At the time it was built, Merion West was as highly regarded as Merion East, and it was only after a few evolutions and years later that the East became the clearly superior course. And, that was by intent...at the time of it's opening the West was hailed as Merion's "Second Championship course".
If you look at the coverage of the 1916 tournament, you will see that Merion West's inferiority (not my opinion, but that of the commentators of the time) was recognized by (or during) this tournament. So it did not last long as an equal "Second Championship course."
If Wilson had been so beholden and influenced by Macdonald in building the East course, why did Wilson and the Merion committee not go to Macdonald again when they broke ground on the West course a year after the East opened?
So beholden? I never said he was and dont think he was. This doesnt change the evidence of MacDonald's influence and involvement with Merion East.
Would they not want to benefit from the same level of advice with routing, with hole concepts, with features, with construction techniques, or any of the multitiude of things that we've speculated he may have helped Merion with on the East? Why go it alone after the success of the East course?
I have no idea on any of these questions. Maybe they thought they had learned enough. Whyever they did it, this is no reason to discount the acknowledgements of MacDonald's involvement and influence with Merion East.
Maybe if they had then Merion West would now be thought of as Merion East's equal or superior! (I personally loved Merion West, it was the first truly good golf course I ever set foot on. But it has been a number of years since I played it, and even then I never managed a complete round during daylight.)
You asked more than one question. So you owe me a few, so please go back and answer my questions regarding Mr. Morrison's position in all of this. After all you are the one that encouraged me to show you where he is discounting the influence and involvement, and I didnt even have to leave the present page!
__________________
TEPaul and Mike,
With all due respect, this supposed balancing between the 8 month and the two days is preposterous. First, it is not just the two days, but the other contacts as well that Merion and Wilson and Leslie and Whigham document. Second and most importantly, it is not a zero sum game.
-
Dave Moriarty,
Have you ever seen any of The Academy Awards presentations ?
When an actor or actress gives their acceptance speech ?
Who DON"T they recognize for their involvement ?
Isn't it possible, or more likely, that the accolades directed to the others, including CBM, were akin to the rhetoric in acceptance speeches.
You have to remember that some of these fellows were interconnected, through blood, social or business ties.
And, that in that era, the proper ettiquette called for recognizing the efforts of others, irrespective of their scope.
These were gentlemen who traveled in a monied crowd, who were part of a small group of men in America who were "IN" the golf community, a very small community at the time.
Without specific identification, qualification and quantification I don't see how you can champion CBM's involvement with Merion.
As to the issue of a hole being an inspiration versus a template, that has been my point all along.
That is why I objected to the categorization of the 10th hole as an "Alps" hole and the 3rd as a Redan.
However, I can see how one would be inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick.
CBM was so inspired that he crafted two spectacular holes that could be classified as template driven.
If you want to state that Wilson was inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick, while we have no written evidence of his reaction to the two holes, you could make a case that these two holes inspired him to craft the 10th and 3rd holes at Merion, as long as you realize that to do so is to put forth a theory and not a fact. But, it's a reasonable theory.
And, who knows, perhaps the two holes under discussion were mentioned as "Alps" and "Redan" holes because Wilson indicated to someone that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick inspired him, along with other holes when he visited the UK.
-
David,
My point about bringing up the West course and Macdonald's complete non-involvement there (started within a year of the opening of the East Course, whose construction took only six months), is simply that it points out to me that whatever Macdonald's involvement with Wilson and Merion, it was clearly one of diminishing returns.
There is no question that Macdonald helped Wilson and Merion get on the right track with the NGLA site visit, the advice on which courses to see during Wilson's lengthy voyage to Great Britain, at least one site visit once things got underway, and possibly some additional communications now and again which could have truly been anything from agronomic issues, to strategy, to routing, to "how's the wife and kids?".
But, once again, we have NO record from either Merion or Macdonald on what those things were. We have no written articles or quotes from Charlie as Merion quickly rose into high prominence. We have nothing to base any further elevation of Macdonald's role beyond that which has already been conceded and well-known previously.
Whatever the relationship was between the two men, within 18 months after the East course construction started, as the West course got started, Macdonald's involvement had dropped to zero. Nada, nothing, zero, zilch.
Does that lead one to conclude that he had a bigger role in the design of the East course than has been previously been reported, or does it suggest something else entirely; that Macdonald helped Wilson get started, helped make sure that their direction was sound after construction started, possibly advised on some agronomic issues (which was Wilson's biggest interest overall, and a source of constant fascination to him), and then went about his own business and courses.
I think that's clearly the most likely scenario, David. Don't you?
-
Patrick,
Your academy award hypothesis sounds fine, but there is absolutely no no proof whatsoever that it is accurate. Like many others here, you are dabbling in rudimentary pop psychology conducted from a distance of 90 years later.
Why not just give these men the respect they deserve by believing that they meant what they said? Unless there is compelling evidence that they did not did not mean what they said, I think we at least owe them that.
Without specific identification, qualification and quantification I don't see how you can champion CBM's involvement with Merion.
Because I have absolutely no reason to believe that these men were being less than honest when they wrote about CBM's influence and involvement.
As to the issue of a hole being an inspiration versus a template, that has been my point all along.
Then we've been in agreement on this all along.
That is why I objected to the categorization of the 10th hole as an "Alps" hole and the 3rd as a Redan.
I agree with you regarding our modern understandings of these holes. But the usage back then strongly evidences that sometimes for them, inspiration and some similarity was enough.
This corresponds with a broader theory of mine, which is that I dont think that CBM's work was ever intended to be directly copied (at least outside his design house.) Rather, I think it was intended to teach and inspire.
I could be wrong about this, but I cant think of anything offhand that makes me think so. I'll take another look at CBM's book and Bahto's when I get a chance.
CBM was so inspired that he crafted two spectacular holes that could be classified as template driven.
I agree that they are spectacular holes and also that they could be considered "template driven." Where I stray is that I do not then assume that those influenced my MacDonald would also build "template driven" holes. MacDonald had a lot more to offer than merely his predilection for copying great holes. After all, as you said above, these weren't just copies, they were spectacular golf holes in their own right.
If you want to state that Wilson was inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick, while we have no written evidence of his reaction to the two holes, you could make a case that these two holes inspired him to craft the 10th and 3rd holes at Merion, as long as you realize that to do so is to put forth a theory and not a fact. But, it's a reasonable theory.
Thanks for this Patrick. All I was trying to do in the hole discussions was put forth a similar theory and see how the theory held up to the evidence, including the contemporary first-hand accounts and the actual physical dimensions and playing characteristics of the holes.
And, who knows, perhaps the two holes under discussion were mentioned as "Alps" and "Redan" holes because Wilson indicated to someone that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick inspired him, along with other holes when he visited the UK.
This seems likely to have been one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason. Isnt Tolhurst confirming that "the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan.)" If so, and if Tolhurst was accurately summarizing his source (I have do reason to doubt this) then the "theory" is correct at least with regard to The Redan, isnt it?
-
Beholden? I don't believe anyone has claimed that.
If anything I think the contrast between the original East and the West is strong evidence of Macdonald's influence. The West had no holes inspired or copied from famous holes and it had a very different aesthetic. In some ways the West was the model for the redesigned East.
-
Does anyone out there still believe that Morrison and Paul have any intention of properly acknowledging MacDonald for his influence and involvement in Merion East, as documented by Wilson, Merion, Tolhurst, Leslie, as well as other contemporary experts?
If so, take a look at Mr. Morrison's post above, where he denies that ANY INFORMATION EXISTS about CMB's involvement beyond the initial NGLA trip.
Also, take a look at TEPaul's latest, where he states:
"The visit to Southampton aside, I just think it's patently perposterous to assign much credit to a couple of guys from New York who may've showed up down here for a few hours a couple of times compared to men who slaved away on that course for 10-15 and 20 years to make it what it is.
. . .
"Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped."
These guys completely dismiss the numerous comtemporary accounts of MacDonald's involvement in the original design of Merion East. They don't want to give him any credit whatsoever. They want to hord it all for their man, Wilson.
TEPaul:
Your post above shows your true colors on this issue. Like with Crump, you are intent on protecting and bolstering Wilson's reputation at any cost, regardless of the evidence.
Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson, above. Yet you are so greedy in your devotion to Wilson that you cannot even understand that this is not a zero sum game.
But you aren't content with lifting Wilson up. You guys are hell-bent on knocking CBM down in the process. And the historical record be damned.
________________________
JES and Mr. Stamm, if you are still reading, this is what I meant when I said that their approach lacked "a generosity of spirit."
-
Tom MacWood,
Isn't it possible that the differences between the West and East is mostly attributable to the two different men that built the two courses for the committee overseen by Wilson?
-
Amen guys, go elsewhere !
-
Patrick,
Your academy award hypothesis sounds fine, but there is absolutely no no proof whatsoever that it is accurate. Like many others here, you are dabbling in rudimentary pop psychology conducted from a distance of 90 years later.
But, David, that's exactly what you've done.
You've hypothesized, absent facts and indicated that since there are no facts discernable, that your hypothesis is valid.
That's not acceptable. You have no proof of CBM's involvement, not one scintilla of concrete evidence, yet you conclude that he was involved to the degree that he deserves respect and credit. I don't see it, absent any facts.[/color]
Why not just give these men the respect they deserve by believing that they meant what they said? Unless there is compelling evidence that they did not did not mean what they said, I think we at least owe them that.
Because, not only is there NO compelling evidence of their involvement, there's absolutely NO concrete, specific evidence of their involvement[/color]
Without specific identification, qualification and quantification I don't see how you can champion CBM's involvement with Merion.
Because I have absolutely no reason to believe that these men were being less than honest when they wrote about CBM's influence and involvement.
But, there's nothing other than vague, nebulous references.
One would think, that if there were anything concrete, that they would have identified it and written about it. Yet, no such documentations exists.[/color]
As to the issue of a hole being an inspiration versus a template, that has been my point all along.
Then we've been in agreement on this all along.
That is why I objected to the categorization of the 10th hole as an "Alps" hole and the 3rd as a Redan.
I agree with you regarding our modern understandings of these holes. But the usage back then strongly evidences that sometimes for them, inspiration and some similarity was enough.
Not really.
When CBM himself indicates that the ESSENTIAL ingredient in a Redan is the tableland tilt, diagonally away from the golfer, and that feature is missing from the 3rd at Merion, you can't homogenize the understanding to be a blend of inspiration and templates.[/color]
This corresponds with a broader theory of mine, which is that I dont think that CBM's work was ever intended to be directly copied (at least outside his design house.) Rather, I think it was intended to teach and inspire.
I think .......... neither.
I think CBM's work was intended to be a Masterpiece from the get go, the benchmark or gold standard for Architecture in America.
His ego, his standing in American golf demanded that he create a golf course to be admired, if not worshiped by golfers near and far.[/color]
I could be wrong about this, but I cant think of anything offhand that makes me think so. I'll take another look at CBM's book and Bahto's when I get a chance.
I don't know what you're refering to.[/color]
CBM was so inspired that he crafted two spectacular holes that could be classified as template driven.
I agree that they are spectacular holes and also that they could be considered "template driven." Where I stray is that I do not then assume that those influenced my MacDonald would also build "template driven" holes.
I don't believe I ever evidenced a position on that subject.
Surely, CBM understood that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery" Certaninly Raynor and Banks, two men influenced by MacDonald built their share of template holes.[/color]
MacDonald had a lot more to offer than merely his predilection for copying great holes. After all, as you said above, these weren't just copies, they were spectacular golf holes in their own right.
Initially, I agreed with that statement.
And then I thought of Chris Craft, Prince and other artistes, who, in their time were at the cutting edge of their craft,
only to be left behind in subsequent years as the field or craft moved away from them. So, perhaps CBM was both the beneficiary and the victim of a unique time warp, that of architecture's early days and evolution in America.
Perhaps CBM's genius was limited, and then again, perhaps it had no bounds.[/color]
If you want to state that Wilson was inspired by the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick, while we have no written evidence of his reaction to the two holes, you could make a case that these two holes inspired him to craft the 10th and 3rd holes at Merion, as long as you realize that to do so is to put forth a theory and not a fact. But, it's a reasonable theory.
Thanks for this Patrick. All I was trying to do in the hole discussions was put forth a similar theory and see how the theory held up to the evidence, including the contemporary first-hand accounts and the actual physical dimensions and playing characteristics of the holes.
That's not how I understood your early posts.
Perhaps that was due to my lack of understanding or your lack of explanation. Either way, my read is that it would be hard for anyone to spend 7-8 months studying the great courses/holes of the UK and not be inspired or predisposed when it came to designing golf courses/holes in America.
A solid foundation grounded in two primary styles has to manifest itself in subsequent designs.[/color]
And, who knows, perhaps the two holes under discussion were mentioned as "Alps" and "Redan" holes because Wilson indicated to someone that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick inspired him, along with other holes when he visited the UK.
This seems likely to have been one of the reasons, and possibly the main reason. Isnt Tolhurst confirming that "the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (The Redan.)" If so, and if Tolhurst was accurately summarizing his source (I have do reason to doubt this) then the "theory" is correct at least with regard to The Redan, isnt it?
This isn't what I gleened from your early theory/posts.
However, there's no doubt in my mind that calling the referenced holes inspirations for # 3 and # 10 at Merion s in harmony with everything that I've been stating.
It seemed to me, early on, that you and Tom MacWood were stating, unequivically, that the 3rd was a Redan and the 10th an Alps, classifications with which I vigorously disagreed with.
But, I'm certainlyl comfortable with stating that the 17th at Prestwick and the 15th at NBerwick could have been inspirations for the 3rd and 10th at Merion[/color]
-
On page 68 of Geoff Shackeford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" a picture, circa 1924, of the old abandoned 10th green appears, as does the current green and the 1st green.
Some of the fairway bunkering on # 10 is also visible, but, we don't know if this bunkering is the original bunkering, or bunkering created in conjunction with the new green.
Geoff Shackleford may have incorrectly concluded that the first hole doglegged left in that picture.
The old, and apparently still in use when the picture was taken, 11th tee is clearly visible to the right of the old 10th green.
You can see the abandoned or uncared for fronting bunker complex and the bermed semi-circular feature surrounding the green.
On the next page is a picture of the 9th green, with the landform that forms the 10th, 11th and 12th fairways.
Golfers can be seen walking up the 10th fairway.
While the angle is from the tee at # 9, it would appear that the fairway bunkering on # 10 is introduced where the fairway flattens out.
If one views both photos and makes reasonable interpolations, I think you'll come to that conclusion.
One can also extrapolate some distances since the 9th hole is claimed to be measured at 190 yards. Unfortunately, the 9th and 10th tees are not visible.
It also appears that the old 10th hole is somewhat of a dogleg, which might explain the references to drives that found the fairway bunkers.
Since the picture on page 68 is circa 1924, we can't tell if the location of the 10th tee, 10th fairway and 10th hole fairway bunkers were realigned to accomodate the new 10th green.
It is also possible that the bunker behind the greenside berm on the old 10th hole might have been intended for play on
# 1, and that the berm itself, may have been intended to protect golfers on the old 10th green from errant approaches to # 1 green.
A bridge like structure can also be seen leading from the right rear of the 9th green, probably to the tee for # 10.
I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts after they've reviewed these pictures.
-
In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.
All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it. It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.
TEPaul, You are only interested in the truth? Then I suggest you start with what we know to be true, above. We know that MacDonald was involved in a number of different aspects of the early design of Merion. We may never be able to flesh out every aspect of his involvement, but one cannot honestly deny his involvement and influence in numerous areas, including Wilson's early education his trip itenerary, the site, the routing, and as an advisor. Yours and Mr. Morrison's attempt to diminish and belittle his involvement based on a supposedly incomplete record are purely in bad faith.
___________________________
Mr. Morrison, you posted yet another false, misleading, and defamatory post, then deleted it, like so many other of your posts. You know, if you ever publish your long awaited book, you just can't periodically gather whatever books you might have sold to rip out the chapters and passages where you have been foolish, rude, and/or mistaken.
-
You've hypothesized, absent facts and indicated that since there are no facts discernable, that your hypothesis is valid.
Hypotheszed? Is it a hypothesis that Wilson said CBM was involved? That Leslie said CBM was involved? That Merion said CBM was involved? That Whigham said CBM was involved?
It is not. These are facts; first-hand contemporary accounts from those who were in a position to know best. Facts do not get much better than that, especially for 95 year old events.
You have no proof of CBM's involvement, not one scintilla of concrete evidence, yet you conclude that he was involved to the degree that he deserves respect and credit. I don't see it, absent any facts.
Patrick the FACT is that all those people said he was involved in various areas of Merion's early development. What more PROOF could you need than many of the main players telling you he was involved.
Do you really deny that FACT? Do you really think it reasonable to dismiss the words of these men simply because they didnt provide a laundry list of specific influences?
But, there's nothing other than vague, nebulous references.
One would think, that if there were anything concrete, that they would have identified it and written about it. Yet, no such documentations exists.
They did write about it, but you dismiss their writings as "vague nebulous references."
It seemed to me, early on, that you and Tom MacWood were stating, unequivically, that the 3rd was a Redan and the 10th an Alps, classifications with which I vigorously disagreed with.
Patrick, if you really doubt me on this go back and look at my posts. They are all still there. I just skimmed a little and found the following statements (with my bold added) . . .
I dont claim that the 10th was an Alps hole. I merely thought that this blurb was worth posting, and that the description of the 10th green is consistent with the theory that Wilson might have designed the 10th green with the Alps hole (or at least the green of an Alps hole) in mind.
. . .
Patrick, I have never said the hole was an Alps Hole, nor do I have any interest in getting into a purely definitional debate.
. . .
NOTE: I am NOT saying that No. 10 at Merion East was an Alps hole, or that it was meant to be an alps hole.
. . .
Where did I conclude [that it was an Alps hole]? I dont recall concluding any such thing.
As you can see, while you and others thought I was saying that it was an Alps hole, this was not what I was saying at all. Same goes for Merion's third.
-
Mike, I understand the point your trying to make using Merion West. I just dont agree with it. Nor to I think it is germaine to this discussion. Aren't we talking about CBM's involvement and influence in the initial creation of Merion East?
and possibly some additional communications now and again which could have truly been anything from agronomic issues, to strategy, to routing, to "how's the wife and kids?".
Why do you downplay these communications like this? Do you really think that these conversations were about the wife and kids? If the participants thought them important enough to note, when why do you try to diminish them?
As for your two scenarios, I dont think either one is any more than continued pop-psychology. I'd rather stick to what we know. These guys all acknowledged CBM's influence in certain areas of the creation of the course. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, this by itself proves that he had influence in these areas. One does not need a laundry list of specific influences to see the truth in this.
_____________________
Mike, you have been ignoring my questions. You asked me to show you a post where Morrison or TEPaul discounted and rejected MacDonald's involvement and influence (after the initial visit.) I did. If Mr. Morrison handnt deleted his latest salvo, we'd have yet another example.
Do you still believe that these guys are NOT discarding the evidence of MacDonald's involvement and influence after the NGLA visit?
-
Sheesh, David...
Yes, Macdonald was involved and the account you cite are irrefutable.
Yet, they also point out to me exactly what his involvement was. The fact that the accounts of the time are so vague, so thin, so vaporish, at a time when there was tons of press about the course, at a time when Macdonald and Whigham were writing regularly boasting about the holes and concepts and courses they brought to America. I think the fact that such pale descriptions were brought forth is completely reflective of the reality of his involvement.
Which is...according to the records;
1) Showing Wilson around NGLA for two days, and discussing in detail with him the concepts of the best holes in the world at the time.
2) Helping Wilson with his itinerary for his forthcoming EIGHT month trip and suggesting the best courses to visit and best holes to see.
3) At least one documented site visit after Wilson's return
4) One written account, mentioned years later in the Merion history book, that Wilson was grateful to Macdonald for his help in overcoming problems in "laying out A golf course".
David...I'm sorry to say but that's about IT for concrete evidence of Macdonald's involvement. We can speculate that this hole was inspired by an ALps or this hole was inspired by a redan, but the statistical odds are that this was simply due to Wilson's months of study abroad, and not due to direct influence from Macdonald, but only peripherally due to his suggestions of where to visit.
Does it really make sense on any level whatsoever that if Macdonald was fully and intimately involved in the creation of the East course, and that Macdonald had a key and critical role in the conception, design, and construction of that course that Wilson and company would completely excluse him a few months later when they started the West course? That's totally ridiculous, on the face of it. It's so far from reality as to be farcical.
I know you think I'm being demeaning to the ongoing communications between these two men when I suggested that it might be as simple as "how's the wife and kids?", but I'm totally serious. Macdonald kept some pretty fastidious records on his involvement in course building, yet none of them exist for Merion. He wrote extensively about his work in architecture, yet there isn't a single mention by him of anything he did for Merion. He was the preeminent man in golf in America during this time, yet his role was recorded as "advisor", which is basically equivalent to me as similar to when someone like Jim Furyk is listed as "advisor" to the St. Annes course being built currently in Delaware.
That includes a few site visits, probably some general design input on a few holes, and a bit of PR. Other than that, the real work is done by others.
Jeez guys...if the original course at Merion looked anything like Piping Rock, or Sleepy Hollow, or NGLA, or Chicago, or anything else by CB at the time, I can understand that you feel that perhaps Macdonald didn't get appropriate credit. But, the lack of real template holes, the introduction of completely new hole concepts using the existing land, the construction techniques that largely eschewed the more geometric and formalized structures that Macdonald favored all seem to support my position that Macdonald's role was minimal, at best, once Wilson returned from his eight month visit to Great Britain.
Finally...I'm really not interested in the argument between you and Wayne, and I've tried to keep my discussion points between us. Although it's obvious that there is some acrimony between the two of you, I don't think he's attempted to minimize any role of Macdonald's that can be clearly documented.
I think...similar to me, that what he's questioning is some seeming exaggeration or speculative magnification and expansion of Macdonald's role without something beyond those clear facts that I detailed above.
-
Sheesh Mike,
In 1914 Lesley authored what appears to be a carefully written article simply titled "The Merion Courses." After a brief introduction about the state of American golf, he addresses what would become known as Merion East, and gives credit for the creation of the course to nature for the "land found suited for golf," to Wilson and his committee for laying out the course, and to MacDonald and Whigham for advising them regarding laying out the course:
The ground was found adapted for golf and a
course was laid out upon it about three years ago by
the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman,
R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr.
Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B.
Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.
Wasn't Lesley the long time chairman of Merion's green committee? Wasn't he also a very knowledgeable and influential member of Philadelphia's golfing community? The president of the regional golfing organization? Intimately involved with all things Merion?
Wasn't Leslie in a better position than anyone to determine whether MacDonald contributed enough to deserve credit as an advisor, as Leslie says, in laying out the course?
Yet we ought to ignore Lesley because he did not provide us with a laundry list of what specifically CBM advised and what, specificially, of that advice was followed?
The arrogance in this revisionist position is overwhelming.
I don't think [Mr. Morrison has] attempted to minimize any role of Macdonald's that can be clearly documented.
He claims that no information exists other than the initial NGLA visit. Hard to imagine how he could minimize CBMs role any more. I guess he could deny that CBM ever existed.
I think...similar to me, that what he's questioning is some seeming exaggeration or speculative magnification and expansion of Macdonald's role without something beyond those clear facts that I detailed above.
Show me where I have exaggerated or expanded CBM's role?
There is ample evidence from the best sources imaginable that CBM was involved and had an inluence. The lack of a laundry list of specific influence does not change or diminish this in any way. One need not completely the laundry list to accept the involvement and influence.
-
Sheesh Mike,
The ground was found adapted for golf and a
course was laid out upon it about three years ago by
the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman,
R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr.
Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B.
Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.
David,
I think this paragraph says it all and is very, very illuminating.
Let's say me, you, Tom Macwood, Tom Paul, and Wayne Morrison were in a club together and none of us had ever laid out a golf course before. However, our wacky members decided that they would throw the five of us to the task of building them a new course for the burgeoning membership.
Let's also say that the year is 1912 and knowledge about golf in this country is pretty dismal. However, there's this guy Charley Macdonald who has been a driving force in building the game here, and has recently completed a course that was hailed as not only the best in the United States, but comparable to the best in the Old Country, the home of golf.
And let's say our Membership is wealthy and influential and has some connections to old Charlie, so they appoint one David Moriarty, who has some free time and hasn't been all the healthy lately to go overseas for the next half year or so and learn everything that he can about what makes the great courses and great holes great. Oh, and by the way, you should probably stop on your way and visit with this Macdonald guy who is the biggest name in golf in the country.
You return, we build the courses, etc., and now our Greens Chairman is writing an article for National consumption in the biggest golf publication in the country in honor of our course being selected to host the biggest tournament in the country and he's going to describe how our courses were built. And let's see...he can spotlight what you, me, MacWood, Paul, and Morrison did, or he can attempt to illuminate it with the shining star of golf in the country at the time. Which would be more impressive had Charles Macdonald played any type of major role whatsoever in the building of the course..hmmm
"With the expert advisement and ongoing counsel of the father of the National Links and former US Amateur champion, Charles Blair Macdonald (with his assistant HJ Whigham) the grounds at Merion were first approved by Macdonald as suitable land for golf, and a course was then laid out, assisted ably by the internal Merion committee of David Moriarty, Mike Cirba, Tom MacWood, Tom Paul, and Wayne Morrison.
If Macdonald had played any type of ongoing role in the design or construction, he certainly would have gotten top billing David. Why would the article focus top billing attention on a bunch of unknowns like us if Macdonald was what you and Tom say he was and deserves some type of credit that the whole golf world is conspiring to deny him some 90 years later?
-
Tom MacWood,
Isn't it possible that the differences between the West and East is mostly attributable to the two different men that built the two courses for the committee overseen by Wilson?
It seems pretty clear to me that Flynn had an impact on the aesthetic of the West and the redesigned East. I'm not familar with Pickerings aesthetic. Macdonald's aesthetic is well documented.
As far as the use of famous holes or famous features, thats a Macdonald trademark and logically it makes sense to point to his advising at one course and not the other.
-
In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.
Define "Involved"
How is it that five seperate parties can't point to one single example of HOW he was involved ?
There's not one reference, not one description of anything specific that CBM is alleged to have helped with. How can that be possible ? Surely CBM's ego would have demanded credit and/or accolades for feature specific items he helped with. Yet, noone can find a single example of a single item that CBM is credited with bringing to the table..
That would lead me to believe that his role might have been that of a cheerleader, or casual observer.[/color]
All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it.
No, it doesn't.
Absent concrete, specific feature ideas that he brought to the table, his role remains distantly tangential or spectator like in natue.[/color]
It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.
No it's not.
Don't you think it's odd that all these people who say that CBM was involved, never define, identify, quantify and qualify his invovlement ? How is it possible that from five seperate parties there's not one single reference to anything he might have done ? There's not one single thank you for suggesting one idea, one concept or one feature.
How do you account for that when the written word was
THE method of communication and the method for diseminating the news in those days, and yet, there's NOT one written word identifying ANY possible imput he may have had
I believe that his involvement may have been ceremonial.
and NOT DIRECTLY related to the architecture of the golf course.
But, until someone produces FACTUAL EVIDENCE of his specific involvement, his roll would seem to be that of a cheerleader and/or ceremonial in nature
If there's no smoke, it's doubtful there's a fire.[/color]
-
In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.
All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it. It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.
David,
Would you please come forward with exactly what MacDonald's level of involvement was once and for all, instead of hiding behind various quotes?
-
In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.
All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it. It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.
You can add William Evans (Golfer Magazine), Hazard (aka Tilly) and Far & Sure (aka Travis) to the list of those who said CBM was involved.
David,
Would you please come forward with exactly what MacDonald's level of involvement was once and for all, instead of hiding behind various quotes?
No one knows precisely. No one knows precisely what Hugh Wilson did either. Why would you demand details on Macdonald's involvement when noone can give you details on Wilson's involvement?
-
No, Tom, but we know clearly that less than a year after the opening of the East course, the club and membership thought enough of Wilson's experience and success in laying out the East course that they confidently asked him to go and lay out and build their next "championship course" the West, as well.
They did not ask Charlie back, despite the vast unknown contributions that you and David imply he made to the East.
-
Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?
Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for? No. No one can.
Wilson had experience, he had one course under his belt when he began designing the West and redesigning the East (and designing other courses). No need for M&W's experience.
Personally based on the fact that Wilson never incorporated templates again and significantly altered the East (including removal of the template features and softening the sharp edges) I don't think Wilson was all that crazy about the Macdonald model.
-
Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?
Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for?
Tom,
Unless Wilson and the committee were part of building the original course at Haverford, probably none, similar to Crump, Fownes, Leeds, et.al. when they built their first course. At that point , how many courses had Macdonald layed out and built, 2 or 3? They were all neophytes to the process and learning as they went. I think it's fair to say that since Wilson was responsible and charged with leading the committee, he was ultimately responsible for holes 1-18, and ALL of the features that were built on the original Merion course, and there's no reason at all to suspect that wasn't the factual truth.
Tom, if the members of Merion were not going to utilize Hugh Wilson to lay out the new course, why would they have sent him overseas for eight months in the first place? Why did he create fastidious, detailed drawings of all the famous holes if he was just going to come back and rely on Macdonald anyway?
Why wouldn't they just have asked Macdonald to come and lay out a course for them? Why delay the much-needed project for almost a year while Wilson was going to golf school overseas for 8 months?
If Macdonald had some major, or even significantly relevant role in the success of the holes on the East course, why blow him off entirely when the West was built? Why, if Wilson didn't design the East course, would the membership have the confidence in him to go and do the West course within the year? It defies all logic and reason, Tom.
Or, were the mentions of Macdonald's involvement by the folks you mention just a courteous tip of the cap to the Father of American golf for helping them set the proper direction and for assisting Wilson with the tour of NGLA, help with the overseas itinerary, a site visit to inspect Wilson and the committee's progress, and probably some overall "advice" regarding construction techniques and agronomy?
Tom, the failure of Macdonald himself to claim any responsibility for the success of the East course or any of the architectural features there is rather telling, don't you think? He was anything but a shrinking violet and was one of the biggest self-promoters in the history of the game.
Rather than imply Macdonald's direct involvement with your question, Tom, perhaps you should tell us what holes or features on the original Merion course that Macdonald was responsible for and should now be given just credit for lo these 90 years later?
-
Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?
Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for? No. No one can.
Wilson had experience, he had one course under his belt when he began designing the West and redesigning the East (and designing other courses). No need for M&W's experience.
Personally based on the fact that Wilson never incorporated templates again and significantly altered the East (including removal of the template features and softening the sharp edges) I don't think Wilson was all that crazy about the Macdonald model.
Sort of flies in the face of your running retort to the question asking for evidence as to CBM's fingerprints, don't you think?
-
Tom MacWood,
If you don't know what he did, in general or specifically, how do you KNOW that he did anything, specifically.
Let's not try to muddle the issue by asking what Wilson did or didn't do.
We could do that with C&C and Tom Doak on some of their projects and not know the answer unless they provided the answer.
So, let's stick to the subject.
If there is absolutely NO record of CBM doing anything at Merion, how can you say that he was involved in the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?
And, if there were discussions amongst the parties, absent detailed information, you can't assume that CBM gave specific, detailed advice prior to the routing, design and construction of the golf course.
For all we know, he may have merely provided his blessings on things already planned or completed.
But, you can't conclude that he did anything absent concrete evidence that reveals same.
P.S. I love CBM, so it's not as if I'm trying to take a shot at
him
-
Mike
Prior to the East course being built how many courses had any of the committeemen laid out and built?
Can you point to a hole or a feature on the original East course that Wilson is responsible for?
Tom,
Unless Wilson and the committee were part of building the original course at Haverford, probably none, similar to Crump, Fownes, Leeds, et.al. when they built their first course. At that point , how many courses had Macdonald layed out and built, 2 or 3? They were all neophytes to the process and learning as they went. I think it's fair to say that since Wilson was responsible and charged with leading the committee, he was ultimately responsible for holes 1-18, and ALL of the features that were built on the original Merion course, and there's no reason at all to suspect that wasn't the factual truth.
Crump hired Colt. It took years of design and redesign for Oakmont & Myopia Hunt to become great courses. The Merion course was praised the day it opened.
Macdonald had designed and built Belmont, Chicago, NGLA, Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow (and was working on St. Louis & Greenbrier). Neophyte? The NGLA project alone would have put him beyond the tag. I think it could be argued he was the premier golf architect in N.America at the time.
It seems like there is double standard of proof when it comes to Wilson and Macdonald.
Tom, if the members of Merion were not going to utilize Hugh Wilson to lay out the new course, why would they have sent him overseas for eight months in the first place? Why did he create fastidious, detailed drawings of all the famous holes if he was just going to come back and rely on Macdonald anyway?
Who said that Wilson would not be involved in laying out the new course?
Why wouldn't they just have asked Macdonald to come and lay out a course for them? Why delay the much-needed project for almost a year while Wilson was going to golf school overseas for 8 months?
I have no idea if they did or didn't ask Macdonald. I do know Macdonald had a lot of irons in the fire at the time.
If Macdonald had some major, or even significantly relevant role in the success of the holes on the East course, why blow him off entirely when the West was built? Why, if Wilson didn't design the East course, would the membership have the confidence in him to go and do the West course within the year? It defies all logic and reason, Tom.
I answered that in my last post.
Or, were the mentions of Macdonald's involvement by the folks you mention just a courteous tip of the cap to the Father of American golf for helping them set the proper direction and for assisting Wilson with the tour of NGLA, help with the overseas itinerary, a site visit to inspect Wilson and the committee's progress, and probably some overall "advice" regarding construction techniques and agronomy?
This sounds a bit like the reasoning given at one time for Colt's hire at PV....all window dressing. Interesting theory: A committee made up of men who had never laid out or built a golf course bring in the finest golf architect in America so they can use his famous name, his construction and agronomy expertise, but not his design talent.
Tom, the failure of Macdonald himself to claim any responsibility for the success of the East course or any of the architectural features there is rather telling, don't you think? He was anything but a shrinking violet and was one of the biggest self-promoters in the history of the game.
I don't think so. He never mentioned his advising at Greenwich or East Lake or Women's National or Shinnecock Hills. The fact that Merion had been completely redesigned may have also been factor. Whigham had no problem mentioning it however.
Rather than imply Macdonald's direct involvement with your question, Tom, perhaps you should tell us what holes or features on the original Merion course that Macdonald was responsible for and should now be given just credit for lo these 90 years later?
If one was to use the standard of proof you used to say Wilson was responsible for all the holes one could easily say M&W were at least responsible for the Alps, Eden, Redan and PN.
-
In fact, Wilson says CBM was involved.
In fact, Leslie says CBM was involved.
In fact, Merion says CBM was involved.
In fact, Whigham says CBM was involved.
In fact, Tolhurst says CBM was involved.
All this amounts to undeniable evidence that CBM was involved and there is no supported reason to doubt the veracity of any of it. It may not establish the extent of the involvement or the specific influence he may have had, but to deny involvement is an absolute farce, a travesty of truth.
You can add William Evans (Golfer Magazine), Hazard (aka Tilly) and Far & Sure (aka Travis) to the list of those who said CBM was involved.
David,
Would you please come forward with exactly what MacDonald's level of involvement was once and for all, instead of hiding behind various quotes?
No one knows precisely. No one knows precisely what Hugh Wilson did either. Why would you demand details on Macdonald's involvement when noone can give you details on Wilson's involvement?
Tom MacWood,
I would not ask for details about Wilson's involvement because we're not talking about Wilson here, we're talking about C.B. MacDonald and his level of involvement. Let's stick to the original subject and not side-track.
-
Tom,
I love Macdonald & Raynor....NGLA is one of my very favorite 3 courses. I love Fisher's Island, MidOcean, Yale..et.al. Their stuff is cool and superb.
I really have no horse in this race, and if Macdonald had an active design hand in the origin of Merion that would be a great thing. Why would anyone, or any club, shy from that fact if he deserved due credit? That would be nothing short of stupid.
I also have great respect for your research skills and I often agree with your extrapolations in trying to connect the dots. However, I truly do not see any validity in what you're asserting here. The course at Merion...the original one, or the revised one..has so little in common with Macdonald's trademark templates, and stylistics as to be Venus and Mars. Trying to stretch holes like the 3rd into anything Macdonald ever built as a redan is absurd, Tom. What about the other completely original 16 holes?
There is no way that CB Macdonald designed this golf course, or even a hole or two Tom. Not a chance.
-
IMO this thread has been plagued by over-reaching and overreaction. The suggestion that Macdonald & Whigham advised (which was widely reported at the time) seems to be enterpted as claiming Macdonald designed the course and Wilson did not. Understandibly there is a strong emotional attachement to both Wilson and Merion. Add to this the fact that the Wilson/Flynn perfected version of the course is really the antithesis of Macdonald, and it makes the suggestion he was involved incomprehensible.
-
I agree. This is not a zero sum game. Noone is trying to take anything away from Wilson. Noone is claiming that MacDonald deserves design credit.
In my opinion this over-reaching is an attempt to hold together a fundamentally flawed analysis. Their "proof" is as follows:
Fact 1: MacDonald built copies of templates at NGLA and his other courses.
Fact 2: There is no evidence that any copies were built at Merion East.
Reasoning: Had MacDonald designed Merion East, there would be copies at Merion East, like at CBM's other courses.
Conclusion: Therefore, MacDonald didn't design Merion East.
The problem is, no one has claimed that MacDonald designed Merion East. But the proponents of this theory nonetheless repeatedly turn to this same analysis, inevitably substituting "designed Merion East" instead of sticking with the more accurate terms like "advised" and "influenced." Moreover, when the propenents of the proof stick to the actual issue in question, their "proof" immediately implodes.
They substitute in "design" it is at least logical to conclude that the absence of copies at Merion proves MacDonald did not design Merion East. More importantly, it is illogical to conclude that the absence of copies at Merion proves MacDonald was neither an advisor or an influence.
For example if we examine the issue of whether MacDonald was an advisor, the proof fails. The Reasoning is illogical, so the conclusion is necessarily illogical as well.
Fact 1: MacDonald built copies of templates at NGLA and his other courses.
Fact 2: There is no evidence that any copies were built at Merion East.
Reasoning: Had MacDonald acted as an advisor to those who designed Merion East, there would be copies at Merion East, like at CBM's other courses.
Conclusion: Therefore, MacDonald didn't act as an advisor to those who designed Merion East.
It just doesnt make sense.
-
Tom/David,
There is absolutely no question whatsoever that Macdonald advised Wilson.
We know he advised him on the fundamentals of strategic design during the tour of NGLA prior to Wilson's trip abroad.
We know he advised him which courses to see and which holes to note while overseas.
We know he advised him in some way during a site visit, which could have been anything from a perfunctory overview to a thorough examination, but we don't know.
We know that Macdonald advised him on how to overcome problems in "the laying out of a golf course", but we're not sure exactly whether that related to Merion East, or in more hypothetical, philosophical terms.
It think it is very reasonable to assume that Macdonald also advised Wilson about agronomy, construction techniques, irrigation, and the unglamorous stuff beneath the skin. We don't know whether he did this during the NGLA visit, or anytime thereafter.
Unfortunately, that's all we know. There is no written record anywhere that details their relationship and whether it sort of dried up shortly after construction began or continued throughout the process. My strong suspicion, which is based on the lack of template holes, the fact that Macdonald was long gone by the time design and construction of the West course began less than 18 months after the East got underway (built in 6 months) is that Macdonald's role was one of rapidly diminishing returns.
It's unrealistic to say that Macdonald didn't have an influence on the original course at Merion East, but the question is really how big an influence.
I think it was a close relationship at first that dwindled after work began and Wilson and company got their feet wet. I think that is consistent with the actions of all involved, as well as what's documented.
You two seem to be arguing for some greater degree of involvement and influence than what the historical record indicates, but that's precisely where you have no additional documented evidence to back your assertions.
Thus, we've spent a lot of this debate arguing precisely this point. You say he had a great influence on the first course, while I say he had a great influence on getting them started, but then Merion largely went off on their own.
Until we find additional documentation from either of these two men, I think that's where we'll leave it.
-
Tom MacWood,
I don't think anyone on this side of the table thinks you or David are suggesting that CBM designed Merion and should get credit for it. The problem I have is that you want to assign an arbitrary amount of credit to him for work we don't know he did.
This is why David's GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT request got the reaction it did out of me. To be "generous" in this regard is to take something away from Wilson and his committee. In my view they (Merion committee) have been "generous" with recognition to CBM's role. Surely you are not suggesting that he did work and the Merion committee swept it under the rug?
Based on the apparent deterioration of the relationship between CBM and the Merion committee, why wouldn't CBM make every point to make his contributions known?
-
Mike,
The first problem is that our resident Merion "experts" still deny the validity of even the list you posted. They deny any influence or involvement beyond Wilson's initial visit to NGLA, and they have even downplayed that involvement. They also claim that almost every bit of credit needs to stay with the men who were in Philadelphia working in the course. This is hardly an honest assessment of the historical record.
And with all due respect, even you have waffled back and forth between acknowledging CBM's continued involvement and influence, and downplaying this involvement. For instance, in your post above you try to attach special influence to the order in which Lesley credits the committee and MacDonald & Whigham, stretching to try to make the point that if MacDonald had really been a significant advisor or influence he would have been given top billing! But if we review your old posts, we see that you have also argued that Lesley only mentioned MacDonald to use a big name to hype his new course. MacDonald was included to hype the course, but wasnt given high enough building to really have had much involvement or influence? That sort of creative interpretation would put even the neocons to shame.
Even in acknowledging the record in your last thread, you stretch to diminish its significance: Do you really think you are being entirely genuine when you claim that "we don't know exactly whether that related to Merion East, or in more hypothetical, philosophical terms." ??
The second problem is that you keep misrepresenting Tom's position and my position. We aren't arguing for some greater degree of influence that the historical record indicates. Rather, we simply want to give the historical record its due.
Men like Lesley were in a much better position to judge MacDonald's level of involvement than we are, and if he thought that MacDonald deserved credit for advising about the layout of the course, then absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we should give it to him. And you guys ought to quit stretching so hard and far to take that credit away from him.
__________________________
JES,
I don't want to give MacDonald credit for any specific work without evidence that he did that work. But I do want to acknowledge him at least to the extent that Lesley, Wilson, and the others did.
As for my term "generousity of spirit," I don't quite understand why that rankles you and Mr. Stamm, but I hate to see it as a sticking point in what could be an otherwise productive discussion. I was simply looking for a phrase which captured the essense of Geoffrey Shackelford's approach to George Thomas'sinfluences in Geoff's book, "The Captain." My point was simply to contrast Geoff's approach to that of our resident Merion "experts" which seems to be a much less genuine and productive approach. But if you think it grossly twists my position to one of 'giving credit where no credit is due,' then I'd be glad to try and put it in other terms.
Our resident Merion "experts" have come into this discussion with a strong home-course bias, and have been unreasonably reluctant to accept any facts which give any credit to anyone outside of a small circle of Merion men. They have been unwilling to even consider (much less accept) even the most obvious and factual disagreement.
An example of their parsimonious, grudging, avaricious, and petty approach to this matter? Mr. Morrison's continued unwillingness to accept the fact that 1930 measurements (or estimates) of B. Jones drives on the 10th hole were wrong by 40 yards, (or 20 yards if the same source had the tees wrong.) As recently as yesterday he denied the correct measure of the distances, deleting his thread shortly thereafter.
Now except for the fact that his understanding of how far (in yards) drives flew on this hole was based on the Jones measures, I have no idea why such a minor issue is of such importance to him that he would stubbornly refuse to acknowledge overwhelming evidence. But unfortunately, this is indicative of his approach to this entire matter.
If someone is so set in their position that they will not even consider evidence as factual and objective as a straight line measurement of a golf shot, then how are they to genuinely consider general evidence of something they are completely predisposed to reject, like CBM's influence?
As far as I know, Leslie and the committee at the time were completely fair to MacDonald when the acknowledged his involvement in Merion East. I will continue to believe this unless and until some concrete evidence to the contrary is unearthed.
But I will not sweep these acknowledgements under the rug based on illogical analysis and pure speculation and pathologizing. That is exactly what TEPaul, Mr. Morrison, and others (including even Mike Cirba,some of the time) are trying to do.
I hope this helps clear up my position, and Wayne's to the extent that it agrees with mine.
-
Mr. Stamm,
David, it's David Stamm. Mr. Stamm is my father. ;D
-
David,
I'm not going to battle you to have the last word here. Instead, let me just clarify a point and then you can have the floor unimpeded.
I've never said that Macdonald wasn't an influence on Wilson; that would be preposterous when Wilson himself told of visiting Charlie prior to his trip overseas, and it's also recorded that Macdonald gave him a tour of NGLA, discussed architecture into the night, and advised on his trip overseas.
I also never said that Macdonald was brought on to "hype" the course. Macdonald's role, and Merion's immediate acknowledgement of Macdonald's role, were helpful in getting the project off on the right track, and Merion gratefully acknowledged that influence in a number of ways, although always in very general terms (which I believe is rather telling).
However, once Wilson returned after his 8 months stay studying numerous courses and holes overseas, we know of a single documented site visit by Macdonald, the nature, duration, and purpose of which is unknown.
We also know that in a history book years later, the author quoted WIlson as saying that Macdonald was helpful in "problems presented in laying out A course", which may have referred to construction, agronomy, strategy, routing, or any and/or all of the above. We don't know what that means honestly, David, do we?
We also know that 2 of the 18 holes at Merion had nicknames familiar as famous holes. We also know that Travis said the 15th green was copied after the Eden green. But, do we know where Wilson would have been inspired to do his own spin on those features; the two days with Macdonald or the eight months overseas studying and sketching??
So, you have the floor, but I'd like for you to tell us specifically what you think Macdonald did for Merion after the time that Wilson returned from overseas.
If we are missing some huge piece of the "puzzle" that hasn't been properly acknowledged and documented by historians and accounts of the time, and Wilson's letters, and Merion's archives, and Charles Macdonalds files, and Macdonald and Whigham's articles, then please lay out specifically what we missed.
Let's hear it. The floor is yours, you have the last word in this matter, and I'll only rebut if you ask me to.
What did Macdonald do specifically after Wilson's return from Great Britain, and what was the great unacknowledged contribution that he made to the design, layout, features, and construction of the Merion East golf course?
-
David Moriarty,
I appreciate your patient approach to this subject, and you really have been patient.
Here's the deal. Wayne and Tom have put alot of time and energy into the study of Merion. Rightfully so, they are passionate about the place. They have also discovered a great deal of information about William Flynn's involvement as the course(s) and club evolved over it's first 20 or so years. You start a thread that in essence throws mud in the face of the Merion membership. And you do so as speculation hoping to start a discussion. You may not see it this way, but when you speculate that CBM was more involved in the earliest years of Merion East than he is or was given credit for you are insulting Merion's membership. Merion, more than any club I am familiar with, embraces it's history and traditions (and justifiably so) to the fullest degree. You make these accusations because you have brief footnotes recognizing his advisory role and written snippets of hole characteristics that resemble some of what he (CBM) was doing. You need more than that.
I know you may view my position on this as opposite yours, but it really is not. I have nothing invested in Merion. I just don't think you can take the "evidence" you and TM have put forward to mean CBM deserves more credit than has been granted. When you take TEP's and Wayne's words about not giving credit to CBM for anything on the ground at Merion as "sweeping his influence under the rug" I can see why. I can confidently say that what they mean is that until something specific is produced how could you possibly assign anything to him. You must admit that the terms "advisor" and "approval of the grounds" are pretty vague to assign credit to.
I'll be honest with you, my last few posts are my honest objective (I hope, it feels objective) opinion on the likely scenario. CBM lent tremendous insight into the process of developing a golf course during the NGLA visit. He also made strong declarations as to the holes to study and implement. This made a strong impression on Wilson and helped him in his design process. CBM visited the site and admirably kept to himself (or at the very least did not overstep his bounds).
Truthfully, while it is speculation, it seems pretty safe and fitting each groups perspectives to a tee.
Possible?
-
Jim,
I think that's a very accurate and objective assessment and summation. Thanks for saying it much more concisely than my verbose attempts.
All,
I see this thread has the 2nd highest number of posts in the history of GCA. However, it is not even in the Top 10 of the "most viewed" threads.
Is that how one defines a circle jerk? :-[ ;)
-
Mike,
In theory, everyone leaves a circle jerk satisfied... :-\
-
On page 68 of Geoff Shackeford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" a picture, circa 1924, of the old abandoned 10th green appears, as does the current green and the 1st green.
Some of the fairway bunkering on # 10 is also visible, but, we don't know if this bunkering is the original bunkering, or bunkering created in conjunction with the new green.
Geoff Shackleford may have incorrectly concluded that the first hole doglegged left in that picture.
The old, and apparently still in use when the picture was taken, 11th tee is clearly visible to the right of the old 10th green.
You can see the abandoned or uncared for fronting bunker complex and the bermed semi-circular feature surrounding the green.
On the next page is a picture of the 9th green, with the landform that forms the 10th, 11th and 12th fairways.
Golfers can be seen walking up the 10th fairway.
While the angle is from the tee at # 9, it would appear that the fairway bunkering on # 10 is introduced where the fairway flattens out.
If one views both photos and makes reasonable interpolations, I think you'll come to that conclusion.
One can also extrapolate some distances since the 9th hole is claimed to be measured at 190 yards. Unfortunately, the 9th and 10th tees are not visible.
It also appears that the old 10th hole is somewhat of a dogleg, which might explain the references to drives that found the fairway bunkers.
Since the picture on page 68 is circa 1924, we can't tell if the location of the 10th tee, 10th fairway and 10th hole fairway bunkers were realigned to accomodate the new 10th green.
It is also possible that the bunker behind the greenside berm on the old 10th hole might have been intended for play on
# 1, and that the berm itself, may have been intended to protect golfers on the old 10th green from errant approaches to # 1 green.
A bridge like structure can also be seen leading from the right rear of the 9th green, probably to the tee for # 10.
I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts after they've reviewed these pictures.
-
Pat,
Are you feeling slighted by that post not driving any conversation yesterday?
-
Pat,
Are you feeling slighted by that post not driving any conversation yesterday?
JES II,
Not at all.
I am however, shocked that those who posted so ardently, chose to ignore vital pieces of factual evidence.
-
I think we've settled the template issues with the nuanced explanation that the 3rd and 10th were inspired by the originals (possibly due to CBM's influence) as opposed to copies of.
-
"In disputes we like to see the clash of opinions, but not at all to contemplate truth when found." Pascal :)
-
For a course as famous as Merion its amazing that so little is known about its early development. Twenty pages later and we still have no idea what Wilson or Macdonald contributed. Hopefully some bright researchers will uncover the true story.
-
After looking at the photo of the old and new 10th greens, and the 1st green and fairway in the photo on page 68, circa 1924, and the photo of the new 10th green and new 1st fairway on page 72, circa 1930, I have to ask the question.
Why did Merion make this change ?
While safety may be the immediate response, one also has to wonder why the 1st tee and fairway were moved ?
Was it due to the creation of a new entrance road from Ardmore Avenue, rather than some "on course" architectural reasons ?
And, why not leave a dual green on # 10 ?
Would the replacement of the 40 or so yards lost on # 11 make it a better hole ?
Studying the pictures on pages 68 and 72 raises some interesting questions.
Wayne & TE,
Do you know why the changes to # 1, 10, and 11 were made ?
I suspect that non-golf reasons may have been the driving force, namely, the new driveway.
-
Tom MacWood,
In all seriousness, I think the discussion/debate has been very informative, irrespective of one's belief's regarding the conclusions.
-
JES,
I appreciate that you obviously put some thought into your post. While I agree with some of what you said, and do not think we are as far apart as it may sometimes seem, I do still want to try to clarify a few points.
I agree that Mssrs. Morrison and Paul are "passionate" about Merion. But their "passion" has obviously gotten in the way with their ability to accurately analyze and convey the facts. Productive historical research requires that the researcher maintain a critical distance from the material or else the entire process will become useless. Just look at their inability to accept that CBM had any influence after the NGLA visit, and look at how they have even downplayed this. Just look how rude, obnoxious, and defensive they become when anyone challenges their views, even if with the most objective of facts.
You start a thread that in essence throws mud in the face of the Merion membership. And you do so as speculation hoping to start a discussion.
With all due respect, this is not all the case. Far from intending to "throw[] mud in the face of the Merion membership," I started this thread because I found an interesting article which I think sheds a tiny bit more light on the proud history of Merion. I hope I have not offended the Merion membership in the process, as this was not my intention. I have intentionally said a few things to Mr. Morrison, but nothing uncalled for by his boorish behavior.
You may not see it this way, but when you speculate that CBM was more involved in the earliest years of Merion East than he is or was given credit for you are insulting Merion's membership. Merion, more than any club I am familiar with, embraces it's history and traditions (and justifiably so) to the fullest degree.
No, I certainly do not see it that way. I think too highly of the Merion and its membership (past and present) to believe that they would want to misrepresent their history. After all, it was largely Wilson and Lesley who acknowledged that MacDonald was involved, and we should not lightly substitute our own evaluation and judgment in place of theirs.
You make these accusations because you have brief footnotes recognizing his advisory role and written snippets of hole characteristics that resemble some of what he (CBM) was doing. You need more than that.
If you have not done so already, you may want to look at these sources in the contexts in which they appear. If nothing else, I suspect that after so doing you will understand that it is inaccurate to lump all of these acknowledgements together as footnotes or snippets.
I just don't think you can take the "evidence" you and TM have put forward to mean CBM deserves more credit than has been granted.
I agree. And surely there is not enough evidence to justify taking away credit given to him by the likes of Wilson and Lesley. It is not me who is trying to revise Merion's proud history; it is Mr. Morrison and his cohorts.
When you take TEP's and Wayne's words about not giving credit to CBM for anything on the ground at Merion as "sweeping his influence under the rug" I can see why. I can confidently say that what they mean is that until something specific is produced how could you possibly assign anything to him.
I too believe that they mean what you describe. But this demand for additional corroborating evidence is a wild goose chase.
First, we already have solid evidence that CBM was involved— The words of honorable men who were perfectly situated to assess and acknowledge CBM’s influence and involvement. Yet the other side of the table demands that we do not trust these men’s words unless the words come appended with a thorough explanation of exactly what was meant by each word, and a laundry list of everything to which each word applies.
For example, when Lesley, the chairman Merion’s green committee credits CBM with advising on the layout in a major article, they demand evidence of everything CBM advised and whether the advice was followed. And if no such evidence exists? They deny that CBM advised on the laying out of the course. Nonsense! We do not have enough information to second guess Lesley, much less a compelling reason:
-We have no reason to doubt Lesley’s knowledge, judgment, and veracity;
-Lesley was in a much better position to determine if CBM deserved credit for advising on the layout of the course;
-We only have a miniscule fragment of the information Lesley had when wrote his article; and
-MacDonald’s involvement would not likely have produced any of the physical evidence they claim to seek.
Would we doubt Mr. Keiser if he publicly credited an architect for advising on the layout of one of his courses? Would we insist that he back up his claim by producing a laundry list out the architect’s entire contribution to the layout? And what if, through the passage of time and unavailability of the parties involved, the evidence was no longer readily available? Would we conclude that the architect really was not really much of an advisor at all? I would not. But if Mr. Morrison and Mr. Paul wished to remain consistent, they would.
You must admit that the terms "advisor" and "approval of the grounds" are pretty vague to assign credit to.
Given the reputations of the authors and the contexts in which they were writing, I beg to differ.
-
OK, Moriarty, let's start with the "above" and then talk about what we know to be true about Macdonald and Merion.
We know that well-respected men who were ideally situated to make such a judgment concluded that CBM was involved. We have no compelling reason to doubt them, and no possible hope of reconstructing all the facts so that we can accurately second-guess them.
If you think they all said Macdonald was involved in Merion what was it about the routing, design or construction of Merion that any of them actually said he was INVOLVED in??
Why don't you just answer that?? Go ahead, tell us anything at all he was INVOLVED in with the routing, design or construction. Come on give us SOMETHING----ANYTHING!!
We will never likely know the details of his involvement. But the people who had all the necessary information concluded that he was involved, had an influence, was an advisor, was a mentor.
What evidence do you have that they were mistaken?
What evidence compels you to second guess them? To substitute your judgment for theirs?
Surely you realize that they were better situated to make that judgment, dont you?
They were there.
They had much better information on which to assign or deny credit than you.
Absent compelling evidence that they lied, exaggerated, or were mistaken, you have absolutely no basis for tossing aside their conclusions in favor or your own.
It is your burden, not theirs.
___________________________
Patrick, I'd love to comment but I cannot find the book.
-
David,
With all due respect, I think you have let your rage at Wayne and Tom cloud your objectivity in the words they write. If you have some prior experience of them trying to intentionally cut CBM out of Merion's history books you need to get over it, or at least deal with it in a different manner.
These quotes you have from all of those luminaries could very easily reference the NGLA visit to CBM by Wilson and a friendly on-site visit during the construction phase.
Trying to lend CBM more credit based on what you have is the dangerous part of that GENEROSITY OF SPIRIT you spoke of. I think if you read the comments written way back when, and consider my opinion that it was them demonstrating a certain GENEROSIT OF SPIRIT when they wrote it you might see my perspective on this.
As it is, you have no room to critique their (WM and TEP) objective research abilities because you do not come across as objective in this either. That is the agenda I spoke of pretty early in this thread.
-
David,
Let me try this again. The question has been directed to you to tell us what pieces of the "puzzle" have been missed all these years, and you have the floor sir.
David,
I'm not going to battle you to have the last word here. Instead, let me just clarify a point and then you can have the floor unimpeded.
I've never said that Macdonald wasn't an influence on Wilson; that would be preposterous when Wilson himself told of visiting Charlie prior to his trip overseas, and it's also recorded that Macdonald gave him a tour of NGLA, discussed architecture into the night, and advised on his trip overseas.
I also never said that Macdonald was brought on to "hype" the course. Macdonald's role, and Merion's immediate acknowledgement of Macdonald's role, were helpful in getting the project off on the right track, and Merion gratefully acknowledged that influence in a number of ways, although always in very general terms (which I believe is rather telling).
However, once Wilson returned after his 8 months stay studying numerous courses and holes overseas, we know of a single documented site visit by Macdonald, the nature, duration, and purpose of which is unknown.
We also know that in a history book years later, the author quoted WIlson as saying that Macdonald was helpful in "problems presented in laying out A course", which may have referred to construction, agronomy, strategy, routing, or any and/or all of the above. We don't know what that means honestly, David, do we?
We also know that 2 of the 18 holes at Merion had nicknames familiar as famous holes. We also know that Travis said the 15th green was copied after the Eden green. But, do we know where Wilson would have been inspired to do his own spin on those features; the two days with Macdonald or the eight months overseas studying and sketching??
So, you have the floor, but I'd like for you to tell us specifically what you think Macdonald did for Merion after the time that Wilson returned from overseas.
If we are missing some huge piece of the "puzzle" that hasn't been properly acknowledged and documented by historians and accounts of the time, and Wilson's letters, and Merion's archives, and Charles Macdonalds files, and Macdonald and Whigham's articles, then please lay out specifically what we missed.
Let's hear it. The floor is yours, you have the last word in this matter, and I'll only rebut if you ask me to.
What did Macdonald do specifically after Wilson's return from Great Britain, and what was the great unacknowledged contribution that he made to the design, layout, features, and construction of the Merion East golf course?
-
Is there any chance of putting a gun to the head of this thread? Is there anything constructive coming from it?
Really, I can't even bare to read one page of it, let alone one post. Tell me is this thread worth it? You guys are taking one little lark of a fantastic golf course and ripping it's heart and soul out just to prove a point of I'm right/your wrong......
All's I ask, is this post constructive or destructive? (I don't know because I refuse to read any of it)
-
Tommy,
Can I ask to whom you are asking?
My personal opinion is that if someone is going to post a hypothesis on here and drag it out for 20 pages it should be up to them to end it with one of two things...evidence to prove their position, or an acknowledgement that they have no evidence and will go back to work.
Just out of curiosity, if you haven't read any why do you want it to stop?
-
Tommy
There is absolutely nothing constructive coming out at this point. After twenty pages I'm not sure much of anything new has been uncovered. No one knows precisely what Wilson contributed to the original design; no one knows precisely what M&W contributed to the original design. Thats why until someone uncovers new information this debate will continue to be a complete stalemate.
More research, less speculation.
-
Tommy,
Here's how I'd sum it up;
David starts a thread which implies that Macdonald was much more involved in the original course at Merion East than has been reported and acknowledged, because of the existence of a template hole or two.
Several of us question his assertion and implied conclusion, given Wilson's much lengthier visit overseas where he would have actually SEEN those famed template holes.
Tom MacWood seems to be siding with David.
This goes on for approximately 18 pages.
Tom MacWood now seems to be saying that we can't reach any conclusions about Macdonald's involvement, and if he did anything there Wilson probably didn't like it anyway and erased it quickly.
We're now at the point, finally, of asking David (pinning him down forcibly) to cite exactly what Macdonald contributed to the design and construction that should cause us to reconsider the historical record.
I'm excited to hear his answer. Then, we should blow up this thread. ;D
-
Mike
I'm saying the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W, designed the golf course. Beyond that, at this point, we don't know anything about specifics.
-
Mike
I'm saying the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W, designed the golf course. Beyond that, at this point, we don't know anything about specifics.
But Tom...we DON'T know that M&W's "advisement" consisted of ANYTHING related to designing the golf course, or the specific holes or features. Not a single thing.
The fact that there is almost nothing that resembles Macdonald's work pre and post Merion indicates to me that his role was something like "Executive Producer", with very little if any involvement in either the details or the overall theme of the actual course and holes that were built.
-
Question for those of you that really know CBM's courses:
Is there any evidence of CBM ever building a left-to-right REDAN, or a back-to-front sloping REDAN?
-
Question for those of you that really know CBM's courses:
Is there any evidence of CBM ever building a left-to-right REDAN, or a back-to-front sloping REDAN?
1) Yes, at Sleepy Hollow, although I'd argue that the 3rd at Merion is sloped much more back to front than left to right.
2) No, never, because that would have been completely inconsistent with Macdonald's own definition of a redan.
-
Mike,
I might have been unclear with my left-to-right question. I was more asking about the orientation of the green. I am trying to refuse to call it Reverse Redan, but that would clarify my thought.
-
Jim,
Yes, I understand. Macdonald's reverse redan at Sleepy Hollow is quite a bit downhill (sorry Patrick ;)), has a big "kicker" left, and a green than slopes left to right and front to back.
It's a really fun hole, especially for a lefty like me.
-
Mike
All we have are reports at the time stating the committee designed the course, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.
It is true we DON'T know that M&W's "advisement" consisted of ANYTHING related to designing the golf course, or the specific holes or features. Not a single thing. Nor do we know of anything specific the committee members did. Not a single thing.
Its also true no one knows precisely how much time the committeemen spent on site and no one knows precisely how much time M&W spent on site. There is no documentation....although there is plenty of speculation.
We can speculate until the cows come home. What we need is more research and documentation.
-
Tom,
I agree that more research and documentation would be great if it still exists.
However, your comparison is hardly apples to apples.
You're talking about two guys who lived out in the Hamptons and their time and involvement on site versus the committee of five who were members of Merion and who were presumably excited to build a new course.
One of them even went so far as to travel abroad for eight months to study and sketch the classic courses and great holes! ;)
Not coincidentally, that same guy then designed the West Course at Merion, a project begun less than eighteen months after the start of the East course (which was completed in six months).
So, let's see. The Merion membership sends Wilson overseas for eight months prior to construction to get ideas, they have him architect their second course immediately after the first one was designed and built, and we're comparing that with Macdonald's documented involvement (2 days prior spent with Wilson at NGLA and at least one site visit) as equitable?
-
I can see why some called the old #10 an Alps in principle, #3 a Redan- if the general idea is attacking the green as if it were a fortification-,#15 green an Eden type green with a severe back to front slope with a deep fronting bunker. There also seemed to be a Principal's Nose bunker complex and some Valleys of Sin.
These would all be obvious results of Wilson's eight months in Britain.
I think DMoriarity thinks these are evidence of MacDonald's advice.
If Wilson had not spent EIGHT months visiting and researching the great courses and holes overseas maybe this contention would be worth more.
But, I think it makes sense that the Merion history would have been specific in its credit for MacDonald's contributions. Something like " Mr.MacDonald's concept for an Alps hole was used for the construction of #10".
It seems proper that no specifics were necessary for the work of "the committee". It is assumed that they did everything not specified.
Would not MacDonald have raised all holy hell at the time if he felt slighted by Merion as to his contributions?
-
Would not MacDonald have raised all holy hell at the time if he felt slighted by Merion as to his contributions?
That is probably the best question asked on this entire thread.
There is no doubt that Macdonald would have come down here and tried to kick the ass of the entire committee had that happened. ;D
-
Mike,
It would have been even better if I had used a lower case "d". Sorry about my ignorance.
-
What is more interesting to me is how some of these "British" features were changed soon after the course opened. Supposedly, Flynn had much to do with this. And the fact that he did not go overseas made these changes more "American". Thus the story of Flynn starts in earnest and will someday be available for all of us to read ;D
-
[size=4x]
A QUESTION .... PERHAPS THE QUESTION
IF CBM ADIVSED ON MERION, WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT AT MERION ?[/SIZE]
His ego would have demanded credit for any contribution to the routing, design and construction of Merion had he been involved in any of those endeavors.
Yet, Nowhere do we find anything from CBM detailing his contributions to the creation of Merion.
-
[size=4x]
A QUESTION .... PERHAPS THE QUESTION
IF CBM ADIVSED ON MERION, WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF HIS INVOLVEMENT AT MERION ?[/SIZE]
His ego would have demanded credit for any contribution to the routing, design and construction of Merion had he been involved in any of those endeavors.
Yet, Nowhere do we find anything from CBM detailing his contributions to the creation of Merion.
[size=4x]I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW MACDONALD AND HIS EGO ALL THAT WELL.
Why didn't he mention Merion? Macdonald never mentioned his advising at Greenwich or East Lake or Women's National or Shinnecock Hills either. I don't get the impression Macdonald was in constant need of affirmation.
We do know however Whigham had no such problem mentioning Merion:
"The Macdonald-Raynor courses became famous all over America. Among the most famous are Piping Rock, the Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia, the Country Club of St. Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of a lagoon), and the equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at an expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."[/SIZE]
-
Tom,
What year did Whigham write that? I'm guessing sometime after the late 1920's, perhaps at Raynor's death?
Was Macdonald's "advisement" of Greenwich, East Lake, and Women's National similarly vague like Merion's? Didn't Macdonald have an issue with Shinnecock?
-
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.
Some were vague, some not so vague. Greenwich & East Lake consultation on existing courses. Women's National he helped plan the course. Shinnecock Hills was a total redesign.
-
Mike Cirba, Except for this sentence ::) , I'll leave alone that your "summary" has again misrepresented my intentions and drawn false assumptions of my position.
I've answered your bolded question many times and to the best of my ability, and then posed a few of mine which have been entirely unaddressed. But I will try again.
There is compelling evidence that MacDonald was involved in the site selection process, advised on laying out the course, and provided the committee with the basis for their understanding of the principles of golf design.
There is also evidence that, while the committee did not try to reproduce the NGLA holes in their entirety, they learned the principles underlying the golf holes at NGLA and adapted them to their creation of Merion East.
There is also evidence that, through drawings and sketches, CBM taught the committee about the design principles present in other of the world's great golf holes.
As far as I know, we have no information which is any more specific than that.
So IMO we are left with the following questions:
Do we take these men at their word, even absent more specific details?
Or do we second guess them based on the lack of more specific information?
While it may not be an ideal solution, our only reasonable option is to accept the former without speculating as to the specifics of his involvement.
The specifics will likely never be known one way or the other. The information simply no longer exists. Believe it or not, I found TEPaul especially informative on this issue:
nformation and documentation from those early years of Merion's construction (1911-1913 or 1914) just may be gone now---lost forever. And if they are no amount of speculation from anyone . . . is ever going to overcome that unfortunate fact.
Did it ever exist? I think there is no question of it. If it didn't it would be just so bizarre to me that Hugh Wilson wrote over 1,000 letter on the agronomy of Merion East over the years and so very little on its actual architecture and the architectural concept of it.
So it is not as if evidence of MacDonald’s involvement is suspiciously missing from an otherwise complete evidentiary record. The evidentiary record itself is practically non-existent! The very gentlemen who are demanding more specific evidence know very well that all such evidence from this period is likely “lost forever,” as TEPaul puts it.
The written statements about MacDonald’s involvement must represent a substantial portion of the entire early record of Merion’s design and construction. Yet more reason to take these written statements seriously, absent compelling evidence to the contrary.
We will never likely know the details of the design and construction of Merion East. In contrast, Lesley, Wilson and the rest had all the necessary information and concluded that CBM was involved, had an influence, was an advisor, was a mentor.
Yet, the Morrison-TEPaul approach render the words of great men meaningless simply because the rest of the evidentiary record which would confirm or deny CBM’s involvement is “lost forever.”
Absent compelling evidence that they lied, exaggerated, or were mistaken, we have absolutely no basis for tossing aside their conclusions in favor or your own. After all, they had all the information and we have none.
________________________________
Patrick Mucci,
Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation? Even if circumstantial?
Did MacDonald keep a daily diary of what he did, where he went, who he talked to, and what he said? Does his diary still exist? Did he keep detailed accounts of all of his involvements with his courses, much less the courses on which he advised? At one point I think he suggests that a number of clubs had contacted him for advice and counseling; did he keep a detailed written record of these contacts? Did he write a detailed record of the NGLA visit of Wilson? If not, should we act as if that visit never took place.
These aren’t rhetorical questions. If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
Mayday,
Regarding the supposed alps features and redan features, I think Wilson was likely inspired by the originals as much or more than CBM’s holes. While I don’t think that we can completely separate the Europe trip from CBM’s involvement (after all, he did help Wilson prepare for and plan the trip,) I don’t think that the supposed Redan and Alps and Principle’s Nose are enough by themselves to justify the assumption that CBM was actually involved. However, when we view these in conjunction with Lesley’s and others words about CBM’s involvement, once could certainly draw that inference. As for me, I am not sure it is all that helpful, except to show that the committee agreed with CBM as to which holes to look to for sound design principles.
_____________________________
TEPaul,
Is there any chance that some or all of the drawings which Wilson brought back from his trip were actually done by MacDonald on his previous trip? If this were the case, would it change your viewpoint on MacDonald’s influence?
-
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.
Tom,
I find that claim incredibly curious. He didn't just say that he and Macdonald "advised", but goes so far as to claim it's a "Macdonald/Raynor course", and give it top billing, citing it ahead of Lido and Yale!
And, this wasn't early in the process. He makes this claim fully 27 years after the course was built; after the 1916 Amateur, the 1930 Am, the 34 US Open. At the time Merion was certainly in the Top 5 or 10 courses in the country, and had been since almost its inception.
This is after the Wilson/Flynn redesign in the 20s, a fact that Whigham HAD to be aware of.
At what stage in the evolution of Merion did it become generally acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was the original designer of Merion East? Why would Whigham have completely discounted Wilson's role at the time of Macdonald's death?
-
Perhaps I should ask the question a different way;
If Whigham clearly stated/believed that Merion East is a "Macdonald/Raynor course", why is it generally accepted knowledge that Hugh Wilson was the original architect?
What is the evidence that points to Wilson?
Is this Bethpage/Burbeck all over again, where years later, a relative comes forward to claim that their father/father-in-law was the actual creator?
-
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.
Tom,
I find that claim incredibly curious. He didn't just say that he and Macdonald "advised", but goes so far as to claim it's a "Macdonald/Raynor course", and give it top billing, citing it ahead of Lido and Yale!
And, this wasn't early in the process. He makes this claim fully 27 years after the course was built; after the 1916 Amateur, the 1930 Am, the 34 US Open. At the time Merion was certainly in the Top 5 or 10 courses in the country, and had been since almost its inception.
This is after the Wilson/Flynn redesign in the 20s, a fact that Whigham HAD to be aware of.
At what stage in the evolution of Merion did it become generally acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was the original designer of Merion East? Why would Whigham have completely discounted Wilson's role at the time of Macdonald's death?
And Mike, as a side note, Raynor did not join Macdonald as a design partner until 1915, if I remember correctly. That being the case, how can that timeline work?
-
Also, didn't Whigham visit CP during construction? Did Mackenzie ever mention him in regards to "advising"? I'm surprised Whigham never laid a claim to that, if he's never done so.
-
Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation? Even if circumstantial?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
David, I believe that's all everybody has been asking on your part.
-
Mike, what I find interesting about Whigham listing Merion was that he did not list it as a MacDonald course, but a MacDonald/Raynor course.
Is it possible that MacDonald and/or Raynor were at all involved after the initial design and construction of the course?
This question is probably best addressed to TEPaul and Mr. Morrison: Are MacDonald and/or Raynor mentioned anywhere else in the Merion records or information?
-
Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation? Even if circumstantial?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
David, I believe that's all everybody has been asking on your part.
Yes, they have been asking that, but noone has identified the speculation on my part. Where in my above summary am I speculating?
-
I thought this was interesting on the Merion website. It does not site the source of Wilson's claimed motivations, but I assume it's more than club lore.
"In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion. He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably. One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique. The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly. He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle. As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee. The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off."
"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrew's 18th hole."
"On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members. A report of the opening said the course was "among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country". This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years."
-
Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation? Even if circumstantial?
These aren’t rhetorical questions. If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
David, I believe that's all everybody has been asking on your part.
Yes, they have been asking that, but noone has identified the speculation on my part. Where in my above summary am I speculating?
I'm talking about speculating and circumstantial evidience in general, which is what this whole thread has been about, no? Hardly the things that would stand up in a court of law. We need a smoking gun, David.
-
I think the article that Ron Whitten cites from a 1918 Atlantic City newspaper should be introduced as evidence.
This is going to be another of those columns where, without any intention of doing so, I will aggravate fans of a legendary golf course architect of the golden past. I'll do it by pointing out their icon didn't do one of the courses they think he did. Here goes: The Bay Course at New Jersey's Seaview Marriott Resort & Spa (host in June, for the sixth straight year, of the Shoprite LPGA Classic, with Annika Sorenstam as defending champion), is not a Donald Ross original.
I know, I know, the resort says it is, all its promotional literature says it is, even the Donald Ross Society says it is. But it isn't.
Ross was involved, as I'll explain in a moment. But first, I need to set the record straight. The Bay Course at Seaview was originally designed by Hugh Wilson, of Merion fame. Which isn't too shabby a pedigree, either.
How can I know that, but the club doesn't? Well, back in August of 1974, Harold Walker, the general manager of Seaview, wrote me in response to an inquiry about the history of the club. "Unfortunately, some years back, when there was a change of ownership in our club," Walker wrote, "the historical information that you are interested in somehow went astray."
A year later, he wrote again to confirm the club's old paperwork was lost. Never to be found again. Like a lot of golf history, Seaview's early documentation apparently got tossed into a dumpster, and thence into a landfill or, seeing as this is New Jersey, dropped to the bottom of the deep blue sea. So I looked elsewhere. It took me 25 years of searching, but I recently stumbled upon a 1918 Atlantic City newspaper article on microfilm. It was a rambling review of the history of Seaview, especially its massive clubhouse (now expanded into a hotel.) The article did mention the course: "Hugh Wilson laid out course and Ross did the trapping," a subhead read.
"Hugh I. Wilson, who also laid out the two Merion courses (bold mine), is responsible for the Seaview course," it said in the text. "Five or six years ago, Clarence H. Geist, then president of the Whitemarsh Valley County Club (outside Philadelphia), decided that there was no earthly reason why Philadelphians and other golfers should go south in the winter to get their golf. He felt that there were scores of men of big affairs who ... could run down to the shore and play over the weekend ..."
The course Wilson laid out could be termed a genuine links, I suppose, as it sits on sandy soil edging the marshes of Reeds Bay, a barrier island removed from the Atlantic Ocean. (In fact, it might even be on land filled in from the bay, which is why it took the crews two years to complete construction.) When I first played the course, back in 1993, it was terribly overgrown with trees, mostly big firs, spruce and cedars, the worst stuff with which to line fairways. They may have cut down on the effects of ocean breezes, but they also cut off most views of the bay. Worse yet, you could see deep hollows along many holes. These were huge old fairway bunkers that had been grassed over decades before, and had 40-foot-tall trees growing from them. I'm happy to say that many of those trees have since been removed, and many of those bunkers were restored back in 1998 under the supervision of architect Bob Cupp Jr., helped by old Ross diagrams unearthed a few years before in the maintenance building.
In the immortal words of George Bailey, was Whigham off his nut?
-
Did Wigham claim credit for Seaview somewhere? I assume so, but his name was not mentioned in that article.
Also, if Ross left diagrams, and they were still around in the mid 90's what does that mean?
What the heck is going on here? ??? :P
-
Tom MacWood,
So now, Merion is a MacDonald-Raynor golf course ?
Why did Whigham wait until 1939 to make this declaration ?
Could it be that he was waiting for all those people who could refute his claim, to die ?
-
Tom MacWood,
So now, Merion is a MacDonald-Raynor golf course ?
Why did Whigham wait until 1939 to make this declaration ?
Could it be that he was waiting for all those people who could refute his claim, to die ?
A good question, Patrick. So far, statements made many years ago by some gentleman have been passed off as "evidence". So if Whigham claims it as Mac/Raynor course are we to give that credence?
-
Did Wigham claim credit for Seaview somewhere? I assume so, but his name was not mentioned in that article.
Also, if Ross left diagrams, and they were still around in the mid 90's what does that mean?
What the heck is going on here? ??? :P
Jim,
The article goes on to say that Ross came by a few years after Seaview opened and did extensive bunkering, including the hole diagrams. The original Seaview Wilson course had few bunkers.
I only mentioned Whigham because here he's claiming that Merion is a Macdonald/Raynor course in 1939, yet contemporaneous accounts like the article cited are very clear that Wilson laid out BOTH Merion courses.
-
Jim,
Here you go. Interestingly, this portion of the article also cites a 1915 magazine article that also mentions Wilson as designer.
No matter. The Bay is a quaint old design, with tiny teardrop greens perched above flat, lay-of-the-land fairways, perfect for less-than-perfect course conditions. The bunkering is marvelous. Greens playing into the wind, or on long holes (like the 219-yard 11th) are open in front. But other holes have bunkers clear across the front of putting surfaces, forcing shots into the air, like on the 300-yard fifth and 292-yard eighth. Best of all, old-fashioned cross bunkers have been reclaimed and preserved. There's a string of them across the 10th fairway (which was the 14th until a recent renumbering of the back nine) barely a hundred yards off the tee, but they serve as an ornate frame to a marvelous picture that sweeps back towards the bay. Three enormous cross bunkers, placed on a strategic diagonal, complicate matters for average golfers on second shots on the 492-yard 16th (the old ninth). Those bunkers turn an ordinary short par 5 into a work of art.
The bunkers were created by Donald Ross, who was described rather impertinently in that newspaper article as a builder, not a course architect. "Two years ago," the article reads, "the best of American golf course constructors, Donald Ross, ran down to Seaview for a week and when he left, a string of small posts dotted the course. These marked the traps. Those who have not played the Seaview course in two years would scarcely recognize it. Ross has done a splendid bit of bunkering ..."
It is splendid indeed, especially since the club still maintains tall fescue rims around most of the bunkers and atop old mounds. A magazine article published soon after the course opened in 1915 indicated Hugh Wilson's original design contained no sand bunkers. Recalling that the infamous "white faces of Merion" were partly the work of Merion superintendent Joe Valentine and its superintendent-turned-architect William Flynn, I'm thinking maybe bunkering wasn't Wilson's strong suit.
It's one thing for Merion to award the architect job of the West course to Wilson less than 18 months after the East was initiated, but for multi-millionaire tycoon Clarence Geist to then hire Wilson at the same time to design his glorious, opulent Seaview suggests to me a LOT about what these guys knew about who really designed Merion.
-
Another voice that states unequivocally who it was that designed Merion is A.W. Tillinghast.
In a forgotten article, especially by me, in the July 1934 issue of Golf Illustrated, he wrote a short few paragraphs for a one page article titled, "Merion and the Open: A word of appreciation from the editor."
He wrote that, "It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..."
Why did Tilly write this tribute? He did so because of the, "Keen regret that my old friend, Hugh Wilson, had not lived to see such scenes as the national Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much."
It's very hard to argue with that, especially when others have cited Tilly earlier in this thread as a witness to CBM's involvement.
-
Gee...I'd say that's a smoking gun from a contemporary, local expert who was intimately involved and aware of the entire history of the inception of Merion.
Very interesting, Philip.
-
Patrick Mucci,
Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation? Even if circumstantial?
YES[/color]
Did MacDonald keep a daily diary of what he did, where he went, who he talked to, and what he said? Does his diary still exist? Did he keep detailed accounts of all of his involvements with his courses, much less the courses on which he advised? At one point I think he suggests that a number of clubs had contacted him for advice and counseling; did he keep a detailed written record of these contacts?
In fact MacDonald did keep detailed accounts of his work on other courses, especially important courses like Lido, Yale, Mid-Ocean and NGLA.
He wasn't as modest as Tom MacWood indicates, having authored, "Scotland's Gift" in 1928.
In "Scotland's Gift" he gives detailed accounts of NGLA, Lido, Yale and Mid-Ocean, but, NONE of Merion.
Don't you find that counter-intuitive ?[/color]
Did he write a detailed record of the NGLA visit of Wilson? If not, should we act as if that visit never took place.
David, resorting to extreme's doesn't make your case.
The visit isn't in question.
It's the substance of the visit that's in question.
And, absent a detailed account you can't make any assumptions.[/color]
These aren’t rhetorical questions. If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
I did,
CBM doesn't mention one word about his alleged invovlement at Merion in a 340 page book he wrote on architecture and golf.
Was he absent minded ?[/color]
-
Wow. Very interesting, Philip.
-
Another circumstantial voice that says much while doing so in very few words, is that of Mr. Robert White. In the December 1914 issue of Golf Illustrated, in the column titled "Our Green Committee Page" he wrote:
"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
Wilson, according to White, was a "Dictator" who took advice but had "done the sifting" [and therefor the decision-making] on his own, and he was able to do this because he was one of a handful, including CBM, who had "studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
-
Philip..even more interesting and crucial given that it was written in 1914! That's not only a smoking gun, it's a howitzer!!
Where were you 22 pages ago?!?! ;) ;D
-
Philip..even more interesting and crucial given that it was written in 1914! That's not only a smoking gun, it's a howitzer!!
Where were you 22 pages ago?!?! ;) ;D
Doh! Mike beat me to the howitzer reference!
-
Mike, since you asked, finishing the last few pages of a manuscript for a new book that I sent off the other day.
-
David Stamm,
The humorous thing is that earlier today Tommy Naccarato suggested that we were learning nothing new here and and that somebody should "put a gun to the head of this thread".
Little did we know then that;
1) We all would learn, or at least confirm without a shadow of doubt that the urban legend that Hugh Wilson was the designer of Merion East is completely true.
and
2) The gun that was put to the head was to the theory advanced in this thread that CB Macdonald had some major role in the design of Merion East. That one should be laying dead in the gutter by this juncture. ;)
-
David Stamm,
The humorous thing is that earlier today Tommy Naccarato suggested that we were learning nothing new here and and that somebody should "put a gun to the head of this thread".
Little did we know then that;
1) We all would learn, or at least confirm without a shadow of doubt that the urban legend that Hugh Wilson was the designer of Merion East is completely true.
and
2) The gun that was put to the head was to the theory advanced in this thread that CB Macdonald had some major role in the design of Merion East. That one should be laying dead in the gutter by this juncture. ;)
Mike, I completely concur. I should've remembered a rule in my relationship with my wife, who is Italian, "Listen to the Itlalian and I'll save myself alot of trouble." Paisan was right!!
-
"I always considered Hugh Wilson, of Merion, Pennsylvania, as one of our best architects, professional or amateur. He taught me many things at Merion and Philadelphia Municipal; and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them. He was a loyal friend and a fine golfer. Alas he did not live for his family, his friends and his golf."
George Thomas
That's funny, if Macdonald/Raynor designed Merion (according to Whigam ;) ) I wonder why an original Philadelphian, George Thomas, who some consider one of the very best architects ever, said such things about Hugh Wilson and Wilson and Merion? ;)
OH, please note that Thomas himself said Wilson "advised" HIM on his first California courses. Does this mean to David Moriarty that Hugh Wilson was INVOLVED and perhaps needs a good deal of design credit for Riviera and some of Thomas's California courses? Thomas himself said Wilson ADVISED him on his first California courses so what do you think about that Moriarty and MacFudd?
Tom, didn't I bring this up a couple of pages ago? ;) ;) ;)
-
Tom Paul,
Your kicking a dead corpse. Have a read of page 22 and you'll see that Philip Young pretty much drove a stake through the heart of the Macdonald "puzzle".
If it rises again, I suggest we get together for an exorcism. ;D
-
Tom Paul,
Your kicking a dead corpse. Have a read of page 22 and you'll see that Philip Young pretty much drove a stake through the heart of the Macdonald "puzzle".
If it rises again, I suggest we get together for an exorcism. ;D
Before you gentlemen start a Philadelphia earthquake with all this patting yourselves on the back, you may want to step back and consider just what it is that you have proven . . .
. . .That Wilson was the designer and should be credited as such? No one here has claimed that anyone but Wilson deserves design credit for Merion East. I have said this so many times I am thinking of making it the tagline under my name.
. . . That Raynor and MacDonald do not deserve design credit for Merion East? Again this is not only conceded, it has never been a serious issue.
In the end, this was yet another insertion of the issue of “design credit” back into the discussion. But design credit is never been at issue. Wilson designed the course.
Nonetheless, I found the articles interesting, Thank you Phillip for posting the articles, it is nice to delve back into evidence again, even if it is beside the point of contention.
Smoking guns? Maybe, but you guys are again fighting the wrong war.
-
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.
Tom,
I find that claim incredibly curious. He didn't just say that he and Macdonald "advised", but goes so far as to claim it's a "Macdonald/Raynor course", and give it top billing, citing it ahead of Lido and Yale!
The courses were listed in chronological order.
And, this wasn't early in the process. He makes this claim fully 27 years after the course was built; after the 1916 Amateur, the 1930 Am, the 34 US Open. At the time Merion was certainly in the Top 5 or 10 courses in the country, and had been since almost its inception.
This is after the Wilson/Flynn redesign in the 20s, a fact that Whigham HAD to be aware of.
At what stage in the evolution of Merion did it become generally acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was the original designer of Merion East? Why would Whigham have completely discounted Wilson's role at the time of Macdonald's death?
Merion was certainly an important course in 1939, but it was also an important course in 1912. The great Lido was a shadow if its former self in 1939 too. Despite Merion's subsequent redesign and Lido's demise, his accomplishments were his accomplishments, the current state should have no bearing on recognizing his important deeds.
Perhaps I should ask the question a different way;
If Whigham clearly stated/believed that Merion East is a "Macdonald/Raynor course", why is it generally accepted knowledge that Hugh Wilson was the original architect?
You're reading too much into Macdonald-Raynor. That paragraphy is proceeded by severalf paragraphs explaining his design career, and in particular the National. And how his design talents were in such great demand all over the country, that he began passing everything along to Raynor. Whigham uses the term Macdonald/Raynor like we use the term on here, in a general sense. The courses Whigham listed above are all commonly associated with Macdonald.
What is the evidence that points to Wilson?
Is this Bethpage/Burbeck all over again, where years later, a relative comes forward to claim that their father/father-in-law was the actual creator?
I wouldn't compare Whigham to Burbeck's son. Whigham was Macdonald's design partner in those early years. He was an active contributer on many of the courses listed above. He was also one of the important figures in golf, as well as a respected journalist (long time editor-in-chief of Town & Country magazine). To my knowledge Whigham is pretty much unimpeachable. Although I'm certain - in no time - he'll be thrown under the bus with his old friend CB.
-
"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..." ~~1915
"It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..." ~~1934
For anyone familar with the architectural history of Merion are these comments surprising? Can we point to these comments as proof Macdonald couldn't have been actively involved? I don't think so.
Hugh Wilson began remodeling the East course, pretty much on his own, from 1914 on. He designed the West course. I don't know if he was dictator or not, but obviously he had a fair amount of power, and had a lot in common with Leeds & CB.
And I don't think anyone in 1934 would dispute Wilson was the genius behind both courses (accept maybe Flynn and Wayne...and I'd tend to sympathize with them). The 1912 East had been given a complete face lift and the West was always imprinted with Wilson's name. Both quotes are consistent with what we already knew.
Which brings up an interesting question about Flynn. Has the Wilson mistique made it difficult for Macdonald and/or Flynn to get whatever credit they deserve?
-
Tom M and David M,
Is there some specific recognition either of you would like to bestow upon CBM for his involvement in Merion East? Acknowldeging his advisory and mentor type relationship with Wilson and his committee do not seem to be enough, what exactly would quench your thirst.....beyond Wayne and Tom stumbling into some demonstration of incompetence, that is...
-
Tom MacWood,
I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process. Is my understanding incorrect ?
I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939. In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ? From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint
With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that. To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?
The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier. To omit it is intellectually dishonest.
Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ? That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?
-
TELL ME, WHAT WAS THE STATE OF DESIGN OF NGLA IN 1910? IF IT INFLUENCED WILSON (and I'm sure it did) WHAT WAS THE DESIGN ITERATION AT THE TIME OF INFLUENCE?
They had been playing over the course for a year. It had been the subject of at least two major articles. It was considered by some observers to be the finest course in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by design iteration at the time?
What does this has to do with the M&W's level of involvement at Merion.
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WILSON REMODELED THE EAST COURSE PRETTY MUCH ON HIS OWN AFTER 1914? HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DESIGNED THE WEST COURSE.
There were magazine reports of his redesign activities on the East (Lesley was also involved...making sure the work was carried out). The only information I have on Wilson designing the West comes from the club history...that very well may be wrong.
-
Tom MacWood,
I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process. Is my understanding incorrect ?
In addition to Merion Whigham collaborated at NGLA, Chicago, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Lido.
I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939. In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ? From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint
Both.
With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that. To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?
I wasn't trying to trick you. If you have the Evangelist of Golf you'll find it in there.
The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier. To omit it is intellectually dishonest.
I'm surprised you haven't read Bahto's Macdonald biography.
Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ? That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?
Are you thinking conspiracy theory or revisionism? I don't find odd that he would list Macdonald's accomplishments following his death, afterall Macdonald & Whigham's involvement at Merion was widely reported. Why do you find Whigham's mention odd?
-
Why then would his contemporary and good friend, Tilly, state, and this is the quote we both have posted, "It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson..."
That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight.
Also, after requoting the two that I earlier identified, you correctly stated that, "For anyone familar with the architectural history of Merion are these comments surprising? Can we point to these comments as proof Macdonald couldn't have been actively involved? I don't think so..."
Unfoertunately, at least in my opinion, you totally ignore my next post where I quoted Robert White who, "In the December 1914 issue of Golf Illustrated, in the column titled "Our Green Committee Page" he wrote:
"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
This quote is very important because there has been considerable suppositions as to how involved CBM was in the creation of Merion.
This quote allows that Wilson had "not been adverse to taking advice" and we know that CBM was an advisor. More importantly though, it quite clearly states that Wilson was a "dictator" who unilaterally made decisions and that his work was considered the equal of the best in the country, including CBM.
More importantly though, at the very time the course was designed and built, at least some people (if only White) considered him the EQUAL to CBM because he, just like CBM, had "studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
It seems only reasonable that M&W's advice and influence was minimal because of this. To illustrate the situation, picture ANGC and a man named Roberts... Now picture Roberts as the man who was put in charge of the design of it... Who in their right mind would actually believe that a "committee" put Roberts in charge?
Likewise, knowing that Wilson was viewed in PRINT as being dictatorial over Merion, something that was a VERY bold statement in those days as laundry of any type, dirty or clean, was rarely aired in public, it is only reasonable to conclude that all final decisions were made by Wilson alone with the "committee" giving approval.
Wilson does not appear to be a man who would take much, if any, advice to heart where Merion was concerned...
-
TELL ME, WHAT WAS THE STATE OF DESIGN OF NGLA IN 1910? IF IT INFLUENCED WILSON (and I'm sure it did) WHAT WAS THE DESIGN ITERATION AT THE TIME OF INFLUENCE?
They had been playing over the course for a year. It had been the subject of at least two major articles. It was considered by some observers to be the finest course in the world. I'm not sure what you mean by design iteration at the time?
What does this has to do with the M&W's level of involvement at Merion.
It may have been considered the finest course in the world by some. But what was it that was considered this finest course? How close is it to the iteration we see today? Is the version of today similarly different from the original as it is at Merion? I'm just trying to get an idea of what exactly this inspiration looked like at the time. If the original iteration that Macdonald built was the overriding influence on Wilson (you would have us believe that Wilson's 2-day visit and discussions with Macdonald subordinates his 7 month study), then it would be fair and necessary to know what the course was like during the inspiration phase. Do you know the design iteration in 1910?
Are you asking about the sequence or the iteration?
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT WILSON REMODELED THE EAST COURSE PRETTY MUCH ON HIS OWN AFTER 1914? HOW DO YOU KNOW HE DESIGNED THE WEST COURSE.
There were magazine reports of his redesign activities on the East (Lesley was also involved...making sure the work was carried out). The only information I have on Wilson designing the West comes from the club history...that very well may be wrong.
Oh, magazine reports. You mean like magazine reports that attributed the design to Wilson but that you question? Or different magazine reports? Is it like the report by Whigham that Merion is a Macdonald/Raynor course (you go onto say that there are extenuating circumstances as to how Whigham made such a statement) Frankly, you rely on magazine and periodical reports too much. Your lack of site visits and additional archive information are relevant factors in some of the conflicts we have.
Thanks for the criticism and research advice. I agree archive information is important. Unfortunately in this case neither archival or periodical reports have answered the unanswered questions. Hopefully some bright researcher out there will uncover the info in the future.
Now you say the club history may be wrong, but you stated unequivocally earlier that you know Wilson designed the West course and that Wilson pretty much by himself did all the changes after 1914. Are you back tracking or changing your mind? It is hard to differentiate what you say and what you mean.
I was wrong to rely on the club history. I don't think its that hard...I'm pretty consistent, what I say is what I mean, but I'm not infallible.
What about the Shinnecock Hills club histories that credited Wilson and he wasn't even the construction foreman? Or the reports that Red Lawrence designed Indian Creek? Or the 1990 Philadelphia Country Club history that has Harry Colt designing the course and Toomey and Flynn building it? What do you make of these accounts? Or Sewells Point being called a Ross when it is a Flynn, or Kittansett a Hood when it is a Flynn? I'm sure you've seen enough errors in all your readings to be a little more skeptical to uncorroborated claims and vague phrases. Please be careful that you do not selectively apply different standards depending upon whether or not they support preconceived notions.
Thanks.
-
They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
I don't, DM, see any mention there about design at all.
-
David,
I would imagine that even a rudimentary study of "course construction" would also include course design. That is not even considering that his study of "course construction" was to an extent "as it was never studied before..."
And then there is Tilly who recognized that he, "possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture..." and also George Thomas who wrote of his design abilities as well.
It is a reasonable conclusion.
-
Why then would his contemporary and good friend, Tilly, state, and this is the quote we both have posted, "It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson..."
That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight.
How much do you know about the architectural history of Merion (1911-1925)?
Also, after requoting the two that I earlier identified, you correctly stated that, "For anyone familar with the architectural history of Merion are these comments surprising? Can we point to these comments as proof Macdonald couldn't have been actively involved? I don't think so..."
Unfoertunately, at least in my opinion, you totally ignore my next post where I quoted Robert White who, "In the December 1914 issue of Golf Illustrated, in the column titled "Our Green Committee Page" he wrote:
"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
First, your quote did not come from Robert White, it came from Max Behr. I'm not ignoring it. I think Wilson had a lot in common with both men, but it doesn't give us any insight into what Macdonald did or didn't do at Merion. Macdonald credited both Whigham and Emmet with assisting in the design of the NGLA. Does this quote clairify the early architectural evolution of the NGLA?
This quote is very important because there has been considerable suppositions as to how involved CBM was in the creation of Merion.
This quote allows that Wilson had "not been adverse to taking advice" and we know that CBM was an advisor. More importantly though, it quite clearly states that Wilson was a "dictator" who unilaterally made decisions and that his work was considered the equal of the best in the country, including CBM.
More importantly though, at the very time the course was designed and built, at least some people (if only White) considered him the EQUAL to CBM because he, just like CBM, had "studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
It seems only reasonable that M&W's advice and influence was minimal because of this. To illustrate the situation, picture ANGC and a man named Roberts... Now picture Roberts as the man who was put in charge of the design of it... Who in their right mind would actually believe that a "committee" put Roberts in charge?
Likewise, knowing that Wilson was viewed in PRINT as being dictatorial over Merion, something that was a VERY bold statement in those days as laundry of any type, dirty or clean, was rarely aired in public, it is only reasonable to conclude that all final decisions were made by Wilson alone with the "committee" giving approval.
Wilson does not appear to be a man who would take much, if any, advice to heart where Merion was concerned...
Its a nice quote, but I don't see it being all that informative.
-
David M,
Could you clearly answer JES's question? Or, let me rephrase it. You said, some pages ago:
"Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson".
Could you clearly lay out for us what, in your mind, constitutes "properly acknowledging". Clearly you want more acknowledgement than has been given so far. Could you propose a statement of proper acknowledgement? It'd help to clarify how far apart the two camps are.
-
Bryan
For one thing the East course was completely redesigned by Wilson (and Flynn). Uncovering and crediting who did what on the early version would not alter what ultimately became of the course.
-
Tom,
You asked, "How much do you know about the architectural history of Merion (1911-1925)?"
Honestly, not very much. Still, what does that possibly have to do with the conclusion that I draw from tillinghast's statemnt? "That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight."
You state, "First, your quote did not come from Robert White, it came from Max Behr..." Are you stating that where Robert White's name is at the end of the article it means he is not the wirter? OK, then Max wrote it...
You continued, "I'm not ignoring it. I think Wilson had a lot in common with both men, but it doesn't give us any insight into what Macdonald did or didn't do at Merion..." To the contrary, it does have a great deal to do with what he did or didn't do at Merion. It is quite obvious from this that Wilson was far more than a person "assigned" to go oversees and come back and report, but rather the man who wanted to go and come back and create on his own terms.
Again, the quote states that all three men mentioned would listen to advice, but it continues that they would sift it and do as they then wished. This certainly doesn't sound like a man who invites someone to consult and does so with the idea that whatever the consultant says to do he does.
You followed this with, "Macdonald credited both Whigham and Emmet with assisting in the design of the NGLA. Does this quote clairify the early architectural evolution of the NGLA?" It may shed light on NGLA or not; either way, the design of NGLA was not of great importance to the design of Merion. It was the designs of the great courses across the pond that he based some of the design of Merion on.
You closed with, "Its a nice quote, but I don't see it being all that informative."
Oh well, we agree to disagree...
-
David,
I would imagine that even a rudimentary study of "course construction" would also include course design. That is not even considering that his study of "course construction" was to an extent "as it was never studied before..."
And then there is Tilly who recognized that he, "possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture..." and also George Thomas who wrote of his design abilities as well.
It is a reasonable conclusion.
What I meant Philip was that DM has maintained that he has never claimed that CBM should recieved design credit, and yet here it says greenskeeping and course construction, and construction can mean other things besides the design itself. That's all I meant by bringing that up.
-
David,
Sorry for the misunderstanding... ;D
-
Tom,
I don't understand how your answer relates to my question. Could you please clarify.
-
Tom,
You asked, "How much do you know about the architectural history of Merion (1911-1925)?"
Honestly, not very much. Still, what does that possibly have to do with the conclusion that I draw from tillinghast's statemnt? "That certainly seems to imply that most people when asked would not identify Wilson as the designer and therefor at least some of them would attribute it to others. Tilly is clearly setting this record straight."
If you don't know how the course evolved from 1911 until 1925 how can you conclude Tilly's comment in 1934 are illustrative of who did what in 1911? Thats like saying that praise for RTJ's monster at Oakland Hills gives insight into the early history of that course.
You state, "First, your quote did not come from Robert White, it came from Max Behr..." Are you stating that where Robert White's name is at the end of the article it means he is not the wirter? OK, then Max wrote it...
Go back and re-read it. The first part is an editorial is writen by Behr. The second part on bunker construction is authored by White.
You continued, "I'm not ignoring it. I think Wilson had a lot in common with both men, but it doesn't give us any insight into what Macdonald did or didn't do at Merion..." To the contrary, it does have a great deal to do with what he did or didn't do at Merion. It is quite obvious from this that Wilson was far more than a person "assigned" to go oversees and come back and report, but rather the man who wanted to go and come back and create on his own terms.
Again, the quote states that all three men mentioned would listen to advice, but it continues that they would sift it and do as they then wished. This certainly doesn't sound like a man who invites someone to consult and does so with the idea that whatever the consultant says to do he does.
You followed this with, "Macdonald credited both Whigham and Emmet with assisting in the design of the NGLA. Does this quote clairify the early architectural evolution of the NGLA?" It may shed light on NGLA or not; either way, the design of NGLA was not of great importance to the design of Merion. It was the designs of the great courses across the pond that he based some of the design of Merion on.
Knowing the architectrual history of the NGLA and Merion I can confidently say the quote does not shed any light on the early architectural history of the NGLA or Merion.
You closed with, "Its a nice quote, but I don't see it being all that informative."
Oh well, we agree to disagree...
-
Tom,
I don't understand how your answer relates to my question. Could you please clarify.
Wilson completely redesigned the early version of Merion-East. We are debating who did what on the early version of Merion-East. No matter who did what on the early version it will not change who ultimately redesigned the course.
-
To my knowledge Whigham is pretty much unimpeachable. Although I'm certain - in no time - he'll be thrown under the bus with his old friend CB.[/b]
Tom, please. I, for one, am not trying to throw CBM under the bus. I admire him greatly. It's just incredible to me how it doesn't seem possible to some that another man such as Wilson could not do what Macdonald had just done himself just a few years before. Look acroos the pond and seek ideas, and if he saw fit, incorporate the ideas into what he thought made a good course.
-
To my knowledge Whigham is pretty much unimpeachable. Although I'm certain - in no time - he'll be thrown under the bus with his old friend CB.[/b]
Tom, please. I, for one, am not trying to throw CBM under the bus. I admire him greatly. It's just incredible to me how it doesn't seem possible to some that another man such as Wilson could not do what Macdonald had just done himself just a few years before. Look acroos the pond and seek ideas, and if he saw fit, incorporate the ideas into what he thought made a good course.
It sounds easy, but I suspect its more difficult than one would think to convert what you see overseas to the ground. If I were in Wilson's shoes I'd sure look for experienced guidance. It appears that is what he did.
-
Tom, who helped CBM when he started here?
-
At the NGLA he was assisted by Travis, Emmet, Whigham, Hutchinson and Low...before that in Chicago it was more hit and miss.
-
Tom, you asked, "If you don't know how the course evolved from 1911 until 1925 how can you conclude Tilly's comment in 1934 are illustrative of who did what in 1911?"
I can because Tilly was there and none of us were.
Earlier in the thread, and before you ask I'm not going to bother looking up exactly where, you used Tilly as a reliable authority in a statement about Merion. You can't back off on that now.
Tilly was there and stated that "that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson."
In addition, Tilly lamented how very fewpeople in the 30's knew that Wilson had designed the course, so evidently iether he was reading comments wrongly attributing its design to others or had conversations with some who were unaware of Wilson's achievement.
Again, Tom, he was there and would know. Does his statement preclude CBM from having influenced Wilson? No, and I didn't say that it did.
That is why the other quotes from Behr and Thomas are so important as they define Wilson's abilities to design and build a course of Merion's stature at the very time he was doing it. They also define Wilson as a person and describe his personality in a manner that shows him to not be the type to listen and follow much in the form of advice.
In my opinion, it is their comments that INDIRECTLY imply that few pieces of advice may have been implemented by others in the design of Merion.
You also stated that, "Knowing the architectrual history of the NGLA and Merion I can confidently say the quote does not shed any light on the early architectural history of the NGLA or Merion."
Not knowing the history of either course to any absolute extent, I maintain that your conjecture is incorrect at least as far as Merion is concerned.
The personalities of the people involved are very important in getting a proper understanding of what actually occurred back then since we don't know for certain what did.
-
Tom, you asked, "If you don't know how the course evolved from 1911 until 1925 how can you conclude Tilly's comment in 1934 are illustrative of who did what in 1911?"
I can because Tilly was there and none of us were.
Earlier in the thread, and before you ask I'm not going to bother looking up exactly where, you used Tilly as a reliable authority in a statement about Merion. You can't back off on that now.
Tilly was there and stated that "that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson."
In addition, Tilly lamented how very fewpeople in the 30's knew that Wilson had designed the course, so evidently iether he was reading comments wrongly attributing its design to others or had conversations with some who were unaware of Wilson's achievement.
Again, Tom, he was there and would know. Does his statement preclude CBM from having influenced Wilson? No, and I didn't say that it did.
That is why the other quotes from Behr and Thomas are so important as they define Wilson's abilities to design and build a course of Merion's stature at the very time he was doing it. They also define Wilson as a person and describe his personality in a manner that shows him to not be the type to listen and follow much in the form of advice.
In my opinion, it is their comments that INDIRECTLY imply that few pieces of advice may have been implemented by others in the design of Merion.
You also stated that, "Knowing the architectrual history of the NGLA and Merion I can confidently say the quote does not shed any light on the early architectural history of the NGLA or Merion."
Not knowing the history of either course to any absolute extent, I maintain that your conjecture is incorrect at least as far as Merion is concerned.
The personalities of the people involved are very important in getting a proper understanding of what actually occurred back then since we don't know for certain what did.
Do you think Behr, Tilly and Thomas's comments shed any light on what Macdonald & Whigham did or didn't do in 1911 (the theme of this thread)? I don't. Do Tilly's 1934 comments shed any light on Flynn's contribution? No, not exactly.
To my knowledge of Behr, Tilly, Thomas and Whigham, Whigham was the only one actively involved in the project.
At this point all we know is that Merion was laid out by the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.
IMO we need more research and less conjecture.
-
Tom M and David M,
Is there some specific recognition either of you would like to bestow upon CBM for his involvement in Merion East? Acknowldeging his advisory and mentor type relationship with Wilson and his committee do not seem to be enough, what exactly would quench your thirst.....beyond Wayne and Tom stumbling into some demonstration of incompetence, that is...
Jim,
I've been asking that question all along, as well. Perhaps we'll never hear a straight answer? ::)
What is it that David and Tom M. hope to accomplish here? What additional credit are they hoping to give posthumously to Macdonald & Whigham, even in the absence of providing not a single new shred of evidence that they deserve more?
This thread has been valuable for unearthing and distributing information from fellows like Tillinghast, Thomas, and Behr (or White? ;)) who clearly worked directly with Wilson through those years, who were onsite regularly, and who made very crystalline clear who the architect of the original course at Merion was.
David can say all he wants that we have the wrong "smoking gun", but is he really being forthcoming? Isn't the real purpose of this thread to cast doubt on whether Wilson actually designed Merion East, or whether he was just somehow Macdonald's errand boy, hopelessly lost in the task at hand without the wise and sage and continued counsel of CB Macdonald?
The fact that Macdonald and Whigham "advised" in some capacity has been noted by history and has been stipulated by everyone here. However, if their role had been more relevant than what is already known, why wasn't it noted by Tillie, by Thomas, by Behr, by news accounts of the time that clearly pointed to Wilson as the one who "laid out both courses at Merion"?
Why did Charles Macdonald write not a single word about his involvement at Merion from 1910 til his death 29 years later, even though he authored a complete book on golf and wrote extensively about his courses?
We keep hearing from Tom MacWood that the course was "redesigned" between 1912 and 1914, but what proof exists to back that assertion? Remember that at this time, the old Merion course in Haverford had closed, membership was literally bursting at the seams, so much so that less than a year after the East opened in 1912, construction began and the West course, which opened in 1914. Is he telling us that along with everything necessary to architect, build, and construct the West course, Wilson was also wholly redesigning the East course simultaneously? Where the hell where the members supposed to play?
The evidence is very clear here.
It has been postulated that somehow Macdonald and Whigham deserve some additional credit for the Merion East course that history has neglected to rightfullly provide them. Unfortunately, every angle supporting this hypothesis has been exhausted, and come up empty. If anything, ironically, this thread only proves that Macdonald and Whigham actually probably had LESS to do with the actual original design at Merion than had been suspected previously.
So, unless someone besides David and Tom Macwood wants to step forward and say they've been convinced to give additional credit to Macdonald and Whigham based on what's been presented, I think we're about done here. :P ;D
After all, if that isn't the purpose of this thread, and what David was hoping to accomplish, then I hope David can finally tell us what his point is! ;)
-
Jim,
I've been asking that question all along, as well. Perhaps we'll never hear a straight answer? ::)
What don't you understand about my answer no one knows precisely what M&W did in 1911/1912. No one knows precisely what Wilson did in 1911/1912. No one knows what anyone did in 1911/1912. Do you want us to make up a story a al TE Paul?
What is it that David and Tom M. hope to accomplish here? What additional credit are they hoping to give posthumously to Macdonald & Whigham, even in the absence of providing not a single new shred of evidence that they deserve more?
Hopefully someone will be inspired to find new information. How much time have you and JES devoted to discovering exactly who did what and when at Merion?
This thread has been valuable for unearthing and distributing information from fellows like Tillinghast, Thomas, and Behr (or White? ;)) who clearly worked directly with Wilson through those years, who were onsite regularly, and who made very crystalline clear who the architect of the original course at Merion was.
Tillinghast, Thomas and Behr were on site regularly? They make it crystal clear who the architect was of the original course? I don't think you can judge one way or the other based on their quotes what specifically Wilson, Macdonald or Whigham did in 1911/1912. Should we interpert Tilly's 1934 quote to mean Flynn had no part in the design of Merion? I don't think so.
David can say all he wants that we have the wrong "smoking gun", but is he really being forthcoming? Isn't the real purpose of this thread to cast doubt on whether Wilson actually designed Merion East, or whether he was just somehow Macdonald's errand boy, hopelessly lost in the task at hand without the wise and sage and continued counsel of CB Macdonald?
I'm sure everyone has an opinion of what the purpose of this thread was just as everyone has an opinion of who did what at Merion. It really doesn't matter what the purpose was...this thread has shown that noone really knows who did what in 1911/1912 and that further research is neccessary.
The fact that Macdonald and Whigham "advised" in some capacity has been noted by history and has been stipulated by everyone here. However, if their role had been more relevant than what is already known, why wasn't it noted by Tillie, by Thomas, by Behr, by news accounts of the time that clearly pointed to Wilson as the one who "laid out both courses at Merion"?
Tilly did note M&W's involvement. Behr and Thomas did not comment on who designed Merion. It sound like you see this as Macdonald vs Wilson, winner take all. I don't see it that way.
Why did Charles Macdonald write not a single word about his involvement at Merion from 1910 til his death 29 years later, even though he authored a complete book on golf and wrote extensively about his courses?
Who knows, at this point it is a mystery...he clearly was involved.
We keep hearing from Tom MacWood that the course was "redesigned" between 1912 and 1914, but what proof exists to back that assertion? Remember that at this time, the old Merion course in Haverford had closed, membership was literally bursting at the seams, so much so that less than a year after the East opened in 1912, construction began and the West course, which opened in 1914. Is he telling us that along with everything necessary to architect, build, and construct the West course, Wilson was also wholly redesigning the East course simultaneously? Where the hell where the members supposed to play?
I don't believe I said he began redsigning the course in 1912. From the magazine reports the work was done piece-meal.
The evidence is very clear here.
It has been postulated that somehow Macdonald and Whigham deserve some additional credit for the Merion East course that history has neglected to rightfullly provide them. Unfortunately, every angle supporting this hypothesis has been exhausted, and come up empty. If anything, ironically, this thread only proves that Macdonald and Whigham actually probably had LESS to do with the actual original design at Merion than had been suspected previously.
Less? Please explain. The one thing I learned is that there really no evidence that Wilson designed the West course. I mistakenly thought that was a given.
So, unless someone besides David and Tom Macwood wants to step forward and say they've been convinced to give additional credit to Macdonald and Whigham based on what's been presented, I think we're about done here. :P ;D
After all, if that isn't the purpose of this thread, and what David was hoping to accomplish, then I hope David can finally tell us what his point is! ;)
I don't see anyone stepping forward and providing any new information to prove who did what in 1911/12.
-
Tom,
Why would anyone read this thread and feel inspired to search out more about Macdonald & Whigham's involvement and role at Merion?
What light has been shed, or what new facts have been uncovered concerning their "advising" that would lead anyone to conclude that they had more than a purely perfunctory role?
We have varied and numerous contemporaraneous accounts crediting Wilson. While we don't know the details, and that would certainly be nice to know (for instance, was he really inspired by the Alps at Prestwick in designing his old 10th?), we do know for certain that he was the guy in charge, credited by numerous accounts as the architect, and within months time, asked to architect other courses as well.
What in the historical record, which already credits Macdonald and Whigham as "advisors", should anyone possibly be looking for if it doesn't exist at Merion, it doesn't exist in Macdonald's papers, it doesn't exist in Macdonald's articles, it doesn't exist in any detailed accounts of the time?
And more importantly, what has been shown here about M&W's possible involvement that would lead any reasonably sane person to conclude that they had a larger role that needed to be researched, publicized, and highlighted to the golf history world at large?
-
I'm not sure I have the temperment to read through the 20 responses averaging about 750 words each since I last checked in.
Can someone tell me if Moriarty or MacWood addressed their goal in this conversation yet?
It seems pretty clear that Wilson laid out and desogned the golf course and M&W were available for advice if needed. Therefor, like a chef is responsible for what comes out of his kitchen, Wilson gets full credit for everything and the others get their name on the tag.
-
Mike
If this thread has proved anything it has proved how little is known about who did what regarding the design of the original Merion-East (and evidently the West too). I'm sure there are naturally inquisitive people out there who would like to get to the bottom of this. I for one am curious to find the truth. Hopefully there is more info to be found. I know I'm not going quit looking.
-
I'm not sure I have the temperment to read through the 20 responses averaging about 750 words each since I last checked in.
Can someone tell me if Moriarty or MacWood addressed their goal in this conversation yet?
One word.
No.
Ok...more.
Perhaps when hell freezes over.
-
Mike
If this thread has proved anything it has proved how little is known about who did what regarding the design of the original Merion-East (and evidently the West too). I'm sure there are naturally inquisitive people out there who would like to get to the bottom of this. I for one am curious to find the truth. Hopefully there is more info to be found. I know I'm not going quit looking.
Tom,
Perhaps Tillinghast and Max Behr are a couple of numb nuts who didn't know what they were talking about when they said Wilson designed Merion?
Perhaps they meant to say, "with Macdonald and Whigham pulling the strings", but they just plum forgot? ::)
-
Tom MacWood,
Who deserves more credit for the initial design of Merion East Macdonald and Whigham versus Fred Pickering? Why is your focus Macdonald given the lack of information available on him and the NGLA squad? I find it hard to believe you are convinced that Macdonald had a significant role in the specific design of Merion East given the material on hand at this time.
Search for the answers to the questions about Macdonald at Merion and let us know when there is something worth discussing. For now, there is nothing further to discuss regarding Macdonald Whigham and Raynor at Merion as fascinating a story as it can be--it just isn't right now and may well never be.
Will this thread be put to rest until then? I hope so.
Wayne
I'm all for adding Pickering and Flynn into the discusion. While were at it we should explore any possible involvement of Colt or Beale. At this point with so little known I don't think we should exclude anyone.
-
Mike
If this thread has proved anything it has proved how little is known about who did what regarding the design of the original Merion-East (and evidently the West too). I'm sure there are naturally inquisitive people out there who would like to get to the bottom of this. I for one am curious to find the truth. Hopefully there is more info to be found. I know I'm not going quit looking.
Tom,
Perhaps Tillinghast and Max Behr are a couple of numb nuts who didn't know what they were talking about when they said Wilson designed Merion?
Perhaps they meant to say, "with Macdonald and Whigham pulling the strings", but they just plum forgot? ::)
I don't believe Behr mentioned anyone designing Merion. Tilly did and so did Whigham.
-
Tom MacWood,
I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process. Is my understanding incorrect ?
In addition to Merion Whigham collaborated at NGLA, Chicago, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Lido.
Collaborated is such a general, non-descript term.
Exactly what did he do at those courses ?
It's been reported that he did NOT get engaged in any design work. Would you agree with that ? Or, do you have evidence to the contrary ?[/color]
I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939. In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ? From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint
Both.
How did the architecture deteriorate ?[/color]
With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that. To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?
I wasn't trying to trick you. If you have the Evangelist of Golf you'll find it in there.
Where I'll find the rest of the passage isn't the issue.
The issue is that you posted an incomplete or out of context quote to bolster your position, and that's disengenuous.
It creates doubt as to the veracity of other quotes you've posted and whether or not they're incomplete, misleading or out of context.[/color]
The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier. To omit it is intellectually dishonest.
I'm surprised you haven't read Bahto's Macdonald biography.
I have, but, don't try to deflect the issue.
You posted that, not for my benefit, but for those tuned in to GCA.com in an attempt to reinforce your position, and in doing so, you were being intellectually dishonest with those meant to read your post.[/color]
Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ? That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?
Are you thinking conspiracy theory or revisionism? I don't find odd that he would list Macdonald's accomplishments following his death, afterall Macdonald & Whigham's involvement at Merion was widely reported.
If it was so widely reported why can't anyone find one report that specifically identifies, qualifies and quantifies their involvement ?
To first mention and attribute the design credit of Merion to CBM&SR 25 years after the course was built seems more than odd. Just answer one more question in this post.
[size=4x]
If they designed the course, as Whigham alleges, why did they all keep it a secret for 25 years ?[/size]
Why do you find Whigham's mention odd? [/b]
Because he waited 25 years after the golf course was built to claim that CBM & SR designed it. Are you going to tell me that Whigham, who you claim was CBM's design PARTNER, knew all along that CBM & SR designed Merion, but, kept it a secret from the golfing world until shortly after CBM's death ?
[/color]
-
I don't believe Behr mentioned anyone designing Merion. Tilly did and so did Whigham.
Tom,
If you choose to read Behr's very clear words that way, you slice the English language even more than Bill Clinton. ;) Perhaps we should debate what "it" means?
Where was Whigham for 29 years while the rest of the golf world was busy heralding Wilson's great success in designing Merion? It's preposterous that he or Macdonald wouldn't have come forward claiming credit prior had it been due when the rest of the golf world had obviously made a HUGE mistake and relegated their supposed GIGANTIC LEAD role to "advisors" of indeterminate nature.
Is there any doubt what Behr is saying below, written in 1914, shortly after the East course opened;
"By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
Tom...as you know, the terms "constructed" and "architected" were used almost interchangeably back in the very early days when the very idea of building a golf course was not a very well known process and had no standard nomenclature. To somehow imply that what Behr meant is that Wilson simply knew how to dig holes and grow grass is simply not being intellectually honest with us.
Using your attempts at mincing words, are we to similarly conclude that Leeds at Myopia and Macdonald at NGLA were just glorified ditch-diggers as well??? ::)
-
David M,
Could you clearly answer JES's question? Or, let me rephrase it. You said, some pages ago:
"Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson".
Could you clearly lay out for us what, in your mind, constitutes "properly acknowledging". Clearly you want more acknowledgement than has been given so far. Could you propose a statement of proper acknowledgement? It'd help to clarify how far apart the two camps are.
Trying again...paging Mr. Moriarty.
We're all waiting with bated breath. :-\
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you properly acknowledge something when you don't know exactly what it is that you're acknowledging ?
-
Mike Cirba,
How can you properly acknowledge something when you don't know exactly what it is that you're acknowledging ?
BINGO.
Perhaps David or Tom can tell us. ::)
-
Mike Cirba,
Did you know that I was involved at Sebonack ?
-
Mike Cirba,
Did you know that I was involved at Sebonack ?
Patrick,
That's impossible. I designed Sebonack! ;D
-
I can't wait until the GCA "researchers" of the 22nd century recover this little bit of cyberspace...... :o
-
I don't believe Behr mentioned anyone designing Merion. Tilly did and so did Whigham.
Tom,
If you choose to read Behr's very clear words that way, you slice the English language even more than Bill Clinton. ;) Perhaps we should debate what "it" means?
Where was Whigham for 29 years while the rest of the golf world was busy heralding Wilson's great success in designing Merion? It's preposterous that he or Macdonald wouldn't have come forward claiming credit prior had it been due when the rest of the golf world had obviously made a HUGE mistake and relegated their supposed GIGANTIC LEAD role to "advisors" of indeterminate nature.
I don't know where he was...probably the same place Wilson, Flynn, Macdonald, etc was when it came to not discussing who did what.
Is there any doubt what Behr is saying below, written in 1914, shortly after the East course opened;
"By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."
Tom...as you know, the terms "constructed" and "architected" were used almost interchangeably back in the very early days when the very idea of building a golf course was not a very well known process and had no standard nomenclature. To somehow imply that what Behr meant is that Wilson simply knew how to dig holes and grow grass is simply not being intellectually honest with us.
Using your attempts at mincing words, are we to similarly conclude that Leeds at Myopia and Macdonald at NGLA were just glorified ditch-diggers as well??? ::)
Thanks for explaining it. It is very clear now that Wilson designed Merion according to Behr...I'm sure he wasn't referring to the well publicized resconstruction work Wilson had been undertaking. This column on green committees is no doubt absolutely conclusive. Wow!
-
Mike Cirba,
No Mike, I was really "involved" with Sebonack.
-
Patrick
Didn't Tom Doak visit with you at GCGC prior to his work at Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, and others? Can you now confirm for us that you taught him everything you know? ;)
Tom MacWood,
I thought you clarified that the "well publicized reconstruction work" happened later than the 1912-1914 period? Behr wrote this article in 1914.
-
Tom MacWood,
I had understood that Whigham was NOT an active design associate, rarely if ever getting involved in the creative process. Is my understanding incorrect ?
In addition to Merion Whigham collaborated at NGLA, Chicago, Piping Rock, Sleepy Hollow and Lido.
Collaborated is such a general, non-descript term.
Exactly what did he do at those courses ?
It's been reported that he did NOT get engaged in any design work. Would you agree with that ? Or, do you have evidence to the contrary ?[/color]
I"m also curious about your remark concerning the demise of Lido by 1939. In what way was it a "shadow of its former self" ? From a maintainance standpoint or an architectural standpoint
Both.
How did the architecture deteriorate ?[/color]
With respect to Whigham's attribution of the design credit for Merion, you posted that. To state that the comment was taken out of context because preceeding info was omitted, begs the question, are you selecting quotes or portions of quotes and leaving out vital qualifying information ?
I wasn't trying to trick you. If you have the Evangelist of Golf you'll find it in there.
Where I'll find the rest of the passage isn't the issue.
The issue is that you posted an incomplete or out of context quote to bolster your position, and that's disengenuous.
It creates doubt as to the veracity of other quotes you've posted and whether or not they're incomplete, misleading or out of context.[/color]
The quote you posted is quite clear.
Whigham states that CBM & SR designed Merion.
If information was omitted that would have qualified that statement, then, you were obligated to post the caveat or qualifier. To omit it is intellectually dishonest.
I'm surprised you haven't read Bahto's Macdonald biography.
I have, but, don't try to deflect the issue.
You posted that, not for my benefit, but for those tuned in to GCA.com in an attempt to reinforce your position, and in doing so, you were being intellectually dishonest with those meant to read your post.[/color]
Don't you find it odd that Whigham makes this statement 25 years removed from Merion's creation ? That a quarter of a century passed before anyone associated with CBM attempts to claim CBM's involvement with Merion, let alone that Merion is a CBM-SR design ?
Are you thinking conspiracy theory or revisionism? I don't find odd that he would list Macdonald's accomplishments following his death, afterall Macdonald & Whigham's involvement at Merion was widely reported.
If it was so widely reported why can't anyone find one report that specifically identifies, qualifies and quantifies their involvement ?
To first mention and attribute the design credit of Merion to CBM&SR 25 years after the course was built seems more than odd. Just answer one more question in this post.
[size=4x]
If they designed the course, as Whigham alleges, why did they all keep it a secret for 25 years ?[/size]
Why do you find Whigham's mention odd? [/b]
Because he waited 25 years after the golf course was built to claim that CBM & SR designed it. Are you going to tell me that Whigham, who you claim was CBM's design PARTNER, knew all along that CBM & SR designed Merion, but, kept it a secret from the golfing world until shortly after CBM's death ?
[/color]
Whigham assisted in "laying out" those courses. If engaged means accepting a fee I would agree with that. In his book Macdonald wrote how sad he was that Lido had been run down and the Biarritz near the coast had been destroyed.
Do you think Whigham was keeping a secret? As far as I know Wilson, Flynn or Macdonald did not discuss who did what at Merion either...were they keeping a secret? I wouldn't call M&W's involvement a secret, although I do agree the credit Whigham appears to give is a little surprising.
I have no idea why he did not write about Macdonald & Merion before 1939. It may be Whigham had no opportunity or reason to write about Merion. He wrote some articles on the NGLA and templates in the early teens and he wrote this article on Macdonald in 1939. Are you aware of any other golf articles Whigham wrote in between?
-
Do you think Whigham was keeping a secret?
(http://www.thesimpsons.com/bios/images/bios_townspeople_smithers.gif)
Why is it that everytime I think of Whigham's undying devotion to Macdonald, this is the image that pops into my head?
-
Mike,
Just goes to show how wrong you can be... I always pictured him quite fat and as a police chief!
-
...as in, "WHIGHAM!!!! Get my my pipe and slippers, pronto!"
-
"C'mon Whigham, quit your dawdling man...I haven't got all day. I've got to get over to Merion and help that blockhead Wilson figure out how to build a golf course!"
-
Whigham assisted in "laying out" those courses.
Tom, again, that's such a nebulous, non-description.
Do you really feel that MacDonald & Raynor needed assistance in "laying out" their golf courses ?
What expertise or skills did Whigham possess ?
Don't ever forget that he was a "son-in-law", and that might have something to do with his role or lack of a role with CBM.[/color]
If engaged means accepting a fee I would agree with that.
In his book Macdonald wrote how sad he was that Lido had been run down and the Biarritz near the coast had been destroyed.
The run down aspect is understandable, but, to say that the architecture was a "shadow of its former self" might be an exaggeration on your part.[/color]
Do you think Whigham was keeping a secret?
NO, I think the statement is false, with no merit.
However, you contend that it's true even if it was belatedly revealed 25 years after Merion was open[/color]
As far as I know Wilson, Flynn or Macdonald did not discuss who did what at Merion either...
Would you say that your knowledge of what was discussed with, respect to who did what at Merion, represents the total sum of human knowledge on the subject ?[/color]
were they keeping a secret?
No, MacDonald & Raynor had nothing to discuss because there's no evidence of their engaging in any specific work at Merion[/color]
I wouldn't call M&W's involvement a secret, although I do agree the credit Whigham appears to give is a little surprising.
I think you mean CBM & SR, not Whigham.
Why do you think Whigham announced this revelation ?
And, why did he wait until Wilson, CBM and Raynor were dead
before making his pronouncement ?
Could it be he chose that time because none of those men were alive to refute his statement ?[/color]
I have no idea why he did not write about Macdonald & Merion before 1939.
It may be Whigham had no opportunity or reason to write about Merion.
In [size=8x] 25[/size] years he DIDN"T have the opportunity ?
As to the reason, he had every reason. He was CBM's son-in-law, and, as you indicated, his partner.
I'd say that those are two compelling reasons for him to write about CBM's involement with Merion IF CBM was involved with Merion.
He wrote some articles on the NGLA and templates in the early teens and he wrote this article on Macdonald in 1939.
And nothing in between ?
No mention, for 25 years, of CBM's and SR's designing of Merion ? No mention, for 25 years, of the advise or consulting they did on the routing, design and construction of Merion ?
Do you think that he, CBM and SR took a vow of silence on the Merion project ?[/color]
Are you aware of any other golf articles Whigham wrote in between?
At the present, I'm only interested in ANY articles Whigham might have written about CBM and Merion, between 1914 and 1939. And, so far, noone has come forth with articles Whigham wrote on that topic.[/color]
-
Patrick
Didn't Tom Doak visit with you at GCGC prior to his work at Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle Dunes, and others? Can you now confirm for us that you taught him everything you know? ;)
Tom MacWood,
I thought you clarified that the "well publicized reconstruction work" happened later than the 1912-1914 period? Behr wrote this article in 1914.
Mike
You're right most of the reconstruction work occured after 1914, however Wilson oversaw the green difficulties on the East in 1913. He also headed the construction committee for the West that year. Both relating to the subject of Behr's editorial.
Pat
I'll answer your twenty questions this time but you've got do a little homework on your own after this. You are apparently very inquisitive but yet you don't read. What gives? The least you could do is read George Bahto's book.
Macdonald & Whigham go back much futher than M&Raynor. Whigham was his right hand man in Chicago and he was his right hand man on LI. In the early years they were two of the best amateurs in the country. One important attribute Whigham had was a complete familarity with the great courses overseas, and the great golfers overseas as well...he hailed from a prominant Prestwick golf family.
I think you are selling Whigham short. When did Whigham marry and what effect did it have upon his collaboration with Macdonald IYO?
Lido was shut down forever three years after Whigham's article. Whigham was a respected golf figure and a respected journalist. I know you like to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who conflicts with your understanding of events, but your comments regarding Whigham (like your earlier comments about Robert Lesley) reflect your complete ignorance.
American Golfer May 1911:
"The new course of the Merion Cricket club is nearing completion in the planning. During the month Mr. Chas B Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as out first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."
-
Tom,
That certainly sounds to me as though they came, they saw (probably a nearly completed course if a total of 7 of the holes were cited as equal any in the country), they gave their blessing (Macdonald was not called the "Evangelist" for nothing...heck, he was more like the Pope of golf at the time), and said the prospects for the course were very good indeed!
I'm reminded of Mackenzie's visit to Riviera, to be honest. Not a single mention of, say, "came to oversee construction of their design", or "laid out as he envisioned it", or anything similar that would give anyone a clue that M&W were part of the design process.
They were expert advisors, clearly, and there to help Wilson in whatever way they could, even if that just mean a public pronouncement on the merits of the new course, which I believe to be quite sincere.
Now, on a more serious note, is there any evidence that Smithers was modelled after Whigham? I've gone through the archives and can't find a thing, but I find the link between the two men strangely compelling. ;) ;D
Sorry Tom...just trying to add some humor on a thread in serious need of some. :)
-
I'm reminded of Mackenzie's visit to Riviera, to be honest. Not a single mention of, say, "came to oversee construction of their design", or "laid out as he envisioned it", or anything similar that would give anyone a clue that M&W were part of the design process.
Mike, FWIW, see post #549. I also was reminded of the same thing. ;)
-
I’ve been away from the computer. I am sure I was missed.
Mike and Patrick,
I wasn’t aware that Michael Pascucci authored an article in a reputable golf magazine outlining the history and creation of Sebonack, and describing either of you as an advisor, influence, or whatever. Nor was I aware that Mike Keiser similarly described either one of you regarding your role(s) at Pacific Dunes. But it is no wonder I missed the articles, I wasn’t even aware there was a reputable golf magazine out there!
By the way, could you guys send me a copy of the article where Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus praised you for teaching them more about golf design in one night than they’d learned previously in their entire lives? The one that described your course as one which deserved lengthy and careful study? You know . . . the one where Doak and Nicklaus stated not only that your course deserved lengthy and careful study, but also that after studing the course all designers ought to incorporate the principles of your fine holes into their own designs. High praise indeed!
But too bad that these are the only records of your involvement which survived; all of the specific information regarding all of the details of the design and construction were recently lost in a big fire. (I told them not to store their documents at Rustic Canyon.) You don’t expect anyone to just accept the words of Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, Michael Pascucci, and Jack Nicklaus, do you? Statements by those involved and in charge don't count for much 'round. You gotta have proof.
Oh well, easy come easy go.
-
David M,
Could you clearly answer JES's question? Or, let me rephrase it. You said, some pages ago:
"Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson".
Could you clearly lay out for us what, in your mind, constitutes "properly acknowledging". Clearly you want more acknowledgement than has been given so far. Could you propose a statement of proper acknowledgement? It'd help to clarify how far apart the two camps are.
Bryan and JES,
Unless there is substantial evidence of its inaccuracy, I want to take the information regarding MacDonald's involvement at face value, no more and no less.
In other words, completely present the unrebutted information about MacDonald's involvement without trying to discredit, discount, dismiss, or diminish it at all. And do not try to bolster, exaggerate, or embolden the information, either.
I would also explain that, beyond the articles, specific information about the design and construction cannot be found; therefore it is impossible to determine the specific details regarding anyone’s role in the design and construction of the course.
The specific details of MacDonald's contributions will remain a mystery until more information is located.
Hope this helps.
-
Tom,
That certainly sounds to me as though they came, they saw (probably a nearly completed course if a total of 7 of the holes were cited as equal any in the country), they gave their blessing (Macdonald was not called the "Evangelist" for nothing...heck, he was more like the Pope of golf at the time), and said the prospects for the course were very good indeed!
I'm reminded of Mackenzie's visit to Riviera, to be honest. Not a single mention of, say, "came to oversee construction of their design", or "laid out as he envisioned it", or anything similar that would give anyone a clue that M&W were part of the design process.
They were expert advisors, clearly, and there to help Wilson in whatever way they could, even if that just mean a public pronouncement on the merits of the new course, which I believe to be quite sincere.
Now, on a more serious note, is there any evidence that Smithers was modelled after Whigham? I've gone through the archives and can't find a thing, but I find the link between the two men strangely compelling. ;) ;D
Sorry Tom...just trying to add some humor on a thread in serious need of some. :)
Mike
Maybe its me, but I don't think trying to portrait Whigham as a bookish weakling closeted gay cartoon character is all that funny, especially when he appears to make the strongest statement contradicting your view of who did what. Its obvious you don't know too much about Whigham; Wilson wasn't exactly the picture of health, but I wouldn't get on here and try to mock him.
Which goes back to what I've saying all along, it appears those most vehement in opposing the idea of M&W advising look at this as Wilson vs Macdonald, any credit for M&W is a strike against Wilson...the legend of Wilson must be protected. I don't see it that way. Next we'll have Pat Mucci in the street burning Macdonald & Whigham in effigy.
Mike & David S
MacKenzie & Riviera is a poor comaparison IMO. For one MacKenzie arrived during the final stages of construction.
Like Merion Riviera was a well-publicized project and no one ever reported MacKenzie was an advisor. Thomas was an experienced golf architect, Wilson was not. We know Wilson met with Macdonald before traveling overseas to study, no such event at Riviera. Wilson wrote about the problems of laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved by M&W, no such event at Riviera. We know who designed and built Riviera: Thomas & Bell. All we know about Merion is that it was designed by a committe, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W. And as far as I know Robert Hunter never listed Riviera as one of the courses Dr. M built.
You are off a little on your Merion chronology as well. That visit reported in May (which makes the visit most likely March or April) appears to be the final stages of planning the golf course. The course was not opened until September 1912.
American Golfer, December 1910
"Recently Mr. RE Grisom had as guests Mr. CB Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who been so prominent in the building of the NGL, at Shinnecock. Both gentleman pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game today."
Does anyone know when approx. Wilson visited the NGLA? ...what months he was overseas?
-
David & Tom,
Not only are you guys on quicksand in trying to support your positions, but now you're both becoming rather humorless, as well. ::) ;)
If ever a thread needed a dose of levity, this travesty certainly qualifies.
I'm sorry neither of you found Patrick and my retorts about his involvement and "advising" with Sebonack as wryly humorous, and it seems my silly, satirical caricature portrayal of Macdonald's "right hand man" Whigham has raised your hackles Tom. Sheesh... ??? :o
Let's get serious then. Whigham was a former US Amateur champion, a well respected golfer and sometimes writer, and he likely wasn't the bespacled "yes man" toady that I portrayed in jest. He married Macdonald's daughter at some point, and was generally a man around town in golfing circles in those days. Is that better, Tom? ::)
And David...we all have acknowledged the historical record that Macdonald and Whigham provided some advisory role to the Merion Committee. But, for the 2000th time, you've provided nothing NEW here for us to elevate our understanding or appreciation of exactly what that entailed.
Instead, the only things new here presented were the following;
1) A 1918 newspaper report about Wilson's design at Seaview which called him the architect of BOTH courses at Merion.
2) A 1914 Max Behr article which made VERY CLEAR that Wilson's style of leadership was almost dictatorial, and while he'd consider advice, HE WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THE SHOTS. He compares Wilson's work at Merion to what Macdonald did at NGLA and what Leeds did at Myopia in terms of course "construction", which is once again very clear in meaning soup to nuts design, features, construction, irrigation, and agronomy. To deny Behr's words suggests to me that both of you have a FAR different agenda than getting to the truth.
3) We have Tillinghast's 1934 article in which he makes very clear, once again, that Wilson was the unsung designer of Merion from the outset. Tillinghast was very familiar with who did what in his hometown and wrote extensively about the early course at the time of it's inception.
Since it appears that neither of you will let this go, I will.
I walk away content in the knowledge that not once during this whole debate did anyone else on this discussion group besides the two of you step forward to defend your position, or claim that either of you have increased their understanding of the origins of Merion, or agreed with you that Macdonald and Whigham have suffered some type of historical slight that now needs rectifying 95 years later.
Instead, I think a lot of folks here rose up to challenge your flimsy assertions, and rightly so. I'm not sure how much of the purely speculative and weightless evidence you've brought forward here is to advance some personal quibbling between the two of you against Wayne and Tom Paul, but it's clear to me that this thread has been so much pointless speculation, personal acrimony, and wasted time.
I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I seriously doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.
-
David M and/or Tom M,
Care to put a definition on the term "advise" in this context?
Nobody has denied their advisory role yet that continues to be your claim. Maybe we are looking at "advise differently.
I would define "advise" as: offering guidance and assistance based on more extensive prior experience.
Websters defines "advise" as: to give information or notice to.
Synonyms: counsel, recommend, suggest
-
Pat
I'll answer your twenty questions this time but you've got do a little homework on your own after this. You are apparently very inquisitive but yet you don't read. What gives? The least you could do is read George Bahto's book.
I read George Bahto's book long before you did.[/color]
Macdonald & Whigham go back much futher than M&Raynor. Whigham was his right hand man in Chicago and he was his right hand man on LI. In the early years they were two of the best amateurs in the country. One important attribute Whigham had was a complete familarity with the great courses overseas, and the great golfers overseas as well...he hailed from a prominant Prestwick golf family.
What design contributions did he make at Chicago ?[/color]
I think you are selling Whigham short. When did Whigham marry and what effect did it have upon his collaboration with Macdonald IYO ?
In 1909, three years AFTER CBM obtained the option on the land at NGLA. CBM obtained title to the property early in 1907 and immediately began developing it, two years before Whigham became his son-in-law. The golf course was played in 1909, probably before the wedding.
There was NO collaboration as you conclude.
Whigham became CBM's son-in-law.
It's not unusual for sons-in-law to begin working for their fathers-in-law after the marriage. It's often an unenviable situation.[/color]
Lido was shut down forever three years after Whigham's article.
That was only because the Navy took over the facility at the outbreak of WWII. You claimed that the golf course had become "a shadow of its former self" and there's no evidence of that save for the deterioration of the Biarritz hole.
Again, you chose to take a very small piece of the pie and expand it into a vast inaccurate generality.[/color]
Whigham was a respected golf figure and a respected journalist.
But, he WASN'T RESPECTED AS AN ARCHITECT.
Something you conveniently and continually overlook.[/color]
I know you like to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who conflicts with your understanding of events, but your comments regarding Whigham (like your earlier comments about Robert Lesley) reflect your complete ignorance.
My comments relating to Lesley's describing the 10th at Merion as an "Alps" hole are on the mark. Only an idiot could claim that # 10 was an Alps hole, especially someone who was familiar with # 17 at Prestwick and # 3 at NGLA.
Even David Moriarty has abandoned the misguided theory that # 10 was an "ALPS" hole.[/color]
American Golfer May 1911:
"The new course of the Merion Cricket club is nearing completion in the planning.
During the month Mr. Chas B Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as out first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."
Did you bother to READ the above.
CBM visited and was pleased ..... BIG DEAL
How is this in any manner, shape or form, confirmation that he was involved with the routing, design and construction of Merion ?
The American Golfer indicates that he advised the committee.
A rather vague, non-descript statement.
How, exactly did he advise the committee ?
You keep grasping at straws, desperately hoping that some vague reference, written in the "American Golfer" somehow validates your insistance that he was involved with the project at Merion in a substantive way, when absolutely NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY.[/COLOR]
-
Like Merion Riviera was a well-publicized project and no one ever reported MacKenzie was an advisor.
Tom, Geoff Shackelford reported exactly that in his Golden Age book. Mackenizie thought he was coming to possibly do a project and he was asked to come in an advisory role, which he did not know until he arrived.
-
Mike and Patrick,
I wasn’t aware that Michael Pascucci authored an article in a reputable golf magazine outlining the history and creation of Sebonack, and describing either of you as an advisor, influence, or whatever.
Dave, give me a break, Sebonack's only been open for a year.
Whigham waited 25 years to give credit to CBM and SR.
I've got another 24 to go.[/color]
Nor was I aware that Mike Keiser similarly described either one of you regarding your role(s) at Pacific Dunes. But it is no wonder I missed the articles, I wasn’t even aware there was a reputable golf magazine out there!
I NEVER claimed that I was involved at Bandon/Pacific Dunes.
[/color]
By the way, could you guys send me a copy of the article where Tom Doak and Jack Nicklaus praised you for teaching them more about golf design in one night than they’d learned previously in their entire lives?
I NEVER indicated that I taught either of them anything, only that I was "involved" at Sebonack.[/color]
The one that described your course as one which deserved lengthy and careful study? You know . . . the one where Doak and Nicklaus stated not only that your course deserved lengthy and careful study, but also that after studing the course all designers ought to incorporate the principles of your fine holes into their own designs. High praise indeed!
Again, you mistakenly attribute my involvement to the work I did at Boca Rio, when the golf course at Boca Rio had nothing to do with any "involvement" on my part.[/color]
But too bad that these are the only records of your involvement which survived; all of the specific information regarding all of the details of the design and construction were recently lost in a big fire.
That's not true, the records of my involvement were not destroyed in a fire.[/color]
(I told them not to store their documents at Rustic Canyon.) You don’t expect anyone to just accept the words of Tom Doak, Mike Keiser, Michael Pascucci, and Jack Nicklaus, do you?
I would accept the words of those gentlemen, although I don't know what Mike Keiser has to do with Sebonack.[/color]
Statements by those involved and in charge don't count for much 'round. You gotta have proof.
I have more proof than you do.
You don't have one iota of evidence with respect to the specifics of how CBM was allegedly involved at Merion.[/color]
Oh well, easy come easy go.
Not so fast my friend.
You tell me, specifically, how CBM was involved at Merion and I'll tell you how I was involved at Sebonack.
I want to know if CBM was substantively involved in the routing, design and construction of Merion, as you and Tom MacWood allege.
Please, don't spare any details, I'm all ears .... and eyes.[/color]
-
Mike Cirba,
Speaking of lack of humor, did you really think my post asking you for copies of articles was serious? Resort to parody and sarcasm all you all you want, but then don't act surprised when you get it back. Or do you only like parody and sarcasm that has no apparent relevant point?
Funny how we only see the humor in our remarks and not the remarks of others.
But if you want to be serious, I can do that too . . .
Once again Mike you have to pretend like I am talking about design credit to make your now overly righteous and condescending point. If you are going to lecture me from above about my sins, at least get my sins right.
The articles you list are entirely beside the point of what I was saying, and I think you know that. If not, show me where anything I have said contradicts them.
As for your lecture, I don't mind standing alone as long as I am correct. Since noone bothers with what I am actually saying, I have no reason to doubt that I am correct. But as to your assertion that noone has come to defend us, I dont think that has ever been much of a determinate around here of the correctness or appropriateness of anyone's post. In fact it reminds me of a recent situation where Tom MacWood stood alone on the Crump issue and almost everyone else stood by while TEPaul ruthlessly and endlessly and personally attacked him. My point isnt to compare you guys to TEPaul-- you guys arent even close. Rather just pointing out that sometimes the truth of a situation isnt determined by how many chime in or come to someone's defense.
You and a few others have started to try and make this about my undeniable acrimony toward Mssrs Morrison and Paul. I think you have the cart pulling the horse. I started this thread because I am interested in the topic and I found an article that was on-topic and new, at least to me. I tried to keep it civil but was not treated the same. In fact the posts were so rude that most of them have now been removed, either out of Mr. Morrison's embarrassment at his own behavior, or by the GCA police.
Despite their boorish behavior (which everyone else seem willing to turn a blind eye towards) I am still willing to keep it completely civil, so long as they do the same. But unfortunately, Mr. Morrison has been periodically a liar and/or an idiot for correctly correcting his misperceptions about something as objective and downright silly as a straight line measure of a good drive on Merion No. 10.
Perhaps instead of spending your time lecturing me you could take a look at the summaries of my position that you and others have requested? It at least ought to explain our differences as I see them. Point out where I am mistaken and if I am, I'll gladly concede.
And take a look at my sidebar before you try to make this about design credit with me again.
And just so you know I still have a sense of humor, does this help . . .
;D :o ;D ??? ::) ;) :) ;) :D ;D :-* ;D :D ;D ;)
-
Patrick,
Like Mike you seemed to have missed my sarcasm and parody.
See my sidebar regarding the Whigham issue. That is not my battle, so don't try to make it mine.
I would accept the words of those gentlemen, although I don't know what Mike Keiser has to do with Sebonack.
If you will accept the words of these gentlemen, then why not the words of Wilson or Lesley?
As I have said repeatedly, I dont know the specific details of CBM's involvement at Merion. But I do accept the words of the well-respected men who were there and who say he was involved.
-
Don't they say, that when two parties are in dispute, the party that is incorrect is the one doing most of the talking? ;D
-
David M and/or Tom M,
Care to put a definition on the term "advise" in this context?
Nobody has denied their advisory role yet that continues to be your claim. Maybe we are looking at "advise differently.
I would define "advise" as: offering guidance and assistance based on more extensive prior experience.
JES actually many have denied or at least diminished and discredited his role as an advisor.
Your definition suits me fine. I think that given the context of the Lesley article, they probably meant it about like you define it. But I could be wrong.
-
Don't they say, that when two parties are in dispute, the party that is incorrect is the one doing most of the talking? ;D
That may usually be the case, Doug, after all these are my first posts in quite a while.
I think in this circumstance though the one who is incorrect is the one who refused to keep talking as soon as his position started to deteriorate. Much of what I am arguing against could be clarified if he would admit and try to defend what he is arguing for.
-
Patrick,
Like Mike you seemed to have missed my sarcasm and parody.
Dave, that's one of the problems with the internet
See my sidebar regarding the Whigham issue. That is not my battle, so don't try to make it mine.
I would accept the words of those gentlemen, although I don't know what Mike Keiser has to do with Sebonack.
If you will accept the words of these gentlemen, then why not the words of Wilson or Lesley?
Because I can question them and engage them in dialogue.
As to Lesley, he was clearly mistaken on the "Alps" issue.
As to Wilson, his alleged remarks are so vague that they amount to nothing more than being polite.
Dont you find it more than coincidental that they all used the term "involved" or "advised" without getting into specific detail ?
Could it be that one was just parroting the other ?
As I have said repeatedly, I dont know the specific details of CBM's involvement at Merion. But I do accept the words of the well-respected men who were there and who say he was involved.
Involved to what degree ?
Why is there no specific reference to any imput they provided ? Probably because those individuals were being generous and polite when they used the word "involved".
Or perhaps, they were thanking them for coming to visit and/or hosting them.
The absence, or rather, the huge void with respect to specific input by CBM on the routing, design and construction
would seem to indicate that he had none. Surely, he would have mentioned what he did, and surely others would have mentioned what he did. Yet, no such recognition appears anywhere.
I know that you want to be "right", but there comes a time when the preponderance of evidence, or lack of, leads prudent men to conclude that CBM didn't take an active role in the routing, design or construction of Merion.
I think we reached that point some time ago.
-
David,
I'm out of this thread, except to say that I do appreciate your corresponding attempt to introduce humor here as I think we both agree it's much needed at this point.
I should have noted it in my remarks.
Now, if Tom MacWood would at least concede that Whigham probably bore at least some simiiarity to Smithers, I think we could wrap this whole thing up! ;) ;D
-
Patrick,
Questioning them and engaging them in dialogue is fine, but unfortunately they are not available to answer you, in more ways than the obvious. As TEPaul and Mr. Morrison admit, most of the information he and Mr. Morrison expected to find regarding the layout and construction cannot be found, and may be "lost forever," as TEPaul said. And this is not just information about CBM involvement, but about the entire design and construction process.
So then my question to you is: What, really, are you learning by asking some of these questions?
For example, the main question coming at me seems to be: If CBM was much involved, then where is the evidence of his specific involvement?
But the basic assumption behind this question is illogical. The question assumes that: If CBM was much involved, there would be specific information documenting his involvement.
But TEPaul and Wayne Morrison admit that this is just not the case. The specific information about the design and construction is missing. Maybe lost forever. (Wayne's recent post saying as much is also gone, lost forever, which makes me wonder if it is a good idea for them to handle original documentation.)
It sounds bizzare and counterintuitive, but it is unreasonable to conclude that MacDonald was not specifically involved based on the absense of information desribing his specific involvement. No such information is available one way or another.
Even if MacDonald lhelped lay out the entire course, there would be no information regarding his specific involvement. No such information is available, one way or another.
To be clear, I am not saying MacDonald did this, but rather just offering an extreme for explanatory purposes.
_________________________________
Mike, I certainly wouldnt want to keep you here against your will, but I am somewhat disappointed that you have never addressed my summary you asked of me or the other summaries I have done since.
Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of answering the single question I asked Patrick:
What, if anything, does the lack of specific details tell you about MacDonald's level of involvement?
If you dont want to answer, at least please think about it.
-
What, if anything, does the lack of specific details tell you about MacDonald's level of involvement?
David,
To me that means he (CBM) did not include it in his resume.
Why would he not include it (even while paying respect to Wilson) if he had anything of note to contribute?
I started this thread because I am interested in the topic and I found an article that was on-topic and new, at least to me.
David,
What exactly is the topic you are interested in?
Unless there is substantial evidence of its inaccuracy, I want to take the information regarding MacDonald's involvement at face value, no more and no less.
In other words, completely present the unrebutted information about MacDonald's involvement without trying to discredit, discount, dismiss, or diminish it at all. And do not try to bolster, exaggerate, or embolden the information, either.
I would also explain that, beyond the articles, specific information about the design and construction cannot be found; therefore it is impossible to determine the specific details regarding anyone’s role in the design and construction of the course.
The specific details of MacDonald's contributions will remain a mystery until more information is located.
Can you show me where someone denied CBM providng counsel (per our agreed upon definition of "advise") to Wilson? To be sure, you will need to provide some evidence about his counsel if you are going to referrence TEP and WM discounting any post-UK trip information. I would think CBM could lay enough information on a guy like Wilson over 2 days to last well longer than one year.
Personally, I think you are trying to bolster his involvement because you cannot grasp a committee paying acknowledgement to a guy that existed (to them) solely as an outside advisor. I think the committee was quite happy to have CBM as a backup if a problem exceeded their grasp.
-
Moriarty,
Why do you persist in this manner? You do not provide any new information related to the subject but instead keep firing off invectives while stomping your feet and whining. Now I will gladly go back to ignoring you, please do the same or else one can only conclude that you are trying to provoke something for personal and not intellectual reasons. I think the viewers have enough information at hand to decide for themselves; please stop trying to force feed us your opinions. Repeating yourself does not make what you say true.
Great to see you back, Mr. Morrison.
This isnt personal, Mr. Morrison. I have never even met you, that I know of. We do have some mutual friends, and I've heard you are a great guy in person and that may well be. I just haven't thought much your boorish behavior on this thread, but we all get overly emotional about things we care deeply about. I am sure that, while you will not likely admit it here, even you know that you were way out of line. At least someone thought so, since most of those posts are gone.
But lets not dwell on the past . . .
Perhaps you too can answer my question?
Given that you and TEPaul acknowledge that you have found little or no surviving documentation regarding the design and construction of Merion East . . . What, if anything, does the lack of specific details tell you about MacDonald's level of involvement?
Now back to the bliss of ignoring you completely.
Oh, I guess I should have read the entire post before I started replying. :'( :'(
-
David Moriarty,
Some deranged individual has broken into your computer and is posting to me under your name ;D
Did you read what you wrote to me ?
[size=4x]
It's unreasonable to conclude that CBM wasn't involved based on the absence of information citing his involvement.[/size]
Are you kidding ?
Have you lost your marbles ?
Has TEPaul warped your ability to reason ?
David, please, run up the white flag before you damage your scholarly and legal reputation in one fell swoop.
And, if this isn't David making these posts, please break into someone else's computer and post under a pseudoname, like Huge "Puffy" Wilson.
-
David & Tom,
Not only are you guys on quicksand in trying to support your positions, but now you're both becoming rather humorless, as well. ::) ;)
If ever a thread needed a dose of levity, this travesty certainly qualifies.
I'm all for levity, but your attempt missed the mark for me. They'll all can't be gems.
I'm sorry neither of you found Patrick and my retorts about his involvement and "advising" with Sebonack as wryly humorous, and it seems my silly, satirical caricature portrayal of Macdonald's "right hand man" Whigham has raised your hackles Tom. Sheesh... ??? :o
Let's get serious then. Whigham was a former US Amateur champion, a well respected golfer and sometimes writer, and he likely wasn't the bespacled "yes man" toady that I portrayed in jest. He married Macdonald's daughter at some point, and was generally a man around town in golfing circles in those days. Is that better, Tom? ::)
And David...we all have acknowledged the historical record that Macdonald and Whigham provided some advisory role to the Merion Committee. But, for the 2000th time, you've provided nothing NEW here for us to elevate our understanding or appreciation of exactly what that entailed.
I agree. For the umpteenth time...no body knows who did what on the original design...its mystery.
Instead, the only things new here presented were the following;
1) A 1918 newspaper report about Wilson's design at Seaview which called him the architect of BOTH courses at Merion. It defintely should be considered with the all the other reports: Lesley, Evans, Travis, Tilly, Whigham, etc
2) A 1914 Max Behr article which made VERY CLEAR that Wilson's style of leadership was almost dictatorial, and while he'd consider advice, HE WAS THE ONE WHO CALLED THE SHOTS. He compares Wilson's work at Merion to what Macdonald did at NGLA and what Leeds did at Myopia in terms of course "construction", which is once again very clear in meaning soup to nuts design, features, construction, irrigation, and agronomy. To deny Behr's words suggests to me that both of you have a FAR different agenda than getting to the truth. Big reach here...the article was on green committees and skills required for effective green committees/green chairmen.
3) We have Tillinghast's 1934 article in which he makes very clear, once again, that Wilson was the unsung designer of Merion from the outset. Tillinghast was very familiar with who did what in his hometown and wrote extensively about the early course at the time of it's inception. see #1
Since it appears that neither of you will let this go, I will.
I walk away content in the knowledge that not once during this whole debate did anyone else on this discussion group besides the two of you step forward to defend your position, or claim that either of you have increased their understanding of the origins of Merion, or agreed with you that Macdonald and Whigham have suffered some type of historical slight that now needs rectifying 95 years later.
Instead, I think a lot of folks here rose up to challenge your flimsy assertions, and rightly so. I'm not sure how much of the purely speculative and weightless evidence you've brought forward here is to advance some personal quibbling between the two of you against Wayne and Tom Paul, but it's clear to me that this thread has been so much pointless speculation, personal acrimony, and wasted time.
I would agree to certain extent, that is why I've been saying all we know at this point is the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W designed the course. Until more information is uncovered to give us more specific details that is all we know.
I'm sorry if that's harsh, but I seriously doubt that I'm the only one who feels that way.
-
Like Merion Riviera was a well-publicized project and no one ever reported MacKenzie was an advisor.
Tom, Geoff Shackelford reported exactly that in his Golden Age book. Mackenizie thought he was coming to possibly do a project and he was asked to come in an advisory role, which he did not know until he arrived.
I do not believe that is what Geoff reported. MacKenzie was critical of the par-3 course at Riviera in the Spirit of StA. Geoff said some old timers at Riviera speculated the criticism was sour grapes because he was to involved.
-
"I would agree to certain extent, that is why I've been saying all we know at this point is the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W designed the course. Until more information is uncovered to give us more specific details that is all we know."
We know a lot more than that, Tom especially changes made for the 1916 Amateur and afterwards. As for the original design, we know a bit of Fred Pickering's role in that effort. I don't know why you fail to mention that. Probably because it would subordinate some of the M&W advise you think they so needed after Wilson returned from the UK. With what we know now, I'd say Pickering's role was many magnitudes more meaningful to the specific design as compared to the advice M&W supplied subsequent to Wilson's return from the UK.
-
Pat
I'll answer your twenty questions this time but you've got do a little homework on your own after this. You are apparently very inquisitive but yet you don't read. What gives? The least you could do is read George Bahto's book.
I read George Bahto's book long before you did.[/color]
Read it again.
Macdonald & Whigham go back much futher than M&Raynor. Whigham was his right hand man in Chicago and he was his right hand man on LI. In the early years they were two of the best amateurs in the country. One important attribute Whigham had was a complete familarity with the great courses overseas, and the great golfers overseas as well...he hailed from a prominant Prestwick golf family.
What design contributions did he make at Chicago ?[/color]
See Bahto's book.
I think you are selling Whigham short. When did Whigham marry and what effect did it have upon his collaboration with Macdonald IYO ?
In 1909, three years AFTER CBM obtained the option on the land at NGLA. CBM obtained title to the property early in 1907 and immediately began developing it, two years before Whigham became his son-in-law. The golf course was played in 1909, probably before the wedding.
There was NO collaboration as you conclude.
Whigham became CBM's son-in-law.
It's not unusual for sons-in-law to begin working for their fathers-in-law after the marriage. It's often an unenviable situation.[/color]
Once again you are wrong. Read Macdonald's NGLA prospectus. Read Bahto's book. Read the series of articles in GI that the two men collaborated on.
Lido was shut down forever three years after Whigham's article.
That was only because the Navy took over the facility at the outbreak of WWII. You claimed that the golf course had become "a shadow of its former self" and there's no evidence of that save for the deterioration of the Biarritz hole.
Again, you chose to take a very small piece of the pie and expand it into a vast inaccurate generality.[/color]
Oh, I see. The deteriation of the course had no bearing on the Navy taking over. How many other great courses did the Navy take over.
Whigham was a respected golf figure and a respected journalist.
But, he WASN'T RESPECTED AS AN ARCHITECT.
Something you conveniently and continually overlook.[/color]
Is that right? For a guy who wasn't respected as an architect, Macdonald, Bahto and Cornish & Whitten had some very nice things to say about his design contriburions.
I know you like to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who conflicts with your understanding of events, but your comments regarding Whigham (like your earlier comments about Robert Lesley) reflect your complete ignorance.
My comments relating to Lesley's describing the 10th at Merion as an "Alps" hole are on the mark. Only an idiot could claim that # 10 was an Alps hole, especially someone who was familiar with # 17 at Prestwick and # 3 at NGLA.
Even David Moriarty has abandoned the misguided theory that # 10 was an "ALPS" hole.[/color]
Your comments on Lesely were ignorant. Your comments on Whigham were ignorant.
American Golfer May 1911:
"The new course of the Merion Cricket club is nearing completion in the planning.
During the month Mr. Chas B Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as out first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."
Did you bother to READ the above.
CBM visited and was pleased ..... BIG DEAL
How is this in any manner, shape or form, confirmation that he was involved with the routing, design and construction of Merion ?
The American Golfer indicates that he advised the committee.
A rather vague, non-descript statement.
How, exactly did he advise the committee ?
You keep grasping at straws, desperately hoping that some vague reference, written in the "American Golfer" somehow validates your insistance that he was involved with the project at Merion in a substantive way, when absolutely NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY.[/COLOR]
What theory?
You can do what you wish the information I share. Consider it. Ignore it . Dismiss it if it doesn't match your understanding. I'm simply adding more info for those who have an interest in the subject. Were still waiting for you to add something of substance.
-
David,
I'm out of this thread, except to say that I do appreciate your corresponding attempt to introduce humor here as I think we both agree it's much needed at this point.
I should have noted it in my remarks.
Now, if Tom MacWood would at least concede that Whigham probably bore at least some simiiarity to Smithers, I think we could wrap this whole thing up! ;) ;D
I'm sorry I don't see it. Being a Scot, athletic and healthy -- Willie would seem to be the better model for Whigham. Wilson on the other hand was somewhat sickly, a manager on the hockey team, member of the Princeton glea club and frequently wore bow ties.
-
"I would agree to certain extent, that is why I've been saying all we know at this point is the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W designed the course. Until more information is uncovered to give us more specific details that is all we know."
We know a lot more than that, Tom especially changes made for the 1916 Amateur and afterwards. As for the original design, we know a bit of Fred Pickering's role in that effort. I don't know why you fail to mention that. Probably because it would subordinate some of the M&W advise you think they so needed after Wilson returned from the UK. With what we know now, I'd say Pickering's role was many magnitudes more meaningful to the specific design as compared to the advice M&W supplied subsequent to Wilson's return from the UK.
You are probably right about Pickering being the unsung person in the whole debate. Why has history given him the short end in your opinion.
I don't know if some of this info has been discovered yet but some of the information I'd like know:
* when exactly did Wilson visit the NGLA
* more information on Wilson's trip, what months he was abroad, where he went, who he met, did he travel along
* why was Pickering hired
* did he work from plans, if so who drew them up
-
I have read very little (really none) of this thread but if Tom and Wayne's long awaited book doesn't come out next year I would point to this thread as the reason - 850+ posts and counting ;D
-
Pat
I'll answer your twenty questions this time but you've got do a little homework on your own after this. You are apparently very inquisitive but yet you don't read. What gives? The least you could do is read George Bahto's book.
I read George Bahto's book long before you did.[/color]
Read it again.
I've read it a number of times[/color]
Macdonald & Whigham go back much futher than M&Raynor. Whigham was his right hand man in Chicago and he was his right hand man on LI. In the early years they were two of the best amateurs in the country. One important attribute Whigham had was a complete familarity with the great courses overseas, and the great golfers overseas as well...he hailed from a prominant Prestwick golf family.
What design contributions did he make at Chicago ?[/color]
See Bahto's book.
I think you are selling Whigham short. When did Whigham marry and what effect did it have upon his collaboration with Macdonald IYO ?
In 1909, three years AFTER CBM obtained the option on the land at NGLA. CBM obtained title to the property early in 1907 and immediately began developing it, two years before Whigham became his son-in-law. The golf course was played in 1909, probably before the wedding.
There was NO collaboration as you conclude.
Whigham became CBM's son-in-law.
It's not unusual for sons-in-law to begin working for their fathers-in-law after the marriage. It's often an unenviable situation.[/color]
Once again you are wrong. Read Macdonald's NGLA prospectus. Read Bahto's book. Read the series of articles in GI that the two men collaborated on.
I don't have to, I read the book that MacDonald authored, "Scotland's Gift" which would seem to be a credible
resource, don't you think.[/color]
Lido was shut down forever three years after Whigham's article.
That was only because the Navy took over the facility at the outbreak of WWII. You claimed that the golf course had become "a shadow of its former self" and there's no evidence of that save for the deterioration of the Biarritz hole.
Again, you chose to take a very small piece of the pie and expand it into a vast inaccurate generality.[/color]
Oh, I see. The deteriation of the course had no bearing on the Navy taking over.
None what so ever.[/color]
How many other great courses did the Navy take over.
I can assure you that the Department of the Navy didn't consult with GCA.com or anyone else to assess the quality of the architecture before taking over the site.
Many clubs had maintainance and financial problems during the war, which caused them to shut down, and it had nothing to do with the quality of the architecture.
Perhaps you might have heard of a golf course/club in Augusta, Georgia that suffered due to the war.[/color]
Whigham was a respected golf figure and a respected journalist.
But, he WASN'T RESPECTED AS AN ARCHITECT.
Something you conveniently and continually overlook.[/color]
Is that right? For a guy who wasn't respected as an architect, Macdonald, Bahto and Cornish & Whitten had some very nice things to say about his design contriburions.
You can't be that dumb.
He was MacDonald's son-in-law, what would you expect him to write ?.
As to Bahto, Cornish and Whitten, what do they know about Whigham's design contributions, they weren't born when he became associated with CBM.
It's almost impossible to find out what Dye's, Doak's and C&C's assistants contributed in the way of design work and those guys are all alive and well. So tell me how it is that Bahto, Cornish and Whitten know exactly what Whigham did.
In the Chapter about NGLA in "Scotland's Gift", MacDonald barely mentions Whigham other than their riding the property on horseback, yet, he talks in glowing terms about Seth Raynor and his work at NGLA.
MacDonald speaks of Whigham, more as a sidekick, rather than as a design associate. Raynor on the other hand was highly talented and invalueable to MacDonald.[/color]
I know you like to dismiss out-of-hand anyone who conflicts with your understanding of events, but your comments regarding Whigham (like your earlier comments about Robert Lesley) reflect your complete ignorance.
My comments relating to Lesley's describing the 10th at Merion as an "Alps" hole are on the mark. Only an idiot could claim that # 10 was an Alps hole, especially someone who was familiar with # 17 at Prestwick and # 3 at NGLA.
Even David Moriarty has abandoned the misguided theory that # 10 was an "ALPS" hole.[/color]
Your comments on Lesely were ignorant. Your comments on Whigham were ignorant.
No, they're right on the mark, even if they disagree with your phantom theories and false conclusions.[/color]
American Golfer May 1911:
"The new course of the Merion Cricket club is nearing completion in the planning.
During the month Mr. Chas B Macdonald and Mr. HJ Whigham, who have been aiding the committee, visited the course and expressed themselves as being greatly pleased over the prospects. Mr. Macdonald said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country, and as out first national champion has played over most of the links, this statement from him should cause much satisfaction."
Did you bother to READ the above.
CBM visited and was pleased ..... BIG DEAL
How is this in any manner, shape or form, confirmation that he was involved with the routing, design and construction of Merion ?
The American Golfer indicates that he advised the committee.
A rather vague, non-descript statement.
How, exactly did he advise the committee ?
You keep grasping at straws, desperately hoping that some vague reference, written in the "American Golfer" somehow validates your insistance that he was involved with the project at Merion in a substantive way, when absolutely NO SUCH EVIDENCE EXISTS TO SUPPORT YOUR THEORY.[/COLOR]
What theory?
You're right, "what theory' ?, your theory has been dismantled by various contributors and is now in shambles, nearly defunct except for your desperate attempts to resuscitate it.[/color]
You can do what you wish the information I share. Consider it. Ignore it . Dismiss it if it doesn't match your understanding. I'm simply adding more info for those who have an interest in the subject. Were still waiting for you to add something of substance.
Consider my debunking of your fatally flawed conclusions as my contributions of substance, like proving you wrong on your claim that Seminole was FLAT. One of the most preposterous conclusions I've ever heard.
It's your conclusions that are flawed, as is your tendency to provide only that research information which suits your purpose, rather than providing all of the information, like your initial claim that MacDonald and Raynor designed Merion, which is equally absurd.[/color]
-
TEPaul,
Tom MacWood seeks recognition by employing revisionist history.
If there are documents detailing CBM's and SR's involvement with Merion, they should be produced.
Absent that production, the creation of rumors and/or baseless theories serves no purpose.
-
Consider my debunking of your fatally flawed conclusions as my contributions of substance, like proving you wrong on your claim that Seminole was FLAT. One of the most preposterous conclusions I've ever heard.
It's your conclusions that are flawed, as is your tendency to provide only that research information which suits your purpose, rather than providing all of the information, like your initial claim that MacDonald and Raynor designed Merion, which is equally absurd.
It is very sad that a man of above average intelligence is so often frustrated by his lack of knowledge and his inability to find the answers on his own (questions upon questions upon questions).
Its obvious when the frustration level has reached its peak....sadly he resorts to fabrication. See the Ross quote above which he now attributes to me. And my stance that Merion was designed by the committee, headed by Wilson, adivsed by M&W has now been distorted into Macdonald & Raynor designing the course. Oh well, I think we are all used to it by now and take his comments with a large grain of salt.
Pat
You need to read more or get more roughage in your diet or maybe both.
-
Tom MacWood,
You INSISTED that Ross was right when it's alleged that he said that Seminole was FLAT.
You went on and on about Ross's alleged statement
You went on and on about how could I possibly question Ross
On and on about who knew the property better.
You tried to convince everyone that Seminole was FLAT.
Yet, as those who have actually seen the site know, Seminole is hilly, with steep, high inclines.
You insisted that if the statement attributed to Ross appeared in print, that it must be true.
You went on and on for pages, arrogantly insisting that Ross was correct, DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'VE NEVER LAYED EYES ON SEMINOLE, and couldn't see the absurdity of that statement. On and on, insisting that Ross knew more than me and the others who told you that Seminole was anything but FLAT.
So please, my memory is crystal clear on your false claims as well as your reliance on information that's either not verifiable through alternate sources, or questionable by prudent man standards.
Do you recall trying to bolster you position by submitting documentation on this thread whereby you produced a quote that stated that MacDonald and Raynor designed Merion ?
Or, am I fabricating that as well ?
What I don't understand about you is your propensity to throw 100 % of your support behind a theory that may have a probability quotient of less than 1 %.
A prudent individual would say, "I doubt the theory, but, there's a small chance that it might have some merit.
But, not you, you argue that it's 100 % correct, despite not having one scintilla of concrete evidence to support your claim. Instead you seek to cite some vague, undocumented, third party references as The Gospel.
But, whenever anyone else uses the same citations, you dismiss them as inaccurate or inapplicable.
Surely, you have to see how intellectually dishonest that is.
-
Now, if Tom MacWood would at least concede that Whigham probably bore at least some simiiarity to Smithers, I think we could wrap this whole thing up! ;) ;D
I'm sorry I don't see it. Being a Scot, athletic and healthy -- Willie would seem to be the better model for Whigham. Wilson on the other hand was somewhat sickly, a manager on the hockey team, member of the Princeton glea club and frequently wore bow ties.
Tom,
That's hysterical! ;D
See...I knew you had it in you! ;)
Personally, I'm really interested to hear more about Pickled...er..ah...Pickering's role and I'm going to kidnap Wayne and Tom and lock them in a room until the book is complete.
Wasn't Pickering eventually let go because of his tippling? Now, finally, it's all starting to make more sense! ;) ;D
Could it be that at least some of the genius of Merion came from the "architecture by flask" school of design?
Stay tuned... ;D
-
"Tom Paul may update his chapter on the maintenance meld."
I will indeed. The "Maintenance Meld" concept always needs updating and analyzing. The thing about it that's becoming more apparent as time goes on is just how "course specific" it really does need to be. ;)
-
Mike,
Here's a tidbit on Pickering. When he was 52 he married Flynn's sister who was a mere 18! Kudos to Tom MacWood for digging that fact up.
Great. First Whigham goes and marries Macdonald's daughter, and now Pickering marries Flynn's little sister. ::) ;)
Is it any wonder we don't really know who did what to whom when, where, why, and how back then? I had always known that architecture was a real inbred fraternity but I had never realized the extent! :o ;D
With all of these intimate disclosures this place is getting like the Gossip Page of the Village Voice. ;)
-
Tom,
I think she was French, and if memory serves, wasn't her name Mrs. Duette Toomey?
-
To which he replied..."I am in like Flynn my dear..."
-
Jim,
Touche'
That should definitely be the last word on a thread that came in with a whimper and out with a bang! ;D
-
TEPaul, Tom MacWood, Wayne Morrison, Mike Cirba, JES II, et al.,
I think there's value to challenging things that have been accepted or taken for granted over time.
I think we learn a great deal through the process of challenge.
In some cases what was accepted proves to be inaccurate.
In other cases, it's reconfirmed.
In other cases we're left in the dark
However, in searching for information, the reliability of the source becomes a critical factor.
I don't know that you can ever be 100 % confortable with the written word. We know that some of these fellows contradicted themselves. We know that some authors never were on site, but accepted what they were told by third parties. We know that an individuals opinions can change over time, be it 5, 10 or 25 years.
What appears certain is that we'll probably never acquire the facts detailing ALL of the issues. But, we can't draw finite conclusions absent ANY of the facts.
If I asked everyone who DIDN"T attend my get together at Hidden Creek, who designed the 8th hole, and who was responsible for the spectacular centerline bunker that functions as a critical element in the look and play of the hole, most would argue, either, Coore, Crenshaw or both.
Yet, the truth is, it's neither.
It was one of their associates.
Those who were in attendance heard Bill Coore detail exactly how this feature and hole came into being, as well as hearing form Roger Hansen how the golf course came into being.
But, you won't find the attribution for that feature or hole anywhere.
I know of situations were members made design suggestions that were implemented, yet nowhere will you find them acknowledged for the design credit.
In other cases the developer and/or superintendent makes suggestions that are implemented, yet, you won't find them getting credit either.
Absent all of the substantive facts, one can speculate and theorize. But, until the facts are known, speculation and theory have to remain just that.
Speculation and theorizing can be fun, spur debate and lead to other discoveries. And they should be welcome as long as they're recognized for what they are. Should a theory be borne out, then, recognition should go to the appropriate parties.
Let's use common sense and/or the prudent man rule as the basis of our discussions.
-
I agree Pat, very sensible.
Throughout this thread I thought the Sebonack example would equate to the Merion question because Nicklaus and Doak are very much individual entities (like Wilson and CBM) whereas C&C could be considered one.
Other than a couple of small tidbits, how is someone to know exactly who gets credit for what? And that course just opened. That's kind of the point though isn't it. Why should each little detail matter so much if the end result is widely praised?
-
JES II,
You make a good point citing Sebonack.
Here we have a contemporary course with both architects and their teams alive and well, and as of today, very little is known about the details.
And, we reside in THE communication age.
-
Can you imagine the reaction one or the other of Doak and Nicklaus (and their teams obviously) if one side was claiming full credit? What the hell would Tom do if Nicklaus were accepting praise for his individual efforts? He would justifiably sh*t a firestorm.
What would CBM have done if he felt he deserved credit as a contributor and was relegated to "advisor" to a rookie? Hell, he was a rookie. Maybe he showed a real flair for the practice as AWT (I believe) is quoted.
Do we have an example from early in TD's career? I am not nearly as familiar with his early going as many of those on here. Didn't he start out with Pete Dye? What specific credit does Pete Dye receive for his influence on Tom Doak's first course?
p.s. If it was not Dye please tell me and I will make the correction.
-
I apologize for in advance for any questions I havent answered or insults I have missed. I thought I would stick with the current flow for al least a moment, and return to the rest later.
JES and Patrick,
I agree with your Sebonack example. My understanding is that designing a course is often a collaborative process, even if it is between an owner and a designer, or a designer and his associates, or as appears to be the case with Sebonack, an owner and two design teams. We are rarely if ever going to know the ‘hows’ and ‘whys’ of it, unless we were there, or someone reliable tells us, or unless there is extraordinary written record.
Mostly what we have to go on is what the parties involved tell us, and that can often be well short of the entire story. With contemporary courses, we can dig and maybe find out that an associate did more, or that X really deserves responsibility for much of what is good or bad, but with long past courses we sometimes have little or no chance to build it back into something.
Patrick this is why I suggested to you a hypothetical circumstance where Mr. Pascucci (or a Mr. Keiser) singles someone out for a particular credit on a course, but there is no way to confirm or deny it, and really no reason to distrust him. Even if for whatever reasons (say I Sebonack example I am a certifiable Doak “Butt Boy” and I don’t want any credit to go to Nicklaus or his people,) I might wish that Pascucci handn’t said it, or that he was just paying lip service, I would have no basis for not taking him at his word.
In our current example we have Lesley singling the committee and MacDonald (and Whigham) out when summarizing how the course was laid out. Yet many on this board want to discredit, diminish, discount, and/or entirely ignore Lesley’s statement by second-guessing him. They resist taking Lesley’s words at face-value unless and until information surfaces describing MacDonald’s specific involvement. That information might not be readily available for a modern project, much less one which took place 95 years ago.
But the real kicker is that these guys know and admit that the relevant body of information no longer exists. They say they are demanding specifics to get at the truth, but they know damn well that determining the specifics about the original laying out of Merion East is currently impossible, and the details of the original laying out of the course may be lost forever, if they ever existed.
So Patrick, when I say that . . .
[size=4x]
It's unreasonable to conclude that CBM wasn't involved based on the absence of information citing his involvement.[/size] . . .
. . . I meant it, or at least meant it in the context of when I said it. If you want to drop the context then I’d modify it slightly, as you will see below.
The problem with their argument is that it is entirely based on an invalid inference. They infer a specific conclusion based on a premise which is generally true, but not specifically true. There is a name for this type of logical fallacy, but I can’t remember it and don’t feel like looking it up.
Their syllogism concluding that MacDonald was not specifically involved in the original laying out of Merion East goes something like this:
1. Premise 1: Available historical records generally indicate the specific involvement of all those who are significantly involved in laying out a golf course.
2. Premise 2: The historical record does not evidence any involvement by CBM in laying out the early Merion East.
3. Conclusion: Therefore CBM was not significantly involved in laying out of the early Merion East.
The problem is, while the First Premise is generally true, it is not always true, so the proof fails.
Moreover, there proof cannot be fixed by making the first premise more specific. As THEY KNOW, their First Premise is FALSE in this particular situation.
So, whatever the truth of the generalization . . .[size=4x]
It's unreasonable to conclude that CBM wasn't specifically involved based on the absence of information citing his specific involvement.[/size][/color]
They know that the early records just do not specifically identify who did what during the laying out the early Merion East. So we are left with the following:
1. The historical record does not identify CBM's specific involvement in the laying out of Merion East.
2. BUT THE AVAILABLE HISTORICAL RECORD IS INCOMPLETE IN THAT IT DOES NOT EVIDENCE THE SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT OF ANYONE ELSE, EITHER.
3. Therefore, ONE CANNOT DETERMINE CBM'S LEVEL OF SPECIFIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE INITIAL DESIGN BY LOOKING AT THE HISTORICAL RECORD We just do not know and probably never will.
This is why I have been saying that the demand for specific evidence was a wild goose chase from the beginning. They knew there was nothing out there one way or another, and they ought to have known that that there approach employs faulty logic and proves nothing what so ever.
In the end we are left with the published statements of men like Lesley, and no logical or factually supportable reasons to discount them. At least based on the record I have seen.
-
That is the biggest load of crap you have tried to sell on here yet...
-
That is the biggest load of crap you have tried to sell on here yet...
Really? Interesting. Care to elaborate?
Where exactly do I start loading crap? What is the crap? Where is it loaded? With what? Or am I to take your word for it.
________
If anyone out there would like to address my analysis, I am all ears.
-
JES,
Despite that your post above indicates that you may done with the rational conversation phase of all of this, I do want to thank you for answering my question a few posts above.
I do appreciate it. I wonder why the rest will not answer? Not Mr. Morrison, not Patrick, not even Mike Cirba, who pops in occassional with a joke or two. Not even Bryan Izzat, who asked for me to lay out my position a while ago. In fairness, I didnt ask Bryan or Mike, but still I am curious as to their answers
Anyway, I had hoped I addressed most of your concerns in your post above , but here is a more direct answer if you are still interested.
To me that means he (CBM) did not include it in his resume.
Why would he not include it (even while paying respect to Wilson) if he had anything of note to contribute?
Interesting speculation, and very similar to one Patrick came up with a few pages back. However, I don’t think the facts support it. But I am no expert on CBM, so maybe I am wrong.
Did CBM keep copius records of every project on which he advised? I believe that others have identified courses at which he advised, but I don’t recall ever reading a mention of them by CBM. But if he really did keep copious records of everything he did,and if there was no mention of advising at Merion in these records, I’d agree with you that this would be pretty compelling evidence that he was not involved at Merion. But without this, I do not think your conclusion holds up.
Interestingly, the logic underlying your conclusion is very similar to that of TEPaul and Mr. Morrison, although yours in not irreparable. Your argument also uses general proposition to disprove a specific instance. In your case the general proposition is that one’s resume, diaries, work journal or similar documents will generally indicate one’s level of involvement in all of the projects in which one was specifically involved. While this may generally be true, it is not always true. Therefore it cannot be used to disprove CBM’s involvement.
But as I said, unlike theirs, your analysis may be salvageable. For example if you recast it as:
1. MacDonald kept copious records of every project in which he was involved, and those records are still available.
3. MacDonald’s records contain no reference to his alleged involvement at Merion.
5. Therefore, MacDonald was not involved in Merion.
If you can prove your premeses, then your conclusion logically follows.
What exactly is the topic you are interested in?
The story of golf course design in America, including the rejection of Dark Age design and adoption of a design style which returned to the strategies and aesthetics of the links. Merion and NGLA are very important in this regard, but I think for slightly different reasons. I am also interested in the procedural and logical pitfalls one faces when conducting historical research and analysis. It is easy to get tripped up when dealing with information that is by its very nature quite speculative, and it is easy to be duped. These guys are trying to rewrite history of something important to me using wholly fallacious reasoning, and so I feel compelled to call them on it.
Can you show me where someone denied CBM providng counsel (per our agreed upon definition of "advise") to Wilson?
I'm not at all hell bent in trying to wipe Macdonald from the Merion archives. What gives you that idea. I admit over and over that he was a key figure in the early stages of Wilson's preparation for his trip to the UK and his understanding of golf course building and design principals. We just don't have any information beyond that. I await facts and not extrapolations of vague phrases that we cannot know the true implications of. You go on your flights of fancy, I'll stay here and conduct further research based on long-proven principals of scientific method.
my bolds.
I’d say that denying any information exists is Mr. Morrison’s way of denying that CBM provided counsel. And whatever TEPaul surely isn’t willing to give any credit for for CBM’s role as advisor:
. . . [/b]I just think it's patently perposterous to assign much credit to a couple of guys from New York who may've showed up down here for a few hours a couple of times compared to men who slaved away on that course for 10-15 and 20 years to make it what it is.[/b]
If you could see those 2,000 letters between Wilson and Piper and Oakley a couple of times a week and for thirteen straight years and then a couple of guys who hardly know Merion make a big deal out of a couple of mentions of a guy "advising". I think that's what is preposterous.
Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped.
(my bolds.)
JES said:
To be sure, you will need to provide some evidence about his counsel if you are going to referrence TEP and WM discounting any post-UK trip information.
Strong evidence does exist that he advised in laying out the course. I am not sure why that is not enough, especially since it is about the only evidence still surviving.
Personally, I think you are trying to bolster his involvement because you cannot grasp a committee paying acknowledgement to a guy that existed (to them) solely as an outside advisor. I think the committee was quite happy to have CBM as a backup if a problem exceeded their grasp.
You and others keep saying I am bolstering, and it has been said so much that even I am starting to think it may be true, but the only “evidence” offered to back up the bolstering claim is unsupported speculation.
Let me put it this way, if you asked me to give you and example of bolstering your argument beyond the existing factual record, I’d say just above where you claim that the committee acknowledged CBM despite that he was just an outside advisor and a backup. You have no facts to support this, so IMO this is bolstering.
So I ask again. Where am I bolstering? What am I claiming that does not have a factual basis?
Thanks again for answering my question. I hope this explanation clears some things up for you about where I am coming from.
______________________________
Mr. Morrison,
I am sorry for not remembering you from the outing. I mean no offense; I just have an embarrassingly bad memory for such things. Nonetheless, I apologize.
I am glad we agree that you guys have found very little specific information about the relevant time period. Or as you would say: ”It is true that not a lot is known about who did what in the initial design at Merion . . . .“ What do you think . . . will this agreement be the beginning of a beautiful friendship?
We have been focusing on the initial design and construction of Merion East. I am not aware of any evidence that CBM was involved after that. Are you? If not, then the tremendous amount of evidence you have found about 1916 is I am sure interesting, but entirely beside the point at issue here.
Here is what I don’t get about your post:
Since you again broke your silence to respond, then why not answer my question? The question seems pretty straightforward to me. And pertinent. So why not answer? You’ve mentioned your “scientific” approach and your sound methodology on a number of occasions, so why not explain it to us all?
. . .
You deleted some of your extremely offensive and obnoxious posts to me because you did not want to engage me? Interesting. Surely you realize that you had already engaged me before you deleted them, and that your deleting them would not cause me to disengage. Never mind. Whatever your explanations, your offensive and defamatory posts are long gone now, just like information regarding the details of the original design at Merion East. So tell me, now that you have destroyed your half of the relevant record of our conversation, do you think it reasonable to conclude that you never made the comments? After all, posts generally don’t just disappear, do they?
If you or anyone else cares to think about why this business about the disappearing posts is fallacious logic, you will have your explanation of why TEPaul's and Mr. Morrison's logic is equally fallacious.
_________________________________
TEPaul, you can think what you want about the Crump episode, but many of us witnessed the entire embarrassing episode. Yet, like with the main issue in this thread, you again try to rewrite history. And like with the main issue, the facts do not support your conclusions.
-
David Moriarty,
I think you miss several points.
First, Lesley was incorrect in classifying the 10th hole at Merion as an Alps hole. Plain and simple. The facts relating to what constitutes an "Alps" hole are in conflict with his categorization.
Just because someone is quoted doesn't mean that the quote is accurate or even factual.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat the erroneous "Seminole is Flat" quote before that concept begins to sink in, but, it's obvious that you shouldn't believe everything you read, and you shouldn't read in something when little exists in the way of substantiated facts.
We've also learned that the words of some of these fellows are to be discounted and not accepted as The Gospel, including CBM's. Some of them should be rejected outright.
On one hand CBM describes the essential elements needed for a hole to be a Redan and on the other hand he claims a hole lacking those essential elements is a Redan. Good olde CBM can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
With respect to your the last of your three points, # 3 isn't a derivitive of # 2 by ANY stretch of the imagination. That's a leap beyond a leap of faith. Stating that just because you can't identify what Wilson did, automatically means that MacDonald could have done something is convoluted logic at it's best. But, then again, you're an attorney. ;D
Your statement reminds me of the old Peter Sellers movie, "I"m allright Jack", where the Union Steward declares to the Employer's representative, when arguing over the firing of a Union employee,
"Since when is incompetence grounds for dismissal ?"
One could argue that Donald Ross and others should fall under your umbrella of architects who were involved at Merion, since there's no record stating what anybody might have done.
Absent detailed information as to the particulars, and clarification on the exact meaning of the word "involved" I don't think you can say that others were "involved"
You may want to pursue this, but, from a prudent man perspective, you and Tom MacWood's insistance on CBM's substantive involvement at Merion is nothing more than wishful thinking. And, if his involvement wasn't substantive, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.
-
First, Lesley was incorrect in classifying the 10th hole at Merion as an Alps hole. Plain and simple. The facts relating to what constitutes an "Alps" hole are in conflict with his categorization.
First, he didn't say it was an alps hole. He said it resembled the Alps at Prestwick in principle. That was his opinion and one shared by others in a better position than us to know. That doesnt mean Lesley thought it was it was a copy; it probably means that these guys were apparently more flexible than we are in their use of these terms. But we've covered this before.
Second, and more importantly, I am not referring to the Lesley description of the 10th hole, or even his description of the third as a "Redan." I am referring to the fact that during his history of the initial creation of both the West and the East, the only names he even mentions are the committee members, CBM, and Whigman. He notes that the committee laid out the course with CBM and Whigham advising them. Surely he was in a position to know if this was true. Surely we are in no position to second guess him.
Just because someone is quoted doesn't mean that the quote is accurate or even factual.
I agree. But unlike some here I like to have a factual basis for rejecting a first-hand account of a respected man who was in an excellent position to know what happened.
I don't know how many times I have to repeat the erroneous "Seminole is Flat" quote before that concept begins to sink in, but, it's obvious that you shouldn't believe everything you read, and you shouldn't read in something when little exists in the way of substantiated facts.
Patrick, I dont know how many times you will repeat it either but I hopefully not many more. Seriously, the only reason that the "Seminole is flat" example has rhetorical value is that you think that the place is obviously not flat, and anyone who sees it would agree. So you think you have facts which rebut the alleged quote. (I have no idea one way or another.)
Our circumstance is different. There are no facts which rebut the Lesley's statement that CBM was an advisor.
Since we were talking about logical fallacies, yours here is sort of the contrast of the one discussed above: You use a specific instance (the Ross quote is wrong) to prove a generalization (We should not believe what we read.)
We've also learned that the words of some of these fellows are to be discounted and not accepted as The Gospel, including CBM's. Some of them should be rejected outright.
On one hand CBM describes the essential elements needed for a hole to be a Redan and on the other hand he claims a hole lacking those essential elements is a Redan. Good olde CBM can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Didnt we cover this? Didnt you ultimately agree that these guys may have had a much lower standard when referring to a hole?
Regardless, you are doing it again. Trying to throw out all written statements because a few are unreliable. What is your proof that the Lesley quote about CMB being an advisor on the layout is unreliable? You noting that some statements are unreliable certianly doesnt mean that this one is unreliable.
With respect to your the last of your three points, # 3 isn't a derivitive of # 2 by ANY stretch of the imagination. ;D
IT IS DERIVATIVE. The historical record doesnt tell us anything about who was specifically involved, so it a completely worthless barometer of whether CBM was specifically involved, or not.
A simple hypothetical: You want to know whether your team plays tomorrow, so you pick up a newspaper knowing that newspapers list the sports schedules. Unfortunately the sports section is missing. Would you argue that your team does not play tomorrow because they werent listed in the newspaper? Of course not!
Like the newspaper above, the historical record is missing the section which addresses who was involved. Yet you still argue that the historical record is determinate of who was involved in this specific circumstance. I don't get it?
That's a leap beyond a leap of faith. Stating that just because you can't identify what Wilson did, automatically means that MacDonald could have done something is convoluted logic at it's best. But, then again, you're an attorney.
The logic you describe may be convoluted, but it is not my logic.
I never said that an incomplete record regarding Wilson's specific role in the initial design "automatically means that MacDonald could have done something."
What I said is that there is no historical record of what anyone specifically did when laying out the early Merion East. So it provides no grounds for knowing what CMB did or did not specifically do, what Wilson did or did not specifically do, or what anyone else did or did not specifically do. Not enough specific information is available to make these determinations.
One could argue that Donald Ross and others should fall under your umbrella of architects who were involved at Merion, since there's no record stating what anybody might have done.
But we do not have other information indicating Ross was involved, do we? Did Leslie write a historical description of how the courses came about and state that Ross was involved? If he did then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we ought to take his word for it.
Absent detailed information as to the particulars, and clarification on the exact meaning of the word "involved" I don't think you can say that others were "involved"
I didnt say it. Leslie, the chair of the green committee said it. Rather he said that CBM advised on laying out the course. Surely you have no grounds for second guessing him.
And, if his involvement wasn't substantive, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.
But is was mentioned, by Lesley for one. Have you read the Lesley article?
-
Moriarty:
Wayne Morrison doubtless deleted his posts from this thread not because of a thing to do with engaging you or not engaging you.
. . . I deleted my own posts because I fail to see anything worthwhile in engaging him in conversation . . .
-
I think JES and Pat will be surprised to learn when they read the Flynn book how little is known about who is respnsible for the design of the East (and the West for that matter). For some reason they believe its a fact Wilson originally designed both courses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayne (I'm not sure about TE) has never claimed Wilson orginally designed those courses. I mistakenly thought there was proof Wilson designed the West, but I was corrected. To determine precisely who did what will require more information. I recently discovered an article in The Golfer (1916) that mentions Wilson, all the committee members, Macdonald & Whigham, and a gentleman named Flinn. I'm confident there is more infromation to be had.
-
Tim,
Prior to this thread I thought Merion was a Wilson design with significant Flynn influence. As this thread had evolved I am now confident that Merion East was designed by a committee that was very clearly headed by Hugh Wilson. I believe CBM and company were available as advisors if needed. I believe CBM was contacted by the committee prior to sending Wilson overseas for his study period because he was the leader of American golf and golf architecture at the time. I believe he was very forward in his recommendations to Wilson about which courses to visit, which holes to study, and most importantly, why those holes and/or strategies should be implemented on a golf course.
This all pertains to my understanding of the very original layout of the East course. It seems William Flynn became quote influential to the coming evolution of Merion East.
The only thing I have ever heard about Merion West is that it was designed by Hugh Wilson. I have no reason to doubt that, but I am also not married to that position.
-
David,
Speaking in defense of Wayne and the complete disgust of this entire thread, Wayne explained to me over a week ago that he removed his posts because he does not wish it on this website considering his relationship with the club. To call the removal of anything other then that is preposterous and absurd, if that indeed is what your implying.
-
Tim,
Prior to this thread I thought Merion was a Wilson design with significant Flynn influence. As this thread had evolved I am now confident that Merion East was designed by a committee that was very clearly headed by Hugh Wilson. I believe CBM and company were available as advisors if needed. I believe CBM was contacted by the committee prior to sending Wilson overseas for his study period because he was the leader of American golf and golf architecture at the time. I believe he was very forward in his recommendations to Wilson about which courses to visit, which holes to study, and most importantly, why those holes and/or strategies should be implemented on a golf course.
This all pertains to my understanding of the very original layout of the East course. It seems William Flynn became quote influential to the coming evolution of Merion East.
The only thing I have ever heard about Merion West is that it was designed by Hugh Wilson. I have no reason to doubt that, but I am also not married to that position.
Sully
IMO the main reason for threads like this is to correct false impressions....and also to show how little is known in some cases, what infromation we need to find. For example I thought Wilson had designed the West, Wayne corrected me, and I went back and checked out the information I had on the West and sure enough there is no evidence (that I have) he designed the course. There are the same refrences to the design committee designing the West course (without mention of M&W).
Its interesting to see how some of these legends get started and what is actually documented and what is actually conjecture. Often there is a romantic aspect that surrounds them, which is very appealing and unconsciously (or consiously) there is a desire to preserve them for that reason IMO. For example Wilson's trip abroad to study and draw the famous holes given as proof he designed the course. Devereux Emmet made a similar trip (actually trips) to study and draw famous holes for Macdonald & the NGLA project.
-
Sully
IMO the main reason for threads like this is to correct false impressions....
And which false impression(s) have been corrected on this one?
-
Prior to this thread I thought Merion was a Wilson design with significant Flynn influence.
The only thing I have ever heard about Merion West is that it was designed by Hugh Wilson. I have no reason to doubt that, but I am also not married to that position.
-
I assume you can now prove either of those impressions to be false...
-
Lesley was incorrect in classifying the 10th hole at Merion as an Alps hole. Plain and simple. The facts relating to what constitutes an "Alps" hole are in conflict with his categorization.
First, he didn't say it was an alps hole. He said it resembled the Alps at Prestwick in principle. That was his opinion and one shared by others in a better position than us to know. That doesnt mean Lesley thought it was it was a copy; it probably means that these guys were apparently more flexible than we are in their use of these terms. But we've covered this before.
David, have you ever seen or played the 17th at Prestwick ?
There is nothing about the topography of the 10th at Merion that resembles the 17th at Prestwick.
The aerial of the 10th at Merion in 1924, which clearly depicts the green and fronting bunker complex, should be ample evidence that any reference to the 10th at Merion resemblng the 17th at Prestwick is perposterous, even in principle.
The scale and the relationship of the features and the topography is so dramatically different that you could no more call # 10 and "Alps" hole in principle than you could the 17th at NGLA.
Lesley was clearly wrong by any reasonable standard.[/color]
Second, and more importantly, I am not referring to the Lesley description of the 10th hole, or even his description of the third as a "Redan." I am referring to the fact that during his history of the initial creation of both the West and the East, the only names he even mentions are the committee members, CBM, and Whigman. He notes that the committee laid out the course with CBM and Whigham advising them. Surely he was in a position to know if this was true. Surely we are in no position to second guess him.
The comment may have been gratuitous, or, to add prestige to Merion. Absent details of his alleged advisory capacity, I don't think you can state that he was actively involved.
Especially when CBM himself NEVER references his involvement at Merion for 25 years from its inception until his death.[/color]
Just because someone is quoted doesn't mean that the quote is accurate or even factual.
I agree. But unlike some here I like to have a factual basis for rejecting a first-hand account of a respected man who was in an excellent position to know what happened.
I agree, but, you also have a factual basis for accepting the account[/color]
Our circumstance is different. There are no facts which rebut the Lesley's statement that CBM was an advisor.
And, there are NO facts which support it.[/color]
Since we were talking about logical fallacies, yours here is sort of the contrast of the one discussed above: You use a specific instance (the Ross quote is wrong) to prove a generalization (We should not believe what we read.)
We've also learned that the words of some of these fellows are to be discounted and not accepted as The Gospel, including CBM's. Some of them should be rejected outright.
On one hand CBM describes the essential elements needed for a hole to be a Redan and on the other hand he claims a hole lacking those essential elements is a Redan. Good olde CBM can't have it both ways, and neither can you.
Didnt we cover this? Didnt you ultimately agree that these guys may have had a much lower standard when referring to a hole?
No, CBM told us what the essential ingredient was in a redan, and yet, absent that essential ingredient, he allegedly labels a hole as a redan[/color]
Regardless, you are doing it again. Trying to throw out all written statements because a few are unreliable. What is your proof that the Lesley quote about CMB being an advisor on the layout is unreliable? You noting that some statements are unreliable certianly doesnt mean that this one is unreliable.
The unreliability is based on the absence of ANY specific information, over a period of 25 years or more, and, CBM himself NEVER mentions that he was involved in the routing, design and construction of Merion.
There's not one scintilla of concrete data evidencing his involvement.[/color]
With respect to your the last of your three points, # 3 isn't a derivitive of # 2 by ANY stretch of the imagination. ;D
IT IS DERIVATIVE. The historical record doesnt tell us anything about who was specifically involved, so it a completely worthless barometer of whether CBM was specifically involved, or not.
But, you can't say, as you've been doing, that he was involved because there's no specific evidence of anyone's involvement. Your logic is flawed.[/color]
A simple hypothetical: You want to know whether your team plays tomorrow, so you pick up a newspaper knowing that newspapers list the sports schedules. Unfortunately the sports section is missing. Would you argue that your team does not play tomorrow because they werent listed in the newspaper? Of course not!
But, it doesn't mean that they are playing either, which is what you keep insisting.[/color]
Like the newspaper above, the historical record is missing the section which addresses who was involved. Yet you still argue that the historical record is determinate of who was involved in this specific circumstance. I don't get it?
It's simple. You can't proclaim that CBM was substantively involved at Merion if the historical record is missing.
Just because details aren't available DOESN"T mean that CBM was invovled, which was your argument.[/color]
That's a leap beyond a leap of faith. Stating that just because you can't identify what Wilson did, automatically means that MacDonald could have done something is convoluted logic at it's best. But, then again, you're an attorney.
The logic you describe may be convoluted, but it is not my logic.
I never said that an incomplete record regarding Wilson's specific role in the initial design "automatically means that MacDonald could have done something."
What I said is that there is no historical record of what anyone specifically did when laying out the early Merion East. So it provides no grounds for knowing what CMB did or did not specifically do,[/color] what Wilson did or did not specifically do, or what anyone else did or did not specifically do. Not enough specific information is available to make these determinations.[/color] [size=4x]
Then, by your own logic, you can't go pleading for CBM to get his rightful credit for the work you allege he did at Merion, since you don't know what he did.[/color][/size]
One could argue that Donald Ross and others should fall under your umbrella of architects who were involved at Merion, since there's no record stating what anybody might have done.
But we do not have other information indicating Ross was involved, do we?
But, according to you, that doesn't mean that he wasn't involved.[/color]
Did Leslie write a historical description of how the courses came about and state that Ross was involved? If he did then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we ought to take his word for it.
Just because he didn't write of others work at Merion doesn't mean that they weren't "involved". His mention of CBM does not exclude all other individuals[/color]
Absent detailed information as to the particulars, and clarification on the exact meaning of the word "involved" I don't think you can say that others were "involved"
I didnt say it. Leslie, the chair of the green committee said it. Rather he said that CBM advised on laying out the course. Surely you have no grounds for second guessing him.
Until I know the nature and extent of the advice and what is meant by "laying out the course", I'll have to reserve judgement.[/color]
And, if his involvement wasn't substantive, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.
But is was mentioned, by Lesley for one. Have you read the Lesley article?
Lesley also mentions that the 10th was an Alps or an Alps in principle, so, I'm not to sure that I accept his every word.
Might it also be that mentioning CBM's involvement, even if it was miniscule, non-specific or non-existant, would give Merion instant credibility in the golf world ?
Might it be that mentioning CBM's involvement was more fluff and P.R than substance ?[/color]
-
I think JES and Pat will be surprised to learn when they read the Flynn book how little is known about who is respnsible for the design of the East (and the West for that matter).
That may be true.
However, just because little is known, doesn't mean that you can conclude that CBM was substantively involved, asbsent detailed, factual information.[/color]
For some reason they believe its a fact Wilson originally designed both courses.
That's an example of another one of your erroneous conclusions. You have to learn to differentiate between what is true and what you want to be true.[/color]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayne (I'm not sure about TE) has never claimed Wilson orginally designed those courses. I mistakenly thought there was proof Wilson designed the West, but I was corrected. To determine precisely who did what will require more information.
I recently discovered an article in The Golfer (1916) that mentions Wilson, all the committee members, Macdonald & Whigham, and a gentleman named Flinn. I'm confident there is more infromation to be had.
I've sat on Boards and Green committees for over 40 years and have observed the following, which may come as a shock to you:
Some members of a committee NEVER show up for one meeting, yet, they like having their name listed on the committee roster, and they like being given credit for the projects. The same is true of Boards.
Just because someone sits on a committee doesn't mean they lift a finger, or help in any way.
In addition, many charities and organizations place high profile individuals on their Boards and Committees to gain recognition, prestige and stability, even though those individuals are NOT active at the committee and/or board level.
Absent factual data as to anyone's involvement, you can't claim they took a substantive role in the routing, design or construction of the golf course[/color]
-
I assume you can now prove either of those impressions to be false...
Its not for me to prove them false, it is for you prove them true, which you can not do. Todate no one has been able to prove what anyone did regarding the original design of the East or West...in contrast to conventional wisdom. This is the lesson of this thread IMO...at least one of them.
-
I think JES and Pat will be surprised to learn when they read the Flynn book how little is known about who is respnsible for the design of the East (and the West for that matter).
That may be true.
However, just because little is known, doesn't mean that you can conclude that CBM was substantively involved, asbsent detailed, factual information.[/color]
For some reason they believe its a fact Wilson originally designed both courses.
That's an example of another one of your erroneous conclusions. You have to learn to differentiate between what is true and what you want to be true.[/color]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wayne (I'm not sure about TE) has never claimed Wilson orginally designed those courses. I mistakenly thought there was proof Wilson designed the West, but I was corrected. To determine precisely who did what will require more information.
I recently discovered an article in The Golfer (1916) that mentions Wilson, all the committee members, Macdonald & Whigham, and a gentleman named Flinn. I'm confident there is more infromation to be had.
I've sat on Boards and Green committees for over 40 years and have observed the following, which may come as a shock to you:
Some members of a committee NEVER show up for one meeting, yet, they like having their name listed on the committee roster, and they like being given credit for the projects. The same is true of Boards.
Just because someone sits on a committee doesn't mean they lift a finger, or help in any way.
In addition, many charities and organizations place high profile individuals on their Boards and Committees to gain recognition, prestige and stability, even though those individuals are NOT active at the committee and/or board level.
Absent factual data as to anyone's involvement, you can't claim they took a substantive role in the routing, design or construction of the golf course[/color]
Did I conclude CBM was substantively involved? Its clear he was involved...its hard to say at this point how involved.
-
I assume you can now prove either of those impressions to be false...
Its not for me to prove them false, it is for you prove them true, which you can not do. Todate no one has been able to prove what anyone did regarding the original design of the East or West...in contrast to conventional wisdom. This is the lesson of this thread IMO...at least one of them.
No Tom,
It is you who said this thread was going to correct false impressions. How do you know what I believe is not accurate? Can you offer evidence that my belief is false?
All your doing on this thread is cooking spaghetti.
-
Blind faith is a beautiful thing.
-
David,
Speaking in defense of Wayne and the complete disgust of this entire thread, Wayne explained to me over a week ago that he removed his posts because he does not wish it on this website considering his relationship with the club. To call the removal of anything other then that is preposterous and absurd, if that indeed is what your implying.
First Tommy, I think that parts of this thread have been very interesting and informative. And many of the parts that weren't have been deleted.
Second, Tommy, of course you are correct as to why Mr. Morrison deleted his posts. For Mr. Morrison to behave so boorishly in a public forum about his club shows incredibly poor judgment on his part. I am just disappointed that he is more concerned about concealing his ill-mannered behavior from his golf club than he is about making amends with those to whom he directed his unprevoked derogatory remarks.
Third, Tommy, you are directing your admonishment at the wrong guy. I believe you are looking for Mr. Morrison, himself. After all, I have consistently said that if he removed the posts it was out of embarrassment. He would certainly have reason to be embarrassed if his behavior was well known at his club.
Fourth, you may want to check out Mr. Morrison's posts before you jump to his defense. Oh, I almost forgot . . . he deleted them.
-
Patrick, I appreciate your vigilance in addressing virtually ever sentence of every post, but I wonder if sometimes you don’t miss the branches, trees, and forest while you are plucking every leaf.
I am not going to re-debate the Alps, Redan issues with you. I think even you agree that a number of knowledgeable men referred to these holes by these names, and that these men used the terms differently that we do today. That is really about all I am saying. If you don’t agree, I am still not going to re-debate it. That issue just isn’t that important at this juncture.
You say that . . . "[Lesley’s] comment may have been gratuitous, or, to add prestige to Merion. Absent details of his alleged advisory capacity, I don't think you can state that he was actively involved.” Then also say that we need a “factual basis for accepting his account.” And you say there are no facts to support [Lesley’s description.]
This may be Mr. Morrison’s and TEPaul’s most impressive accomplishment, but also their most damaging. Somehow they have convinced just about everyone that a first hand contemporaneous account by the Chair of Merion’s Green Committee describing exactly how these courses came into existenceis neither reliable nor valid evidence. So now everyone believes that without factual proof of the statement’s accuracy, we cannot accept it at face value.
But Lesley was not putting forth a theory. He was not speculating or guessing. He was describing events which he witnessed! From the sounds of it, Lesley’s statement may well be the best evidence we have. Discounting, discrediting, doubting, or disregarding his words without a compelling factual reason for so doing is not only beyond hubris, it is also piss-poor research methodology.
Especially when CBM himself NEVER references his involvement at Merion for 25 years from its inception until his death.
Again Patrick, unless you want to flesh with out with specific facts, you are drawing an unsupported conclusion from a faulty assumption. You assume that CBM would have recorded his involvement if he truly had been significantly involved, but this may not have been the case. [ Judging what I have read from MacDonald (which pretty much focuses on his favorites,) I doubt it is the case.]
But this is your speculation so the burden is yours. If you want to first prove that this is the type of thing he would have recorded, and prove that the records of this type are still available, then your point will be valid. Until then it is unsupported speculation and we cant start messing with contemporaneous account from the Chair of Merion’s green committee based on unsupported speculation. If you are correct and he documented everything, it shouldn’t be too hard to prove.
”There's not one scintilla of concrete data evidencing his involvement.”
It astounds me that you say this! What would you call Lesley’s description? Fiction?
But, you can't say, as you've been doing, that he was involved because there's no specific evidence of anyone's involvement. Your logic is flawed.
. . .
It's simple. You can't proclaim that CBM was substantively involved at Merion if the historical record is missing. . . .
. . .
Just because details aren't available DOESN"T mean that CBM was invovled, which was your argument.
. . .
Then, by your own logic, you can't go pleading for CBM to get his rightful credit for the work you allege he did at Merion, since you don't know what he did.
. . .
But, according to you, that doesn't mean that he wasn't involved.
I get the feeling you don’t think I know that the logic sword has two edges. I do. I’ve said this early and often. I’ve seen no information about what, specifically, CBM did. Or what Whigham did. Or what any member of the committee did. How could I have seen such information, since almost all such information is unavailable?
So, Yes, you are correct. I cannot use the lack of about CBM’s specific contributions to the initial layout of Merion to support a conclusion that he was specifically involved or that he was involved at all. But, unlike you guys, I AM NOT USING THE LACK OF THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION TO PROVE ANYTHING. Far from it. The lack of information makes it worthless evidence across the board.
That is why your Ross example is not compelling. I agree that we cannot use the lack of information to eliminate Ross, or for that matter to eliminate Bendelow, or MacKenzie, or a time traveling Cupp. And we cannot use it to evidence their involvement either. So in the end it is worthless either way. Therefore, someone who wants to argue that Ross was involved still has to find evidence to support this conclusion somewhere.
Therein lays the difference. Unlike with Ross, we have compelling information which indicates that MacDonald (and Whigham) were involved in laying out the course, at least as advisors. For one thing, Lesley says so. We have no sound, factual reason to doubt him, and unless and until we come up with a sound factual reason, we have no choice but to take his word for it. That is all there is to it.
So when you say, “Just because [Lesley] didn't write of others work at Merion doesn't mean that they weren't "involved". His mention of CBM does not exclude all other individuals,” you are technically correct, but completely miss the point. Lesley’s description of the creation of the course is compelling evidence of what actually happened. Absent compelling evidence to the contrary, it alone establishes CBM’s (and Whigham’s) involvement as advisors in the initial laying out of Merion East.
Moreover, there is NO FACTUAL JUSTIFICATION (so far at least) for casting doubt, diminishing, discounting, discrediting, or disregarding Lesley’s description. Yet this is exactly what TEPaul and Mr. Morrison are trying to do.
Might it also be that mentioning CBM's involvement, even if it was miniscule, non-specific or non-existant, would give Merion instant credibility in the golf world ?
Might it be that mentioning CBM's involvement was more fluff and P.R than substance ?
It might be, but again there is no proof yet which supports either one of these theories. If you want to draw this conclusion you are going to need more than just blind speculation.
And these theories raise many questions. For one, I think that Merion East had already had plenty of credibility when the article was published (1914.) If this was an attempt to gain credibility or as a puff piece it would make more sense that it would be to try and represent the second course as being equal to that of the first. So why credit CBM on regarding the first and not the second? And if your goal is puffery and you are using CBM, why not go all the way? Why not call him the designer? Or at least play up his involvement even more?
We could speculate all day in every direction, but in the end we are left with the historical record, as spotty as it may be. And the historical record indicates that CBM and Whigham were advisors regarding the laying out of the course.
-
For two dozen pages of conversation, we have heard that CBM deserves little or no credit or acknowledgement for his alleged involvement in laying out the early Merion East absent information evidencing the specifics of his contribution.
Yet now, even TEPaul may have started to realize that if the illogical sword used to try and slay MacDonald cuts at all, it must cut Wilson just as deeply as MacDonald. He is shuffling accordingly.
Of course someone's resume, diaries, work journals and similar documents will generally indicate one's specific involvement in something, even though that has been proven, in some cases, to not be true. But of course if one never used any of those things in the first place it certainly doesn't mean it's proof that he didn't do something specific on some project.In that case one tends to go to supporting documents and information from others of someone's specific involvement.
But then, of course, you're right, there is no specific information at all that's apparently left of who it was who designed and built Merion East in that first stage.
If that is the case, and it is, one tends to simply try to apply simple logic to the situation.
(my bolds)
So after all the demands for evidence of CMB’s specific involvement, all the insults, all the boorish behavior, all the refusals to give CMB credit without more specifics, what changes when they start to think about Wilson, Flynn, and Pickering? Suddenly, the lack of evidence regarding CMB’s specific involvement is not so important after all. ”It certainly doesn’t mean that its proof that he didn’t do something specific on the project.”[/i]
Funny, that is what he thought it meant for the past 25 pages! And that is what it meant a few posts above when he said that this same conclusion was “is not just the biggest load of crap you've ever put on here, it's totally laughable. The last thing we need on here are the illogical ramblings of some self-important pre-law mind like you.”
What is more interesting to me is that when the issue is proving the extent to which Wilson, Flynn, and Pickering were involved, suddenly TEPaul wants to look toward “supporting documents and information” as well as “simple logic” to determine who was specifically involved.
I have no quarrel with that. Just do the same for MacDonald. If you do you, then you cannot deny MacDonald’s involvement in the laying out of the course. Unless, of course, other evidence surfaces.
We have our own opinions and we believe them and state them. If someone wants to challenge them, that's fine, we will field that challenge and what it comes with and respond as we have on here.
Honestly Tom, do you really believe that you and Mr. Morrison welcomed these challenges? And do you really think that the way you and Mr. Morrison have responded on here was at all appropriate?
If you, or anyone else accuses us of trying to rewrite history we will challenge your accusations on the merits of what that challenge contains, and that's what has happened on this thread.
You guys were applying fallacious logic by requiring specific evidence of CBM’s involvement, and have been downplaying, diminishing, discrediting, discounting, degrading and outright disregarding CBM’s level of involvement based solely on the absence of specific evidence. Moreover, you guys knew all along that all the evidence of who specifically did what in the initial laying out of the course is nowhere to be found and probably “lost forever.” If this isn’t rewriting history, I don’t know what could be.
The only remaining question is whether you guys did not understand the logical flaws in your argument, or whether you were manipulating the unavailability of the information to get to the result you wanted. If Mr. Morrison were in my situation, he might wonder if you guys were idiots or liars, but I hope the answer is neither; that it was an honorable and honest mistake, and one that could be easily made by any of us.
If you guys need any more help, let me know. ;)
-
Mr. Morrison,
First, let's not pretend that you ever actually disengaged from our conversation. You deleted some of your early and most offensive posts along the way, yes. But your re-entered the conversation repeatedly and throughout to continue to take pot-shots at me and even address me directly while at the same claiming you were no longer discussing this with me. Thus while you may have sat on the sidelines when it came to much of the substantive discussion, you managed to get your rudeness in nonetheless.
Second, you deleted no "refutations," but rather only vitriol and rude, derogatory comments. My comments which provoked your boorish accusations of fabrication and idiocy turned out to be entirely and verifiably 100% correct. Your response wasnt to set the record straight but was to delete the posts which most evidenced your foolishness and rudeness, all the while keeping the same pattern. Incredibly, still to this moment you will not admit the inappropriateness or inaccuracy of your initial outburst, even though it was about an objective measure and even though you were entirely out of line and wrong.
Third, I didn't inject your son into this except to suggest to you that you consider just how rude your behavior might appear to those around you. Turns out that I might have produced the desired impact much sooner, had I instead commented "I am sure your club would be very proud."
Fourth, you continue to pretend to ignore the substance of my comments while again accusing me of being a liar. Let me ask you again, Mr. Morrison: Care to back up this defamation? Care to back up any of your insults with reference to the substance of the conversation? All my posts are still there, so feel free to substantively address them and to back up what you say.
I didn't think so. You cannot.
I know it might bother you that an interloper like me could correct your understanding of anything at all at to do with Merion, even something as trite as a straight line measure. And obviously you'd rather it not be me of all people would point out the logical fallacies of your position. But it is a discussion, so these things happen. Grow Up.
______________________
All this aside, I agree that one's family and personal life ought to be off limits on this board. So with regard to my off-hand comment referencing your son, I am sorry. As I explain above my point had nothing to do with him but rather you. But in retrospect I can certainly see how you would take it that way. So for this I again apologize. It will not happen again.
-
There has been some excellent research done on this topic todate, but IMO a lot more information needs to be uncovered before any definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding who did what.
Some of the things we don't know:
* When exactly did Wilson go to Southampton to visit Macdonald
* What were the months Wilson was overseas (was it seven or eight or some other number of months)
* Where did he go and who did he visit with...did he travel alone
* What was the state of the project when he returned
* Was Wilson around in late 1910 when M&W were checking out the site
* Why was Pickering - who live in Massachusetts - hired. Who recommended him
* When did Pickering begin working at Merion
* How much time did any of the committee men spend on site during the construction phase
These are important questions we can't answer at this point and until we can answer some of them we are left with a hell of a lot of speculation and conjecture.
-
"He is free to be an idiot,"
Wayno:
Of course he is free to be an idiot. Not to diverge or digress but you----and me, and all of us, must realize first and foremost that that right and perogative and yes, FREEDOM, is the GOD given beauty of what America and the American ethos is all about----eg the total right and freedom of ALL AMERICANS to make total asses and idiots of themselves in completely public forums without any fear whatsoever of being gaoled and racked, as can and does happen in most all other cultures. However, that right and freedom does not preclude that the rest of us cannot mock and mirth gleefully over his idiocy. ;)
However, having said that I think all of us must look towards our inner compassion and estimate when someone may be reaching the limitations of personal and mental health and reach out a helping hand to bring the poor soul back up to the sunlit uplands of sanity and stability.
-
This is what I know, or at least think I knew before, and now afterward of trying to read maybe one page total of this thread:
Hugh Wilson, the much beloved and devoted SPORTSMAN--whose ghostly spirit I once saw gleaming down upon me from the upstairs railing of the vacated, closed-on-Monday, Merion locker room (while trying to collect my senses, recovering from heat-prostration after experiencing a 102 degree/98% humidity, charming Philadelphia day.) stopped into Southampton for a visit with C.B. MacDonald, and conversed with him on what to look for/how to study golf architecture on his way to see the Great Links of Great Britain.
Wilson came back and took those principles--which he learned from that meeting and what he saw abroad, found them in the ground on a somewhat convoluted parcel and built one of the great courses in the young American SPORT. They had trouble getting playable turf grass to grow, and after some consultation from C.B. MacDonald, H. Whigham and many other well-respected experts, who played a Sport that required the ball to utilize slopes, contours and other natural aspects of land to get the ball into the hole, finally did get it figured out.
The course that Wilson laid out, along with his brother Alan, William Flynn, Joe Valentine and many other passionate people, many of them Italian laborers--or in this case artisans--evolved over a period of time and is still a defining attribute to the sport today and has contributed to some of American Golf's Greatest Moments in History. The course has perfected itself over time. (Well sort of)
It's that simple.
There are no missing puzzle pieces. Just the hope of finding pieces of paper or photographs that say who did what and what they were thinking--IF that evidence even ever existed.
Enjoy Merion. I don't think a golf course has ever been more passionately discussed on this website. THAT has to mean something. I know this from experience.
-
Shivas,
I have been knee deep in this since about page 8 so I can tell you this thread is, and always has been a misunderstanding of arguments. Pretty common on here I guess, but this one struck a cord with both sides, hence 27 pages.
Moriarty has never specifically stated what his goal (or even instinct) is as far as finding CBM's actual involvement was. Tom and Wayne mistakenly thought he was arguing for design credit of Merion to go to CBM. There is no evidence of specific involvement and they stated that, and that without that no specific credit could be given. Moriarty takes that out of context to imply they (Wayne and Tom) are trying to eliminate CBM from the Merion history.
MacWood chimes in with various speculation that, as yet, seems unprovable. His end thesis is that if you believe one thing and he can offer reasons why that belief might not be true, yet offer no proof of it being untrue you are wrong. Interesting bit of convoluted logic.
The nuts are...these guys are all arguing different things and are befuddled that they can't see eye-to-eye.
>CBM played an advisory role in the creation of the original version of Merion East.
-the extent of which will never be known because how would we know how much influence Pete Dye had over Tom Doak's first course? Could we identify the exact features? Could we assign a percentage to it? No.
-
Sully,
Thanks for explaining to me what I asked for about 6 or 7 pages ago--or something like that. But I should have known this.
In other words, they're all right, and they'll go to any length to prove it, including bringing mental health and paternity issues into it. ;)
-
Tommy,
To be clear, I am the only one that's all right...but you are alright by me.
-
Sully,
Good. For a second there I thought I needed a valium...I've been trying to reread the thread to no avail. It's just so hard to focus. ;)
-
William Evans was singing a different tune in 1916: Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Macdonald & Whigham not to mention young lad named Flinn.
Its interesting M&W were engaged for their turf expertise...that would seem to point to other visits by the two men. Their first visit was late 1910 to give their view on the site and then again in the spring of 1911 when the plan was being finalized.Construction began right after that. Very interesting.
-
My Lord, this has gotten completely silly again over the past couple of days. Thanks to Tommy Nac for coming in here with a breath of fresh air and clarity!
Let's assume for a moment that Hugh Wilson was NOT the architect of Merion East in 1911.
Then, why did the Merion committee send him to GB for seven months to study the great courses?
Why did industrialist tycoon Clarence Geist hire him two years later to design his palatial course at Seaview?
Why did contemporaneous newspapers accounts in the Philly and Atlantic City area refer to Wilson as the guy who laid out "both courses" at Merion?
Why did Max Behr in 1914 say that Wilson was the guy at Merion so dictatorial in his approach as to compare to Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia?
Why did the city of Philadelphia ask Wilson to lay out its first public course in 1915?
Why did Wilson (with Flynn's assistance) continue to modify Merion for the next 10-12 years?
Why did Pine Valley ask Hugh Wilson to finish Crump's last four holes?
Why did AW Tillinghast feel compelled to point out clearly and gush fervently that Wilson was the designer and genius behind the creation of Merion when the US Open was being played there in 1934?
This is not some "myth" as some would have you believe.
There was less evidence to implicate O.J. Simpson as there is that Wilson was the architect of Merion almost 100 years later, despite what seems like some missing club records.
And, Tommy...you're right. Macdonald and Whigham advised as necessary, and in limited fashion. There is not a single shred of evidence that it was any more than that.
-
That is very interesting.
Let's take that at face value along with M&W being consistently termed advisors. Unless, that is, you are suggesting they were more than that??
It makes perfect sense to me to confirm a site selection, a layout plan, and a near finished product with these advisors. It actually seems like it could define the term to me.
What would be incredibly interesting is a reason to believe they were anything more than advisors.
-
DS
You're now looking for magazine quotes? :)
-
That will shock TE more than Paul and I.
-
We knew he was in the States in 1914, but we didn't know he was in Chicago in July. Thats an excellent discovery.
-
There has been some excellent research done on this topic todate, but IMO a lot more information needs to be uncovered before any definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding who did what.
Some of the things we don't know:
* When exactly did Wilson go to Southampton to visit Macdonald
* What were the months Wilson was overseas (was it seven or eight or some other number of months)
* Where did he go and who did he visit with...did he travel alone
* What was the state of the project when he returned
* Was Wilson around in late 1910 when M&W were checking out the site
* Why was Pickering - who live in Massachusetts - hired. Who recommended him
* When did Pickering begin working at Merion
* How much time did any of the committee men spend on site during the construction phase
These are important questions we can't answer at this point and until we can answer some of them we are left with a hell of a lot of speculation and conjecture.
I guess the question has to be asked...are you looking to establish responsibility for each specific feature on the golf course?
-
The 1915 Wilson quote that TEPaul includes above is not the only reference Wilson makes to MacDonald's influence. In Bahto's book there is a similar quote, which Bahto dates at December 1916 which is very similar. One of the differences is that the Bahto quote also includes the sentence:
Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we could use."
Doesn't this raise the the possibility that these were actually MacDonald's the missing sketches from MacDonald's trip? Is it possible that these are the missing sketches that Wilson brought back from his trip? If so, then that would explain what happened to MacDonald's sketches, at least.
-
Are you suggesting Wilson borrowed CBM's drawings and never returned them? Even though CBM was ever-present on the grounds of Merion East during its construction phase? I guess that could be because Wilson was probably chasing girls at the Jersey shore during that summer of 1911 while CBM was building Merion for him.
-
TEP,
The only problem is that the entire club thought it was 1914 because they were commemorating a 50th anniversary of the opening. Not proof, but certainly more evidence that he was there in '14.
-
JESII;
I hope Colt was in America in 1914 and that that fact can be completely proven. That would be most interesting indeed, and particularly to confirm where he went in 1914. If somehow it could be proven that he actually returned to PVGC that would be really interesting indeed and may require a certain amount of reinanalysis of the PV timeline. I can pretty much guarantee if that were the case PV has not been aware of it in literally many many decades.
This stuff can be fun and exciting to do and can be really interesting in the end. As you can see the base-line to all this stuff is attempting to do what Wayne and I call "timelining". Once you get a really decent timeline structure on some projects all kinds of things fall into place pretty easily. ;)
-
Let's assume for a moment that Hugh Wilson was NOT the architect of Merion East in 1911.
Then, why did the Merion committee send him to GB for seven months to study the great courses?
Why did industrialist tycoon Clarence Geist hire him two years later to design his palatial course at Seaview?
Why did contemporaneous newspapers accounts in the Philly and Atlantic City area refer to Wilson as the guy who laid out "both courses" at Merion?
Why did Max Behr in 1914 say that Wilson was the guy at Merion so dictatorial in his approach as to compare to Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia?
Why did the city of Philadelphia ask Wilson to lay out its first public course in 1915?
Why did Wilson (with Flynn's assistance) continue to modify Merion for the next 10-12 years?
Why did George Thomas praise Wilson as one of the architects who taught him much of what he knew?
Why did Pine Valley ask Hugh Wilson to finish Crump's last four holes?
Why did AW Tillinghast feel compelled to point out clearly and gush fervently that Wilson was the designer and genius behind the creation of Merion when the US Open was being played there in 1934?
This is not some "myth" as some would have you believe.
There was less evidence to implicate O.J. Simpson as there is that Wilson was the architect of Merion almost 100 years later, despite what seems like some missing club records.
I would note that neither Tom MacWood nor David Moriarty has attempted to answer any of the very obvious questions above, as they clearly are all common-sense and simply fly in the face of the supposed significant role of Macdonald and Whigham in the design and construction of Merion.
-
Are you suggesting Wilson borrowed CBM's drawings and never returned them? Even though CBM was ever-present on the grounds of Merion East during its construction phase? I guess that could be because Wilson was probably chasing girls at the Jersey shore during that summer of 1911 while CBM was building Merion for him.
No I was suggesting that Wilson pinched the sketches. Snuck them out of Southampton in his knickers. The first in many attempts by Philadelphians to take credit from MacDonald and keep it for themselves. Those attempts still continue today.
-
I would also note that Max Behr's 1914 article also cites Wilson as one of the three men who have studied course "Construction" as never before, and therefore ideally suited for their dictatorial roles given their immense knowledge and expertise.
I argued earlier with MacWood that the term "constructed" at that time also included what we know today as "architected" by definition, and he disagreed with me because it would obviously add more definitive proof to the overwhelming evidence that Wilson designed Merion East.
However, I find it humorously ironic that even Hugh Wilson agrees with me about the use of the term. As Tom Paul quotes Wilson's letter;
We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time,...
It is clear here that Wilson is talking about golf course DESIGN, architecture as we know it today, when he uses the term "golf course construction". As I pointed out earlier, the term "constructed" was completely synonymous to "architected", or "laid out", or "designed" to these men, and MacWood knows it.
His denial of Max Behr's own very clear description of Wilson as the "constructor" of Merion is really not a very intellectually truthful one, given his vast knowledge of the time. Unfortunately, it doesn't fall into his hypothesizing, so he tries to split hairs in what he KNOWS Behr meant.
-
Mike,
I am not exactly sure why you would expect me to answer your questions when you do not answer those asked to you.
Nonetheless, I'd still be glad to address your posts and everyone else's (maybe even some that have been deleted) when I get the chance. I just don't have time to respond to everyone now, and I am leaving aside the most obvious responses until later.
As a compromise, and to save bandwidth, please answer a question of mine and you may find that the answer applies to your questions as well.
When and where have I ever taken the position that Wilson does not deserve design credit for Merion East?
Thanks.
By the way, If you get a chance . . . why not go back and answer my question about just what the absence of evidence of MacDonald's specific involvement proves?
-
Moriarty:
What does the absence of evidence of Tillinghast's specific involvement in Merion East prove?
What does the absence of evidence of Willie Watson's specific involvement in Merion East prove?
What does the absence.....
Absolutely nothing at all, one way or another. The absense of evidence cannot be used to disprove any of their involvement, just as it cannot be used to disprove Wilson's involvement, Flynn's involvement, etc.
That "fact" that there is no evidence of MacDonald's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as says nothing about whether or not he was specifically involved. It says nothing about whether any of them were involved.
-
Mike,
\When and where have I ever taken the position that Wilson does not deserve design credit for Merion East?
Thanks.
By the way, If you get a chance . . . why not go back and answer my question about just what the absence of evidence of MacDonald's specific involvement proves?
David,
You haven't specifically, but although you deny it's a "zero-sum game", I think that by definition if you imply that Macdonald created holes...say 1 through 15, then that means that Hugh Wilson didn't, and visa versa.
I'm truly not sure what your original point was. You say you just want Macdonald to get his due, but really have offered no real evidence that would incline anyone to believe his role was greater than reported over the past 90 years. Instead, somewhat ironically, this thread and some of the uncoverings within only seems to prove instead that Macdonald and Whigham's role was likely quite negligible and "consultative" only in a very broad, limited sense in the design of the original course at Merion East.
Personally, I think it would be a finding of considerable historical important if we had determined here that CB Macdonald actually had a huge hand in the design of Merion. That would be exciting stuff that I think this website is so good for. On a personal level, David, I used to research this stuff way before there was a GCA but the collaboration possible thru this website is wonderfully helpful in doing so. However, we also need a higher threshold of proof than the sort of specualtion that's been advanced here. I guess what I'm saying is that I would not have minded one whit if we had proven that Macdonald had a large role...I'm architect neutral in this. However, what I've found personally in this thread is that Wilson was much more "in charge" and responsible for Merion than I ever would have believed prior.
As far as your second question, I think the lack of evidence of Macdonald's specific involvement indicates to me precisely what it implies. Macdonald was the GIANT of the American game at that time, at the very height of his powers, and for a landmark course as groundbreaking as Merion to arise quickly and be so renowned in such a short time, if Macdonald had a large role that would certainly have been well documented by everyone who was there at the time and familiar with the design construction history of Merion....Tillinghast, Thomas, Behr, certainly Wilson, and last but not least, Macdonald himself.
It certainly would have been a more newsworthy story at that time to name-drop the famous CB Macdonald than some modest insurance salesman and four other no-name committemen from Ardmore! ;) ;D
-
I think colt did work on RCD in 1914
-
David,
In an effort to cut through what seems like 17 or more different strands of rhetoric by many, and acknowledging that you have been asked a great many questions that would take days for you to address, I thought that I would ask you one more and whose answer would certainly aid in refocusing this as a discussion.
Since you have said a number of times that you want to see CBM get his proper credit for his participation in the creation of Merion, I ask this.
Could you please elaborate on what YOU (and this is your opinion) believe is the proper credit that CBM should be given and what credit he is not being given?
-
Good luck Philip, I have asked that a few times in very clear, concise form as you did and he goes in another direction. I think it's unfortunate that so many on here avoid a question that hurts their cause. Muddied waters would be the best way for this thread to end for Mr. Moriarty, and that is a shame.
-
Let's assume for a moment that Hugh Wilson was NOT the architect of Merion East in 1911.
For the sake of argument OK…although its been established no one knows who designed anything at the original Merion.
Then, why did the Merion committee send him to GB for seven months to study the great courses?
I don’t know why Wilson was selected. Was it because he was the green committee chairman? Was it because he had been selected head of the design committee? Was it because he was going to be THE designer? Did he travel abroad alone or with others? Was it seven months, six months and eight months….does anyone really know how long or when he was over there?
Really the whole thing is pretty bizarre when you really think about it…a committee is formed, made up of men with apparently no design experience, to design a high profile golf course. Getting the assistance of M&W would seem like a very sane thing to do.
Why did industrialist tycoon Clarence Geist hire him two years later to design his palatial course at Seaview?
That’s a very good question…I don’t know. My guess would be Wilson’s good work and experience at Merion…perhaps Cobb Creek too. What is strange about the Seaview project is the involvement of Pickering. Pickering built the East and was building the West when he was fired. The other strange thing about Seaview, it was evidently constructed without bunkers. Ross was brought in a year later to plan and build bunkers.
Why did contemporaneous newspapers accounts in the Philly and Atlantic City area refer to Wilson as the guy who laid out "both courses" at Merion?
I have not read the Philly newspaper report…I’m not sure when it was written. I’ve read a 1916 report by the same Philly writer, and in this one he mentions Wilson (heading the golf course committee), all the committeemen, Macdonald and Whigham. Does anyone know who wrote the 1918 AC article? Whatever the case, two possible reasons: 1) the author knew or believed Wilson designed both courses or 2) he knew or believed the redesigned course in 1918 was Wilson’s.
Why did Max Behr in 1914 say that Wilson was the guy at Merion so dictatorial in his approach as to compare to Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia?
I don’t know. Dictator is not a term I normally associate with Wilson. The main thrust of the article was to show the attributes a good green-chairman possessed…agronomic expertise, construction expertise, autonomy, etc.
Why did the city of Philadelphia ask Wilson to lay out its first public course in 1915?
I don’t much about the Cobb’s Creek project. Was Wilson the lone architect or was he part of a group effort…I’ve heard a couple of different stories. Whatever the case, certainly his experience at Merion would have made him a good choice.
Why did Wilson (with Flynn's assistance) continue to modify Merion for the next 10-12 years?
Because he had the means and ability to improve the course? He was obviously not satisfied with many aspects of the original course.
Why did George Thomas praise Wilson as one of the architects who taught him much of what he knew?
Because he was a talented architect?
Why did Pine Valley ask Hugh Wilson to finish Crump's last four holes?
Because he was a talented and experienced architect. And he and his brother had agronomic knowledge, which was an ongoing issue at PV. They also engaged CH Alison. The driving force behind the completion of the course was Howard Street, I don’t recall if he had any role in choosing.
Why did AW Tillinghast feel compelled to point out clearly and gush fervently that Wilson was the designer and genius behind the creation of Merion when the US Open was being played there in 1934?
My guess: Either he believed Wilson designed the original course or he believed the course as redesigned was Wilson’s.
This is not some "myth" as some would have you believe.
There was less evidence to implicate O.J. Simpson as there is that Wilson was the architect of Merion almost 100 years later, despite what seems like some missing club records.
This thread is swimming in conjecture…and I just added to it. More conjecture is not what is needed; what is needed is more research. No one said Wilson’s involvement was a myth. He was involved and he continued to be involved and is rightfully given credit for perfecting the course. What I said is that people become attached to legends. And even when there is a lack of concrete information legends often get the benefit of the doubt. And clearly this thread illustrates that is the case with the original Merion design and Wilson.
PS: Could we try to keep the personal insults to a minimum.
-
Tom,
I'm sorry if anything I said seems like a personal insult. I can tell you that nothing was intended that way.
I do find disengenuous your interpretation of what Behr clearly wrote about Hugh Wilson's "dictatorial" role at Merion, and I sincerely find your attempt to distinguish the term "constructed" vs "designed" to be wholly incompatible with what I think you know was the meaning of the term to those early pioneers, simply because it doesn't support your speculation that "we don't know who designed Merion originally."
Who do you think he was the dictator of, Tom? What do you think that Behr meant when he stated that Wilson, like Macdonald and Leeds, would listen to advice from others but then clearly were the ones who made all of the decisions?
Was he talking about where to put the irrigation lines, or perhaps Hugh Wilson was just a mean dictator to the lowly workmen on the job doing the ditch digging? Perhaps he just was the dictator to the maintenance men working in the clubhouse while waiting around for M&W to visit once every six months or so? ;)
C'mon Tom...you KNOW that's preposterous and that Behr was clearly talking about the design, building, planning, and ultimately, the whole shebang, soup to nuts.
If you can't admit that, I think you're denying it simply to support your hypothesis, and I know I personally would not want to be standing on such a flimsy foundation in questioning Wilson's lead role, especially when it's supported by men like Tillinghast who where there regularly when the course was being built.
Tom, you can say all you want that the context of this discussion was about "committees" but the Behr comment was also very clear when it used the term "Construction", and compared Wilson's role in constructing Merion to what Macdonald constructed at NGLA and what Leeds constructed at Myopia.
The "committee" reference is valuable, as well, as you keep going back to some vague notion that Merion was designed by "committee", with M&W providing oversight advice.
That's nonsense, Tom, and Behr makes that clear as early as 1914 when he points out very accurately in his article the fact that today we'd use the term that a horse designed by committee would probably look like a camel! ;D
Here, he's saying, by Wilson taking the lead in a dictatorial sense at Merion in the construction (planning, design, construction, grow-in, etc.) process by virtue of his extensive study of the art (he, Macdonald, and Leeds studied the process like NOBODY before them, according to Behr) that a wholly wonderful result came about.
There is simply no other intellectually honest way to interpret what Behr wrote, Tom. I'm sorry...this isn't Bill Clinton's "I didn't have sex, with that woman, Miss Lewinsky", where every word is nuanced and open to interpretation.
Max Behr said exactly what he meant, and attempts to say he was taken out of context, or that "constructed" didn't encompass the whole design, build, and grow process to these early pioneers are simply misleading. I do think you know better.
-
Tom MacWood,
I'm sorry, but at this point I sincerely believe that if you were to come across an article from 1913 by Max Behr that said "Harry Colt constructed the Pine Valley course", you'd be widely hailing it as proof positive that Colt designed it for Crump.
And given other corroborating evidence by men who were there like Tillinghast, you'd be absolutely correct in doing so.
-
Mike
The Behr article is about green committees. Course construction could very easily translate to course architecture I agree. The article is still about green committees and green chairmen and the attributes they should possess (including a knowledge of golf architecture). To claim this is proof Wilson designed the original East course or that Behr is claiming Wilson designed the East course is a stretch IMO.
-
Mike
The Behr article is about green committees. Course construction could very easily translate to course architecture I agree. The article is still about green committees and green chairmen and the attributes they should possess (including a knowledge of golf architecture). To claim this is proof Wilson designed the original East course or that Behr is claiming Wilson designed the East course is a stretch IMO.
Tom,
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
I'm sorry if you found anything I wrote personally offensive as that was not the intent. I do feel that I'm banging my head against the wall in frustration however, as your attempts over the past month to discount some overwhelming evidence are just not ringing true to me.
Certainly I hope that someone locates the detailed records or minutes of those early days, but I think we stop using our brains if we insist that having access to those records is the only way we'll ever know that Hugh Wilson designed Merion, or how large a role Macdonald played when his total access and involvement seems very limited by every stretch after Wilson returned from GB.
It's sort of like me saying that I don't know that Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address because no video exists of him today writing it without help of his advisors.
-
Mike
Clearly Wilson was heavily involved, no one is saying he wasn't involved, but it seems you won't be satisfied until I say Hugh Wilson designed Merion.There isn't overwelming evidence to support that, in fact just the opposite. The overwelming evidence is that the committee designed the course, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.
Tilly claims in 1934 the course was designed Wilson; in '39 Whigham claims the course is Macdonald's. Based on what we do know (from contemporaneous reports) I think there both off the mark. It seems pretty clear it was a group effort.
-
Tom, that after everything that has been written in this thread you feel that you can state, "It seems pretty clear it was a group effort..." astounds me.
If there is anything that can be clearly stated, it ISN'T that.
My point is that the details of the involvement of any individual can NOT be specifically stated.
That in NO WAY shows CLEARLY that it was a group effort.
-
Mike
Clearly Wilson was heavily involved, no one is saying he wasn't involved, but it seems you won't be satisfied until I say Hugh Wilson designed Merion.There isn't overwelming evidence to support that, in fact just the opposite. The overwelming evidence is that the committee designed the course, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.
Tilly claims in 1934 the course was designed Wilson; in '39 Whigham claims the course is Macdonald's. Based on what we do know (from contemporaneous reports) I think there both off the mark. It seems pretty clear it was a group effort.
Tom,
If like me you don't find the following to be strong evidence of "architecture by committee" as you contend, then I think you need to cite some specifics of your own, besides Whigham's seemingly absurd paean to Macdonald after his death.
"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..." – Max Behr 1914 (18 months after the East course was opened and around the time the West opened)
"It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..." - A.W. Tillinghast 1934 (onsite many times during the inception of the course)
It took me 25 years of searching, but I recently stumbled upon a 1918 Atlantic City newspaper article on microfilm. It was a rambling review of the history of Seaview, especially its massive clubhouse (now expanded into a hotel.) The article did mention the course: "Hugh Wilson laid out course and Ross did the trapping," a subhead read.
"Hugh I. Wilson, who also laid out the two Merion courses (bold mine), is responsible for the Seaview course," it said in the text. "Five or six years ago, Clarence H. Geist, then president of the Whitemarsh Valley County Club (outside Philadelphia), decided that there was no earthly reason why Philadelphians and other golfers should go south in the winter to get their golf. He felt that there were scores of men of big affairs who ... could run down to the shore and play over the weekend ..." – 1918 Atlantic city newspaper article as recounted by Ron Whitten.
"In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion. He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably. One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique. The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly. He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle. As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee. The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off."
"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrew's 18th hole."
"On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members. A report of the opening said the course was "among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country". This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years." - Merion History
"Plus, I've been looking through numerous articles from Philadelphia newspapers back then, particularly from longtime golf writer for the Philadelphia Public Ledger, William Evans, that refer to Wilson constantly as the architect of Merion East and West. These were in the years Wilson was still alive. One even mentioned that since it was provable that he was never paid for his architectural efforts he was one of the few whose amateur status was never questioned or challenged."
"MacWood refers to Merion East being attributed to Wilson as the result of legend. If these things were written constantly in local papers about Wilson as the architect of those courses (and others) while he was alive and it was simply not true one would certainly think Wilson or others reading those accounts would have informed the newspapers of that obvious fact. " - Tom Paul's mention of Philadelphia newspaper articles on Merion and Wilson during Wilson's lifetime.
Tom, if you have other articles to cite beside Whigham's funereal comments, and Lesley's broad-brush approach as the head of the Merion Greens Committee, in which he very politically correctly and no doubt generously cited everyone on the standing committee as well as golf celebrities who "advised" like Macdonald and Whigham, probably now is the time to bring that research to public light.
-
Tom, that after everything that has been written in this thread you feel that you can state, "It seems pretty clear it was a group effort..." astounds me.
If there is anything that can be clearly stated, it ISN'T that.
My point is that the details of the involvement of any individual can NOT be specifically stated.
That in NO WAY shows CLEARLY that it was a group effort.
You don't think a golf course designed by a committee is a group effort?
-
Mike
Merion was designed by a committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.
-
Shivas,
It's refreshing to finally see a post where the continual parsing of language here actually makes objective sense.
The idea of design by committee is absolutely and convincingly refuted by Max Behr's words in 1914. You couldn't have a better, more impartial, and more contemporaneous account by a more knowledgeable observer from the very time that both courses at Merion were laid out, designed, constructed, built, or whatever verbiage we choose to use.
-
Tom M.
I agree with Shivas.
I'm open-minded about who designed what, where, when, because I know from my own research that there are various times when myth is taken as fact, and where impressions take on their own reality.
However, I think the preponderance of evidence presented here so far is overwhelmingly in favor of Hugh Wilson being the driver, the leader, the decision-maker, the planner, the visionary, the detail-guy, the committed, responsible servant to the Merion membership at that time and also the one who made all final decisions from a design standpoint.
Isn't that what we call today, the "architect"?
If you have countervailing evidence, please present it.
-
DS
The Evans article I've read comes from The Golfer August 1916. Unfortunately I can't quote it because I don't have it but the article claimed the course was laid out by the committee: Wilson assisted by Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Dr. Toulmin, with Macdonald and Whigham acting as advisers. The same story as Robert Lesley (1914), Far & Sure (1913), Hazard (1911) and the first Merion history book (1976).
Have you changed your tune on articles? Why not demand the same citations with the other Evans articles?
-
Tom M.
I agree with Shivas.
I'm open-minded about who designed what, where, when, because I know from my own research that there are various times when myth is taken as fact, and where impressions take on their own reality.
However, I think the preponderance of evidence presented here so far is overwhelmingly in favor of Hugh Wilson being the driver, the leader, the decision-maker, the planner, the visionary, the detail-guy, the committed, responsible servant to the Merion membership at that time and also the one who made all final decisions from a design standpoint.
Isn't that what we call today, the "architect"?
If you have countervailing evidence, please present it.
Mike & DS
I'm looking for any evidence that will shed light on who did what.
What did Wilson contribute to the original design?
What did Francis contribute to the original design?
What did Griscom contribute to the original design?
What did Toulmin contribute to the original design?
What did Lloyd contribute to the original design?
What did Macdonald contribute to the original design?
What did Whigham contribute to the original design?
-
DS
The Evans article I've read comes from The Golfer August 1916. Unfortunately I can't quote it because I don't have it but the article claimed the course was laid out by the committee: Wilson assisted by Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Dr. Toulmin, with Macdonald and Whigham acting as advisers. The same story as Robert Lesley (1914), Far & Sure (1913), Hazard (1911) and the first Merion history book (1976).
Have you changed your tune on articles? Why not demand the same citations with the other Evans articles?
Again, Tom M, first the article must be cited. Then we get into the veracity of the article. The article cannot be judged for its accuracy it is cited and analyzed.
And as to the second question, I have already answered that. I said that I would demand exactly the same thing of TEP's Evans articles, except for the fact that he's not the one pushing a view of history that is contrary to the weight of the current evidence. Plus, he has cited multiple sources, chapter and verse, before. So he's got "cite cred". ;)
Come again? Hopefully some day I'll have 'cite cred'...shoot me an e-mail when I reach that status.
-
Tom MacWood,
In fairness, I'd like to read Tom Paul's specific quotes from Evans in the Philly newspapers during Wilson's lifetime, as well, and hope he posts them with date and context.
However, I believe that it could be fairly generalized that almost any and every course ever built was "designed by committee" in the sense that rarely is any undertaking of such a nature the sole work of one man.
While we acknowledge that fact as a given, we also generally seek evidenciary attribution of design to a person, or partners, or a small group simply because it also acknowledges the reality that there is usually a single person or team ultimately responsible for the decision-making around such a project.
In the case of Merion, it seems very clear that his contemporaries felt strongly that Hugh Wilson was that man an deserved clear recognition beyond any of the others who were also involved to a lesser extent.
This thread has been largely about determining the role of Macdonald and Whigham in the design and construction of Merion, and while we sit here on page 27 and are approaching 1000 posts debating this issue, I still see not a single reason to conclude that their distant "advisory" role should be elevated beyond simply that, nor do I see that anyone besides Hugh Wilson (other than perhaps some evidence that Pickering's construction experience helped considerably) should be credited with the overall design.
-
Mike
What other courses were designed by committees made up of men without any design experience? Off the top of my head I can't think of any courses designed by committees. Pebble Beach was redesigned by a committee: Egan, Hunter and Lapham. Who did what there is certainly not clear either...including the mock sand dunes.
How do you determine what each committeeman contributed? How do you determine what M&W contributed?
-
Mike & DS
I'm looking for any evidence that will shed light on who did what.
What did Wilson contribute to the original design?
What did Francis contribute to the original design?
What did Griscom contribute to the original design?
What did Toulmin contribute to the original design?
What did Lloyd contribute to the original design?
What did Macdonald contribute to the original design?
What did Whigham contribute to the original design?
Tom,
That would be interesting to learn, but I have to ask in the case of Pacific Dunes, do you question?
What did Tom Doak contribute to the original design?
What did Jim Urbina contribute to the original design?
What did Mike Keiser contribute to the original design?
What did Kye Goalby contribute to the original design?
What did any of TD's other associates contribute to the original design?
What did Shoe contribute to the original design?
Should we conclude that Pac Dunes was designed by committee?
-
Mike & DS
I'm looking for any evidence that will shed light on who did what.
What did Wilson contribute to the original design?
What did Francis contribute to the original design?
What did Griscom contribute to the original design?
What did Toulmin contribute to the original design?
What did Lloyd contribute to the original design?
What did Macdonald contribute to the original design?
What did Whigham contribute to the original design?
Tom,
That would be interesting to learn, but I have to ask in the case of Pacific Dunes, do you question?
What did Tom Doak contribute to the original design?
What did Jim Urbina contribute to the original design?
What did Mike Keiser contribute to the original design?
What did Kye Goalby contribute to the original design?
What did any of TD's other associates contribute to the original design?
What did Shoe contribute to the original design?
Should we conclude that Pac Dunes was designed by committee?
I'm sure Tom Doak - who was ultimately in charge - could tell you. Perhaps not every single detail but the hole concepts and routing.
We have no idea who chose the site at Merion, we have no idea who was involved in the routing stage, we have no idea specifically who came up with individaul hole concepts.
-
Mike
What other courses were designed by committees made up of men without any design experience?
How do you determine what each committeeman contributed? How do you determine what M&W contributed?
Tom,
In the earliest years of golf in this country, the timeframe that is germane to this discussion, there were plenty of courses laid out by men or committees with no design experience.
That was exactly the point of the Merion Golf Club sending Wilson overseas to study and learn by first visiting with Macdonald, and then studying the finest courses in GB for seven months, Tom.
They KNEW they wanted to create something beyond where US architecture had taken the game at that point, and they KNEW that Macdonald had succeeded in creating something special, and they KNEW that the best courses and holes were back in the home of golf and they KNEW that the only way to achieve their ambitious desired ends was to send a guy they had complete confidence in over there to LEARN, and bring back the benefits of his education and build them a new, special golf course that benefitted from his learned observations.
If Wilson's lengthy trip had never happened, then your point would be better understood and accepted. However, the reality is that it did happen, and that Wilson, like any good leader, consulted with those around him who knew particular details and then pieced all of that together using his own instincts and wisdom, and created something very different and special that we admire to this day. He also spent years revising and fine-tuning his creation, working with men like William Flynn to build what is probably still the greatest inland, parkland course in the country, if not the world.
-
We have no idea who chose the site at Merion, we have no idea who was involved in the routing stage, we have no idea specifically who came up with individaul hole concepts.
Tom,
Why would we choose not to believe Max Behr in 1914 when he said that Wilson had a dictatorial role in the decision making of the new courses at Merion (which opened for play in 1912 and 1914), and why would we choose not to believe AW Tillinghast in 1934, who had been onsite many times, and who KNEW all of these men well and personally, including Macdonald and Whigham, who were still alive at that time, when he plainly stated for all the world that Merion was the creation of Hugh Wilson? Why would we choose to disregard conteporaneous news accounts of the time who stated clearly that Hugh Wilson laid out both courses at Merion?
-
Mike Cirba, I find it fascinating that when it comes to the question of MacDonald's involvement you demand the specific details, yet when it comes to Wilson's, you wonder why we cannot just cannot take the words of Behr or Tillinghast. Why take their words for it, when you won't take the word of the president of Merion?
Your Pacific Dunes comparison doesnt follow. I don't think Mike Keiser published an article clearly and specifically crediting a designer other than Doak as an advisor on the design, did he?
__________________
David,
In an effort to cut through what seems like 17 or more different strands of rhetoric by many, and acknowledging that you have been asked a great many questions that would take days for you to address, I thought that I would ask you one more and whose answer would certainly aid in refocusing this as a discussion.
Since you have said a number of times that you want to see CBM get his proper credit for his participation in the creation of Merion, I ask this.
Could you please elaborate on what YOU (and this is your opinion) believe is the proper credit that CBM should be given and what credit he is not being given?
Phillip,
Phillip, as JES has indicated, he and others have asked me these types of questions before, and every time I have tried to give them an honest and complete answer. But to give you an idea of how this conversation usually goes, I believe that JES’s entire response to my most recent answer was something like “that is the biggest load of crap so far on this entire thread.” Nonetheless, at the risk you’ll find my answer an even bigger load, I’ll try to answer as best I can.
Unfortunately, it will take a bit of time, and I doubt I will get to it until tomorrow, probably tomorrow night.
-
When Myopia and Chicago were laid out there really weren't any professional architects in circulation. Myopia and Oakmont were the products of continous change...Oakmont did not become the infamous championship test until a major redesign in the late teens (Fownes, Loeffler and perhaps McGlynn). GCGC was completely redesigned by Travis. Wilson was advised by M&W. Crump was assisted by Colt. The NGLA was not Macdonalds first attempt, and he was assisted by Emmet & Whigham. Actually the closest example of a course designed by an inexperienced committee would be Whitemarsh - headed by Heebner. Although Thomas - one of the committeemen - had designed a golf course earlier. From what I understand Whitemarsh was plagued by issues early on. The club hired Jack Park (Willie's brother) as their pro in 1911 and I think he worked there for two or three years. I wonder if he might have helped fix some of the problems. I also understand Tilly carried out a redesign at some point.
-
Mike Cirba, I find it fascinating that when it comes to the question of MacDonald's involvement you demand the specific details, yet when it comes to Wilson's, you wonder why we cannot just cannot take the words of Behr or Tillinghast. Why take their words for it, when you won't take the word of the president of Merion?
David,
I believe that I've repeatedly said that Macdonald and Whigham "advised" on the Merion project, consistent with Lesley's article.
If you read the article he wrote, I think he speaks in very general terms, and as the President of the Greens Committee, did the politically correct thing in citing everyone for their contributions when he said;
"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee; Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham."
There is absolutely no question that these were the men on the committee charged with building a new course for the Merion membership and there is absolutely no doubt that Macdonald and Whigham advised them at some point.
However, two things are important to note here. Besides this article, is there anything else from anyone noted in architecture at the time who cited the design contributions of, say, Griscom? Did Tillinghast or Behr wax philosophically about the course laid out by Dr. Toulmin? Did George Thomas say that R.S. Francis taught him much of what he knows about architecture?
No, of course not, because their roles on the committee were likely very different than WIlson's, with one man probably the Treasurer, one possibly in charge of PR with the membership, one probably the Secretary, and so on. That's the PURPOSE of a committee...to divide top-level administrative responsibiities for a project or undertaking.
We also know that M&W advised. We know they advised Wilson before his trip to GB, and he very gratefully thanked them for that and acknowledged how much Macdonald taught him. We also know they made at least one (Tom MacWood claims 2 but I'm waiting to see proof of that assertion) site visit and gave his blessing to the ongoing work, calling a full SEVEN of the holes equal to anything built yet in this country. You'll notice he didn't say anything about his own role, or seven of the holes he designed, or advised on, or anything else but giving credit and blessing to a project that he helped Wilson initiate.
Beyond that, we know nothing more. However, given Macdonald's stature in the game, even if he just did those things I cited, don't you think that was enough for Lesley to give him his due props in a national magazine article on Merion? I certainly do.
I just don't know what additional credit you want to give to M&W without further evidenciary details, David? I think that's what many of us are wondering.
I've acknowledged repeatedly what Lesley wrote and I have no doubt that it's accurate. I simply think you're trying to read much more into it that isn't supported by any facts or corroborative evidence.
So, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Tom MacWood, because they are still the most relevant questions on the table that are being denied and ignored;
Why would we choose not to believe Max Behr in 1914 when he said that Wilson had a dictatorial role in the decision making and construction of the new courses at Merion (which opened for play in 1912 and 1914), and why would we choose not to believe AW Tillinghast in 1934, who had been onsite many times, and who KNEW all of these men well and personally, including Macdonald and Whigham, who were still alive at that time, when he plainly stated for all the world that Merion was the creation of Hugh Wilson? Why would we choose to disregard conteporaneous news accounts of the time who stated clearly that Hugh Wilson laid out both courses at Merion?
-
Philip Young,
Does it seem that David Moriarty could have just answered your question in the same amount of time and space that he took to tell you he will answer it but not until later? I guess we can expect another 1000 word non-answer as he has done about 50 times already on this thread.
David,
If you take a look back at the post I referrenced as "the biggest load of crap..." you'll see that it is in fact a worthless post in a thread with all too many of them. You seem to be treading water here looking for someone to throw a piece of information on the table that might bail you out. Unfortunately, it seems you'll be treading for a while. There may well be more information on this subject, and this thread of yours may well deserve some of the credit as motivation for its discovery, but repeating the same thoughts over and over in new packaging is only doing one thing...hurting your desired reputation as a student and researcher of golf architecture. I am not suggesting you stop, and I am not telling you I am done with this thread. I am telling you that your position has become substantially weaker as this thread has evolved and it might be prudent to take the time and read some of the evidence on the table.
You have submitted M&W worked as advisors - nobody disagrees.
Tom or Mike or Philip or somebody else have submitted that Wilson was the lead architect and deserves credit for Merion East in its original design and its evolution up to his death - MacWood disagrees
You would like M&W properly acknowledged for their contributions - nobody disagrees - you have not been able to specify that acknowledgement so how could it possibly be given?
-
I believe that I've repeatedly said that Macdonald and Whitten "advised" on the Merion project...
Say it ain't so! Whitten was involved, too?
-
OK you "word freak", it's only a word...
-
I believe that I've repeatedly said that Macdonald and Whitten "advised" on the Merion project...
Say it ain't so! Whitten was involved, too?
Someday around 2106, I can see an intrepid David Moriarty IV coming across this thread and making the case that we've not properly acknowledged Ron Whitten's role in the design creation of Merion Golf Club. ;) ;D
Someone will likely note the inconsistency that although Whitten did some design, Architects Golf Club and Erin Hills followed Merion by some 90 or so years.
A 1000 post thread will ensue. ;)
-
David M,
The same question keeps popping up for you. More than a week ago, JES started by asking,
Tom M and David M,
Is there some specific recognition either of you would like to bestow upon CBM for his involvement in Merion East? Acknowldeging his advisory and mentor type relationship with Wilson and his committee do not seem to be enough, what exactly would quench your thirst.....beyond Wayne and Tom stumbling into some demonstration of incompetence, that is...
I followed by asking you,
David M,
Could you clearly answer JES's question? Or, let me rephrase it. You said, some pages ago:
"Properly acknowledging CBM in no way diminishes a single thing you said about Wilson".
Could you clearly lay out for us what, in your mind, constitutes "properly acknowledging". Clearly you want more acknowledgement than has been given so far. Could you propose a statement of proper acknowledgement? It'd help to clarify how far apart the two camps are.
Your reply at the time was,
Bryan and JES,
Unless there is substantial evidence of its inaccuracy, I want to take the information regarding MacDonald's involvement at face value, no more and no less.
In other words, completely present the unrebutted information about MacDonald's involvement without trying to discredit, discount, dismiss, or diminish it at all. And do not try to bolster, exaggerate, or embolden the information, either.
I would also explain that, beyond the articles, specific information about the design and construction cannot be found; therefore it is impossible to determine the specific details regarding anyone’s role in the design and construction of the course.
The specific details of MacDonald's contributions will remain a mystery until more information is located.
Hope this helps.
Unfortunately, I don't think the answer helped. You have asked repeatedly for "proper acknowledgement", but you end by saying the specific details of MacDonald's contributions will remain a mystery until more information is located. So, how can he be properly acknowledged.
Now Phillip is asking the same question,
David,
I thought that I would ask you one more and whose answer would certainly aid in refocusing this as a discussion.
Since you have said a number of times that you want to see CBM get his proper credit for his participation in the creation of Merion, I ask this.
Could you please elaborate on what YOU (and this is your opinion) believe is the proper credit that CBM should be given and what credit he is not being given?
Your answer defers an answer until later today,
Phillip,
Nonetheless, at the risk you’ll find my answer an even bigger load, I’ll try to answer as best I can.
Unfortunately, it will take a bit of time, and I doubt I will get to it until tomorrow, probably tomorrow night.
To assist you in the preparation of your answer, I'd suggest the following as a position on proper acknowledgement that you could support:
Regarding the construction (design) of the Merion East course, we the memebers of GCA.com acknowledge:
Merion was laid out by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin. These were the men on the committee charged with building a new course for the Merion membership.
We also acknowledge that Wilson was a likely a dictatorial Geens Committee chair who was not adverse to taking advice. He likely took advice from multiple sources, but likely did the sifting of the advice in its contribution to the construction of Merion. He studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before.
We also acknowledge that C. B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham advised the committee. We acknowledge that Wilson spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than he had learned in all the years he had played. The advice consisted of sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time.
We acknowledge that Macnald and Wigham advised Wilson on courses to visit before his trip to Great Britain.
We acknowledge that Wilson was inspired by the great holes of Great Britain in laying out Merion East.
We also acknowledge that Macdonald made at least one site visit and gave his blessing to the ongoing work.
Finally, we acknowledge that credit and acknowledgement for specific aspects and features of the course cannot be given to any individual, based on the currently available information.
I hope this helps you form your response. If you wish to continue the semantic argument around acknowledgement, perhaps you could also focus in on distinguishing the individual contributions of Whigham vs Macdonald - the two acknowledged adisers. The two seem to be treated as one in many of the posts. Were M&W really a tag team of one mind? Or did they have specific areas of expertise upon which they advised Wilson et al. Proper acknowlegement of Macdonald implies proper acknowledgement of Whigham. Or is this also lost in the shadows of history.
-
Philip Young,
Does it seem that David Moriarty could have just answered your question in the same amount of time and space that he took to tell you he will answer it but not until later? I guess we can expect another 1000 word non-answer as he has done about 50 times already on this thread.
David,
If you take a look back at the post I referrenced as "the biggest load of crap..." you'll see that it is in fact a worthless post in a thread with all too many of them. You seem to be treading water here looking for someone to throw a piece of information on the table that might bail you out. Unfortunately, it seems you'll be treading for a while. There may well be more information on this subject, and this thread of yours may well deserve some of the credit as motivation for its discovery, but repeating the same thoughts over and over in new packaging is only doing one thing...hurting your desired reputation as a student and researcher of golf architecture. I am not suggesting you stop, and I am not telling you I am done with this thread. I am telling you that your position has become substantially weaker as this thread has evolved and it might be prudent to take the time and read some of the evidence on the table.
You have submitted M&W worked as advisors - nobody disagrees.
Tom or Wayne or Mike or Philip or somebody else have submitted that Wilson was the lead architect and deserves credit for Merion East in its original design and its evolution up to his death - MacWood disagrees
To my knowledge Wayne has never claimed Wilson deserves credit for the original design.
You would like M&W properly acknowledged for their contributions - nobody disagrees - you have not been able to specify that acknowledgement so how could it possibly be given?
-
Tom Paul,
Are you stealing my lines again? ;D
Bryan,
I think your statement is much too heavy on citing the specific contributions of Macdonald and much too light on citing those of Wilson. Shivas already proved that Macdonald had nothing to do with the layout of Merion based on his superior knowledge of sentence diagramming. 8)
In the words of Mad Matt Ward, it was clearly Wilson who did the heavy lifting at Merion, pardner.
I think you've been listening to Moriarty too much! You don't happen to be a lawyer, do you? ;)
-
Tom MacWood,
I have corrected that part of my post.
Have your curiosities with regard to the evolution of Merion East been answered? Rather, have you come to terms with the reality that in the end it matters very little which specific member of a committee contributed each item to the finished product that was Merion East? Does it make sense that these men organized themselves to best accomplish the task of building a golf course when none brought prior course building experience to the table? Does it make sense that this organization process established Hugh Wilson as the Chairman of the committee and because of his aptitude for the task he made the decisions as to what happened?
Frankly, if you cannot accept those points at their face value I would really question what your motives are in this discussion.
-
Tom,
Just think how many posts would be here if that Morrison guy didn't delete all of his! We'd even have pictures of his son standing across the street!! ;D
And speaking of "flask architecture". If you read American Golfer from June 1911, you'd have already known that this term was coined way back by CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham. I know they were advising you back then, Tom. They probably came up with Maintenance Meld, too. ;)
-
If you are thinking NGLA, also remember to thank H. J. Whigham and Devereux Emmet for aiding CBM in the original purchase of the land and in the laying out of the course.
But for Merion, it seems to be clear to many at GCA that Hugh Wilson is the main person to thank. On the other hand, flask posting would probably result in only Wilson receiving credit. ;)
So, seriously, have there been any news articles from Philadelphia newspapers or found in USGA SEGL magazine records in the last week or so establishing anything other than CBM helping Wilson before Wilson's overseas trip ?
Is there anything found of CBM's assistance to Wilson on Merion after Wilson's overseas trip ?
Are there any articles placing CBM onsite at Merion at anytime ? Any articles about CBM's visits to play golf, attend club dinners, tournaments, visits to Merion for U.S. Amateur, etc. ?
-
Was CBM ever at Merion ?
-
If you are thinking NGLA, also remember to thank H. J. Whigham and Devereux Emmet for aiding CBM in the original purchase of the land and in the laying out of the course.
But for Merion, it seems to be clear to many at GCA that Hugh Wilson is the main person to thank. On the other hand, flask posting would probably result in only Wilson receiving credit. ;)
So, seriously, have there been any news articles from Philadelphia newspapers or found in USGA SEGL magazine records in the last week or so establishing anything other than CBM helping Wilson before Wilson's overseas trip ?
Is there anything found of CBM's assistance to Wilson on Merion after Wilson's overseas trip ?
Are there any articles placing CBM onsite at Merion at anytime ? Any articles about CBM's visits to play golf, attend club dinners, tournaments, visits to Merion for U.S. Amateur, etc. ?
John,
You need to go back and start reading at Page 1. ;)
Seriously, there is really no new news here in the past week, or past month for that matter. We're still waiting. ;D
-
If you are thinking NGLA, also remember to thank H. J. Whigham and Devereux Emmet for aiding CBM in the original purchase of the land and in the laying out of the course.
John,
Are you actually suggesting that Devie and Whigham were the men behind Macdonald the whole time??!! :o :o :o
-
MC,
Hammered. Can't touch that.
Well, at least some have thanked Whigham and Dev with helping as I stated. But, I mentioned that as a followup to TEPaul's post about NGLA.
In any case, I am waiting on some more Merion 'information'.
The last post by TEP was informative and interesting and so I hope we get a few more things like that before this thread is gone. Some of the other posts have been informative as well.
-
David Moriarty,
The President of Merion does not enjoy the arms length objectivity and the detached view that Behr and AWT enjoyed.
It was clearly beneficial for "Merion" to be "associated" with CBM in any form, as a member, advisor, designer or friend of the project or project managers.
If he wasn't "involved" in the routing, design and construction of Merion, it was in Merion's best interest to gain some form of association with CBM.
Hence, alleging that CBM "advised" or was "involved" would benefit Merion.
But, Behr and AWT gained NO benefit by citing Wilson's involvement.
What you and Tom MacWood seem to disregard is the total absence of any material evidence supporting CBM's involvement. For 25 years, not one description of the work CBM is alleged to have performed was eveer noted.
If he was involved, why wouldn't HE describe his specific involvement in creating one of America's great courses in his book, "Scotland's Gift", written in 1928 ?
Why wouldn't he have described his specific contributions in any of the many publications available to him for over a 25 year period ?
And, why didn't anyone else describe his contributions ?
The answer is probably because he offered no specific advise.
That he wasn't involved in the routing, design and construction of the golf course.
I'm sure that there are a number of people who could say that they advised or were involved with a golf course project, yet, they didn't have any specific involvement in the routing, design and construction of the golf course. Sebonack comes to mind.
-
John
I'll save you several hours of reading and a major headache. The condensed version of who designed the original East course: the design committee, headed by Wilson, advised by Macdonald & Whigham, and built by Pickering.
-
Phillip and Bryan,
Bryan's summary covers quite a bit of it, but unfortunately he might want to speak for himself instead of everyone, since I don’t think too many agree with everything he has said, at least not consistenly. I could have sworn there was even a response that suggested you put too heavy a weight on the work as a collaboration and too little emphasis on “facts” emphasizing Wilson’s role. But posts come and go so fast on this thread that I am starting to think I am reading voices.
Anyway, Bryan is acknowledging way more than his brethren. For example . . .
-- Wayne Morrison doesn’t believe that there is any information about CBM’s involvement beyond Wilson’s initial trip to NGLA, and that we cannot conclude he was involved past this point without specific information detailing that involvement. Of course Wayne also knows that even if CBM was specifically involved there would still be no specific information, so I am sure he isn’t holding his breath.
-- TEPaul thinks that about all the credit must go to the people who were in Philadelphia who were there throughout.
-- Mike Cirba claims he acknowledges CBM was an advisor, yet in the very same posts he minimizes and downplays the advisor reference, even describing CBM and Whigham’s role “as quite negligible and consultative only in a very broad, limited sense.” He also concludes that Merion only referred to CBM (and apparently Whigham) as an advisor out of gratitude for his help before the trip, and that at most CBM was merely available if the committee had a problem. Who knows where he came up with all that, but I surely haven’t seen any information which at all supports his conclusions.
The point is that whatever they may occasionally say, very few actually agree that MacDonald played any sort of meaningful role after the Wilson’s pre-trip visit to NGLA. It is easy to see just by glancing through the posts and looking at the flippant comments even regarding the possibility of CBM having a role. The reason I explain this is that my only agenda has been to try and weed out some of the fallacious logic, false assumptions, and unsupported speculation which are being used to strip CBM of whatever acknowledgement he had received in the past. To list the problems with the analysis would probably take half the length of this thread, but the main fallacy has been the ongoing claim that we know MacDonald was not involved, because if he had been there would be a record of his specific involvement. Unfortunately, those behind this methodology are well aware that even if CBM had been specifically involved, no such specific evidence would exist.
So, as I have said numerous times, I have absolutely no idea what CBM specifically did at Merion and I don’t think anyone else does either, because the information is unavailable. As TEPaul said, the record of who did what is likely lost forever. Nonetheless there exists some information indicating that CBM and Whigham played an important role in the layout of the course.
I am not writing a book and I don’t keep all of the information at my fingertips, but here is some of the information I find important. I will start before Wilson’s trip because any acknowledgement of MacDonald must set the stage by explaining a bit about the importance of MacDonald to golf design in America in general, and MacDonald’s importance to Wilson in particular.
1. MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses. Plus, he was an activist in spreading these principles throughout America. In his agromony reports (AR), Wilson understood and emphasized the important role that CBM and NGLA have played in American golf design. He even encourages everyone building or changing a course to study at NGLA as much as much as possible and to incorporate the principles underlying NGLA’s holes into their own courses. If Wilson saw fit to credit CBM and NGLA as having this kind of blanket impact on design in America, then we ought to as well.
2. CMB taught about the principles underlying a great golf holes. He not only demonstrated those principles present in the holes at NGLA, CBM also used sketches to explain the principles of the great holes overseas. This apparently had a profound impact on Wilson as 5 or 6 years later he noted that he had learned more in one night about golf than he had previously learned in his lifetime of golf. If it is that important to Wilson, then we ought to acknowledge it as well.
3. CBM helped Wilson determine what Wilson should see on his trip overseas and Wilson apparently took his advice. Ironically, despite CBM’s involvement in the planning of Wilson’s 6, 7, or 8 month trip (the trip length has grown with the thread,) many have erroneously concluded that Wilson’s European vacation somehow breaks the causation chain between CBM’s teaching and the design of Merion. They’ve even gone so far as to list out 8 months to imply that Wilson must have learned a lot of new and unique stuff, so we can forget about the CBM teachings as an influence.
This again ignores Wilson’s own words. In Agronomy Reports Wilson notes that his trip to Europe served to confirm what he had learned from CBM at NGLA And he did not encourage prospective course builders to go to Europe to study, but he sent them to NGLA, and encouraged them to incorporate the principles underlying the holes at NGLA (and Pine Valley) into their own courses.
So there is no way to separate what Wilson learned from CBM, on the one hand, and what Wilson learned on his trip, on the other hand. CBM blazed the trail for this approach to learning about architecture. CBM also taught Wilson a great amount about golf course design and even introduced Wilson to the golf holes he would be seeing. Wilson himself acknowledged CBM’s important role even in what Wilson learned on the trip. If Wilson thought it important enough to acknowledge CBM about this, then we ought to as well.
4. These influences alone undoubtedly had a tremendous, if indirect, impact on the early Merion. Wilson speaks of MacDonald as if he was a mentor, and speaks of NGLA as if it was a holy site worthy of pilgramage. So while it is impossible to actually point to any one single feature on the course which might have come from MacDonald, to deny his general influence defies common sense. Wilson acknowledges his influence, so we should as well.
-
Now, on to the actual creation of the early Merion course on Ardmore Avenue:
5. Based on all the available information, we have no choice but to conclude that MacDonald and Whigham advised the committee in the laying out of the course, and that their advice was significant and beneficial to the committee.
As far as I know, there are at least three contemporaneous accounts of MacDonald and Whigham being involved in the creation of Merion East; one concerned CBM’s inspection of the site, one account was written during the design of the course, and one account was written after the course was opened but while work was still apparently being done.
-- In the December 1910 American Golfer, Tillinghast reported that CMB and Whigham had inspected Merion (apparently at the invitation of committee member R.E. Griscom) and “pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game today.”
-- In the May 1911 American Golfer, Tillinghast reports that the new course at Merion is “nearing completion in the planning.” He also noted that CBM and Whigham had visited the site; that “CBM and Whigham have been aiding the committee;” that CBM and Whigham were greatly pleased over the prospects; and that CBM said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country.
-- In the January 1913 issue of Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis reviewed the new Merion, and noted that CBM had been “of great assistance in an advisory way/” and that CBM had told Travis that Merion “would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen.”
These references have consistently been minimized as too vague, or as lip-service, or as footnotes or snippets. Or they have just been selectively edited, Mike Cirba does when describing the these references: ” You'll notice [CBM] didn't say anything about [CBM’s] own role, or seven of the holes he designed, or advised on, or anything else but giving credit and blessing to a project that he helped Wilson initiate. While CBM may not have, Travis and Tillinghast did. They said he was there, that he “aided the committee” and that he was of great assistance.
But mainly these quotes have been dismissed or discounted based on the faulty assumption that there would be more than this had CBM and Whigham really been “of great assistance” or had they really been “aiding the committee.” We now all know that this argument is completely fallacious. No record of the specific details exists one way or another, beside these accounts. So we cannot discount CBM’s involvement based on the absence of a record—we’d have no record whether or not he was significantly involved. Likewise, no one has offered any evidence to support the assumptions underlying the many variations on this theme, like the Why isn’t listed on CBM’s Resume? theory.
I see no reason why these three accounts should be dismissed so lightly. The authors of the articles knew what was going on at Merion. And they provided us with what may be the only progress reports from the course’s creation. Throw them out and we are left with a completely empty contemporaneous record. But I guess to some an empty record is preferable to one that acknowledges CBM’s involvement.
A few more things of note about these three references:
For those who argue that CBM would have tooted his own horn had he been involved should look at the source of these three reports. It is MacDonald in at least two and possibly in all three of the articles. In other words he was tooting his own horn.
For those who argue Wilson deserves the lion’s share of the credit, note that at this point Tillinghast and Travis have not even mentioned Wilson at all Rather, they just mention the committee. In fact the first reference to Wilson that I have seen was from 1913 and was in reference to his role as chair of the construction committee of the West Course.
The next reference occurs after the 2nd course was built.
-- In 1914 Robert Lesley wrote an article titled “The Merion Courses” which acknowledged CBM and Whigham as advisors to the committee in laying out the course. Leslie wasn’t a clueless journalist, but rather a prominent figure in American golf and, I think, the president of Merion during this the time. His six page article is no snippet, footnote, or throw-away, but was rather a careful and concise history and description of the creation of the two new Merion courses. In the article, Lesley covers three topics, (devoting roughly equal space to each) which can roughly be thought of as the history and creation of these courses, the differences between these courses, and notable holes on each courses (including the 7th (now the 3rd) which he calls the Redan, and the 10th which he compares to Prestwick’s Alps.)
In the first part of the article, Lesley describes what he calls “the history that lead to this remarkable development in American golf.” In other words, the history of the Merion courses. Lesley concisely covers a lot of ground, including:
The prior sad state of golf in America, especially Philadelphia;
Merion’s practical need for a new course;
The two competing relocation plans (a course overlooking the Schuylkill Valley vs. a convenient location easily reachable by car and train) and the ultimate choice of the current site;
The location of the clubhouse in relation to the railway station;
The history and lineage of the clubhouse.
The laying out of the first golf course.
The immediate overcrowding of the new course.
The details of the purchase of the land for the new course.
The creation of the new course.
A general thanks to all involved in the creation of the courses.
Like the rest of the information covered in the article, the description of the laying out of the course is brief, but to the point:
”The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee [names omitted] who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.” (my bolds)
That is it. The entire description of laying out the course. No further description of the nature of CBM’s involvement was provided.
But the second course gets even less description—Lesley does not even mention by names those responsible for the second course. Indeed, while Lesley provides a general thanks to all involved in both courses, the only people he singles out by name were the committee members (with Hugh Wilson identified as the chair) and MacDonald and Whigham.
Lesley’s article not only confirms that that CBM and Whigman advised on the laying out of the initial Merion, it also implies that Lesley thought their involvement significant enough to list them along with the committee.
-- Additionally, Mr. Stamm has posted that in Merion’s history, Tolhurt noted that Whigham and MacDonald continued to advise after the trip and that the committee had the benefit of their experience.
There may be more but that is what comes to mind now, with one important clarification: This evidence has always been known and out there. I bring nothing new at all. The question for me has always been: How do we treat this evidence. I think we ought not to second guess those who were there, unless we have a compelling factual reason for doubting them. This means no more unsupported supposition or post hoc pathology. No more illogical conclusions drawn from unavailable evidence. No more flippant dismissals. No more continued attempts to discredit the information based on what we’d like to have happened.
And we need to drop some of the illogical methodologies that have plagued this thread from the beginning.
So that is about it. I may have forgotten a few references and I think that Tom MacWood has a few that I did not mention, but he can add them if he wants. Taken together, this information makes up a substantial part of all we know about the initial creation of Merion. To discredit it without factual support for so doing is unreasonable and insulting to Merion.
-
Thanks, David. Man, that must have taken some time! Nice, job, seriously. ;D
I do believe that if you had been that very clear in your initial post that you were disagreeing with Wayne and Tom's interpretation of Macdonald's role at Merion perhaps we could have cut to the chase quicker, but that's neither here nor there at this juncture. Still, it does help to distill the issues and separate fact from speculation.
And, despite saying that I used selected portions of quotes out of context (I have no idea what you might be referring to there), you've summed up my beliefs pretty accurately.
Please see my responses below.
Phillip and Bryan,
So, as I have said numerous times, I have absolutely no idea what CBM specifically did at Merion and I don’t think anyone else does either, because the information is unavailable. As TEPaul said, the record of who did what is likely lost forever. Nonetheless there exists some information indicating that CBM and Whigham played an important role in the layout of the course.
1. MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses. Plus, he was an activist in spreading these principles throughout America. In his agromony reports (AR), Wilson understood and emphasized the important role that CBM and NGLA have played in American golf design. He even encourages everyone building or changing a course to study at NGLA as much as much as possible and to incorporate the principles underlying NGLA’s holes into their own courses. If Wilson saw fit to credit CBM and NGLA as having this kind of blanket impact on design in America, then we ought to as well.
Absolutely, and the historical record clearly reflects those facts.
2. CMB taught about the principles underlying a great golf holes. He not only demonstrated those principles present in the holes at NGLA, CBM also used sketches to explain the principles of the great holes overseas. This apparently had a profound impact on Wilson as 5 or 6 years later he noted that he had learned more in one night about golf than he had previously learned in his lifetime of golf. If it is that important to Wilson, then we ought to acknowledge it as well.
Again, all true and accurately reported historically
3. CBM helped Wilson determine what Wilson should see on his trip overseas and Wilson apparently took his advice. Ironically, despite CBM’s involvement in the planning of Wilson’s 6, 7, or 8 month trip (the trip length has grown with the thread,) many have erroneously concluded that Wilson’s European vacation somehow breaks the causation chain between CBM’s teaching and the design of Merion. They’ve even gone so far as to list out 8 months to imply that Wilson must have learned a lot of new and unique stuff, so we can forget about the CBM teachings as an influence.
CBM certainly helped Wilson to determine what he should see on his trip overseas, and yes, I'm sure seeing those holes in person confirmed what CBM had conveyed.
But, this is also where you start to lose me. Let's split the difference and call it seven months. There is no way that one can study great courses all over GB for seven months and not see something, or gain a slightly different impression, or understand some of the nuances better than you would get even if you had spent two days with God Almighty Himself teaching you about architecture. Macdonald set the context and parameters for WIlson's education; the trip itself surely filled in the details, and probably even the discrepancies.
For instance, one of the distinct differences between what Macdonald did at NGLA and what Wilson was asked to do at Merion was the difference between links and inland golf. There were very few great inland courses in the world at the time but some were being built in the Heathlands. But, even that sandy soil was quite different than the clay-based Merion. I'm sure Macdonald was well aware of that difference and probably needed to learn a lot about how exactly he could bring some of those features he saw to an inland course on far different soil than most of the courses he saw.
It is simply outrageous to suggest that he learned as much in 2 days as in the next 7 months of detailed study, even if Wilson continually gave Macdonald his well-deserved props.
This again ignores Wilson’s own words. In Agronomy Reports Wilson notes that his trip to Europe served to confirm what he had learned from CBM at NGLA And he did not encourage prospective course builders to go to Europe to study, but he sent them to NGLA, and encouraged them to incorporate the principles underlying the holes at NGLA (and Pine Valley) into their own courses.
Yes, I'm sure his 7 month trip did confirm what he learned from CBM over those two days, but I'm also sure that he learned quite a bit more. How could he not have, David? He'd have to be an idiot! ::)
And of course he encouraged course builders to go to NGLA or Pine Valley as those courses were obviously great and ACCESSIBLE. Not many clubs could afford to send someone like WIlson abroad for 7 months as Merion was able to with Wilson, and not many had the luxury of having an existing course in play while planning a completely new one. It's called maximizing your options.
So there is no way to separate what Wilson learned from CBM, on the one hand, and what Wilson learned on his trip, on the other hand. CBM blazed the trail for this approach to learning about architecture. CBM also taught Wilson a great amount about golf course design and even introduced Wilson to the golf holes he would be seeing. Wilson himself acknowledged CBM’s important role even in what Wilson learned on the trip. If Wilson thought it important enough to acknowledge CBM about this, then we ought to as well.
No one is separating what Wilson learned from Macdonald from his trip overseas. Macdonald set the stage, imparted a great deal of learned wisdom, and the 7 month journey then added to Wilson's knowledge, and certainly considerably so.
Are you saying that Wilson didn't need to go to Great Britain? That he would have learned just as much in those two days with Macdonald than he learned over 7 months studying courses, David??
That is REALLY the foundation of this argument, isn't it? I think you should come right out and say that if that is what you believe but it's certainly what is implied in your statements suggesting that we're trying to "separate the trip from what he learned from Macdonald".
What I'm saying, and what I think Tom and Wayne are also saying is that he learned a LOT on that trip. He had to...how could he not?
4. These influences alone undoubtedly had a tremendous, if indirect, impact on the early Merion. Wilson speaks of MacDonald as if he was a mentor, and speaks of NGLA as if it was a holy site worthy of pilgramage. So while it is impossible to actually point to any one single feature on the course which might have come from MacDonald, to deny his general influence defies common sense. Wilson acknowledges his influence, so we should as well.
David, this is probably a good juncture to ask the simple obvious question here. If the Macdonald influence was so great on WIlson at this time, and then transferred to the early Merion by Wilson, why wasn't the Merion course similar to NGLA with holes all modelled after the great ones overseas?
Why did Wilson choose to break with the Macdonald mold? Why did he break out a new, individual style that differs from the template style Macdonald, and then Raynor and Banks continued for the next 20 years?
There is absolutely no question that CB taught WIlson a great deal, and no question that he had a lot of influence in Wilson's education and even in his ideas of what good architecture entailed. That's a given, conceded, and well documented historically.
What is intriguing to me is that while Macdonald's influence on Wilson was clearly "tremendous" as you say, Wilson also clearly went his own way in the design of Merion.
That to me suggests that he was a pretty precocious student, wouldn't you agree? ;)
-
We really don't have enough information to determine who did what on the original course. We've got huge group of people involved: Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Macdonald, Whigham and Pickering. There is no mention of who is responsbile for the routing. There is no mention of who came up with hole concepts. And we know the course was subsequently remodeled...in fact given a dramatic facelift....and we know who is responsible for those changes...changes which transformed the course into the historically recongized design...the course - more or less - we see today.
To make matters worse you have some conflicting information. That information I believe should be analyzed based upon when it was said, due to the fact that the course really had two different architectural states: the old (more linear, containing more famous overseas allusions); the new (more naturalistic, more flowing lines, five completely new holes, the elimination of many of those famous allusions...this transformation is documented as the work of Wilson or Wilson & Flynn). We are trying to determine who did what on the old, so the closer you get to 1912 the better IMO.
Just about ever reference between 1910 and 1916 has the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W (Lesley, Tilly, Travis, Evans...Wilson's own brief report in 1916 seems to support this as well). One exception is Behr's article (1915) on greencommittees and the best attributes for green chairmen. In the article there is no mention of who designed Merion, he does state Wilson has all the attributes of a good greenchairman (along with Macdonald & Leeds). Some would say this proves he designed the course...I think that is very generous interpretation.
The other conflicting report is by Alex Findlay in 1912. "Fred Pickering made Wollaaston, Woodland and Belmont, Mass; Lake Placid, NY and Atlanta, Ga., and other courses, too numerous to mention, but this his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements. He has had much his of his own way in the planting of the right seed, and in the general make-up of the course, and to him we owe thans for on the prettiest courses in America."
Once you get into the 20s and 30s Wilson's name become more prominent....for good reason IMO. As an example Tilly who reported on the committee and M&W work in 1910-1912 says in 1934 Merion is a monument to the late Hugh Wilson. Other reports at this time are similar, the one exception is Whigham in 1939, who lists the course among Macdonald's other great designs. What gets my attention with his comments, he was not a bistander, observer or reporter, he was actively involved in the project
Hopefully more information will be uncovered in the future and we will be able to substitute the speculation and conjecture with some facts.
-
A couple timeline-related questions I have...when was CBM on site to confirm the "suitability of the land"? When was he on-site to "approve" of the near complete designs? And lastly, when was the routing problem solved which was described earlier on this thread about a committeeman solving the routing problem by swapping land which is now across Golf House road, as I recall?
Clarity on these questions might lend weight to CBM's potential involvement in the routing of the golf course...
-
One of the continued points that has been stressed throughout this thread is the perceived importance of CBM as an architect at the time that merion was being conceived in 1910-11.
For example, David wrote, "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses."
I don't agree with that statement nor do I accept the atated stature that a number have represented CBM as having at that time.
In May, 1939, at the announcement of CBM's death, Tillinghast wrote:
"In 1907 Macdonald became interested in the planning and building of golf courses..."
Question then, what had CBM designed between then and 1910 that would would have some on GCA calling him the greatest alive at that time?
Tilly went on, "... although he was a broker by profession, and after securing models of famous holes on British courses of that time, he more or less followed these designs in the building of the National... Some years later he designed the beautiful course, the Mid-Ocean, at bermuda. Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of feplicas of British golf holes.
"I have known Charley Macdonald [this is the only time I have ever seen him called "Charley"] since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charley, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about it and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory..."
What seems readily apparent to me is that in 1910, CBM was JUST COMING into his own and was NOT the internationally respected designer that he would later become.
As far David's claim that "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses..." If he was designing new courses based upon models of Bristish courses many years old, how can this possibly be considere "modern golf design?"
Tilly, among the "few others" that David refers to, brought in the era of modern American golf course design. They sculpted the courses that the land offered rather than create copies of holes artificial in their making.
With all of that, I wonder if there were many back-room discussions of CBM's specific recommendations with Tilly and possibly others being critical? If so, this might also offer some explanation as to CBM's involvement being lessened or blunted and not overly-advertised as such.
Just some thoughts...
-
The M&W visit #2 was reported in May 1911...which would mean it took place in March or April. I don't know when the extra land was purchased...it would be relatively easy to find out.
-
We really don't have enough information to determine who did what on the original course. We've got huge group of people involved: Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Macdonald, Whigham and Pickering. There is no mention of who is responsbile for the routing. There is no mention of who came up with hole concepts. And we know the course was subsequently remodeled...in fact given a dramatic facelift....and we know who is responsible for those changes...changes which transformed the course into the historically recongized design...the course - more or less - we see today.
Tom, has anyone, anywhere ever suggested that Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, or Toulmin laid out any course anywhere, ever? That's smoke and mirrors, Tom.
Also, I think your terminology of "facelift" if very misleading. Yes, a number of holes that crossed Ardmore Ave changed, and some very few unnatural features were taken out, but 70% of the routing is the same today, and probably 60% of the entire course.
You try to make it sound that the original course looked like NGLA Part Deux, and then Wilson and Flynn naturalized it. That's not true in the least.
To make matters worse you have some conflicting information, which I believe you need to analyze based upon when it was said, due to the fact that the course really had two different architectural states: the old (more linear, containing more famous overseas allusions); the new (more naturalistic, more flowing lines, five completely new holes, the elimination of many of those famous allusions...this transformation is documented as the work of Wilson or Wilson & Flynn). We are trying to determine who did what on the old, so the closer you get to 1912 the better IMO.
Again, this idea that the original course looked like Macdonald is preposterous, as was the original post on this thread that suggested that the old 10th hole was an Alps like #3 at NGLA. It's silly speculation trying to maximize the role of Macdonald when the course never looked ANYTHING like what Macdonald ever built.
Just about ever reference between 1910 and 1916 has the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W (Lesley, Tilly, Travis, Evans...Wilson's own brief report in 1916 seems to support this as well). One exception is Behr's article (1915) on greencommittees and the best attributes for green chairmen. In the article there is no mention of who designed Merion, he does state Wilson has all the attributes of a good greenchairman (along with Macdonald & Leeds). Some would say this proves he designed the course...I think that is very generous interpretation.
Of course they reported it was by committee because there was a committee created within Merion charged with building a new golf course, and yes, Macdonald and Whigham did consult.
However, you once again OMIT the CRUCIAL point of Behr's quote when you neglect to tell us that Behr stated that Macdonald, Leeds, and Wilson were all ideally suited for the role because they studied what it took to "construct" a course like no one before them." In 1914 parlance, we're talking design, feature creation, lay out, grow in. THAT is what was meant by Behr, and you seemingly omit it because it doesn't fit in with your theory.
The other conflicting report is by Alex Findlay in 1912. "Fred Pickering made Wollaaston, Woodland and Belmont, Mass; Lake Placid, NY and Atlanta, Ga., and other courses, too numerous to mention, but this his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements. He has had much his of his own way in the planting of the right seed, and in the general make-up of the course, and to him we owe thans for on the prettiest courses in America."
You are almost certainly correct that Pickering had more to do with the initial course than anyone but Wilson, including Macdonald and Whigham. Pickering had experience building courses prior, he was onsite full time, he evidently had WIlson's confidence in his abilities (if not his drinking) and I would not be surprised if more is uncovered here that points to his involvement in the layout.
Once you get into the 20s and 30s Wilson's name become more prominent....for good reason IMO. As an example Tilly who reported on the committee and M&W work in 1910-1912 says in 1934 Merion is a monument to the late Hugh Wilson. Other reports at this time are similar, the one exception is Whigham in 1939, who lists the course among Macdonald's other great designs. What gets my attention with his comments, he was not a bistander, observer or reporter, he was actively involved in the project
Tillinghast was onsite often during the early years and beyond and he knew Macdonald, Whigham, and all the others. They were also all still alive at the time he wrote that Wilson was the designer of Merion.
In the historical context that's been outlined, and had been reported over and over at the time he said it, my only logical conclusion is that Whigham was smoking crack in 1939. ;)
Hopefully more information will be uncovered in the future and we will be able to substitute the speculation and conjecture with some facts.
-
One of the continued points that has been stressed throughout this thread is the perceived importance of CBM as an architect at the time that merion was being conceived in 1910-11.
For example, David wrote, "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses."
I don't agree with that statement nor do I accept the atated stature that a number have represented CBM as having at that time.
In May, 1939, at the announcement of CBM's death, Tillinghast wrote:
"In 1907 Macdonald became interested in the planning and building of golf courses..."
Question then, what had CBM designed between then and 1910 that would would have some on GCA calling him the greatest alive at that time?
Tilly went on, "... although he was a broker by profession, and after securing models of famous holes on British courses of that time, he more or less followed these designs in the building of the National... Some years later he designed the beautiful course, the Mid-Ocean, at bermuda. Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of feplicas of British golf holes.
"I have known Charley Macdonald [this is the only time I have ever seen him called "Charley"] since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charley, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about it and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory..."
What seems readily apparent to me is that in 1910, CBM was JUST COMING into his own and was NOT the internationally respected designer that he would later become.
As far David's claim that "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses..." If he was designing new courses based upon models of Bristish courses many years old, how can this possibly be considere "modern golf design?"
Tilly, among the "few others" that David refers to, brought in the era of modern American golf course design. They sculpted the courses that the land offered rather than create copies of holes artificial in their making.
With all of that, I wonder if there were many back-room discussions of CBM's specific recommendations with Tilly and possibly others being critical? If so, this might also offer some explanation as to CBM's involvement being lessened or blunted and not overly-advertised as such.
Just some thoughts...
Phil
Macdonald became interested in building and planning golf courses in 1907?
I'm not sure how you can analyze the history of golden age golf architecture without having a solid understanding of Macdonald's career. I would think everyone interested in the subject (much less a historian) would have at least read Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's.
-
Sully:
The solution to the routing problem you alluded to dealt with essentially the second half of #15 and the first half of #16.
The solution to that problem was the brainstorm of Richard Francis, a member of the Merion committee who may've had engineering training. In Francis's own words he mentioned his idea of swapping land came to him one night near midnight and he got on his bicycle at that point and got approval for it. That essentially made the quality in both a design and routing sense of #15 and particularly the great Quarry hole fall into place immediately. I doubt any of them called Macdonald in the middle of the night for his advice and approval too. ;)
-
Tom Mac,
I am not saying that CBM began his design carerr in 1907, but that Tillinghast did.
My point is that as in all large enterprises, and the creation of Merion was a large enterprise, there are quite a number of hidden dynamics and politics involved.
Without judging as to the veracity of any of it, I am asking a question BASED upon what tilly wrote in 1939.
It is a simple question - is it possible that some, including Tilly, may have been advising their friends such as wilson, that the ideas and suggestions they were receiving from CBM should not be listened to and maybe that is the or a reason as to why his influence was either less than it should have been or not recognized for what it was worth?
And to answer your statement, "I'm not sure how you can analyze the history of golden age golf architecture without having a solid understanding of Macdonald's career." You are incorrect as I have a pretty good understanding of his career.
You then make a judgement, one that is QUITE INCORRECT that I haven't read "Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's..." when you state, "I would think everyone interested in the subject (much less a historian) would have at least read Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's."
I have.
-
"Phil
Macdonald became interested in building and planning golf courses in 1907?
I'm not sure how you can analyze the history of golden age golf architecture without having a solid understanding of Macdonald's career. I would think everyone interested in the subject (much less a historian) would have at least read Macdonald's book on the subject and Bahto & Gib's."
Tom MacWood:
You're right but forget about just George and Gib's book. The best source is Macdonald himself and his own book. Maybe Tillinghast thought Macdonald first became interested in building the consummate golf course over here in 1907 but the fact is Macdonald himself said he became interested in doing just that in 1901;
"Little did I dream I should live in New York and carry out this prophecy (NGLA). Coming to New York in 1900 this idea assumed tangible form in 1901."
Of course Macdonald did not write his book until the mid 1920s.
-
I went back and read David's post where he quotes CB Macdonald telling Travis and Tilly that Merion will be the greatest thing since sliced bread and I'm beginning to wonder if he didn't come in there sort of overstepping his bounds and then got booted, nicely of course.
That would certainly explain why neither Macdonald or Whigham every mentioned Merion again while both were alive, and why Merion and Wilson made a great deal about Macdonald's involvement prior to his trip to GB, but none after, and why guys like Tillinghast felt compelled to set the record straight in later years.
Perhaps, as Philip suggests, with local guys like Tillinghast whispering in his ear about the differences between more artificially constructed template holes versus his own ideas on natural, original holes Wilson was persuaded that Macdonald's value had reached the level of diminishing returns?
The funny thing is this would also explain why Behr called Wilson "dictatorial" as early as 1914. If he had listened to Macdonald up to a point, and then asserted his own role and independence, sending M&W packing so to speak, he certainly would have developed a very quick reputation as a firm, decisive leader who followed his own course! ;D
If Wilson had told Macdonald "thank you very much but don't let the wicker basket hit you in the ass on the way out", I'm sure he would have downplayed it considerably as a fellow gentleman, even going so far as to be sure he gave Macdonald consistent credit for his "advice", and specific help with strategic golf knowledge and for his golf trip abroad.
Further, however, it would certainly explain why Macdonald was not asked to come back for the West course in 1914, why he was never asked to advise again at Merion even though work continued on the course for at least the next dozen years, and why it quickly became asserted in the press that Wilson was the real guy who "laid out both courses at Merion".
It would also explain why Whigham may have tried to set the record straight (in his mind) on the occasion of Macdonald's death, when he stated out of the blue that Merion was a "Macdonald/Raynor" course.
-
We really don't have enough information to determine who did what on the original course. We've got huge group of people involved: Wilson, Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, Macdonald, Whigham and Pickering. There is no mention of who is responsbile for the routing. There is no mention of who came up with hole concepts. And we know the course was subsequently remodeled...in fact given a dramatic facelift....and we know who is responsible for those changes...changes which transformed the course into the historically recongized design...the course - more or less - we see today.
Tom, has anyone, anywhere ever suggested that Francis, Lloyd, Griscom, or Toulmin laid out any course anywhere, ever? That's smoke and mirrors, Tom.
I see....so the reports that these men were members of the golf course committee charged with buidling the golf course were wrong? Or are you saying you have a special intuition or sixth sense that allows you understand who did what on the committee. The fact is no one knows who laid out the golf course.
Also, I think your terminology of "facelift" if very misleading. Yes, a number of holes that crossed Ardmore Ave changed, and some very few unnatural features were taken out, but 70% of the routing is the same today, and probably 60% of the entire course.
Thats a major face lift in my book...especially when you consider the overall aesthetic transformation from more linear to more natural.
You try to make it sound that the original course looked like NGLA Part Deux, and then Wilson and Flynn naturalized it. That's not true in the least.
There is no doubt the course in 1912 was much more angular and the remodeled version was much more naturalistic.
To make matters worse you have some conflicting information, which I believe you need to analyze based upon when it was said, due to the fact that the course really had two different architectural states: the old (more linear, containing more famous overseas allusions); the new (more naturalistic, more flowing lines, five completely new holes, the elimination of many of those famous allusions...this transformation is documented as the work of Wilson or Wilson & Flynn). We are trying to determine who did what on the old, so the closer you get to 1912 the better IMO.
Again, this idea that the original course looked like Macdonald is preposterous, as was the original post on this thread that suggested that the old 10th hole was an Alps like #3 at NGLA. It's silly speculation trying to maximize the role of Macdonald when the course never looked ANYTHING like what Macdonald ever built.
Who said the course looked like Macdonald? It is a fact the course has much different look 1912...I would question the motives of anyone who denies that or tries to minimize that.
Just about ever reference between 1910 and 1916 has the committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W (Lesley, Tilly, Travis, Evans...Wilson's own brief report in 1916 seems to support this as well). One exception is Behr's article (1915) on greencommittees and the best attributes for green chairmen. In the article there is no mention of who designed Merion, he does state Wilson has all the attributes of a good greenchairman (along with Macdonald & Leeds). Some would say this proves he designed the course...I think that is very generous interpretation.
Of course they reported it was by committee because there was a committee created within Merion charged with building a new golf course, and yes, Macdonald and Whigham did consult.
However, you once again OMIT the CRUCIAL point of Behr's quote when you neglect to tell us that Behr stated that Macdonald, Leeds, and Wilson were all ideally suited for the role because they studied what it took to "construct" a course like no one before them." In 1914 parlance, we're talking design, feature creation, lay out, grow in. THAT is what was meant by Behr, and you seemingly omit it because it doesn't fit in with your theory.
I'm not minimizing that. I've said before Behr clearly believed a knowledge of golf architecture is an important attribute for a green chairman. Does that translate into Wilson designed the East course?
The other conflicting report is by Alex Findlay in 1912. "Fred Pickering made Wollaaston, Woodland and Belmont, Mass; Lake Placid, NY and Atlanta, Ga., and other courses, too numerous to mention, but this his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements. He has had much his of his own way in the planting of the right seed, and in the general make-up of the course, and to him we owe thans for on the prettiest courses in America."
You are almost certainly correct that Pickering had more to do with the initial course than anyone but Wilson, including Macdonald and Whigham. Pickering had experience building courses prior, he was onsite full time, he evidently had WIlson's confidence in his abilities (if not his drinking) and I would not be surprised if more is uncovered here that points to his involvement in the layout.
Interesting speculation...based on the Findlay article Pickering had more to do with course than anyone other than Wilson in 1912? This is an example of when legend (and speculation) trumps known fact. Clearly Pickering built the course but I'm not sure how you convert that into what Pickering or Wilson or M&W or the rest of the committee contributed specifically to the design.
If you are going to give this quote as proof Pickering had more to do with design of the course (especially in comparison to M&W), how do you rationlize Wilson's absense from the quote?
Once you get into the 20s and 30s Wilson's name become more prominent....for good reason IMO. As an example Tilly who reported on the committee and M&W work in 1910-1912 says in 1934 Merion is a monument to the late Hugh Wilson. Other reports at this time are similar, the one exception is Whigham in 1939, who lists the course among Macdonald's other great designs. What gets my attention with his comments, he was not a bistander, observer or reporter, he was actively involved in the project
Tillinghast was onsite often during the early years and beyond and he knew Macdonald, Whigham, and all the others. They were also all still alive at the time he wrote that Wilson was the designer of Merion.
In 1934 IMO Tilly was accurate whenn he said the course was Wilson's. Tilly was also accurate in 1910-1912 when he reported the committees work and the involvement of M&W. Old vs New.
In the historical context that's been outlined, and had been reported over and over at the time he said it, my only logical conclusion is that Whigham was smoking crack in 1939.
He may have been smoking opium...I don't think crack was around yet. Whatever he was smoking his comments should not be dismissed out of hand based on the fact he was one of the few who wrote about the project who was involved in the project (Wilson and Lesley being the other two.) ;)
Hopefully more information will be uncovered in the future and we will be able to substitute the speculation and conjecture with some facts.
This thread is plagued by conjecture, speculation, reading between lines, tortured parsing of words and an absense of important facts.
-
Phil:
If Tillinghast said in the 1930s that Macdonald first became interested in the planning and building of golf courses in 1907 then all that means is Tillinghast was not very familiar at the time he wrote that of the date and details of Macdonald becoming interested in the planning and building of golf courses. Macdonald said he began to think about NGLA in 1901 and we all know about Chicago G.C. before that. Maybe Tillie didn't, though, or maybe he forgot. ;)
-
Tom,
My point wasn't whether Tilly was correct, accurate or neither; we all know of CBM's work back in the late 1800's as well as his exploits as a golfer. In fact Tilly played against him often in the early years as well and obviously knew "Charley" quite well and fondly.
My point was that Tilly, and maybe others, didn't view CBM as many do today, and that their private views may have influenced how his "advice" was received by the committee. The social dynamics and politics of the situation then that has caused the suppositions thrown around on this bit of a discussion. That is all.
-
Could someone please call shivas so he might tell us again who 'we' and 'our' is. Let speculation continue reign supreme!
Macdonald did not write about his involvement with a number of projects: Women's National, Greenwich, East Lake, Shinnecock, East Islip not to mention he & Whigham's remodeling of Chicago a decade prior to Raynor's redesign.
-
Tom MacWood,
Some good points, as well, but unless you can prove to me that the Merion course changed dramatically between 1912 and 1916, I fail to see the angular, linear description you're applying to the old course.
The "facelift" as you call it took place because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue and the need for a new entranceway to the clubhouse. The only affected holes were 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and most of that was just building new tees and greens (after some property was bought on the other side of Cobbs Creek) so that the road crossings became unnecessary.
Tom Paul,
Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?
-
Could someone please call shivas so he might tell us again who 'we' and 'our' is. Let speculation continue reign supreme!
Tom...then I take it you aren't buying my Macdonald being told thanks, but no thanks in terms of further involvement?
I think it would certainly explain a lot, and given Macdonald's temperament, personality, boisterous style, and self-aggrandizing nature, I'm really not sure how well that would have mixed with the genteel Main Lineans.
It's certainly at least as reasonable a theory as calling the old 10th hole "the Alps". ;D
In fact, it explains SO much throughout those years and after that I'm about 70% sure I'm right with my idle speculation!
Macdonald did not write about his involvement with a number of projects: Women's National, Greenwich, East Lake, Shinnecock, East Islip not to mention he & Whigham's remodeling of Chicago a decade prior to Raynor's redesign.
Tom,
Did any of those courses host several major tournaments during the time that Charley thought it was his design? Perhaps East Lake? or had that been Rossified already?
It would be tough to ignore the 1916 Amateur and the 1930 Amateur, and the 1934 US Open, etc., if you thought you had designed it and were unfairly wiped from the record, don't you think?
-
The Merion history of 1976 said "Hugh Wilson wrote in 1916 about the problems laying out a golf course and stressed the advice recieved from Macdonald and Whigham." That they way I read Wilson's comments as well, which supports the general consensus (of the committee designing the course, advised by M&W) at the time.
-
Tom MacWood,
Some good points, as well, but unless you can prove to me that the Merion course changed dramatically between 1912 and 1916, I fail to see the angular, linear description you're applying to the old course.
Why between 1912 and 1916 and not the change between 1912 and 1925? The change in 9th hole between in 1912 and 1916 was dramatic.
The "facelift" as you call it took place because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue and the need for a new entranceway to the clubhouse. The only affected holes were 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and most of that was just building new tees and greens (after some property was bought on the other side of Cobbs Creek) so that the road crossings became unnecessary.
Tom Paul,
Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?
-
"Tom Paul,
Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?"
Mike:
No I would not agree with that. There were perhaps a couple of holes or features that were pretty different than the way the course turned out in the late teens and 1920s but I'm not aware of any massive difference in look.
I think we certainly know what the old #10 green looked like and that certainly was very different from the look of most of the rest of the design and we do know about those "Mid-Surrey" mounds that initially appeared around #9 green that were rather quickly removed in favor of the bunkering that is there now.
Other holes were changed, though, or parts of them were, as we know including the green on #1, the green on #2, the green on #8, the greens on #11, #12 and #13. There was some minor alteration done to #14 green much later and a slight addition to the back of the #15 green.
The changes to #10, 11, 12, 13 seem to have been done for routing reasons, or perhaps also agronomic reasons (according to Wilson), although that original #10 green was very different from most of the rest of the style of the course even back in the beginning.
We don't have photos of the original green on 8, 11, 12 though, or at least that I'm aware of, although we do have drawings of all of them. As for the old #13 green, basically it's still there. It's where the caddies hangout. ;)
Frankly, if I were you, Mike, I wouldn't even bother to discuss any of this with Tom MacWood. All you two seem to be into right now is just mincing words over trivialities. Frankly Moriarty seems to be much more on point today even though he's just repeating stuff that's been discussed endlessly for about 20 pages.
-
Tom MacWood,
Some good points, as well, but unless you can prove to me that the Merion course changed dramatically between 1912 and 1916, I fail to see the angular, linear description you're applying to the old course.
Why between 1912 and 1916 and not the change between 1912 and 1925? The change in 9th hole between in 1912 and 1916 was dramatic.
The "facelift" as you call it took place because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue and the need for a new entranceway to the clubhouse. The only affected holes were 1, 10, 11, 12, and 13, and most of that was just building new tees and greens (after some property was bought on the other side of Cobbs Creek) so that the road crossings became unnecessary.
Tom Paul,
Would you agree with Tom MacWood that there is "no doubt" that the original course was much more "angular/linear" (implied "manufactured looking" like Macdonald) than it looked by 1916?
Tom,
Because I've seen any number of pictures of the course in 1916 and am always struck by exactly how much it looks like today's course. I'm thinking holes like today's 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18 green.
The only linear feature I've ever noticed is the big berm behind #10, obviously to protect players from balls on the 1st hole.
-
Mike:
To that list you can basically add holes #2 (green moved farther back), 3, 5, 14, and 15
-
Mike
Certainly the course began loosing the angluar look before 1916....the change in the 9th green and 10th fairway bunkering from 1913 to 1916 as examples. But the Principle's Nose was still around in 1916 and the Redan still had a straight line grass face & bunker in 1916. Not to mention the 'Alps' in 1916 and the large fairway bunker nearest the tee on the old par-5 8th (4th).
-
Could anyone point me to any photo of any feature or hole from 1913 or before that does not look more linear?
-
This ultra opinionating combined with this endless 20 question routine from Tom MacWood on courses he's never laid eyes on definitely has to stop here and now!
Not when you're only nine posts away from four-digit immortality!
Make that eight!
-
I guess the answer to my question would be no.
I don't put much weight in the Holiday Inn Express style of reasearch and speculation:
very few facts + loads of conjecture + osmosis = documented history
I prefer confirmed facts, a good understanding of all the historic figures (who they were, where they were, what they did), a good understanding of the period (culturely, economically, socially, politically, etc) when trying to determine the architectural history of a golf course or golf course architect.
-
Dan:
When this thread hits 1,000 which of course it's gonna do and today, what do you think----does David Moriarty (who started it) deserve a medal or a punch in the puss?
Tom I --
Ask the Fruitcake Lady: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggMGHjfxEFs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggMGHjfxEFs)
-
I dont think we are going to have any trouble reaching 1000, even with Mr. Morrison's distracting retracted defamatory detractions.
Sorry guys, but I tried to thoroughly set out the way I see it, and I just dont have time to completely address every disagreement, especially since almost all the ground has been covered repeatedly. I will try to touch on the high points as time permits.
I am somewhat disappointed that we've fallen right back into a piecemeal discussion going in a million different directions, although I guess i am not surprised.
I don't see anyone minimizing or discounting those reports that Macdonald and Whigam visited Merion East. It's simply that they are not only vague, they are reports that are most minimal.
1. TEPaul, with all due respect you minimize the reports even in these two sentences. They weren't just reports that M&W visited, they are reports that they visited, pronounced the site fit, aided the committee, and were of great assistance to the committee. You also dismiss them as vague and minimal even though these may well very be the only contemporaneous accounts we have.
2. You also speculate that Wilson would have credited MacDonald had CBM done anything specific in the design. I understand your reasoning, but think you may be reading far too much into what you see as an omission. After all, ou have pointed out in the past that this report does not go into a description of the initial design of Merion at all, so I think it unreasonable to expect Wilson to have covered CBM's role in the design. Don't you even have an example of him editing out something because it was veering too far away from the topic?
Plus, by attaching special significance to the absence of a Wilson statement, you ignore the affirmative statements of Tillinghast, Travis, and Lesley.
As this thread demonstrates, it always precarious to place special significance on the absence of information. For example, Wilson apparently doesn't cover anything about what he specifically learned in Europe either, but I am sure you would be uncomfortable if I cited this omission to support a conclusion that Wilson learned nothing in Europe.
As for the significance you place on the use of the "our" in this 1915 report, I think you are stretching more than a bit. First, I am not sure he is referring to. Second, it was the committee's problem no matter who helped with the design.
_____
As far as I can tell, these two points (the "our problem" point, and the 'Wilson didnt specifically mention it' point) are the only evidence you have that CBM was NOT significantly involved in the design.
I don't think these two points even come close to invalidating the information I posted above.
-
Shameless attempt to get the 1000th post. ;)
What is that Sherlock Holmesian thing about once you exhaust all of the possibilities, what you're left with no matter how preposterous, is the truth.
It seems to me that either;
A) The Merion Committee terminated its relationship with Macdonald pretty early on.
or
B) Macdonald got pissed at the soup or something and stormed off the grounds.
;D
-
Darnit...I missed.
-
or did I? ;D
-
my fingers hurt just thinking of all the typing you guys have done on this thread!
-
I dont think we are going to have any trouble reaching 1000, even with Mr. Morrison's distracting retracted defamatory detractions.
::) :P ;D
Damnit, David...I'm one freaking sentence into your reply and already I have no idea what you're talking about!
-
As far as I can tell, these two points (the "our problem" point, and the 'Wilson didnt specifically mention it' point) are the only evidence you have that CBM was NOT significantly involved in the design.
I don't think these two points even come close to invalidating the information I posted above.
David,
You forgot about Behr's calling Wilson the dictator of Merion's "construction" in 1914, you forgot about local newspaper accounts in 1918 that claim Wilson laid out both courses at Merion, you forgot about Tillinghast making very, very crystalline in 1934, a time when both Macdonald & Whigham were still quite alive (and friends of Tillinghast's) that Hugh Wilson designed Merion, you are forgetting that whatever involvement Macdonald had with Merion's committee seemed to stop dead by 1913 at the latest (if it had been gloriously successful, why not use him for the West course, or consult on further changes over the years?), and most importantly, you are forgetting that the golf course built at Merion looked nothing at all like any golf course Macdonald ever built, or that he or his disciples built over the next 20 years.
A one off?
No way.
-
I do believe that if you had been that very clear in your initial post that you were disagreeing with Wayne and Tom's interpretation of Macdonald's role at Merion perhaps we could have cut to the chase quicker, but that's neither here nor there at this juncture. Still, it does help to distill the issues and separate fact from speculation.
Mike, that wasn’t the point of my first post. My first post was just to introduce some new information in to the discussion. But based on the reaction that received, I then began questioning their interpretation, and have said so repeatedly throughout. Unfortunately, you and others were so busy saddling me with ulterior motives that you failed ever to believe me. My explanatory skills are far from perfect, but all the skills in the world will not overcome an audience that has their mind firmly set on not understanding.
Speaking of which, even now you discount my words and attribute beliefs and motivations to me that I have never had. . .
It is simply outrageous to suggest that he learned as much in 2 days as in the next 7 months of detailed study, even if Wilson continually gave Macdonald his well-deserved props.
. . .
Are you saying that Wilson didn't need to go to Great Britain? That he would have learned just as much in those two days with Macdonald than he learned over 7 months studying courses, David??
That is REALLY the foundation of this argument, isn't it? I think you should come right out and say that if that is what you believe but it's certainly what is implied in your statements suggesting that we're trying to "separate the trip from what he learned from Macdonald".
Jeez Mike, give me a break.
I never said he learned more in two days than in seven months. I never said he didn’t need to go to Great Britain. I didn’t imply it or suggest it. I am not writing esoterically here. I said what I mean and I mean what I said.
1) You cannot separate out what Wilson learned before the trip from what he learned after the trip.
2.) Wilson thought that what he had learned from CBM was extremely important, and we ought to take his word for it.
David, this is probably a good juncture to ask the simple obvious question here. If the Macdonald influence was so great on WIlson at this time, and then transferred to the early Merion by Wilson, why wasn't the Merion course similar to NGLA with holes all modelled after the great ones overseas?
Mike, if I had a dollar for every time you asked this and a dollar for every time a answered it, I could forget about a coffee and probably buy Starbucks!
Look at what Wilson says about the principles underlying the holes at NGLA (and Pine Valley): ”. . . while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own course. “ Why would you think that Wilson would have taken any different approach than he recommends to others. He used the principles, not the blueprints.
You forgot about Behr's calling Wilson the dictator of Merion's "construction" in 1914, you forgot about local newspaper accounts in 1918 that claim Wilson laid out both courses at Merion, you forgot about Tillinghast making very, very crystalline in 1934, a time when both Macdonald & Whigham were still quite alive (and friends of Tillinghast's) that Hugh Wilson designed Merion, you are forgetting that whatever involvement Macdonald had with Merion's committee seemed to stop dead by 1913 at the latest (if it had been gloriously successful, why not use him for the West course, or consult on further changes over the years?), and most importantly, you are forgetting that the golf course built at Merion looked nothing at all like any golf course Macdonald ever built, or that he or his disciples built over the next 20 years.
I didn’t forget about any of this stuff. My last post was to TEPaul, this is yours.
-- Your first few points are only relevant as to whether Wilson deserves design credit. Surely you understand by now that this is not my issue?
-- As for M&W’s involvement “stopping dead” in 1914, we have been talking throughout about the initial design of Merion, which opened for play in 1912. It is a bit too late to redefine the topic, isn’t it?
-- While it isn’t really my issue, as a neutral observer ::), I’ve noticed your reliance on this Behr article is misplaced. Behr thought that Wilson was more of a dictator than committee chair? So what? Does this mean that CBM wasn’t significantly involved?? How so? That he didn’t always take advice? How does that mean he didn’t take MacDonald’s advice? That he studied hard? Yep, with MacDonald and on a trip planned by MacDonald. But what does whether he studied that have to do with anything anyway?
Behr just isn’t talking about the design of Merion, or about CBM’s role. Behr is making an offhand remark that is better to have one sound leader than an entire misguided committee. He is paying homage to men who deserve great credit. But he is saying nothing about MacDonald’s role at Merion.
Not only that, but in your apparent quest to find anything that puts Wilson squarely in charge, you missed the entire point of the article, which is about the opposite of what you take from it. Behr essentially says, Look, you committees do not have the slightest idea what you are doing. You’ve got to seek out those who do. Not your golf professional, but those who have done this before. Study how grass grows, go to NGLA and study the course, bring in an expert to inspect your site, and bring in an expert to help you route your course. Get help. No matter how smart you think you are, you need help.
If anything, Behr’s article is an affirmation that Merion did it right. Merion sent the chair of their committee to study with MacDonald at NGLA, then overseas. And experts did inspect the site: CBM and Whigham. And experts did help the committee in laying out the course; again CBM and Whigham were these experts.
-
This thread is more confusing then anything I can think of, even an Arthur Hills course.
::)
I wonder what kind of a cat fight would occur if there was a thread with Matt Ward vs. David Moriarty...
-
Just what this thread needs - a young guy with BOUNDLESS energy and a love of debating golf course architecture!
Please Jordan, run and go and hide...... ;D
-
I prefer confirmed facts, a good understanding of all the historic figures (who they were, where they were, what they did), a good understanding of the period (culturely, economically, socially, politically, etc) when trying to determine the architectural history of a golf course or golf course architect.
Tom,
Do you always hold YOURSELF to this standard ?
Did you hold yourself to this standard when you ardently defended and insisted that Donald Ross's alleged statement that Seminole was FLAT was accurate ?
Do you recall asking me who was more familiar with the land at Seminole, Donald Ross or me ?
Perhaps, had you invoked your own research criteria you would have seen how absurd that statement was, and that it couldn't have possibly have been uttered by Donald Ross, as you continued to insist.
-
David,
I just typed a lengthy reply only to lose it. Rather than type if all again, I'll try to summarize in two brief areas.
1) Your quote of Wilson saying that "we cannot hope to reproduce...but instead use the principles" of courses abroad is EXACTLY THE POINT WHERE HE BROKE WITH MACDONALD!!!, who continued for the next 20 years (with his disciples) to build courses where they artificially constructed template holes on the land, as opposed to working with it to build new and original holes using the "principles" only. This is precisely the point where American architecture detoured from the ideas that Macdonald brought to the US, and exemplifeid at NGLA. This is also why many of us have difficulty accepting your contention that Macdonald had much of anything to do with the actual design. If, after Merion, Macdonald started building original holes and courses, your point would make sense. However, that's not what happened at all; quite the opposite in fact!
2) Your interpretation of the Behr comment is rather unique, David. I suggest you read that quote again, this time substituting the modern term "architecture" for the nomenclature of the time, "construction", where he clearly describes that their knowledge of same is what set apart Leeds at Myopia, Macdonald at NGLA, and Wilson at Merion. He wasn't talking about them drawing up maintenance schedule for the day laborers, or deciding who would run the Christmas pollyanna...he was talking about the art of building and constructing a golf course!
-
With apologies to Geoffrey Childs from the thread where the rest of GCA is in dismay as to the purpose and length of this thread, I submit the following;
I don't for the life of me understand the premise of that whole discussion.
OK - CB and friend advised Wilson on "something or other related to golf that has never quite been determined". That fact has been acknowledged in several places including the Merion 1976 publication. What more do they want? Obviously Macdonald does not deserve design credit or he would have let the world know while he was alive.
29 pages of nonsense and growing
It really is pretty simple. :P ;)
-
This thread is more confusing then anything I can think of, even an Arthur Hills course.
::)
I wonder what kind of a cat fight would occur if there was a thread with Matt Ward vs. David Moriarty...
Jordan,
It wouldn't be so confusing if you spent more time on your schoolwork.
-
This thread is more confusing then anything I can think of, even an Arthur Hills course.
::)
I wonder what kind of a cat fight would occur if there was a thread with Matt Ward vs. David Moriarty...
Jordan,
It wouldn't be so confusing if you spent more time on your schoolwork.
Ed,
You are not the first to say this on this board.
So, again I will state I have almost straight A's.
Plus, it is Winter Break right now.
On another note, I think I have got it.
So, since David is obviously not going to convince anybody he is right, and vice versa, this thread could end.
That way, nobody gets any arthritis in their fingers for typing so much.
Also, there would be no more arguing.
Not to mention the fact it would save a lot of time just believing what you want to believe and stop worrying about proving something to somebody who doesn't want anything proven to him.
I hope that all makes sense.
-
Jordan,
Stop trying to play peacemaker...just sit back and watch the fur fly. ;D
David Moriarty is an army of one...an island, a rock, as Simon and Garfunkel sang. He'd rather be certain that he's right than convince any of us, and he's doing a good job of it. ;)
Periodically, Tom MacWood jumps in to his defense, but then thinks better of it and calls the whole thread "speculation".
Also, David at least admits that Hugh Wilson designed Merion but Tom MacWood is waiting for the filmed DVD release before making that bold assertion. ;D
-
Mike
I guess it takes a New Yorker to put it all into perspective for you Pennsylvania, Ohio and Californian's.
As I wrote seemingly months ago anyone stepping on the grounds can see that the third is not a redan and to make it such would require quite a bulldozing of that green. If the 15th is based on the Eden or the 17th and 16th greens based on the valley of sin then there are seemingly thousands of holes scattered on thousands of golf courses with template holes like it.
-
Mike
I guess it takes a New Yorker to put it all into perspective for you Pennsylvania, Ohio and Californian's.
As I wrote seemingly months ago anyone stepping on the grounds can see that the third is not a redan and to make it such would require quite a bulldozing of that green. If the 15th is based on the Eden or the 17th and 16th greens based on the valley of sin then there are seemingly thousands of holes scattered on thousands of golf courses with template holes like it.
Geoffrey,
It was months ago! That's the sad part. :-[
Personally, I'm checking into intensive therapy to better understand my perverse attraction to this thread. I just find the whole idea of Macdonald having a big hand in the design of Merion so preposterous based on what is on the ground, today and yesterday, that I can't help myself.
If ever a golf course was built antithetical to the Macdonald/Raynor style, Merion is it.
It's not that I don't love NGLA, Mid-Ocean, et.al., but they are clearly a different type of course coming from an entirely different approach.
-
I prefer confirmed facts, a good understanding of all the historic figures (who they were, where they were, what they did), a good understanding of the period (culturely, economically, socially, politically, etc) when trying to determine the architectural history of a golf course or golf course architect.
Tom,
Do you always hold YOURSELF to this standard ?
Did you hold yourself to this standard when you ardently defended and insisted that Donald Ross's alleged statement that Seminole was FLAT was accurate ?
Do you recall asking me who was more familiar with the land at Seminole, Donald Ross or me ?
Perhaps, had you invoked your own research criteria you would have seen how absurd that statement was, and that it couldn't have possibly have been uttered by Donald Ross, as you continued to insist.
Check out the recent thread 'Donald Ross and the machine'. You were the only one who read that Ross quote as the entire site being flat. Anyone who thought Ross was claiming the entire site was flat believes Donald Ross was an idiot. Donald Ross was not an idiot, which goes back to what I said about having a good understanding of historical figures. When you are desperate - at the end of your rope - you have a tendency to deliberately distort and misinterpret.
-
1) Your quote of Wilson saying that "we cannot hope to reproduce...but instead use the principles" of courses abroad is EXACTLY THE POINT WHERE HE BROKE WITH MACDONALD!!!, who continued for the next 20 years (with his disciples) to build courses where they artificially constructed template holes on the land, as opposed to working with it to build new and original holes using the "principles" only. This is precisely the point where American architecture detoured from the ideas that Macdonald brought to the US, and exemplifeid at NGLA. This is also why many of us have difficulty accepting your contention that Macdonald had much of anything to do with the actual design. If, after Merion, Macdonald started building original holes and courses, your point would make sense. However, that's not what happened at all; quite the opposite in fact!
What makes you think that MacDonald ever wanted anyone else to build exact copies of NGLA? I am not aware of any exact copies outside of his design house. Read what he wrote. He was building those holes in order properly represent the principles, not to sell exact blueprints. To pretend that MacDonald wasn't interested in spreading the proper principles is to ignore everything the guy ever wrote. What about the 1000 variations on a redan comment? What about him citing favorably examples of redan's that are barely similar to the template? Your understanding of MacDonald is much more rigid that the facts would suggest.
2) Your interpretation of the Behr comment is rather unique, David. I suggest you read that quote again, this time substituting the modern term "architecture" for the nomenclature of the time, "construction", where he clearly describes that their knowledge of same is what set apart Leeds at Myopia, Macdonald at NGLA, and Wilson at Merion. He wasn't talking about them drawing up maintenance schedule for the day laborers, or deciding who would run the Christmas pollyanna...he was talking about the art of building and constructing a golf course!
I dont agree with your changing of the word, but I dont think it makes one bit of difference. Substitute words all you want, it still has nothing to do with whether or not CBM was involved at Merion.
I didnt just read the quote, I read the entire article. You should do the same. They are talking about the importance of committees seeking proper education and guidance. In understanding agronomy, in choosing a site, and in laying out a course.
-
This might be ridiculous to say, but I'm starting to feel that this thread is really going to get good, very soon. ;D
I sense we're all on the verge of some real understandings and perhaps also some blowing away of misperceptions, or perhaps it's just the late hour. ;)
-
I prefer confirmed facts, a good understanding of all the historic figures (who they were, where they were, what they did), a good understanding of the period (culturely, economically, socially, politically, etc) when trying to determine the architectural history of a golf course or golf course architect.
Tom,
Do you always hold YOURSELF to this standard ?
Did you hold yourself to this standard when you ardently defended and insisted that Donald Ross's alleged statement that Seminole was FLAT was accurate ?
Do you recall asking me who was more familiar with the land at Seminole, Donald Ross or me ?
Perhaps, had you invoked your own research criteria you would have seen how absurd that statement was, and that it couldn't have possibly have been uttered by Donald Ross, as you continued to insist.
Check out the recent thread 'Donald Ross and the machine'. You were the only one who read that Ross quote as the entire site being flat. Anyone who thought Ross was claiming the entire site was flat believes Donald Ross was an idiot. Donald Ross was not an idiot, which goes back to what I said about having a good understanding of historical figures. When you are desperate - at the end of your rope - you have a tendency to deliberately distort and misinterpret.
I don't need to check out a different thread.
I know what you said on the Seminole is FLAT thread, where you insisted that Ross was right and that I was wrong, despite your never having seen the property at Seminole.
You tried every argument possible to reinforce that Ross's statement that Seminole was FLAT was accurate.
I called you intellectually dishonest then, and I'll repeat that categorization due to your above attempt to deny that you ever championed the idea that Seminole was FLAT.
You had egg all over your face then .... and now.
While I agree with your criteria, you, above all others should adhere to it, instead of preaching to others that they adhere to it, while you ignore it at your convenience.[/color]
-
"In these days of steam shovels and modern improvements, it is possible to do wonderful things on flat, level country.
I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on level land.
The Seminole course near Palm Beach is an example of what can be done with that type of terrain.
I don't say its the best I have ever designed. Nevertheless, I like it very much."
Only someone who thought Ross was an idiot or someone who was trying delibrately distort Ross's intent would claim this quote indicates Ross thought the entire Seminole site was flat. Go hijack another thread Pat.
-
Tom MacWood,
I asked you this question on the Pine Valley thread but you may not be tuning into that one any more so I'll ask it here:
For someone who is obviously passionate about researching the origins of the courses at Pine Valley and Merion, why is it that you have never made the trip to see each course and the property on which each course sits?
Do you plan on making a site visit to either Pine Valley or Merion any time soon?
I'm sure there are many practical reasons for not making a site visit but I would think it would be an absolute must for a researcher/historian of GCA, particularly as it relates to the origins and evolution of each course.
I don't think GCA is like art, where (arguably) once you see a picture of the Mona Lisa in an art history book, you (arguably) don't need to make a trip to the Louvre to see it for yourself so that you may fully understand it. Don't you really need to (eventually) see Pine Valley and Merion for yourself? I can't imagine how it would not greatly benefit you as a researcher/historian of GCA.
If you don't want to answer please just say so, but I really am interested--have you wanted to see PV/Merion but haven't gotten the chance, are you waiting until later in the research process to visit PV/Merion, or do you not care either way about seeing PV/Merion?
-
Chris
I'd love to play both PV and Merion, and hope to some day - as do many reading this post - the sooner the better.
-
Chris,
You are mistaken, at least in my opinion, where you state, "I don't think GCA is like art, where (arguably) once you see a picture of the Mona Lisa in an art history book, you (arguably) don't need to make a trip to the Louvre to see it for yourself so that you may fully understand it."
Using your example, and especially so because I just completed a new book about the theft of the Mona Lisa in 1911, one MUST see it in person if they want to have any depth of understanding about Da Vinci's masterpiece.
For example, one can read in a book that the painting displays a greenish tinge that was caused by a maintenance worker's attempt to prevent damage occuring to the painting as the Emperor of France displayed it in his bath house. To keep the humidity from destroying it as it had others (it is painted on a piece of white poplar), this anonymous hero mixed up a batch of homemade varnish that ended up reacting to the moisture in the air and turned green after a number of years. But the only way to appreciate this saving and tragedy is to see it in person as photographs definitely do not do it justice.
Ironically, the painting was saved for prosperity, yet because the properties of the varnish can not be analyzed it was decided long ago to leave it as it is... and so no one today really knows what the painting actually looks like and how vibrant the colors are...
Understanding and appreciating masterful works of art require one to visit and experience it in person; just like great golf courses...
-
Phil:
I agree with you there. I'm no art historian or expert but it can be pretty mindblowing with the different impressions of viewing great art in a book vs looking at it face to face. Seeing the Mona Lisa was a real revelation to me but not so much as seeing an exhibit of Van Gogh a few years ago. My God, was that something to get close to some of his paintings. They're postively palpable and you don't get that sensation looking at them in a book.
-
Philip,
You know, I wasn't entirely in love with that analogy as I was making it, and decided to put "arguably" in there, but you're right... In fact, I got to see the Mona Lisa in person earlier this year and it was quite an experience.
I got a lot more out of seeing Pine Valley and Merion for the first time, but then again I'm more of a golfer than an art lover. ;)
-
Chris:
Has anyone told you recently you are an extremely reasonable man? I'm serious, you are. It's impressive.
-
I don't agree with that statement nor do I accept the atated stature that a number have represented CBM as having at that time.
What seems readily apparent to me is that in 1910, CBM was JUST COMING into his own and was NOT the internationally respected designer that he would later become.
Phillip, Looking at the old magazines and information, I get the impression that MacDonald was pretty well respected during this early period, and not just for his design work. NGLA was viewed as a real watershed event-- a great course based on the principles of the great links courses. Here is a quote from 1914 Golf Illustrated Year In Review article by John Anderson:
Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has its geniuses; golfing America should be proud of the fact that she has the finest golf architectural genius of modern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled.
The quote is from 1914, not 1910, but it is fairly indicative of the kind of praise MacDonald received. Other examples within this thread are Wilson's tributes to CBM and NGLA, and Behr's article on green committees.
As far David's claim that "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses..." If he was designing new courses based upon models of Bristish courses many years old, how can this possibly be considere "modern golf design?"
I tend to agree that modern is not the best word. I used it because these guys often did (especially in advertisements) probably to distinguish themselves from what had come before in America. The principles may have been old in Scotland, but they were new in America. And however the aesthetics eventually ended up, it is hard to deny that CBM was a pioneer regarding the underlying strategic principles.
____________________________
1. Are either of you implying that Merion was actively and seriously looking for Macdonald's approval of the site in Villanova?
I don't know when they bought the land, but I do know that MacDonald's visit and pronouncement that the land was suitable for golf was somehow meaningful enough to be mentioned in American Golfer.
It would be interesting to know when they bought the land, but I don't think this would be dispositive one way or another. Even if they invited CBM to come down before they actually bought the land, the final decision was still obviously theirs. And even if they had bought the land before, they were sophisticated businessmen, so I am sure they were aware that weren't obligated to keep the land forever, but could turn around and sell it if they decided not to build a course there.
I may be mistaken, but I thought I read somewhere that the original purchase was for 300 acres. If so, then isn't it possible that they were trying to figure out just what portion of the land to use?
Also, we know there were two views at Merion about where the new course should be built. Is it possible that CBM was brought in by those on one side of this discussion in an effort to convince the other side that the site was indeed well-suited for golf?
Do you actually think you've come across and posted on this website anything at all we have not been aware of for probably years? And if you do, what in the world would that be?
TEPaul, The new information to which I refer was the excerpt from the 1916 NYTimes article in the initial post. The article was new to me, at least. You and Mr. Morrison have never said whether you already had that article, and frankly it doesnt matter to me, because I am sure there must have been someone who had not seen it and who found it worth discussing.
I have repeatedly noted that I am not offering new facts, but rather have been concerned with the analysis which has been seriously flawed and continues to so be, although to a lesser degree than before.
For example, you again dismiss the contemporaneous accounts of M&Ws involvement by Tillinghast, Travis, and Lesley as ”second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports.” You also refer to the agronomy letters which only you have seen, and claim that if we could see MacDonald’s attitude in them (well after the pertinent time-period) then we would surely have a different view than we do.
In the mid-term elections, one of the last ditch efforts of Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mt) was to suggest that the Republicans had a secret plan to win the war in Iraq, but that they weren’t going to tell the Democrats, because they would screw it up. As you might have heard, Senator Burns was defeated.
-
. . I think it's pretty transparent to suggest you introducted a scintilla of new information on Merion and its history. . . . If you think otherwise what new information do you think you introduced on Merion??
And please don't give me any of that garbage of yours on Jones and his drives in 1916 and Google Earth measurements and crap. One does not become correct on any information merely by just proclaiming himself correct, that's for damn sure.
No, I was referring to the NYTimes article. But funny you should bring up the Jones driving distance issue again. . . . Your comment indicates that you and Mr. Morrison are still sticking with the legend of Jones' 300 yard drives on the 10th. If you guys can’t even consider an objective straight-line, point-to-point measure over Merion lore, then you are both obviously incapable of objectively analyzing Merion's history, which is not nearly as clean-cut.
[ASIDE: For those who are not familiar with what we are talking about, the reason Mr. Morrison is not participating in this discussion is that, early on, I corrected a common misperception about how far Bobby Jones hit two drives on Merion’s 10th in the 1930 Amateur. I simply measured the distance (as marked in a 1930 magazine article) using Google Earth. To put it mildly, Mr. Morrison did not take kindly to my correction. He he called me a liar and/or an idiot, claimed he had measured the drives himself with Google, insulted me a few more times, and refused to converse with me ever again. He emerges once in a while to take a shot or two at me, but then goes back into hiding. Another poster took the time to confirm the accuracy of the Google measuring tool and confirmed my measures, yet TEPaul and Mr. Morrison apparently still refuse to believe (or at least admit) they were wrong. ]
With all due respect Tom, you guys writing an objective account of the early history of golf in Philadelphia is like having the Farley, Wendt, and Myers characters from Saturday Night Live write an objective account of the early history of "DA BEARS." First Quarter Score: Wilson and Flynn: 386 MacDonald & Whigham: -17.
-
"Quote from: Philip Young on Yesterday at 10:54:01am
I don't agree with that statement nor do I accept the atated stature that a number have represented CBM as having at that time.
What seems readily apparent to me is that in 1910, CBM was JUST COMING into his own and was NOT the internationally respected designer that he would later become.
Phillip, Looking at the old magazines and information, I get the impression that MacDonald was pretty well respected during this early period, and not just for his design work. NGLA was viewed as a real watershed event-- a great course based on the principles of the great links courses. Here is a quote from 1914 Golf Illustrated Year In Review article by John Anderson:
Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has its geniuses; golfing America should be proud of the fact that she has the finest golf architectural genius of modern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled.
The quote is from 1914, not 1910, but it is fairly indicative of the kind of praise MacDonald received. Other examples within this thread are Wilson's tributes to CBM and NGLA, and Behr's article on green committees.
Quote:
As far David's claim that "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America. He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses..." If he was designing new courses based upon models of Bristish courses many years old, how can this possibly be considere "modern golf design?"
I tend to agree that modern is not the best word. I used it because these guys often did (especially in advertisements) probably to distinguish themselves from what had come before in America. The principles may have been old in Scotland, but they were new in America. And however the aesthetics eventually ended up, it is hard to deny that CBM was a pioneer regarding the underlying strategic principles."
GUYS (David and Phil);
This is some great stuff; this is fundamental, it's interesting, no, it's fascinating. This is what we should be talking about on here. This is the REAL evolution of architecture in America---early America, perhaps the most fascinating time of all of it.
THAT, is the kind of discussion we WANT to have and NEED to have on this website.
You guys hold those thoughts, even if you disagree---particularly if you disagree.
I've got to hit the sack, but I'll be back first thing tomorrow. I want to talk about that exchange of yours. I'm gonna make you do it----and stick to it, and hopefully not go off on some trivial tangent or some "provablility" fixation.
Lay the historical structure down of the subject you two just hit on and we may even get as far as an intelligent "What If" discussion.
Good on you guys!
See you tomorrow.
-
David,
You are exactly correct when you state that, "The quote is from 1914, not 1910, but it is fairly indicative of the kind of praise MacDonald received..."
The problem is that being INDICATIVE of praise is NOT the same thing as being UNIVERSALLY praised!
CBM had his detractors and some quite well-known and vocal, as in the case of Tillinghast! This is important because of the dynamics of the people involved in the creation of Merion and the real possibility of criticism of what his recommendations may have been. This is, of course, speculation, but so is any statement, and many of them have so far on this thread, that goes beyond the statement that CBM advised the committe chosen to oversee the design and construction of Merion.
You should see the potential in this for didn't you write in the same post as my quote of yours above as a criticism of Tom Pasul, "For example, you again dismiss the contemporaneous accounts of M&Ws involvement by Tillinghast, Travis, and Lesley as ”second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports.” ?"
Tom, you wrote, "Phillip, Looking at the old magazines and information, I get the impression that MacDonald was pretty well respected during this early period, and not just for his design work." I don't disagree with that statement at all; I just recognize that there is a huge difference between being "pretty well respected" and universally respected and offer as proof Tillinghast's quite specific statement(s) about CBM's design philosophy.
-
Philip:
It'd be hard for me to say whether Macdonald was 'quite well respected' or "univerally" respected in 1910 or 1914 or 1920, 1926 or 1938.
But I certainly would like to here what you think Tillinghast meant by any statements he made at any time about Macdonald's design work, Macdonald's design style, about what Macdonald thought of other things, or even what Tillinghast felt about Macdonald himself.
-
We believe in our opinions given what we have and have seen, even if we're more than willing to change our opinions if new and different info comes up.
What really pisses me off, though, about this catechism on this thread about the creation of Merion and who was responsible for it, is, I, for one, am hearing from you and MacWood that this is about Wilson against Macdonald, or about Philadelphia golf and architecture against others and other areas, just as MacWood seemed to imply that the PV discussions were only about Crump or Philadelphia against Colt.
Nothing of the kind. If somebody says stuff like that to me I'm going to continue to be the way I have been, as I think I have every good right and reason to be.
TomPaul, I am sorry you see it that way, I am just trying to make some sense out of what I see as an extremely skewed analysis.
There is more to historical research than finding information; you also need objective and critical analysis. Whether because of local bias or some other reason, your claim that you guys are evaluating this information objectively is just not supported by the facts.
Even if we set aside Mr. Morrison's tantrum and refusal to accept an objective measure, you guys just do not want to even consider information that doesnt fit your preconceptions. Your flippant comment about ”second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports” [referring to the contemporaneous accounts of Travis, Tillinghast, and Lesley] is just the latest example.
The most egregious example is that throughout this entire thread you guys have ignored and/or discredited the contemporaneous news accounts and insisted on proof of MacDonald's specific contributions to the initial design before you acknowledged his involvement at all. This even though you were well aware that all evidence of what specifically happened cannot be found. So even if MacDonald had been specifically involved, his involvement would never be proven by your standards.
If my challenging this type of analysis means that you will subject me to continued distain, then so be it.
-
Personally, I think your intention on this thread was to try to prove us wrong about a few yards of distance that Jones hit a drive on #10 Merion, and to then use that as some kind of example or evidence to go on and maintain that all of our research on Merion was suspect. Why do you suppose you were REALLY trying to do that?
You can deny this, or sluff it off if you'd like but, I, for one, don't think I'll be buying it.
Yes, it was all a ploy. I forged the NYTimes article, manipulated the conversation, corrected Mr. Morrison's misperception about Jones' driving distance, all to bate him into hte predictable response of flying off the handle, calling me a liar, idiot, etc., and then refusing to talk to me ever again. Mission Accomplished.
As for the rest, it really doesnt matter at this point, but for the record . . .
. . . the measure wasn't off by a few yards, but 40 yards.
. . . all this business about measuring doglegs is irrelevant; drives are measured in a straight line;
. . . the course was dry and hard but the drives on No. 10 (marked in the magazine) still went less than 260 yards.
Again, this is a terrific example of an unwillingness to accept contrary views, even if they are purely factual.
-
Tom Paul,
You asked, "But I certainly would like to here what you think Tillinghast meant by any statements he made at any time about Macdonald's design work, Macdonald's design style, about what Macdonald thought of other things, or even what Tillinghast felt about Macdonald himself..."
You must have missed where 2 pages and 76 comments ago in my post #966 of this thread I wrote:
Tilly went on, "... although he was a broker by profession, and after securing models of famous holes on British courses of that time, he more or less followed these designs in the building of the National... Some years later he designed the beautiful course, the Mid-Ocean, at bermuda. Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of feplicas of British golf holes.
"I have known Charley Macdonald [this is the only time I have ever seen him called "Charley"] since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charley, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about it and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory..."
Tilly wasn't a fan of CBM's work yet was able to disagree with him over the years face-to-face in an amicable way. Despite his disagreement with CBM's design philosophies, Tilly also recognized that in implementing them he did design some stunning courses including NGLA & Mid-Ocean...
-
Mike Cirba:
One of the strong possibilities you apparently forgot to consider in your post #998 is Macdonald may not have been particularly interested in offering Merion, Wilson and his committee any specific or significant involvement in the creation of their golf course. Apparently no one on here has considered that and it's pretty surprising no one has. If any of you could see some of the references to Macdonald's attitude in some of those agronomy letters particularly as time marches on into the late teens and early 1920s I think they would get a far different impression of this entire situation and of Macdonald too. But of course most of you are just floundering around second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports. It's far more apropos and appropriate, I think, to consider the information from those more directly involved such as the Wilsons.
"even with Mr. Morrison's distracting retracted defamatory detractions."
MikeyC:
There's some pretty cool second half alliteration in that remark(able), don't you think? ;)
Tom,
Yes, I believe I had considered that. In my one seemingly tongue-in-cheek post I said that I was becoming more than half-convinced that one of two things happened.
Either Merion informed Macdonald politely that he was no longer needed (how quickly you forget my "don't let the wicker basket hit you in the ass on the way out" line ;)), or I speculated that perhaps Macdonald got pissed at the temperature of the soup or something and never came back.
Althought I said it in joking fashion, if I were a betting man I'd wager that either of the two scenarios is probably close to the truth.
It would certainly explain a LOT of peoples actions, inactions, and writings throughout the whole continuum til 1939 when Whigham somewhat remarkably claimed out of the blue that Merion was a "Macdonald/Raynor course".
-
Phil:
I agree with you there. I'm no art historian or expert but it can be pretty mindblowing with the different impressions of viewing great art in a book vs looking at it face to face. Seeing the Mona Lisa was a real revelation to me but not so much as seeing an exhibit of Van Gogh a few years ago. My God, was that something to get close to some of his paintings. They're postively palpable and you don't get that sensation looking at them in a book.
Tom,
Isn't that amazing? His paintings are almost three-dimensional when viewed in person, and the layers of brushstrokes create levels of relief that are stunning to behold.
Man, would he have created some wild golf courses if he got involved in Kolven! Probably wouldn't of been much of a minimalist, though. ;D
-
Tom,
I agree that the subject is fascinating, but I really don't think we've exhausted it yet on THIS thread, as it played out in the particulars of Merion.
My belief, quite different than David's or Tom MacWood's apparently, is that Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee split philosophically and literally with Macdonald at some point, simply over this divergence in approach and styles.
The fact that there is clear evidence of Macdonald's early advisory involvement, and then...nothing...dead silence, for the next 25 or more years...
Until, Macdonald's funeral.
I can't see how this was an amicable parting, although I would venture to believe that the Merion Committee had enough respect for Macdonald and Whigham to be polite and grateful for their assistance to that point, but I'm betting at some point a loud "harruummppff" was heard from Macdonald, and that was that!
I also believe that Wilson's laudatory remarks about the two men and their great assistance were quite sincere, but I also think it quickly became a situation of diminishing returns.
Behr's description of Wilson's "dictatorial" approach would not have meshed well with Macdonald's autocratic style, I suspect, and I think at some point Wilson just said, "thank you very much", and went off on this own with the rest of the Committee, Flynn, Pickering, et.al.
-
MikeC:
Actually in these agronomy letters there're a few brief references to Behr and a letter he wrote to them or generally about Merion. I'll quote them if I find them today.
Alan Wilson's reaction to Behr was pretty interesting in that he said he wasn't even aware that Behr had really been to Merion (which seems preposterous on its face---eg Behr actually belonged to Pine Valley in the teens).
And Hugh's reacation to Behr's description of both he and Merion was just funny. Hugh said he wasn't sure how Behr arrived at the fact that what he (Hugh Wilson) had done or had been done at Merion was actually so remarkable it was really a 'moral' issue. And then Hugh said perhaps he would figure out what Behr was saying but it might take him the rest of his life to figure it out.
Isn't if funny when it comes to Behr and his writing? The more things change, the more they stay the same. ;)
Tom,
That's fascinating, as well.
Could it be that the hypothetical split between Macdonald and Wilson could have ended up with various other architects and other prominent people in the game choosing sides to some degree, if not in terms of strained relationships necessarily, but philsophically, as in the Tillinghast comments about Macdonald's work?
-
Hey Tom Paul,
Did you see that post a few pages back where both David and Tom M. agreed that not only is Patrick Mucci so blind that he wouldn't be able to tell if Seminole was flat if Ross located it in the Mojave Desert, but also, where they also said that Notre Dame sucks and that Patrick doesn't know the first thing about the course evolution of Garden City Golf Club, much less Merion?? ;)
I thought that was a seminal post from the both of them.*
Oh, by the way, I think they also said he wouldn't know an Alps from a Redan, and that the 1st hole at NGLA sucks, and the only way they should lengthen the 18th is to sink him in the adjacent bay and then put a tee on Patrick's flat-top haircut! ;D
* Shameless attempt to engage Patrick in this discussion as we go for the record.
-
Not sure I have seen this in previous postings. Maybe it is there somewhere.
This is from "Hazard" Tilly in the American Golfer April 1916. The article reports that Hugh Wilson has stated some inprovements will be made to Merion.
" The east course, selected for the meeting, offers some mighty fine golf, without freak holes. The nearest approach to freakishness is to be encountered on the eighth, which was constructed for a well-placed tee-shot, followed by a ticklish pitch and run to the green, which is not above criticism. Fortunately this hole is to be reconstructed for the Championship, and when the putting-green is elevated and a deep hazard placed in front, the approach will be very different, as it will demand a controlled pitch. This change on the eighth is the only one of importance, although Mr. Hugh Wilson states that the seventeenth green will be lifted in the spring, and numbers of new hazards placed. "
Just another note of a Wilson statement about Merion. I have good intentions to go back and clip out all these article references so it can be found in one spot. Apologies if the above reference material has been previously posted.
TEP,
Thanks for the note about CBM, and others re-visiting Merion in 1924 or so.
I took the information about the visit as true, and the stuff about finding Fox Chapel as funny. Although, recently, a clerk said he was from upstate NY. I asked where. He said 'Poughkeepsie'. I counted my change and left.
-
So let me get this straight...you let this thread go as it did, even contributing a tiny little bit to it, all the while you were sitting on the damning evidence? I hope to god this report says CBM and Smithers designed every single nook and cranny of the godamn property. I hope it says that Hugh Wilson is simply a figment of the imagination of the over-protective Philadelphia School boys in an effort to totally eliminate any scrap of evidence that CBM may have ever set foot on the land.
Merry Christmas...
-
You warned me when I first came on about it occasionally seems like a good old fashioned shoot out in Dodge City. I trusted you 'cause I figured you might have been around for the glory days in Dodge.
Would you call this "report" by Alan Wilson "ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE"[/i]?
-
"In these days of steam shovels and modern improvements, it is possible to do wonderful things on [size=4x]flat, level country.[/size]
I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on [size=4x]level land.[/size]
[size=4x]
The Seminole course near Palm Beach is an example of what can be done with that type of terrain.[/size]
I don't say its the best I have ever designed. Nevertheless, I like it very much."
Only someone who thought Ross was an idiot or someone who was trying delibrately distort Ross's intent would claim this quote indicates Ross thought the entire Seminole site was flat.
Only an idiot would fail to read and understand what they've quoted above.
How would you gleen anything else from the above quote ?
The alleged quote clearly states that Seminole is FLAT, LEVEL TERRAIN.
And, you defended that comment, insisting that Seminole was FLAT and that Ross knew what he was talking about and that I didn't.
Then, after you looked at a topo, you modified your position, trying to weasel out of your endorsement and support of Ross's remarks, and you repeatedly insisted that Seminole was flat until you looked at topos.
Just admit that you were dead wrong to accept the quote as The Gospel and that I was RIGHT in declaring that Seminole was anything but flat, and that you can't believe everything that you read, even if it's alleged to be from the subject under discussion.
Go ahead, you can do it, just admit that I was right .... again.
Your venture into revisionist history is a failure.
But, despite being FLAT out wrong, I"m sure that you'll double your efforts in an attempt to wiggle out of your colossal error. [/color]
-
Tom Paul,
I'm looking forward to reading Alan Wilson's report and thank you for posting it. Hopefully, it will clear up a lot of the confusion for all of us here and we can wrap this thread up on a high note.
However, after reading about the possibility of Tom MacWood leaving this site, I frankly feel very down that I may have contributed to that. Nobody loves this history stuff more than Tom and if we don't always agree on the conclusions, he certainly stimulates deep thinking and further research. Frankly, there are very few guys anywhere who are as into the details of the past as he is, and I hope we haven't lost a kindred spirit.
Also, I did try to call you back earlier today but got what sounded like a modem. Can you try again tomorrow? My availability at work should be much better.
-
Mike:
Honestly some of the things Moriarty and MacWood have said on this thread and the way they've said them is sort of like watching two people try to convince a large crowd that it's midnight when everyone can see it's high-noon. ;)
"But honestly, it's midnight somewhere..."
In all fairness, it works better when trying to justify it being 5 o'clock somewhere
-
""But honestly, it's midnight somewhere..."
Doug:
Pretty good point, and that sounds like Moriarty:
Moriarty speaking with a large group of people at High-Noon:
"People, it's midnight. Can't you see that?"
Large group to Moriarty:
"No, it's high-noon, can't you see the sun shining overhead?"
Moriarty to the crowd:
"That doesn't matter because it must be midnight somewhere."
"Well, there's nothing to prove that it's not midnight here, so I am correct in saying it's midnight..." ;)
-
Doug:
Is it midnight when one can see the noon day sun directly overhead?
;)
-
Doug:
Is it midnight when one can see the noon day sun directly overhead?
;)
Not if you're sauced by noon and completely unaware of anything! ;)
-
Tom,
Sorry to hear it went down like that. I do hope he decides to come back.
Now, if Moriarty decides to leave, that's something else entirely! ;)
JUST KIDDING, DAVID! ;D
Man, I take my golf architecture and history very seriously, but we all need to lighten up a touch. Half the time I post I have my tongue firmly implanted in cheek, but perhaps the smiley faces don't convey that well enough. :-\
-
Keep it coming, Tom. This is good stuff!
-
Now, if Moriarty decides to leave, that's something else entirely!
Mike, my leaving the site would not be nearly as detrimental to the place as is Tom MacWood’s departure. I did not always like Tom’s approach or agree with his perspective, but this site needs more people like Tom, not less.
That he has been drummed out should be considered an embarassment to all of us. We are the ones who refuse to confront the white elephant in the room.
I want to make sure I am clear on just what happened. I am sure my take will be about as popular as it usually is.
1. TEPaul discussed private emails with Tom Macwood, even telling him that he would forward them to MacWood.
2. When the emails did not arrive, MacWood called him on it in a public forum.
3. This probably sent TEPaul into panic mode, and rightfully so. After all, TEPaul is the one who betrayed the confidences of the men who sent the emails.
4. TEPaul tried to cajole MacWood into pulling the post, and MacWood wouldn’t budge.
5. TEPaul then used his pull at gca.com to get someone else to pull Tom MacWood's post.
6. Understandably, MacWood finds this unacceptable.
MacWood wasn’t the one who was telling tales out of school, TEPaul was. If these emails were private, TEPaul should have kept them to himself. MacWood’s post shouldn’t be censored just because TEPaul betrayed confidences just to make a point to Tom MacWood.
Should MacWood have posted the names? I probably would not have handled it the way he did, just because I’d rather not drag third parties down into this muck. But I have got to say, given the abuse that Tom MacWood has taken from TEPaul, I cannot say I blame him one bit.
This was TEPaul’s bad, not Tom MacWood’s. Yet unfortunately we may lose MacWood over it.
-
I see David Moriarty checked into the website and then checked right out again.
Can you blame him? ;)
You are joking right? I knew that whatever these letters said, you would view them as proving me wrong, but this is a bit much.
Just to keep things in a bit of perspective, here is the beginning of the section of my summary addressing the laying out of the course:
Now, on to the actual creation of the early Merion course on Ardmore Avenue:
5. Based on all the available information, we have no choice but to conclude that MacDonald and Whigham advised the committee in the laying out of the course, and that their advice was significant and beneficial to the committee.
And here is the section from above addressing their involvement:
Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, ---both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick---twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.
-
David,
I believe that you missed the most important statement made in the report, and one that would appear to completely disagree with your belief that, "Based on all the available information, we have no choice but to conclude that MacDonald and Whigham advised the committee in the laying out of the course, and that their advice was significant and beneficial to the committee..."
Yes, the letter CLEARLY states that, "Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam... twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value..."
You omit was written IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THIS. "First of all, they were both "Homemade". When it was known that we must give up the old course... and a "Special Construction Committee" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect..."
Once again, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..."
"Without" is as absolute a word as can be used...
CBM & Whigham then, advised and were ignored... There is no other possible inference that can be drawn from the statement, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..."
-
On another matter, and since it has been mentioned on this thread, if Tom Macwood was kicked off the site I hope that decision will be reconsidered and if he left of his own accord, I hope that he will reconsider that decision as well.
-
Tom Paul,
Thanks for posting the Alan Wilson letter. I think it is wholly conclusive and should put this debate to rest.
I think several sentences and phrases are key to doing so;
"First of all, they were both "Homemade". When it was known that we must give up the old course, a "Special Committee on New Golf Grounds...chose the sites; and a "Special Construction Committee" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect."
"Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam...--twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans."
"They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Commitee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E.Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr, Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."
The thing that is amazing to me is simply how aware this group seemed to be about making their course appear "natural", which to me is the real unique genius of Merion.
Without wanting to contrast this with the more highly-engineered look of Macdonald/Raynor, a style I love as well, it does appear that some of our speculations were correct in that the whole idea of naturalness and laying the course lightly on the land seems to be something the Committee and certainly Wilson seemed to strive for in their work. There is no doubt whatsoever that they succeeded, and there is little doubt that this is really where they broke from the Macdonald model and went their own way, creating a new direction for American architecture.
David,
I too am saddened that Tom MacWood seems to have chosen to leave us. I certainly hope he reconsiders as I always found him to be bright, thought-provoking, and a stalwart for the preservation of great classic courses.
-
I hate to see Tom MacWood leave the discussion group. He is clearly a very intelligent articulate man, and seems to be quite an interesting character as well. I can sympathize with his frustrations, however. I find myself fighting the temptation to delete my profile almost daily any more, but I guess I have just made too many friends and I can't pull the trigger and leave it all behind. I hope Tom comes back. I think he overwhelmingly won the unofficial poll on the best thread ever with his photographs of Ross' various bunkers. He stumped everybody on that one. He's a hell of alot more valuable to this website than a smartass guy like me.
All that said, its up to him now, but I hope he checks in to read this and realizes that he reaches alot of different type of people with his thoughts, and he earned a hell of alot of respect from so many people who use this website. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this.
I also hope that somebody saves this thread before it gets deleted, which I believe will soon be its fate. There is a wealth of good information on this one, and it would be interesting to see it summarized. I just don't have the time or energy to wade through it all.
-
I hate to see Tom MacWood leave the discussion group. He is clearly a very intelligent articulate man, and seems to be quite an interesting character as well. I can sympathize with his frustrations, however. I find myself fighting the temptation to delete my profile almost daily any more, but I guess I have just made too many friends and I can't pull the trigger and leave it all behind. I hope Tom comes back. I think he overwhelmingly won the unofficial poll on the best thread ever with his photographs of Ross' various bunkers. He stumped everybody on that one. He's a hell of alot more valuable to this website than a smartass guy like me.
All that said, its up to him now, but I hope he checks in to read this and realizes that he reaches alot of different type of people with his thoughts, and he earned a hell of alot of respect from so many people who use this website. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this.
I also hope that somebody saves this thread before it gets deleted, which I believe will soon be its fate. There is a wealth of good information on this one, and it would be interesting to see it summarized. I just don't have the time or energy to wade through it all.
John Cullum,
I agree with you wholeheartedly about Tom MacWood.
As far as this thread, I think it's much too easily criticized by folks without the time or inclination or interest to read it because of its ridiculous length, but you're very correct in assuming that there is a LOT of good information in here.
In fact, I just got off the phone with someone and we think that the most important parts of this thread should be summarized in a new thread, as you suggest.
I think there are some real keen hints in what's here that describe some very important evolutions in American design that are still being felt and discussed and debated with the architecture of our present times.
I hope it comes out as worthwhile and educational and interesting as is hoped, and I also hope that Tom MacWood contributes.
-
You know, I hate to be the one to take this to 32 pages, and confess I have only read page 31 to see Wilsons letter, thanks to TePaul.
My question is to Mike Cirba and Phillip Young -
If you think some ignored the words,
" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect "
were ignored, how can you ignore the words,
"their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."?
It seems like 31 pages of semantics argument doesn't it? Yes, Wilson and a few other designed the course, and gave it a distinctly anti McDonald/natural and not straight edge appearance. But they themselves acknowledged that CBM gave valuble advice. I will speculate that it was in general routing, or hazard placement, if not style.
Phillip says, "Once again, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..." and "Without" is as absolute a word as can be used..."
How can it be absolute when they admit they solicited advice from him? The course was built by the committtee, with two days of free advice from CBM and Whigam is the only Absolute I can take from those statements. It was probably free, and they had their own ideas, granted. Did anyone on Page 31 or elsewhere in history say anything about CBM's involvement other than he was glad to spend a few days giving guidance to some amateur architects?
Do you suppose the only CBM suggestion was that Wilson go to Scotland to study holes, just as he did? If so, did that have an effect on the design that should be partially credited? (actually, if that was it, I would say no, but I think he reviewed routing and strategy plans - what would you do if asked to go to a site in the design phase? And he probably had them over a day to show them his ideas of strategic feature design)
Another topic, but how did CBM come up with such a geometric style from what he saw in GBI? Probably had something to do with his rigid personality.......
Nuff on that. I have disagreed with Tom Macs argumentative style from time to time, but love his historical accuracy. I hope he cools off and comes back.
-
David Moriarty:
Regarding your odd and needless post above, no, I did not discuss private emails with Tom MacWood and I did not send him any. So your analysis which is unnecessary on this DG and completely uncalled for too just falls apart right there. It serves no purpose on this DG for you to speculate on or even mention any of this. You should remove that post, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion or who designed it, and furthermore none of it is any business of yours anyway.
TEPaul,
I'd rather like to keep this thread on Topic, since it appears the conversation is not quite finished yet. After all, I do think your brother Wilson letter is important and I thank you for posting it. I'd hate to see it get lost in the shuffle of these unseemingly matters.
So I will respond to you over in the other thread.
-
David Moriarty:
Regarding your odd and needless post above, no, I did not discuss private emails with Tom MacWood and I did not send him any. So your analysis which is unnecessary on this DG and completely uncalled for too just falls apart right there. It serves no purpose on this DG for you to speculate on or even mention any of this. You should remove that post, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion or who designed it, and furthermore none of it is any business of yours anyway.
Right, then it was just my imagination you calling two times in a panic the other night, wanting Tom MacWood's post removed. I really regret doing this, but I forewarned you, I told you that this was going to have an impact.
Of course I now fully regret this.
John Cullum,
The thread will not be removed. Not at least by me.
-
My question is to Mike Cirba and Phillip Young -
If you think some ignored the words,
" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect "
were ignored, how can you ignore the words,
"their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."?
It seems like 31 pages of semantics argument doesn't it? Yes, Wilson and a few other designed the course, and gave it a distinctly anti McDonald/natural and not straight edge appearance. But they themselves acknowledged that CBM gave valuble advice. I will speculate that it was in general routing, or hazard placement, if not style.
Jeff,
I don't think I'm ignoring those words at all. In fact, they are among those quoted in my post.
There is no question whatsoever that Macdonald advised the committee, and that it was valuable advice. You speculate that "it was in general routing, or hazard placement, if not style", and that may be correct. It could also have been related to irrigation, agronomy, and a host of other construction matters, or any and all of the above.
However, I'm always impressed by the way these guys wrote back then. They are very, very precise in their descriptions.
It seems to me that Alan Wilson wanted to make two things very clear in this section. First, he seems to want to acknowledge the role of Macdonald and Whigham, and states that they were very helpful and valuable to the process. Certainly this is true related to the time Wilson spent studying with Macdonald and CB's advice on his overseas trip. I'm sure (and Hugh's own writings point this out) that the major contribution of Macdonald was teaching the concepts of the great strategic holes of the game. That he was kind enough to help out, and then come for a site visit or two during construction to aid the process was certainly welcomed and appreciated, and I think Alan Wilson's letter reflects that.
However, he seems to be also pointing out, multiple times in multiple ways, the fact that the actual final design and construction was totally "homegrown", "without the help of a golf architect."
I don't think Alan Wilson would have said this if it wasn't true, especially given Merion's prominence in the game, and the fact that CB Macdonald was alive for another 15 years.
He also is very clear that Macdonald reviewed "our plans"...not Macdonald's. Once again, I think he is being very precise in the way he describes things.
and finally, the coup de grace where you'll notice that he mentions that all of the excellent suggestions and good advice in the final product came from the internal committee;
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."
I think it's obvious that Alan Wilson was being very...um..what we'd refer to today as Politically Correct. He both acknowledges and thanks Macdonald and Whigham for getting the process off on sure footing, while also making crystal clear that the final product was entirely "homegrown".
Phillip says, "Once again, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..." and "Without" is as absolute a word as can be used..."
How can it be absolute when they admit they solicited advice from him? The course was built by the committtee, with two days of free advice from CBM and Whigam is the only Absolute I can take from those statements. It was probably free, and they had their own ideas, granted. Did anyone on Page 31 or elsewhere in history say anything about CBM's involvement other than he was glad to spend a few days giving guidance to some amateur architects?
Jeff, I think you've answered your own question. The only way that both statements can be completely true is if they didn't use Macdonald's advice in the final product, whatever it may have been. While his "advice" may have been "valuable" and "helpful" to spur discussion and debate, or to consider other possible alternatives, it is extremely clear here that Alan Wilson didn't think the final result warranted any actual design and/or construction credit be given to Macdonald and Whigham.
Do you suppose the only CBM suggestion was that Wilson go to Scotland to study holes, just as he did? If so, did that have an effect on the design that should be partially credited? (actually, if that was it, I would say no, but I think he reviewed routing and strategy plans - what would you do if asked to go to a site in the design phase? And he probably had them over a day to show them his ideas of strategic feature design)
That's quite possible, and I'm also sure that Macdonald reviewed routing and strategy plans and gave his opinion. However, it's also clear that Alan Wilson, and seemingly the other members of the Merion Committee, didn't feel that Macdonald's role and input was significant enough to warrant credit for anything directly relating to the design and construction of the final product.
Do you think based on this that Macdonald should be given some credit for co-design?
I certainly don't read it that way.
-
Mike, I don't disagree with anything - they designed the course and built it using their own ideas, but getting some valuble in put from CBM. But having not read all 31 pages, is the fact that CBM consulted in some way the missing peice of how Merion came to be? Is there any debate about his contribution there?
-
Mike, I don't disagree with anything - they designed the course and built it using their own ideas, but getting some valuble in put from CBM. But having not read all 31 pages, is the fact that CBM consulted in some way the missing peice of how Merion came to be? Is there any debate about his contribution there?
Jeff,
That seems to be the million dollar question that I'm still not sure the answer to.
That is, David Moriarty seems to think that certain folks aren't giving Macdonald enough credit for the Merion East course. There is no need to read all 30 pages but I think the bottom line for me is that Macdonald's advisory role has been acknowledged throughout history and based on Alan Wilson's letter, with complete historical accuracy.
To me, you're right...the bottom line is that Wilson and the committee designed and constructed the course and they did it their own way. Macdonald provided WIlson with a great deal of valuable advice probably on many fronts, but certainly on the strategic values of the best holes and where to visit in GB during Wilson's lengthy stay there. I'm certain he also reviewed the plans and layout the committee put together, including the work in progress, and commented later that Merion should be wonderful, with a full seven of the holes equal to anything else in the states.
That's all there is to this story in my mind, but at various junctures it was suppositioned that perhaps Wilson wasn't the architect at all, or that it couldn't be proven.
At least now we know the answer to that question.
-
And the answer is that David Moriarity likes to argue about golf architecture for no particular reason? ;D (just asking)
I live in Dallas, the home of the conspiracy theory, and I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone or history has conspired to deny CBM any due credit for Merion, or anything else.
That said, I doubt any of us will really know unless some new daily diary surfaces. I base my opinion on what I have always read, what I read on this thread, and the general assumption that, writing style differences aside, the situation and human interaction would have been about the same as they are today.
The funny thing about the "without a golf course architect" statement is that there really weren't too many of them other than CBM that they could have used, since he coined the term and was our first one. That emphasis is actually something I would associate with a more modern situation, given the vast majority of courses back then were probably built without a gca. Or, it could have been an ego thing on the part of the committee.
-
And the answer is that David Moriarity likes to argue about golf architecture for no particular reason? ;D (just asking)
I live in Dallas, the home of the conspiracy theory, and I have seen nothing suggesting that anyone or history has conspired to deny CBM any due credit for Merion, or anything else.
That said, I doubt any of us will really know unless some new daily diary surfaces. I base my opinion on what I have always read, what I read on this thread, and the general assumption that, writing style differences aside, the situation and human interaction would have been about the same as they are today.
The funny thing about the "without a golf course architect" statement is that there really weren't too many of them other than CBM that they could have used, since he coined the term and was our first one. That emphasis is actually something I would associate with a more modern situation, given the vast majority of courses back then were probably built without a gca. Or, it could have been an ego thing on the part of the committee.
Jeff,
I think you're correct on all counts.
Frankly, I think all of us, including David, like to argue about golf course architecture. ;)
I've tried to keep it light-hearted for the most part, even tried to interject some humor, but sometimes that's like trying to bring peace to the Middle east. ::)
By the way, I've been to Dallas and after many years of fascination with the case and almost certainly feeling that some conspiracy was involved, I've come to the firm conclusion in recent years that Oswald acted alone.
I think that proves two things;
1) Sometimes it's good to challenge myths and we should all keep an open mind.
2) Most myths are based in historical fact.
-
I hope when the time comes, my sibling writes the history of my derrings-do also.
-
I was reading the Time Man of the Year (its "YOU) and somewhere it said that when the Rodney King incident was taped we all couldn't believe a camera was present. Now, anything happens and its a miracle that it isnt.
Same with privacy. Look at all the crime solved through hard drive data. At least in the case of golf club atlas, its our former big brother watching us, and he is but a shadow of his former own self...........
-
Technology has caused another change in the world of GCA, this thread is getting shorter ...
-
MikeB:
It did get shorter and it was because I tried to delete my posts on this thread (I can't believe how many I had which in and of itself is frankly more than a little depressing).
Wayne deleted all his a few days ago. At first I didn't even bother to think why he did that but now I know. Both of us are disgusted with this thread and probably disgusted with ourselves for getting so entangled in it.
The precise point of this thread has never been clear and I still don't think it is. It doesn't seem to be about who designed Merion East, even if Tom MacWood did call that into question too. I think the fact of who designed Merion East has been known since the beginning. I guess this thread became about what is specifically meant by the reports that M&W "advised" Merion. In any case, I'd like to think that the Alan Wilson report that I posted last night cleared up any doubt in anyone's mind about the design and construction of the course.
Having gone through this thread and deleted my posts today I noticed two posts #147 and #155. Read them. That seems to be the point where David Moriarty accused Wayne Morrison of defaming him. All Wayne did (read it) is disagree with him. I never knew defaming someone was the same thing as disagreeing with them but some people seem to have some pretty strange ideas about certain things. And in post #155 in response to Mike Sweeney asking David Moriarty if he'd consider writing and "In My Opinion" piece about Merion East, David Moriarty said he probably wouldn't consider doing that because that would subject him to a verbal battering by me like the one David Moriarty said Tom MacWood took on a Pine Valley thread.
Now, think about it. Were those necessary things to say? Were they at all called for? I don't think so and I know Wayne doesn't. About five pages into any thread David Moriarty starts this kind of thing seems to happen without fail. People need to ask why.
Do I tend to get insulting towards him when these things begin to happen? Yes I do, I admit it. And I admit it pisses me off when people like Moriarty and MacWood accuse us of trying to promote Wilson and Philadelphia architecture at the expense of Macdonald or Crump at the expense of Colt.
I feel that kind of thing is downright insulting in both cases because it simply isn't true. We've done the best we could to date with what we have concerning Merion and its history and I feel the same about what I've done to analyze the entire creation of PV.
We'll probably get flack from David Moriarty for some reason for deleting our posts, but neither one of us want anything more to do with arguing whatever the subject and question of this thread is, which again, still isn't very clear. Perhaps the real subject of this thread by its originator is simply to see how long this West Coast fellow can continue to argue about anything and everything with everybody.
But yes, this thread really shrunk. It was me who shrunk it.
-
Tom Paul,
ONLY for the sake of posting honesty, I must ask you when you make a statement such as , "Now, think about it. Were those necessary things to say? Were they at all called for?" in discussing things that someone said in a derogatory manner, do you ever ask that about yourself when you hurl your own invectives such as calling him MacFud on every thread since whether he was particpating in it or not?!?
It certainly seems that you believe it is proper for you to curse someone out on site and threaten them as you have with Tom Macwood, but for someone to say something poorly about you, or in this case Wayne, that is blasphemous.
Tom, I don't care if this one pisses you off or not, but someone has to call you out on your pompous arrogance for writing that!
You just can't help yourself. It is time for you, and all others who feel a need to berate others out here to recognize that this is a site where GROWN-UPS come to DISCUSS things and act that way themselves.
-
Fellows,
Patrick speaks some very wise words here.
We are all very passionate about a subject that we have such interest in, and healthy debate is just that, and very useful in terms of education and helping to shed light from all angles.
However, we seem to have degraded here to a lot of personal acrimony and tawdry comments that really don't portray any of us at our personal best.
To my friends in Philly; I know David personally and I know you'd enjoy his humor, temperament, humility, and devotion to learning about the game. Anyone of you would enjoy sharing a few beers in his company, and you couldn't ask for a nicer, more unassuming guy in person. I'd hope that we could be a little less defensive about his motivations (me included) and slower to rush to judgement about the nature of his questioning. I'm also pretty certain we'd all feel the same way about Tom MacWood if we can ever drag him to the City of Brotherly Love for a few days.
And David...I think that sometimes you let your passion for winning a debate exceed your ability to accept reasoned criticism. We are all wrong at times...well, except for Patrick, that is ;), and sometimes it's easier to concede a point or at least grant that those who might be closer to a situation have an advantage in personal knowledge.
However, we all get on here and sometimes the impersonal nature of this forum puts all of us on our high horses and we tend to write things that we'd never say to each other in person. That cuts both ways, and sometimes it makes us brilliant and sometimes it makes us ignorant, belligerent, and obnoxious. I don't think there's many of us who post here often who aren't guilty of that at least once in awhile.
So, I'm done with this thread. I'm hoping that even this post doesn't come off as ridiculously condescending, because that's not my purpose.
It's just that when you weigh bruised feelings and angry diatribes and lost personal friendships against whether Macdonald was given enough credit for what happened at Merion, it's really not all that friggin important.
When Patrick Mucci and I become the logical voices of reason, the train is clearly off the track. ::)
To steal a line from the wise beyond his years Kyle Harris, "Never has so much been so well fought over for so little."
However, call me overly idealistic but I believe something good can come of this, truly.
We have a collective opportunity to make this site great, and to do some pretty good things for the game. I think it's about time we all start moving forward together, or else just throw in the towel, because when we piss off unassuming, reserved gentlemen like Dick Daley and Philip Young, then we're all wrong by definition, no matter how right we think we can prove we are.
-
Mike, I am not sure we read the same report, but since it is long gone now, I may never know.
1. AWilson did not say M&W were helpful in "the process" or with "irrigation, agronomy, and a host of other construction matters," or with “advice on his overseas trip,” or with “the concepts of the great strategic holes of the game,” or even in “getting the process off on sure footing.” Alan Wilson said (my bolds): "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.”
You think these guys were precise with their word usage? Well then why doesn’t “as to the lay-out of the East Course” mean as to the lay-out of the East Course? So far Tillinghast, Travis, Lesley, Alan Wilson, and more have all said that M&W advised about laying out the East Course. Yet you still insist this was really all about preparing for the Europe trip or just about anything but what they actually said.
Call me crazy, but I just do not think that when all these men said THE LAY-OUT THE EAST COURSE, they really meant WHAT TO SEE IN EUROPE.
2. AWilson did not say that M&W advice was not helpful, or ultimately rejected, or politely rejected, or even that “in the end the committee did not find it useful.” They said that (my bolds): "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.”
And, again, I do not think that when Tillinghast, Travis, Leslie, Alan Wilson and others referred to M&W’s advice and suggestions about laying out the East Course as helpful and as THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE, that they actually meant NOT USEFUL. or ULTIMATELY IGNORED.
You are saying these things. Alan Wilson is not.
3. You attach unfounded importance to Alan Wilson’s insistence that the committee deserves the credit for the design and construction of Merion East. In so doing you overlook the three words that immediately follow the description of M&W’s involvement (my bolds and caps):
”EXCEPT FOR THIS, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the Special Construction Commitee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E.Griscom, H.G. Lloyd, Dr, Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."
The committee is entirely responsible, except for the valuable help M&W gave them.
However, it's also clear that Alan Wilson, and seemingly the other members of the Merion Committee, didn't feel that Macdonald's role and input was significant enough to warrant credit for anything directly relating to the design and construction of the final product.
Alan Wilson thought M&W’s role was significant enough to warrant credit. Credit for all that he mentions, including (but not limited to) providing advice and suggestions that were of the greatest help and value in laying out Merion East. Since when does laying out a golf course not directly relate to the design and construction of its final product?
[As an aside, I don’t think that Alan Wilson was on the committee.]
4. As for your “coup de grace,” let’s take a look . . .
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the more famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture both of this and of the West course."
a. He does not say “ALL of the excellent suggestions and good advice in the final product came from the committee.” In fact, he doesn’t exclude the possibility of other suggestions or advice in the least bit. Rather he merely says that the committee members gave “many excellent suggestions” and “much good advice,” and that Wilson was “largely helped.”
How does this exclude the possibility of M&W’s also offering good advice which was used in the final product?
b. It seems that, in this paragraph, Alan Wilson is simply making a case that his recently deceased brother deserves more credit for the design than the rest of the committee members, and that even the committee members themselves think it so.
You try to read this simple report as some esoteric code rightfully purging M&W from any credit for actually contributing to the laying out of the course. Your reading is stretched well past the breaking point.
__________________
Jeff,
As you can probably tell, I do not agree with Mike's assessment of what this is all about. As you can also probably tell, we do have real differences on what MacDonald deserves credit for.
And Mike was one of the more reasonable ones on the issue.
-- Mr. Morrison insisted that there was no information suggesting that CBM was involved past Wilson's visit to NGLA before the overseas trip.
-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there.
Don't believe me? Check their posts.
A few pages back I wrote a summary of my take on the entire thing. It is a little long, but if you want to understand where the differences fall, it may be worth looking at.
-
"-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
David Moriarty:
For the record, I didn't say that, you did.
What I said was it has always seemed logical to me with all the available information we've had for quite some time (most of which has been put on this thread) that Wilson and his committee laid out, designed and built the golf course (obviously with foreman Pickering and Flynn) because they were the only ones whom we are aware were there everyday during that six month span it took to create the initial stage of Merion East. It seems to me Alan Wilson's report makes that more than clear (without mentioning foreman Pickering and Flynn, who were mentioned in this vein in correspondence elsewhere which we have in our possession).
I'm not trying to minimize M&W's contribution, and I never have, despite what you and Tom MacWood seem to have implied. I'm just taking what the words of those who wrote about the creation of Merion, particularly Hugh Wilson who was there every day (and his brother Alan who probably was around all the time too) say about M&W and particularly the ones who were obviously there every day on the project.
(of course if there ever had been a series of architectural plans developed and drawn by someone (as was the case with PVGC) that may change the way this creation of Merion should be looked at but we are not aware such plans ever existed with Merion East or West----although Flynn did draw plans of most of the original Merion East but we believe he did that after the fact.)
Obviously that an Alan Wilson who was asked by the first Merion historian to write this report for the purpose of the first Merion history fifteen years after the beginning would say Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of the golf course and that he'd been told that by every member of the Merion Committee is just another good reason why Hugh Wilson has always been considered the architect of Merion East and West.
I don't see that anything has been uncovered that would require interpreting it differently.
PS:
I'd like ya'll to take particular note of the kinder, gentler and far more even-tempered tone of contributor TEPaul which you can expect in the future. ;)
-
Dave Moriarty,
Surely you can distinquish the difference in the following two phrases:
1 .....As to the lay out of the East Course
2 .....Laying out the East Course
# 1 would seem to reference comments about a course that's already been routed or layed out
# 2 references the undertaking of the process of routing or laying out of the course.
Those two phrases seem light years apart in meaning.
# 1 suggests that comments were made about an existing lay out (routing), or at best, general comments, such as: Don't route # 1 to the East and Don't route # 18 to the West
# 2 suggests that one will be actively involved in the process of laying out (routing) the course.
If M&W were intimately involved in routing the golf course, why use such ambivalent language ?
Why not state exactly how M&W assisted them ?
Why isn't there any record such as this:
M&W showed us how to traverse the deep depression in the northern section of the property by creating a long approach shot and a subsequent tee shot over the chasm.
Or, M&W showed us how to route the golf course by crossing the road only twice.
Or, M&W showed us that we could cross over a hole to get to another, while producing the best holes the property would offer.
Or, we were stuck on how best to leave and return to the clubhouse.
Or, M&W convinced us not to return to the clubhouse for the 9th hole by ......
If M&W had tangible imput, where is it evidenced ?
Why isn't there one clear item or routing specific reference substantiating their involvement ?
Could it be because they were never involved in the details and only gave some general advice ?
-
Thank you Shivas, Tom Paul, and Patrick for saving my fingers typing another long response to David.
Happy Holidays, David. We're never going to agree here but hopefully we'll be able to pick up discussion on a related topic in the next week which is;
Well...I'll wait and see if someone else defines the paramters first, but I'm hoping to see something about the American "Naturalism" movement very soon. ;D
-
The theory being that if Merion was a rejection of anything, it was a rejection of CBM trying to ram his rote copycat brainless crap down the Wilson brothers' throat and they told him to stick his fifth of scotch where the sun don't shine 'cuz they had better ideas? ;D
Shivas,
Do you really feel that your response is consistent with the new kinder, gentler approach we're taking on this site? ;)
Actually, I suspect they stuck the business end of the wicker stick there instead and gave the scotch to Flynn and Pickering. ;D
-
The last page of this thread has been very informative. I am amazed how there were accounts written about the construction of the course at all. I wonder if they thought that Merion would be so relevant this far in the future.
My question, which you may ignore because of my inexperience, is the following. How would M&W's helpful suggestions be any different than the suggestions that a modern day associate would give to a lead architect?
It would get very complicated if we went back and started to partition credit for all designs.
I am sure I need to read some of this again because this chemists reading comprehension is not up to the level of the litigators on this site. ;)
-
"The last page of this thread has been very informative. I am amazed how there were accounts written about the construction of the course at all. I wonder if they thought that Merion would be so relevant this far in the future."
Dave;
The written accounts (as you call them) that are probably the most informative for the simple reason they were written by the Wilsons (of Merion) were two----eg one from Hugh Wilson, the architect of both courses in 1915-6, and the second one was written by his brother Alan in 1926.
Hugh's report in 1915-6 of the creation of Merion concentrated primarily on agronomy not architecture. One wonders why that was and the obvious answer was that back in that day that was the very thing everyone seemed to be so dedicated to for the simple reason back then they knew so much less about it than we do now and they were very much struggling to find their way in that area. Golf agronomy back then was a massive and constant problem. In a word agronomy totally fixated Hugh Wilson from 1911 until his premature death in 1925.
Alan Wilson's report of the creation of Merion still has a lot to do with agronomy (a field he also became an expert in like his brother Hugh) but approximately half of it is about the architecture of the course particularly the early architecture. Alan was asked by Richard Philler the club historian for that report because he obviously felt Alan was one who would perhaps know best.
I don't think it was unusual that Alan described the architecture the way he did basically calling it one of the best courses for the simple reason that by 1926 the course had held 'three nationals" as he called them and a number of other championships. As a championship golf course Merion was on the national tournament scene very early in its existence. That may not have been the only reason it was well recognized but that was one most important reason it was so well recognized in 1926.
"My question, which you may ignore because of my inexperience, is the following. How would M&W's helpful suggestions be any different than the suggestions that a modern day associate would give to a lead architect?"
I think M&W's suggestions or "advice" needs to be looked at in two parts---eg before Wilson went to GB and after he returned and started with the project.
Wilson himself described pretty comprehensively what M&W did for he and his committee before he went to GB but neither he nor Alan later said anything much specific about what the "advice" or the suggestions were M&W may've given Merion afterwards which probably were limited to those two visits in late 1910 and the spring of 1911.
Some on here have been speculating maybe Wilson or Merion didn't really want his advice for some reason at the point Wilson returned form GB. My sense is that probably had little or nothing to do with it if M&Ws advice or suggestions (after Wilson returned) was of such a limited nature that noone thought to mention anything specific about it after the fact (those two reports).
My sense is that Macdonald just may not have been particularly interested in getting specifically involved in the design and construction of Merion. Why would he? It wasn't his project, he never took money for anything he did in architecture so why would he be particularly inclined to get specifically and significantly involved in a project in another city and another state which he personally had nothing to do with?
To me that's probably the most pertinent question here.
There's another very interesting piece of info in Alan's report. He says in no uncertain terms that Merion never used a golf architect.
What could that mean? Did they consider Macdonald a golf architect and of so that he really wasn't used? I don't think so. I don't think those men from that era we sometimes call the "amateur" architects referred to themselves at that point as "architects". And why not? I believe to them the term connoted professionalism and we certainly do know that in that era (the teens) an amateur golfer could have nothing to do with professionalism of any kind in anything even relating to golf or he would lose his amateur playing status and not a single one of those men we are discussing here wanted to risk that. And that very much included Macdonald who explained years later he never took a cent for architecture because he didn't believe a man in his amateur position should do that.
-
Patrick and Shivas,
Your mincing of language is entirely unconvincing, and am glad to see that Shivas has apparently realized this. That being said, it makes no difference. Summarize the statements of Tillinghast, Travis, Lesley, and A. Wilson and others either way; use either . . .
M&W advised and offered suggestions of the greatest help and value as to the layout of Merion East . . .
or . . .
M&W advised and offered suggestions of the greatest help and value about laying out the course . . .
it makes absolutely no difference. Either way, M&W advised about the initial creation of Merion East, and there advice was very helpful.
Despite your quibble with my word choice, surely you both see that Mike Cirba's interpretation of the AWilson article is stretched well beyond breaking..
In his post above to Jeff Brauer, Mike argues that AWilson meant:
While M&W may have been helpful with "the process," or . .
--with "irrigation, agronomy, and a host of other construction matters," or . . .
--with “advice on his overseas trip,” or . . .
-- with “the concepts of the great strategic holes of the game,” or . . .
-- in “getting the process off on sure footing,” . . .
. . . M&W's advice about the lay out of Merion East was of no help whatsover in that the committee did not follow any of this advice or suggestions; that all of M&W's advice was ignored and rejected by the committee.
The evidence just doesn’t support this minimalization of M&W’s contribution to the initial lay out of Merion East.
Shivas, as for the don’t let the wicker hit you on the way out theory, it is purely unsupported speculation. And the fact that they were still praising M&W’s contributions as of the "greatest value" over a dozen years later undercuts this theory.
The only supported theory is the explanation given by just about everyone who commented, especially Wilson’s brother. M&W advised about the lay out of Merion East, and their advice suggestions and advice were not only helpful, they were of the greatest value to Wilson and the committee.
Dave B. (and to Mike Cirba, indirectly)
With all due respect to Mike, he has consistently misrepresented my position throughout. I have never said or suggested that M&W deserved design credit. I have never said or suggested said that Wilson did not. In fact I have said the opposite throughout and even changed my signature to the left of this post to help Mike and others keep this in mind.
To no avail. At every turn Mike tries to make this discussion about design credit, but he is arguing with ghosts, not with me.
So while CBM was hardly the equivalent of a "design associate" in this circumstance, your analogy is still apt if your point is that sometimes even valuable advice does not justify an attribution of full design credit, as in Merion, designed my M&W.
But it is also true that an associate’s advice oftentimes contributes significantly to the final result, even though all agree that the associate is not deserving of an equal and official design credit.
Yet in this case, these guys consistently downplay MacDonald’s role as an advisor; insisting that his advice about laying out the course was not helpful at all. And they do so despite overwhelming evidence in the written record to the contrary.
The evidence strongly suggests that M&W were advisors to the committee about laying out (and the lay out) of Merion East, and that just about everyone who commented on the matter recognized that M&W’s advice and suggestions about the lay out of Merion East were beneficial; that M&W’s advice aided the committee, was beneficial to the committee, was of a great help; and was of THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE.
-
"-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
David Moriarty:
For the record, I didn't say that, you did.
Once again, by Christmas miracle, the ghosts of TomPaul's past:
Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped.
(my bolds)
Also in the same post. . .
I just think it's patently perposterous to assign much credit to a couple of guys from New York who may've showed up down here for a few hours a couple of times compared to men who slaved away on that course for 10-15 and 20 years to make it what it is.
. . . a couple of guys who hardly know Merion make a big deal out of a couple of mentions of a guy "advising". I think that's what is preposterous.
(my bolds)
-
David:
I don't know that it's worthwhile to continue this thread any longer. I think, at this point, we can all agree that M&W most certainly advised Wilson and Merion's committee in Southampton before Wilson sailed to GB for some months of architectural study, not the least reason being that Hugh Wilson specifically wrote about that and explained in some detail what M&W advised them about before he traveled to GB.
And I think we can also all probably agree that M&W "advised" Merion, Wilson and his committee somehow in two separate visits (one in late 1910 and the other in the Spring of 1911) but that as Alan Wilson reported, and as confirmed to him by each member of the Merion Committee, that Hugh Wilson, was, in fact, as Alan Wilson reported, 'in the main the architect of Merion East and West'.
And that that is probably the reason the design of Merion East AND West has always been accurately attributed to Hugh I. Wilson.
-
"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 08:36:48am
"-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
David Moriarty:
For the record, I didn't say that, you did.
Once again, by Christmas miracle, the ghosts of TomPaul's past:
Quote from: TEPaul on December 09, 2006, 03:43:04 pm
Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia and worked on that course every day for a couple decades until they finally got it the way they wanted it and then they stopped.
(my bolds)"
David:
I'm glad that you reconstituted those remarks of mine from different dates.
If you read them again, you will see that I said the same thing in each remark from different dates about what I feel the credit should be to Wilson and committee.
What I disagreed with you on when I said 'to set the record straight', is that I never said in either remark on either date '"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
Those words were yours, and definitely not mine, and that's why I said 'To set the record straight, I never said that, you did'.
-
David:
I'm glad that you reconstituted those remarks of mine from different dates.
If you read them again, you will see that I said the same thing in each remark from different dates about what I feel the credit should be to Wilson and committee.
Not sure what you mean here, Tom. The first quote is yours from today, the rest of the quotes are not only from the same day, they are from the same quote. I put them in two boxes because I changed my mind about what to include.
What I disagreed with you on when I said 'to set the record straight', is that I never said in either remark on either date '"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
You never said either remark on either date? What about the above quotes??
If you are denying that you made the taking credit away statement, you are mistaken. You did say, very specifically, that giving M&W credit was taking it away from Wilson and the others who were there. (It could have even been in the very same post, but I wouldn't guarantee it.)
But putting that aside, I am at least glad we agree on one thing. You have concluded that: Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia, and not to M&W.
That is still your position, isn't it?
-
David:
Perhaps you should consider responding on this thread's subject to my post above.
"Add to this H.Wilson's own statements as to the importance of MacDonald's teachings, then it is impossible to deny that MacDonald not only was involved in the layout, had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East."
I think perhaps you need to do a bit of grammatical cleaning up of that statement of yours for us to consider it again, but if it even remotely conveys the same meaning that that one does, then, yes, it is not only NOT impossible to deny that Macdonald had a SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE on the initial design of Merion East, but it is even quite likely that he didn't have a significant influence on the initial design or Merion East.
-
"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
David:
I never said that, only you did.
-
"But putting that aside, I am at least glad we agree on one thing. You have concluded that: Most every bit of credit for Merion East needs to go to the people who were right here in Philadelphia, and not to M&W.
That is still your position, isn't it?"
David:
I would say that is the case if we agree on the meaning of this statement from Alan Wilson;
"The land of the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study most of the famous links of Scotland and England. ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED AND WHILE LARGELY HELPED BY MANY EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS AND MUCH GOOD ADVICE FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE EACH TOLD ME THAT HE IS THE PERSON IN THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS AND OF THE WEST COURSE."
(my bolds, not Alan Wilson's) ;)
-
Tom, it is not a big issue, but you did say that giving CBM credit was taking it away from others. With all due respect, my recollection of what you have said has been spot on, even when you have not remembered it that way.
Regardless, it may well be a moot point. Given your statements above I assume you agree with it whether you admit saying it or not.
_______________
Thanks for pointing out my sloppy grammar. I think you got my message.
_________________
As for your capitalized quote, I think it means what it says. No more and no less. I never denied that Wilson was "the person in the main responsible" for the design of both courses, nor do I have any reason to doubt it, especially since AWilson seems to be talking about not just the initial version of Merion East, but on how the courses evolved.
As for M&W's (highly valued) contribution, your quote is silent on the issue. H.Wilson is the main architect, but that was never my issue.
Surely you do not seriously believe that A.Wilson's description of his brother as the main architect in any way precludes the conclusion that others also substantially contributed??
If so, can you point to me to where he says that. Because I dont see it.
As I explained above, in this paragraph A.Wilson seems to be making a pitch that his brother should be considered the main architect, even noting that the rest of the committee agrees with him. Setting aside the obvious conflict of interest, and accepting A.Wilson's words at face value, it just doesnt say any more than this.
___________________
As for your request that I address your post above, I have no idea to which of your many posts you refer.
-
David,
I think the second statement below is where I continue to come unglued in your argument. The first statement is OK and supported by the written evidence.
In the second statement you say that showed Macdonald was "involved". Does involved mean more to you than that he offered some, as yet unknown, advice? In the next sentence you make an intuitive leap from the giving of unspecified advice to Macdonald "had a significant influence on the initial design". How do you conclude that the advice given was "significant" to the design? There is no evidence it was significant (whatever that means). It was helpful and of value. But that doesn't mean it significantly influenced the design.
Perhaps you could flesh out what you mean by influenced and significant.
........................................
The obvious and literal meaning of What Wilson, Tillinghast, Travis, Wilson, etc. wrote should not be in dispute:
M&W advised the committee about the lay out of Merion, and that this advice was THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE to the committee.
Add to this H.Wilson's own statements as to the importance of MacDonald's teachings, then it is impossible to deny that MacDonald not only was involved in the layout, had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East.
-
"Tom, it is not a big issue, but you did say that giving CBM credit was taking it away from others. With all due respect, my recollection of what you have said has been spot on, even when you have not remembered it that way.:
David:
Did I? Well, then I'm going to ask you to find it and cite it or else not claim that I DID say such a thing. With all due respect to you, my recollection of what I've said on this thread has been spot on and I never said that giving CBM credit was taking it away from others.
You said I said that, as I mentioned above. I never said that--only you did. That quotation comes from your post #902.
-
The obvious and literal meaning of What Wilson, Tillinghast, Travis, Wilson, etc. wrote should not be in dispute:
M&W advised the committee about the lay out of Merion, and that this advice was THE GREATEST HELP AND VALUE to the committee.
Add to this H.Wilson's own statements as to the importance of MacDonald's teachings, then it is impossible to deny that MacDonald not only was involved in the layout, had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East.
David, you have been consistent in stating that you are not trying to give design credit to M&W, so I'm wondering what you're interpretations of "laying out" are?
-
David,
I think you might be mistaken and I don't recall Tom Paul saying that.
On the other hand, I did.
I think my paraphrased quote was somethiing like, "You can say that this isn't a zero sum game but if you tell me that, say, Macdonald designed 15 holes at the original Merion East course, well that's certainly 15 less holes of the total of 18 that Hugh Wilson designed."
I think Bryan sums up my feelings pretty well.
I certainly agree that M&W advised the committee on the layout and their advice was deemed very beneficial.
But, did that mean their contribution was 50% of the layout work? 90%? 5? We don't know but we do know that what was built was nothing at all like any Macdonald or Raynor or Banks course that was ever built before or for the ensuing 20 years. That is the physical evidence we're left with.
Let me relay a personal story.
A few years back a local club was undertaking a restoration project and the principals of the club, for some unfathomable reason, thought that my advice and input would be valuable to the process.
So, I visited the club and we went over the proposed restoration changes in great detail. Then, we went out to play and took time noting and comparing the changes against the current reality.
One of the points in question related to a fronting bunker on a par three where accumulated sandsplash over the years had built up the face so that most of the green was not visible from the tee. Not only that but the buildup caused a disfiguration of the original green contours in a way that was challenging and interesting. However, we also had the good fortune of having a number of historical aerial photographs, and some original architectural plans and it was clear that not only was there no sandsplash, but there was no bunker there. The original fronting bunker was well short of the green, and the green itself did not have the fronting "ramp" that had been built up.
At the time we were discussing this, one of the principals had some pretty strong feelings that perhaps this feature should be left alone. More at issue was that the whole restoration project was coming up for a vote by the club committee, and there were various opinions and pet features among the varied group and no real consistent unanimity within the club.
I knew that the principals really wanted as true a restoration as possible, and I advised that once you open the bag of changing some things but not others, you would introduce a pandora's box of other suggestions that would dilute the overall project in a way that would lead to unexpected results.
Ultimately, they agreed with me, and with some other recommendations I suggested regarding some other controversial historical features. In the end, the club voted for the full restoration plan and the work has been praised and enjoyed by the club since that time.
Do I consider that my role was imporant and valuable? Well, only to the degree that I may have helped them to understand the logic of taking a strong stand to go back to the original design, armed with the argument that this was the course as built by a renowned designer.
The principals seemed to appreciate my input, and told me so repeatedly and I felt really good about that.
However, it would be a complete mischaracterization of my role to suggest that my input was anything but a miniscule piece of the overall pie, and certainly nothing at all compared to the work that was done by the principal movers and shakers at the club, the committee, and the architect and shapers involved in the project.
Of course, I'm certainly not trying to compare my knowledge with someone like Macdonald but simply trying to point out that an undertaking of a restoration is a huge effort involving a lot of people but a complete "startup" of a new course dwarfs that by several degrees.
And, in such a circumstance, it's very possible to contribute a great deal of valuable input, while still only being responsible for a very small piece of the pie.
-
David:
Did I? Well, then I'm going to ask you to find it and cite it or else not claim that I DID say such a thing.
TEPaul,
Well. I see we really have come full circle, at least with regard to your fallacious logic and methodologies. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be insulting with these terms, in this case they are terms of art. Your position is based on a logical fallacy and is therefore irrational. Again.
Find it and cite it? That will be tough, because you destroyed it.
Like with your (and Mr. Morrison's) repeated demand for evidence of what specifically M&W contributed, you make an irrational demand for proof here as well. You insist that I provide you with evidence that you know cannot exist.
My inability to cite it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you actually said it. You said it, whether or not I can cite it. How many Christmas miracles do you expect me to come up with this year?
Same goes with evidence of M&W's specific contributions. No evidence about anyone's specific contribution has been found. Therefore the absence of evidence of M&W's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or what M&W specifically contributed. Whether or not he contributed, no such evidence exists.
But again, it is beside the point, because even if you deny saying it, you believe it, don't you?
________________________________________
Mike Cirba,
I am sorry I dont have time to address or even read your post now, but I did notice the first sentence or so. Yes you did say it. Your post is there to prove it.
Nonetheless, I am certain that TEPaul said it as well. But again, I don't care, because he believes it. Don't you Tom?
____________
David S.
I am sorry I do not have time to address your post either, but I will when I get the chance.
__________________________
Merry Christmas to some, Happy Holidays to others, and a belated Happy Winter's Solstice to the rest of us.
-
David,
Happy Holidays to you, as well. ;D
I hope you get a chance to read my post as I believe it makes an important point.
I think I've said all I can on this thread, but for the most part, I enjoyed the discussion.
-
DavidMoriarty,
Why do you think, over a 25 year period, that there's nothing but vague references to nebulous tasks that you allege M&W performed for Merion ?
There's NOT one detail, not one specific of anything they did.
And, that's over a 25 year period.
How can that be ?
How can it be that the great CBM wasn't given credit for his SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS to the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?
The absence of same flies in the face of common sense given his stature in the American Golf Scene.
He was a giant, yet, not one accolade can be found with respect to specific contributions he might have made at Merion.
My theory is that CBM's involvement was more ceremonial than practical.
P.S. Nice card, you and I should be thankful that our kids get
their looks from their mothers. ;D
-
David Moriarty:
This is what you said in post #902:
""-- TEPaul thought that most every bit of credit for the early Merion East ought to stay with those who were there every day, and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there.""
You made that remark, not me. But of that remark by you I certainly do agree, and did agree a few times above that I said most of the credit for the early Merion East ought to go to those who were there every day.
What I never said on this thread or anywhere else is the part of that remark above that follows the comma that says;
"and that giving M&W credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."
I never said anything like that on this thread or anywhere else. Those are your words, not mine. And frankly that is the very idea you have probably been trying to establish all along on this thread that grew to about 32 pages. That is an idea I see virtually noone agreeing with you on.
I don't agree with it at all and I never have and the last thing I'm going to do on this thread since I don't agree with that is let you put your own words in my mouth so that you can attempt to make it look like I agree with that.
I never said such a thing. Those are your words, not mine.
-
“Same goes with evidence of M&W's specific contributions. No evidence about anyone's specific contribution has been found. Therefore the absence of evidence of M&W's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or what M&W specifically contributed. Whether or not he contributed, no such evidence exists.”
David:
You’ve been saying things like that on this thread from the beginning. I guess you must be trying to imply that since there is no evidence of anyone’s specific contribution including no evidence of Macdonald’s specific involvement that therefore it follows that it must be a mystery about who designed the golf course. Tom MacWood actually implied that before he left this website. I don’t think anyone on this thread agrees with that. I doubt anyone anywhere agrees with it except perhaps you and Tom MacWood.
By stating that no evidence has been found of anyone’s specific contribution, and no evidence has been found of Macdonald’s specific involvement, I suppose you mean no laundry list has ever been found about who was responsible for the design of each and every hole, each and every green, bunker etc, and perhaps the over-all routing. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen architectural responsibility listed that way for any golf course at any time.
But it is not true to say that we have no evidence of who the architect of the golf course was and to a significant and specific extent. That specific and significant evidence did not show up on this thread until about page 31 but it did show up. And it is from someone who was there and perhaps in the best position of anyone to know what happened there and who did what. Here is that evidence:
“"The land of the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study most of the famous links of Scotland and England. ON HIS RETURN THE PLAN WAS GRADUALLY EVOLVED AND WHILE LARGELY HELPED BY MANY EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS AND MUCH GOOD ADVICE FROM THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THEY HAVE EACH TOLD ME THAT HE IS THE PERSON IN THE MAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS AND OF THE WEST COURSE."
When Alan Wilson says that he was told by all those involved that Hugh Wilson was ‘in the main responsible for the architecture of this (East Course) and the West Course’, that is significant and specific enough for me and apparently for most everyone else. But perhaps you have not yet realized that “in the main responsible” and “significant contribution” in the context of the design and construction of the course are essentially the same thing.
So it is no longer irrelevent that we have found no evidence of M&W's specific involvement because the first part of your statement 'No evidence about anyone's specific contribution has been found' is no longer true. Consequently your "Therefore", followed by (the absence of evidence of M&W's specific involvement is absolutely irrelevant as to whether or what M&W specifically contributed), is no longer even applicable to your point.
Hugh Wilson's specific (and significant) contribution according to those in a position to know was that "he was the person in the main responsibile for THE ARCHITECTURE of the East and the West courses."
That is obviously why he has always been known as the architect of Merion. There is no mystery, there is no puzzle and there isn't even 'another piece of a puzzle' remaining.
-
Mike Cirba,
I am sorry I dont have time to address or even read your post now, but I did notice the first sentence or so. Yes you did say it. Your post is there to prove it.
Nonetheless, I am certain that TEPaul said it as well. But again, I don't care, because he believes it. Don't you Tom?"
David:
If by your question "Do I believe it?", you mean believe this remark;
"and that giving M&W any credit was taking credit away from Wilson and the others who were there."",
No, I do not believe that and I've never said that. Again, those are your words, not mine.
-
David, you have been consistent in stating that you are not trying to give design credit to M&W, so I'm wondering what you're interpretations of "laying out" are?
David, I think that they were rather loose in their use of the phrase; I don’t have a concrete definition for them, because I don’t think they had a concrete definition themselves. One thing to keep in mind is that the state of golf course creation was really in flux during this period, and so I think the terminology was very likely in flux as well. Sometimes they seem to be referring to just the routing and maybe the general placement of the hazards, but other times they seem to also include the actual construction of the course. So generally, I would say that laying out a course encompasses routing the course including hazard placement, but sometimes also includes at least the rough construction.
________________________
Mike
First, I do not understand how you can say that you I “agree that M&W advised the committee on the layout and their advice was deemed very beneficial,” unless your view has changed since your post above where you appear to conclude that they did it themselves, and that M&W’s advice and suggestions were ultimately was not followed at all. What am I missing here?
But, did that mean their contribution was 50% of the layout work? 90%? 5?
I just don't think this is anything you can break down into percentages. What percentage of Pacific Dunes was Jim Urbina? What percentage of Rustic Canyon was Jim Wagner? Geoff Shackelford? You could try to come up with numbers, and numbers might make you think you were being objective, but the reality is that the numbers will never come close to accurately reflecting what really happened.
We don't know but we do know that what was built was nothing at all like any Macdonald or Raynor or Banks course that was ever built before or for the ensuing 20 years. That is the physical evidence we're left with.
This might matter more if we were talking about design credit. And it might matter more if anyone was claiming that Raynor or Banks or even M&W were involved in the actual construction. But for reasons I have explained repeatedly, when it comes to the question of whether M&W's advice and suggestions had a significant influence on the initial design of Merion East, I do not think it could matter much less.
As for your personal example, I find it an interesting story, but I am not sure how it bolsters your position.
When it comes to your specific area of involvement, it sounds like you were pretty important. And you likely deserve credit for your contribution, but only within the narrow realm of your involvement. So if the principles ever write an article on how to go about doing a successful restoration and are describing their own experience, they ought to mention that bringing in a person as knowledgeable and articulate as you was crucial in reaching their decision to stand firm, and that by standing firm and conveying your ideas to the partnership, they were able to get a real restoration done, and the course is the better for it. Now obviously, I don’t know everything that happened, but from your description it sounds like ignoring your role would be telling well less than the entire story, at least when it came to the initial decision of whether they would push for a true restoration.
You say the principles thought your input would be valuable; it sounds like it turned out to be valuable; and it also sounds like they have acknowledged the value, at least to you.
Given your description and the principles’ viewpoint on the matter, it would be absurd for me to claim that your input was disregarded or ignored or politely listened to then dismissed. Yet when just about everyone who was there agrees that MacDonald’s advice was valuable, you still conclude that they really did not mean it; and that M&W’s advice about the lay out was completely ignored in the end.
_________________________
Patrick. Based on the information I have seen, we know as much or more about what M&W specifically did than we do about anyone else involved in the initial creation of Merion East. Wilson is referred to many as the architect and his brother says he was the main guy, but I have seen little or no information about what he specifically did. Does this mean he was not the designer or the main guy? Of course not.
Your demand of evidence of CBM’s specific tasks makes about as much sense as TEPaul demanding that I find and cite a post which he destroyed. I’ll never find it because it is no longer available by reason of destruction. But y inability to find a deleted quote is irrelevant to whether the quote ever existed.
Likewise the laundry list of who did what (if there ever was one) is not available, and the inability to find CBM on that unavailable list says absolutely nothing about whether or not he was specifically involved.
How can it be that the great CBM wasn't given credit for his SPECIFIC CONTRIBUTIONS to the routing, design and construction of the golf course ?
He was given credit by Tillinghast, Travis, Leslie, Tolhurst, A. Wilson and H. Wilson, and they apparently so no point in listing his or anyone else’s specific contributions. You cannot dismiss their statements just because they don’t provide a laundry list of exactly how his advice was helpful!
I understand your theory. I have just not seen any support for it at all.
__________________________
TEPaul, as for what you said and didn’t say, I am done with it. I am not going to argue with someone who deleted all his posts and is now demanding I cite them. I know what you said, and had you not deleted your posts we would never have to have such a ridiculous discussion.
At this point I don't even care.
I guess you must be trying to imply that since there is no evidence of anyone’s specific contribution including no evidence of Macdonald’s specific involvement that therefore it follows that it must be a mystery about who designed the golf course.
No, I am not trying to imply this.
By stating that no evidence has been found of anyone’s specific contribution, and no evidence has been found of Macdonald’s specific involvement, I suppose you mean no laundry list has ever been found about who was responsible for the design of each and every hole, each and every green, bunker etc, and perhaps the over-all routing. Frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen architectural responsibility listed that way for any golf course at any time.
So why then have you and Mr. Morrison been demanding evidence about CBM's specific involvement from the beginning of the thread?
The rest of your post deals with proving that H. Wilson was the architect. I have never had a quarrel with this. You can go back through my posts if you do not believe me.
I do disagree, though, that H.Wilson's brother pronouncing H.Wilson as the architect provides us with any specific details of what H.Wilson specifically did. You apply a double standard. Vague pronouncements are okay if they are about H. Wilson, but not if they are about CBM.
-
"TEPaul, as for what you said and didn’t say, I am done with it."
David:
That's nice. Next time you should quote me instead of writing what you think I said.
"I am not going to argue with someone who deleted all his posts and is now demanding I cite them."
Sorry about that. I was fascinated to see that you cut and copied what I said on here so it's too bad you didn't copy something that you're now only claiming you think I said.
"I know what you said,...."
No you don't. What you know is what you said I said, but unfortunately I never said that, only you did.
"......and had you not deleted your posts we would never have to have such a ridiculous discussion."
We would never have had this ridiculous discussion if you hadn't tried to put your words in my mouth.
-
Maybe this can put this thread to bed once and for all.
"So why then have you and Mr. Morrison been demanding evidence about CBM's specific involvement from the beginning of the thread?"
Because we believe that information and evidence like Hugh Wilson's and Alan Wilson's report is reliable evidence to use to attribute who it was who was the architect of the initial stage of Merion East.
"The rest of your post deals with proving that H. Wilson was the architect." I have never had a quarrel with this. You can go back through my posts if you do not believe me."
That's right it does deal with that and I think it goes a long way to proving he was the architect of the course. I'm glad you agree with that here.
"I do disagree, though, that H.Wilson's brother pronouncing H.Wilson as the architect provides us with any specific details of what H.Wilson specifically did."
None of us have ever said that any evidence we've ever found proves any specific details of what anyone did if by that you mean who designed every green, tee, fairway, bunker etc.
As I said above that is not something I've ever seen listed about a golf course anywhere in any comprehensive way. I think we can prove that Harry Colt placed the green of #5 at PVGC simply because a number of people including Crump himself gave him specific credit for that, but other than that it has been hard to prove he did anything else (until now, I believe). With Geo Crump, on the other hand, Tillinghast described in detail in writing and most importantly during the fact the way a number of the holes he said Crump built were and that's the way they are today. That's proof, and pretty specific proof as it is assigning holes to various people. And isn't it interesting that Crump and Colt have both always been given credit for designing PVGC?
But I have never seen anything like a laundry list like that for the initial stage of Merion. What we do have however, is a specific description by Alan Wilson about who designed Merion East. Read again the quotation above. He says while the Merion committee made many recommendations it was Hugh Wilson who was in the main responsible as the architect of the golf course. To me that's specific if we are looking for evidence of who the architect of Merion East was.
"You apply a double standard. Vague pronouncements are okay if they are about H. Wilson, but not if they are about CBM."
No I'm not applying any double standard at all, but you appear to be trying to create some kind of double standard by demanding that specific evidence be produced of who was responsible for every detail of the architecture of the golf course, and that if we can't do that we must not assume that Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion East, despite the fact a most reliable report says he was the architect of the golf course.
And then you go on with some seriously shaky logic suggesting that since there is no specific information of who designed every detail of the golf course (despite the fact a reliable report says H. Wilson was the architect of the golf course), AND that since there is no specific evidence that M&W WERE or even WERE NOT involved in the design of the golf course, THEREFORE we cannot assume that M&W DID NOT make a specific contribution or have a significanct involvement in the design of the course.
Unfortunately we don't believe these things work that way, David, and Wayne and I definitely do not partake in that type of seriously flawed and frankly ridiculously tortured logic you have on this thread.
What we've done is look at the weight of the evidence we have which is a report by the man who it has always been purported is the architect of the course with his committee. In that report, written after the fact, he give M&W a good deal of credit for what he did for him and the committee before the project began and before he left for GB. He even explained what that credit was specifically for. Afterwards Wilson mentioned the laying out and the building of Merion East was "Our problem (proposition)". Yes, it's true, we are assuming that by "Our" Wilson meant he and his committee which is the way collectively they always seemed to refer to each other.
As I've said before if Macdonald had been part of that process or project I see no reason at all that Hugh Wilson would not have mentioned him again for his part in that phase of the project.
And the same goes for Alan Wilson's report. He said that H. Wilson was helped by his committee but in the main he was the architect of the golf course.
And so, laundry list or no laundry list if Macdonald had done anything following Wilson's return from GB that smacked of significant involvement in the design and construction of the golf course why in the world did Alan Wilson just not say so? We feel the reason he did not mention M&W is because it is true that the Merion committee made suggestions but in the main it was Hugh Wilson who was the architect of the golf course.
Again, we feel if M&W had been significantly involved at that point Alan Wilson definitely would've mentioned them and given them credit and since he did not do that in that report they obviously weren't significantly involved at that time in the design and construction of the golf course.
Henceforth, if you or someone else like Tom MacWood want to suggest there is some kind of conspiracy around here to shut outside architects out of credit for what they did around here, or that perhaps you think Alan Wilson was lying, or even if you want to use the kind of seriously tortured logic you have on this thread, I doubt you will have anyone who knows anything about the histories of these courses participating.
-
Certainly not to regenerate this long and contentious thread but since it did revolve around the hole at Merion that was once referred to as an "Alps" and since this thread discussed whether or not Macdonald may've influenced Wilson and Merion somehow with this template hole or whether Wilson was influenced by an "Alps" in GB, I think this bit of information may have some real relevence on early "Alps" holes over here and what their influence could've been.
I was reading the Myopia history book the other day and as many may know Herbert Leeds who created Myopia just may be one of the most interesting early influences on American architecture, beginning right around 1900-1902. When I say he was an early influence on American architecture, by that I mean the type of early American architecture that we today consider "good"---not the type of architecture we refer to as "geometric" or "Victorian", "Dark Age" or "Steeplchase-like".
People like Macdonald, Crump, perhaps Wilson too etc believed that Myopia may've been the best course in America in the beginning of the century, along with Chicago G.C. and GCGC.
The reason I mention all this is in 1900 Leeds created a hole on that "Long Nine" (where they held a US Open) that was named and referred to as "Alps".
And indeed it was exactly that---it played directly over a huge hill to a green beyond. It appears one perhaps needed to carry the ball a long way over that hill or risk losing it in some real junk and rough. The other option was to play the ball around that hill on the left in two shots.
For those who know Myopia this hole which was the 4th played from about where the tees are on #10 directly to the right over that hill to a green that was probably between the present 11th green and the present 12th tee.
But the point is this hole was called "Alps" and it was named "Alps" and it preceeded NGLA by almost a decade and it was famous amongst the day's best golfers as Myopia was which again, was considered by the likes of Macdonald and Crump et al to have been perhaps the best course in this country at that time. Myopia also held four US Opens within a decade (1898-1908).
-
Tom,
Wasn't there referrence (not sure if it was in one of these threads or somewhere else on GCA) to a hole at Yeaman's Hall that was called "The Alps" that did not have the hill, but did have the bunkers and broken ground leading up to the green so the forced carry was in effect?
Also, to those that know, would #8 at Royal New Kent be considered an ALPS?
-
JES, I am not sure of the answer but a well-placed drive would leave an approach that was not blind and did not need to go over the hill. Or maybe that is only if the pin is right as it was for us?
-
Andy,
"Well placed", into the narrowest portion of the fairway, I might add. But you are definitely correct, from the slot in the right side of the fairway near the bunkers to a right pin the shot is not blind, but for the majority of approach shots I think it probably is. And besides, I don't know if it is, or even if it's close, I was really just asking because it's the only hole I've played in the States with a dune like that to carry. Thanks.
-
Sully:
The real reason I made that post about Myopia's "Alps" is that it preceded NGLA by a number of years and it was obviously pretty well known by top flight American golfers at the turn of the century. The point is some may've thought NGLA's "Alps" was the first of that type in this country because of Macdonald's GB template hole idea.
Apparently not.
Holes like Yeaman's "Alps" or any other Alps holes after NGLA's aren't so interesting to me as an influence on later holes of the type.
Another thing that interests me about Herbert Leeds is where he got his ideas and when. I know he was in GB in 1902 at least and apparently in England looking at architecture. I'd assume that put him in the Heathlands and as you can imagine I think that is most important to know as to early influences on American architecture.
Some obviously think Macdonald was the first positive influence for good architecture in America coming out of that 19th century "geometric" or "Victorian" golf architecture age but they seem to be forgetting about Leeds, and perhaps Emmet too, and they seem to be forgetting how significant Myopia (and GCGC) was considered back then by those in the know.
Leeds was in the same vein of Macdonald, Whigam, Wilson, Crump, Thomas, Behr, early Travis, early Emmett and early Tillinghast et al-----eg amateur "sportsmen" designers who spent years on particular projects. Leeds was into all kinds of things in sports--and good at them---football and baseball at Harvard, a very good yachtsman, card player, bridge player and eventually addicted to golf course architecture.
The interesting thing to me about Leeds is he came at least a half a decade or more before Macdonald and NGLA, and that could be significant seeing as how well respected Myopia was around the turn of the century.
-
Hugh Wilson vacationed in Massachusetts and likely saw Myopia Hunt Club very early on. The Lesley Cup was played at Myopia Hunt Club in 1910. If there was an Alps Hole at Myopia Hunt, it is very likely that it was known to Hugh Wilson prior to the construction of Merion East. Thus Tom makes an excellent point that if an Alps concept was applied to Merion East, it should not be a foregone conclusion that CB Macdonald was the point of origin.
-
Wayno,
I don't consider the words "likely" and "if" as fact based evidence.
That's conjecture on your part.
You're looking for reasons to refute the claim without presenting the evidence to support your refutation.
I think you have to view these issues with an open mind, one that's not predisposed to a predetermined conclusion.
You may recall that I initially contested the premise that # 10 was originally an "Alps" hole, but, I've seen so many variations of the CBM-SR templates, that I'm no longer willing to dismiss the categorization without exploring and researching the particular holes and their histories and the histories of the clubs and the related architects .... further.
Piping Rock is an interesting study in template holes with variations.
-
Wayno,
I don't consider the words "likely" and "if" as fact based evidence.
Neither do I, that's why I used those terms. What gives you the notion that I am presenting anything here as fact-based evidence?
That's conjecture on your part.
What's your problem? It is conjecture and that's how it was presented. Duh.
You're looking for reasons to refute the claim without presenting the evidence to support your refutation.
I think you have to view these issues with an open mind, one that's not predisposed to a predetermined conclusion.
Show me where I have a closed mind on the subject.
You may recall that I initially contested the premise that # 10 was originally an "Alps" hole, but, I've seen so many variations of the CBM-SR templates, that I'm no longer willing to dismiss the categorization without exploring and researching the particular holes and their histories and the histories of the clubs and the related architects .... further.
You've recently been privileged to view what is supposedly new information showing that most of Merion's holes are conceptual copies of holes in the UK. Bear in mind that not all of us have seen what you have and what you continue to keep to yourself. So if we are not as informed as you, do not accuse us of having a closed mind. We simply are not as informed as you. That's a scary thought ;)
What research are you doing and on which particular holes, especially Alps holes? Is or was the current 3rd hole at Merion a Redan? Is the current 11th at Philadelphia Country Club a Redan? I'd like to know what your research findings are. So please report them as soon as you can and without building the anticipation levels to such heights, all for a grand entrance and to make others look ignorant.
-
From David Moriarty, Nov. 21, 2006:
"B Crosby asked:
What is the puzzle?
Well it probably depends upon who you ask. My puzzle was whether Merion (not the Haverford Merion) can be viewed as a rejection of what had been going on in Philadelphia, and a turn back to links inspired and heathland inspired courses.
Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project.
........."
-
Tom,
The answer to both of those puzzles is quite certainly yes, but probably not at all in the way David is thinking.
-
From David Moriarty, Nov 21, 2006:
"TEPaul,
1. I dont think anyone suggested that MacDonald designed the 10th hole at Merion East. I know I didn't.
2. Your word "evolution" implies that Merion East's roots were in the local golf landscape, but this doesnt seem to be the case at all.
3. There were plenty of golf courses in Philadelphia in 1910, and Wilson could have easily built a longer version in their style at the new Merion site. And you say yourself that Crump went to Europe to study because the local courses "weren't any good." What could be more of a rejection than these two prominent golf figures ignoring what was in their own back yard and instead traveling across an ocean to find something better?
3. You can call it "discovery" if you want to, but they would have had no need to go discovering if they were at all satisfied with the status quo. Based on what I have seen so far, Merion represented a significant departure from what had been going on in Philadelphia (and most of America) for over a decade."
What David Moriarty said above is interesting, and, I think, was the beginning of his interest in Merion's creation and probably his interest in Macdonald's part in it and influence on it.
When he said in #2 that my use of the word "evolution" implies roots were in the local landscape, I never, not ever, not at any time, meant to imply such a thing and if he thought I did back then he was simply mistaken.
He might've thought I implied that; he may still think I implied that but I can tell you that at no time in the last dozen years (when I got interested in classic architecture and its history) did I imply such a thing. I can even supply my own articles on and entitled the "Philadelphia School of Architecture" in magazines such as the GAP's Philadelphia Golfer and the 2005 USGA US Amateur Program that state very much the opposite---eg that in a few significant ways courses like PV and Merion done in the early teens very much were a rejection of the architecture not only around here but generally in America that had come before them.
The reasons for that are somewhat numerous, although they primarily concentrate around just a few primary reasons that are and have always been fairly well known and understood with people who study the history of golf architecture.
-
Tom,
I didn't even think that was ever in question.
If the place to find great courses in Philadelphia prior to Merion and Pine Valley was in Philadelphia, why would these guys have gone elsewhere to study?
Didn't we learn this in Cornish/Whitten 101 class back in 1985?
Beyond that, there was the larger problem for these guys that Philly had nothing approximating a "Championship Course", and after the advent of the Haskell Ball all of the older Philly courses were quite outmoded and actually being blamed by the golf cognescenti in Philly for the poor competitive showings of Philly golfer in regional and national competitions.
It's what fueled Cobb's Creek's creation, as well.
-
I've been scanning through this thread and there were some minor but civil disagreements on here of certain specific facts and some opinions but the very FIRST evidence I can see on here where this thread began to devolve in a bad and unfortunate direction was this from T MacWood on Nov, 27, 2006;
"I would strongly advise not arguing with TE or Pat on this subject. Based on their level of effort it is apparent neither has an interest in finding the truth."
Maybe he was trying to be funny and maybe he wasn't. He sure didn't use any emoticon. In my experience this is how these things began to devolve with him on numerous threads. His implication seemed to be that no one could research things like he did. And all this seemed to evolve over a disagreement of what people like Robert Lesley really meant when he described #10 as an Alps or whether it really was blind from the approach! ;)
Are these the kinds of things the likes of MacWood and Moriarty from other states who hardly know Merion because one may've been there once but the other has never been there, should be fixating on and taking us to task over for disagreeing with each other or even them?
I don't think so but I do know that is precisely how and why most of these Merion threads devolved downhill with those two contributors.
-
Wayno,
I don't consider the words "likely" and "if" as fact based evidence.
Neither do I, that's why I used those terms. What gives you the notion that I am presenting anything here as fact-based evidence?
That's conjecture on your part.
What's your problem? It is conjecture and that's how it was presented. Duh.
You're looking for reasons to refute the claim without presenting the evidence to support your refutation.
I think you have to view these issues with an open mind, one that's not predisposed to a predetermined conclusion.
Show me where I have a closed mind on the subject.
You may recall that I initially contested the premise that # 10 was originally an "Alps" hole, but, I've seen so many variations of the CBM-SR templates, that I'm no longer willing to dismiss the categorization without exploring and researching the particular holes and their histories and the histories of the clubs and the related architects .... further.
You've recently been privileged to view what is supposedly new information showing that most of Merion's holes are conceptual copies of holes in the UK.
That's not what I've been privileged to view.[/color]
Bear in mind that not all of us have seen what you have and what you continue to keep to yourself.
Wayno, I was asked to agree to a "confidentialilty agreement" of sorts, as a condition of being provided privileged info. I gave my word and will continue to honor it. You may call that "keeping it to myself", but, I regard it as the proper thing to do.[/color]
So if we are not as informed as you, do not accuse us of having a closed mind. We simply are not as informed as you. That's a scary thought ;)
That's true on all accounts ;D[/color]
What research are you doing and on which particular holes, especially Alps holes? Is or was the current 3rd hole at Merion a Redan? Is the current 11th at Philadelphia Country Club a Redan? I'd like to know what your research findings are.
At the present time my research is confined to business projects.
I am beyond busy and don't have much time to pursue my hobbies as much as I'd like to.
[/color]
So please report them as soon as you can and without building the anticipation levels to such heights, all for a grand entrance and to make others look ignorant.
I can't help it if you and others are so impatient.
You'll just have to wait until David Moriarty is ready to present his findings and perhaps a premise to go with them.
I just came back from hitting balls for 45 minutes, was besieged to help my son with a school project.
YIKES, I JUST WANT TO WATCH THE MASTERS[/color]
-
The fact that there is a "confidentiality agreement" of sorts is probably the most absurd thing I've ever read on GolfClubAtlas.
Patrick, no offense to you...I know you're just trying to do the right thing and honor a secret promise on a subject you have interest in, but you're a stand-up guy and I find this "let's keep it from everyone til we're ready to spring it and make certain people look speculative and foolish" to be almost the height of infantilism. ::)
I do hope fair-minded people on GCA can see this for what it is, without having to have been privy to the trail of behind the scenes private email, plotting, and intrigue. >:(
What David is failing to realize however is that the world of GCA.com is amazingly small and interconnected.
-
A confidentiality agreement...behind the scenes emails.....plotting and intrigue...
Seems that the word "Club" in "GolfClubAtlas" has taken the lead role.
With all the authors we have in our midst, I'm sure a high tech, internet chat room suspense/thriller could be written with the current cast of Merion thread(s) characters in full utilization.
Keep going fellas, and you'll practically make the authors' ability a moot point.
Joe
-
"I was asked to agree to a "confidentialilty agreement" of sorts, as a condition of being provided privileged info. I gave my word and will continue to honor it. You may call that "keeping it to myself", but, I regard it as the proper thing to do."
Pat,
If that was what you were asked to do and you accepted, it is the proper thing to do. I would not have accepted such terms and simply waited along with everyone else, but I'm not going to argue with you about your decisions, especially your decision to keep your word.
I think it would have been best to put it all together and then come forward with a well thought out and well presented theory or theories. These proposed areas of analysis with such little support at this time is counterproductive. I would say this process was poorly managed from the start. Can I at least blame you for that? ;)
-
Mike Cirba & Wayno,
Wayno, yes, you can blame me for that, I accept full responsibility.
Mike, David's work is not yet completed, hence, prematurely releasing his work would be a disservice to his efforts and to the work he hopes to present on GCA.com.
Let's give David the time he needs to complete and present his work.
I appologize for prematurely releasing info relative to David's work.
-
I believe I've found compelling evidence that Devereaux Emmet did most of the routing and design work at NGLA and the club and Macdonald conspired to minimize his architectural contribution to that seminal American design.
My "puzzle" is----was it Emmet who made NGLA's template hole drawings abroad?
That might be my "hypothesis" and I believe I can prove this because I've found about five ship manifests for D. Emmet (single), (American) who the manifests show was accompanied each time in his cabin on each trip by a pack of GB hunting dogs. The latter "fact" virtually proves it was GCGC's Devereaux Emmet and he should at least share design attribution for NGLA with C.B. Macdonald.
This "fact" should prove that compared to the rest of you half-assed researchers I do a lot more digging than you do. Or was the digging done by some of those Irish hunting dogs?
Whatever.
I will complete my research and produce my work in at least a year and a half but if anyone says I promised it I will deny that. Furthermore, I want a "confidentiality agreement" with anyone who reads this until I produce my "work."
-
I've been scanning through this thread and there were some minor but civil disagreements on here of certain specific facts and some opinions but the very FIRST evidence I can see on here where this thread began to devolve in a bad and unfortunate direction was this from T MacWood on Nov, 27, 2006;
"I would strongly advise not arguing with TE or Pat on this subject. Based on their level of effort it is apparent neither has an interest in finding the truth."
Maybe he was trying to be funny and maybe he wasn't. He sure didn't use any emoticon. In my experience this is how these things began to devolve with him on numerous threads. His implication seemed to be that no one could research things like he did. And all this seemed to evolve over a disagreement of what people like Robert Lesley really meant when he described #10 as an Alps or whether it really was blind from the approach! ;)
Are these the kinds of things the likes of MacWood and Moriarty from other states who hardly know Merion because one may've been there once but the other has never been there, should be fixating on and taking us to task over for disagreeing with each other or even them?
I don't think so but I do know that is precisely how and why most of these Merion threads devolved downhill with those two contributors.
TEPaul:
I am doing my best to be civil, but this post is absolutely outrageous. Throughout this thread you and another (but mostly you) posted then later deleted literally HUNDREDS of posts containing personal insults, name calling, defamation, and other boorish behavior. A very large number of these posts occurred BEFORE Tom MacWood's comparatively innocuous comments above.
In fact the only reason the thread reads remotely civil is because you guys generated but later removed almost all of the incivility in the thread, and while not entirely successful, I tried not to respond in kind.
Please do not continue to unfairly impugn MacWood or mislead about the history of these topics, or you will pull us back into a morass from which we will not likely escape.
You wanted to put this stuff behind us, so why don't you?
-
I asked Patrick to take a look at what I considered to be a pretty rough draft of a Merion article I am trying to together for the In My Opinion section, and he agreed to offer his comments and constructive criticism, and to not share it with anyone until I decided to do so.
I asked him to read it is because I was interested in his opinion and knew his comments would improve the product. I asked for his confidence was because I dont think it is ready, and putting it out there early would be a disservice to the site and, frankly, would create far more trouble on these boards than it is worth.
Despite the repeated defamations and accusations there is nothing sinister about it.
-
David:
Sorry about that.
I'm pretty sure most people on here would rather not have uncivil posts on these threads. Maybe you and Tom MacWood should think about deleting yours too. Perhaps that would make them more pleasant reading in the future and perhaps that's one of the reasons the delete button was put on this website.
It seems you are the only contributor on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com who has tried to suggest that it's uncivil for any or us to remove uncivil posts. ::)
Would it be uncivil of me if I asked you, for about the tenth time, to deal fairly and intelligently with our questions to you about the Wilsons' reports on the creation of Merion East? Would it be uncivil to ask you why you've avoided acknowledging them recently and why you basically overlooked or dismissed them in the past? Would it be uncivil of me to ask you if you've ever read Alan Wilson's report on the creation of Merion in its entirety and if not why not? In our opinion, it's very likely the single most comprehensive and credible source of information on the creation of the original phase of Merion East and West and who did it and how.
-
It seems you are the only contributor on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com who has tried to suggest that it's uncivil for any or us to remove uncivil posts. ::)
I took it that he was suggesting the thread is no longer a complete record of what was said, therefore it can be misleading when read.
Joe
-
Joe:
Good point, it probably is. Frankly, I'd like to see the posters who make uncivil posts remove them and then we all might get on with the business of discussing the subject of these threads. ;)
-
Joe:
Good point, it probably is. Frankly, I'd like to see the posters who make uncivil posts remove them and then we all might get on with the business of discussing the subject of these threads. ;)
I am the king of deletion! However, with the new system, I haven't figured out how to delete without leaving a blank post. Do you know how to delete?
Ciao
-
Joe Hancock,
Of course you are correct.
________________________________
TEPaul.
The simple and obvious solution is for posters to think about the civility of their posts before posting.
People who repeatedly behave uncivilly ought to be removed from the site. Leave the offending posts. Remove the posters. This would resolve the issue rather quickly.
-
Joe:
Good point, it probably is. Frankly, I'd like to see the posters who make uncivil posts remove them and then we all might get on with the business of discussing the subject of these threads. ;)
I am the king of deletion! However, with the new system, I haven't figured out how to delete without leaving a blank post. Do you know how to delete?
Ciao
Sean,
Give me a minute, and I'll come up with a not so clever acronym for something along the lines of "I'm a dumbass and typed something I shouldn't have, so I deleted it". That way, when you want to delete a post, you erase your previous typing and type the acronym....
See?....easy....
;D
-
Joe:
Good point, it probably is. Frankly, I'd like to see the posters who make uncivil posts remove them and then we all might get on with the business of discussing the subject of these threads. ;)
I am the king of deletion! However, with the new system, I haven't figured out how to delete without leaving a blank post. Do you know how to delete?
Ciao
Sean,
Give me a minute, and I'll come up with a not so clever acronym for something along the lines of "I'm a dumbass and typed something I shouldn't have, so I deleted it". That way, when you want to delete a post, you erase your previous typing and type the acronym....
See?....easy....
;D
Nearly a Canuck Joe
I've been called a dumbass before, but it usually involved making a wrong turn at least! I like to delete many of my posts because I treat nearly all of them as conversations - they don't need to remain in perpetuity (huh?) - sort of like this post - to save the world from electronic rubbish. Mark my words, one day it will be an issue - ha.
Ciao
-
"TEPaul.
The simple and obvious solution is for posters to think about the civility of their posts before posting."
Yes, David, I think most all of us know that on here. Do you know that? If you do then why have you ever posted an uncivil post? I surely hope you're not going to tell me you've never done THAT! ;)
"People who repeatedly behave uncivilly ought to be removed from the site. Leave the offending posts. Remove the posters. This would resolve the issue rather quickly."
I hope you don't think it uncivil of me for asking but are you aware, as I think most everyone else on this website is, that the subject of incivility on this website is raised MORE by you when you are on these threads than the grand total of every single other of the approximately 1500 contributors raising the subject of incivility on here? Have you ever stopped to consider that? Have you ever even wondered why that might be?
As for your ideas of how uncivil behavior ought to be treated on here and whether or not uncivil posts should be removed by their posters or not, understand you do not run this website----Ran Morrissett and his co-administration Ben Dewar do. Talk to them about it as we do when we have a major problem.
Or better yet, perhaps you should start your own website about civility as God knows you talk about it so much on here.
I'm not trying to be uncivil on this post but you keep bringing the subject up particularly regarding me and I'm simply answering you.
-
Joe:
Here are the appropriate acronyms for deleted posts. The acronyms sound like a cross between Latin, Arabic and Congolese;
IADATAURASIDI (Eye-a-DAT-aura-ish-EYE-D-ee)
BADALMISAUDA (b-DAL-mis-aoww-duh)
-
TEPaul
Removing posts is unfair to the people who ought to have a chance to respond. It is also makes it too easy to be a jerk then hide one's tracks. Leaving them up might embarrass the poster but this ought to be the case, as the poster has engaged in quite embarrassing behavior.
Before leaving I did remove a bunch of my posts, and I shouldnt have. I just didn't want them to be mistook or misrepresented after I left, like you did to MacWood's post immediately above.
The only reason posts ought to be removed is to protect the innocent, but that is rarely the reason for their removal.
As for this thread, my posts are all still on here, and while I am not proud of every single one of them all I stand by them all. And frankly, upon rereading and given the circumstances within which they were written, I was quite surprised that I did not respond much more harshly than I did.
I hope you don't think it uncivil of me for asking but are you aware, as I think most everyone else on this website is, that the subject of incivility on this website is raised MORE by you when you are on these threads than the grand total of every single other of the approximately 1500 contributors raising the subject of incivility on here? Have you ever stopped to consider that? Have you ever even wondered why that might be?
I am well aware of this. As I said before, it is because I bring out the best in people. To be more specific, I bring out the best in you and a few others. Through my good luck, I am interested in a number of the same topics as you, but disagree with many of your opinions. Whether it be Merion or the USGA's unwillingness to control the equipment, you dont like much of what I have to say. Thus I am often the target of your incivility, as is Tom MacWood for similar reasons.
When you call Tom MacWood a "stupid shit" like you did the other night, or when you call others dumbasses or idiots like did the other night. Or when Cirba calls me an "asshole and a charlatan" like he did the other day, or when he spreads false rumors about my motivations and sources like he has repeatedly, you guys ought to be gone from the site, at least until you can prove you can carry on a civil conversation.
Your behavior in particular has often overstepped all bounds of decency, and something should be done about you if you cannot manage to hold it together in the future.
I will continue complaining about your behavior as long as it is inappropriate. I just wish more others had the guts to do the same, so we could put some pressure on you to straighten up., and this would really go a ways toward improving the image and quality of the site.
Don't get me wrong Tom, you have a lot to offer, but too often you way overstep the bounds of common decency, especially late at night. When you do, as you did last week, then your being booted from the site for a month or so would be the best thing that could happen to the site.
Ran knows that I feel this way, but for whatever reason you are apparently untouchable no matter how horrible your behavior might become.
I don't mean any of this as a personal attack. You asked and I am honestly answering.
-
TE Paul, one more thing. Your suggestion that I bring this stuff to Ran's and Ben's attention is a good one, so I will forward my above message to them when I get a chance.
Thanks.
-
I just saw this long post from David Moriarty from Nov. 30, 2006: (it will be on my next post);
To be honest, after reading it I really cannot figure out what the issue is between us either back then or now. Can anyone figure it out?
Rereading this post it seems like David was beginning to wonder if Merion was some sort of departure from the architecture of Philadelphia that had preceded it and perhaps for years. He asked if it was some seminal indication of a rejection of the Philadelphia architecture that came before it.
Well, of course it was that in some ways and for a number of quite interesting reasons that I guarantee all of you we here in Philadelphia have known about and completely believed in for years, and certainly the ten years this website has been in existence.
Did C.B. Macdonald and the fact his NGLA happened when it did have any influence on Merion and the way it was designed by an amateur member architect and a member committee?
I dare say if it had not been for C.B. Macdonald and the process he followed to create his NGLA, Merion golf courses would never have been done using that same process of an amateur architect and a team of amateur members---a supporting architectural cast of amateur sportsmen as it were--eg the exact same process Macdonald used at NGLA (except he didn't really have members to tap when he began because there was no NGLA golf course that preceded the one he did).
But that---eg using that same amateur architect process is not the same thing as actually following the architecture or even the style of architecture of Macdonald and NGLA---eg the so-called "National School" style of architecture.
The entire point of Merion East is it was essentially Wilson and Committee's interpretation of the European model of architectual excellence. It would not surprise me at all if most of what Wilson came to do at the Merions, particularly after 1916 and on was more an American adaptation of the recent INLAND excellence he and some of the others like him at that time were aware of that had been coming out of the English Heathlands!
In the first phase it seems like Wilson and committee may've followed to some extent the basic idea of Macdonald's at NGLA of famous "template" holes and Merion probably did make an initial attempt on a few or their holes at that kind of thing----eg I think we all know the holes there that were sort of Wilson's attempt to adapt parts or vestiges of those template hole architectural principles.
But it is pretty clear that probably Wilson and Merion were not all that comfortable for whatever reasons with blatantly and blindly following NGLA's advertised "template" hole architectural model and style. They may've been a bit in the very beginning (the so-called first phase (1911-1915) but that they endeavored to get away from that to a large extent and develop their own look and style. What in the world could be a better example of that evolution than Wilson's famous "White Faces of Merion" bunker style?? Ron Prichard things that might have developed the seminal "American" bunker style! I think to some extent Ron is right. Where else over here was it done like that dedicatedly BEFORE Merion?
David, I think I see what happened here and what went awry. It seems like you came on here and attempted to test whether some idea you had about Merion was accurate. Instead of just trying to do all that on your own you should have just come directly to us and we would've helped bring you along with all we know and have which is years of research and tons of historical architectural material on those very things you may've thought you were the first to think of and want to test.
You definitely weren't. We had been basically studying the very ideas you seem to have come up with in 2006 for many many years before you. We've gone into some real depth on this subject and related ones for years.
You should've just come to us rather than attempt to just challenge our credibility first, even in small ways like the beginning of this very thread seems to suggest.
I see what happened here and it's really a shame--eg so much wasted time and effort over nothing much at all-----it appears to me we have been on the same page you were trying to test a few years ago. It's just that we've been on that page for years.
I, for one, am sorry it went this way. It appears to me we may always have been in virtual agreement about most all the questions and ideas you had in 2006.
I'll put the post from you I'm referring to on the next one.
-
David:
Here it is from Nov. 30, 2006----amazing! :o
"SPBD,
Don't be sorry. Posts about golf design are certainly welcome by me.
I agree with you that bad Victorian architecture was the norm all over America. I concentrate on Philadelphia, because the men in question were most familiar with Philadelphia design, yet they chose another direction. But I could and should have added that this was the prevailing design approach across America (I think I have said as much more than a few times above, but at this point that is probably all lost in the clutter.)
IMO most people underestimate just how widespread and common the dark ages stuff was because almost all of it has been wiped completely off the map, literally.
One thing I don’t understand, what do you mean when you say you don’t view Merion and NGLA as reactionary? At least in MacDonald’s case, his writings indicate a level of disgust with American design and an explicit attempt to replace it with something else. To my mind, that is not only reactionary, it is somewhat revolutionary. But perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by reactionary?
___________________________
Quote from: Mike Cirba on November 29, 2006, 09:45:25 pm
I think I keep a very open mind when it comes to architectural research and attributions, and it's always interesting to hear new material as it comes to light here.
I think you do, too. And since we are in agreement about the importance of openly sharing and discussing our research, perhaps you will do me a favor: Go to google earth, pull up the 10th at Merion, and measure from the front of the middle tee to a point just left of the green, even with the greenside edge of the front greenside bunker. After all, part of quality research is peer review.
Quote
However, I'm not understanding the point of your exercise. Merion has always been known as one of the first of the really great American courses, and one of the first real attempts to create something superb; following in the model of NGLA and what Macdonald did there..what Travis was doing at Garden City...what Fownes was doing at Oakmont. This is indisputable, and hardly news. That these excellent courses were a clear attempt to model after the best in Britain is also well known and documented, . . .
Which exercise is that? Mike Sweeney asked me to clarify my thoughts on these issues and I did. I told him up front that my thoughts weren’t profound or groundbreaking or even all that original. But he asked so I told him. TEPaul’s repeated ridicule notwithstanding, I am making no grandiose claims.
That being said, I want to get something straight. However mundane and trivial the points on my list may seem now, they certainly weren’t viewed as such by the Wayne Morrison or Tom Paul when I suggested them, nor are the accepted by Wayne Morrison even now. For example, almost all of my “conversations” with Wayne Morrison have revolved precisely around the hypothesis that Merion represented a substantial departure from the Victorian style design which dominated Philadelphia and America, and an attempt to return to the style of the great links courses and the recent (such as NGLA and the Heathland courses) which had done the same thing.
Now this may sound trivial and mundane to you, but to Wayne Morrison it is some sort of blasphemy. Same goes for TomPaul, at least some of the time. He has switched directions so many times on these threads that I get dizzy just trying to read his posts.
So instead of asking me why I am bothering with such mundane and trivial and obvious points, perhaps you should ask Wayne Morrison the basis on which he rejects them.
Quote
. . . and I'd argue that it was less a reaction to the state of architecture in the country at that time than simply an earnest attempt to build an excellent course, giving the growing interest in the game, a burgeoning membership at Merion, and the luxury of building a brand new course while still playing daily at the old. It gave them the time to do things well and studiously; thus, Wilson's trip to visit Macdonald and his subsequent lengthy stay studying courses in the British Isles. Again, nothing new here.
You are correct, there is nothing new in what you are saying, here, as this is the conventional wisdom. But in my opinion, the facts don’t support the conventional wisdom. If they wanted to build something better, why not just improve upon the style which was all around them? Why not do what everyone else was doing, only better? And if they weren’t rejecting what was around them, then why go all the way to Europe to study? By this point there were hundreds of courses in America, so certainly they had a lot to learn if they were at all satisfied with what was going on around them. And why spend the money to train someone new? If they were at all satisfied with what was around them, then they simply could have hired one of the experienced Scottish professionals and simply pay them extra to do a really good job?
And why on earth go to MacDonald to plan the Euro Study Abroad trip and to learn about golf design? MacDonald wasn’t plodding along trying to gradually improve on what he saw around him. He was trying to replace it all, at one fell swoop. His writings indicate a level of contempt for most American design. He was actively encouraging other designers and clubs to trash what they had and to replace it features and ideas based on the great links courses.
Also, read what the writers said about Merion. They didn’t talk about gradual evolution in quality, they are talking about a leap in an entirely different direction.
Quote
But, I think where I really am missing your point is concerning the role of Macdonald and Whigham. When I asked you straight out a few days ago whether you believed that these two had much more to do with the design of the original course at Merion, you stated that you didn't. Yet, you seem to keep coming back to trying to prove some point that they did have heavy direct involvement. Which is it?
I think you might want to reread my answer. I just did and the answer is entirely consistent with what I am saying now. I acknowledged the contemporary evidence which suggests that MacDonald had an influence, then I said: “as for MacDonald having a direct role in the specific design of holes at Merion, I have not seen evidence of this thus far, nor do I believe it to be the case.”
Lots of evidence of MacDonald’s influence, but little or no evidence of MacDonald playing a direct role in the specific design. In other words, whatever influence MacDonald may have had, I don’t think he designed the course.
As for the rest, it seems a bit of a stretch. First, there was plenty written about the connection between Merion and MacDonald and/or his design ideas. Why should MacDonald toot his own horn if everyone else was doing it for him? Second, if the description of the course and MacDonald’s influence on it were untrue and inaccurate, then wouldn’t Wilson or someone else have set the record straight?
But really, before we can answer your questions about specific holes and features, we have to understand what was there when the course opened. I think we are far from this understanding, but any efforts aimed at figuring this stuff out are, shall we say, less than well received.
Quote
Why wouldn't Macdonald take credit if he believed that he actually made a major, or even significant contribution to the ultimate design there?
Again, he got plenty of credit. And I seen little or no evidence that any of it was undeserved.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 04:53:37 am by DMoriarty » Report to moderator Logged
-
"TE Paul, one more thing. Your suggestion that I bring this stuff to Ran's and Ben's attention is a good one, so I will forward my above message to them when I get a chance.
Thanks.
David:
Here's what I'd like to do if it's OK with you at this point (you just said you're basically ready to go with your In My Opinion piece).
You write it and put it on here and then at that point we will produce Alan Wilson's report in it's entirety and probably as a way to vet and critique your own report.
I do not mean this to be any challenge or criticism to you at this time or any time but if we do it all this way what it REALLY may help this entire website and all the viewers who look in on here with IS what may happen if someone does historical research on a golf course like Merion and neglects to analyze carefully all the relevant material in its TOTALITY that might be out there!
And of course if we do this all this way it certainly does or can cut both ways----eg us not considering something you have and we never did and you considering the subject without really analzying something we have always thought was really relevant to the architectural history of Merion and who did it, and how and why, and very much including C.B. Macdonald's input and influence.
Is that fair enough?
-
David:
Look, this constant harping on incivility really isn't doing anything for anybody and it won't help this thread or any other which actually seems to be going in a postive direction right now.
Your long post #967 that you just put up on this thread---I suggest you take it down to help things out here. I understand where you're coming from on deletions and I understand you don't like or agree with me taking them down in the past, now or in the future, but you sure do have my encouragement to take that one down and I give you my absolute word that I will never mention it again and never hold it against you as you do with me.
Is that fair enough? I'm quite sure Ran and Ben and this entire website would appreciate it if you did that which I think would help us get along the postive direction we seem to be about to go in.
-
TEPaul,
Let's stop second guessing what David's white paper has to say.
I also don't think it's fair to dictate terms to David, when it comes to HIS presentation.
He'll post his white paper when he's comfortable with the project.
After he's posted it, everyone is free to do with it as they please.
As to Alan Wilson's report, while I'm certainly anxious to see it, I don't know that I'm ready to annoint it as the Gospel.
One of the things we've learned over our years on GCA.com is that a lot of these fellows presented views, which were not only contradictory to others, but, contradictory to themselves as well.
So, let David make his presentation, then let's see if it has merit, gaps or errors.
-
"TEPaul,
Let's stop second guessing what David's white paper has to say."
Patrick:
I'm not second guessing David Moriarty's "white paper".
So, now you're calling it a "white paper" are you? Do you even know what that means, Patrick?
I really couldn't care less what his subject is. It would not surprise me at all if it's on some other angle than he's ever plied before. Frankly, it would very much surprise me if he keeps after what this one seems to be or seemed to have been. I doubt even he can see much mileage in it anymore.
What I'm responding to are the numerous pages and many hours of arguing over a subject that it appears from the past post I just reposted to have been misguided, as according to his post our positions may've been very similar. Of course that is certainly not to say that he may've completely misunderstood what my position on his issues on Merion were. He may've misunderstood what most all of us here feel about those issues and have felt since way before we ever heard of him. I guess it might have been a better idea to have just asked us in detail first what our postions were on those issues of his rather than to just assume what they might be.
I think we on here are aware that there have been a couple of guys on this website who have felt there's been some kind of conspiracy here in Philadelphia to protect our own architects or even build them up inaccurately simply to minimize the significance of other architects from elsewhere.
It is definitely not for me to identify who they are as they have done an over-adequate job of doing that for themselves on here. ;)
-
"TEPaul,
Let's stop second guessing what David's white paper has to say."
Patrick:
I'm not second guessing David Moriarty's "white paper".
So, now you're calling it a "white paper" are you? Do you even know what that means, Patrick?
Yes, it's a report written on white paper, usually 8.5 X 11, and is not to be confused with anything on toilet paper.[/color]
I really couldn't care less what his subject is. It would not surprise me at all if it's on some other angle than he's ever plied before. Frankly, it would very much surprise me if he keeps after what this one seems to be or seemed to have been. I doubt even he can see much mileage in it anymore.
For someone who could care less, you've certainly devoted an abundance of ink to the subject.[/color]
What I'm responding to are the numerous pages and many hours of arguing over a subject that it appears from the past post I just reposted to have been misguided, as according to his post our positions may've been very similar.
Of course that is certainly not to say that he may've completely misunderstood what my position on his issues on Merion were. He may've misunderstood what most all of us here feel about those issues and have felt since way before we ever heard of him.
I guess it might have been a better idea to have just asked us in detail first what our postions were on those issues of his rather than to just assume what they might be.
I think he approaches his subject from a unique, heretofore unresearched perspective.[/color]
I think we on here are aware that there have been a couple of guys on this website who have felt there's been some kind of conspiracy here in Philadelphia to protect our own architects or even build them up inaccurately simply to minimize the significance of other architects from elsewhere.
Perhaps it's coincidental that the Philly Triumvirate seems to be the only contingent striking out at him prior to his presentation.
You know that I've contested some of David's previous works, but, that doesn't mean that they didn't have merit or weren't worthy of discussion and further exploration.[/color]
It is definitely not for me to identify who they are as they have done an over-adequate job of doing that for themselves on here. ;)
I could be wrong, but, I think David's work will raise legitimate questions, produce intelligent discussion and instigate further research.[/color]
-
Patrick,
Am I really part of the "Philadelphia Triumvirate"? :o
Holy cow...I'm giving my mother a call. ;D
-
"Yes, it's a report written on white paper, usually 8.5 X 11, and is not to be confused with anything on toilet paper."
Patrick:
Even I'm sorry I asked you that question. I never like to open someone's mouth for them knowing it's quite likely they'll put their foot in it. :P
-
"I could be wrong, but, I think David's work will raise legitimate questions, produce intelligent discussion and instigate further research."
Pat:
I certainly get the sense from the way you've been carefully couching this gol-danged "white paper" of Moriarty's that this time he will strike out in an entirely different direction on Merion. As I said, it would seem that even he can probably see there's not much mileage left in this issue he's tried to ply so long whatever it really was (very few on here seem sure anymore, if, in fact they ever were).
But I've got to hand it to you guys, you are almost as good at pumping something up for release as Selznick was at pumping up Gone With The Wind for its release.
I did get perhaps a glimpse of David's precursor thinking to his "WHITE PAPER" ;) and that is that he said recently he thinks we here in Philadelphia----the "Triumverate" or whatever you call us, are 'too close' to Merion or the issue of Merion's architectural history.
"Too close" to it, huh? I always thought the idea with architectural research and analysis was to get as close to the subject and familiar with it as possible and I wouldn't even suspect David Moriarty would disagree with that. And so, that could probably mean only one thing----eg he will suggest that we are "too close" to it to be objective about it and therefore that requires the reinterpretation of it by someone from California who hardly knows it and has been there, what, once, if that?!
That would be an interesting slant indeed. But I sure hope he doesn't try to accuse us of slanting Merion's architectural history unless he really does have something pretty interesting here we've heretofore never seen or considered. I, for one, would be very interested to see some material on that stage of Merion's creation we've never before seen! All HAIL the "WHITE PAPER"! :P
-
Pat,
As a member of the Philadelphia Triumvirate, and one who is actually excited to see what David has uncovered, I need to ask the following question:
Which is slower?
A) Trevor Immelman's pre-shot routine
B) The time it took Merion to "finish" the course they built on land bought in mid 1909?
C) The release of David Moriarty's White Paper?
I"M KIDDING!!!! ;D
-
"I could be wrong, but, I think David's work will raise legitimate questions, produce intelligent discussion and instigate further research."
Pat:
I certainly get the sense from the way you've been carefully couching this gol-danged "white paper" of Moriarty's that this time he will strike out in an entirely different direction on Merion.
TE,
I found his work an enjoyable read, starting a little slow, but, gradually building some nice momentum.
I would think that you, and others with a keen interest in GCA and its historical roots will enjoy his presentation, irrespective of the implications, inferences and conclusions. It's fascinating stuff.[/color]
As I said, it would seem that even he can probably see there's not much mileage left in this issue he's tried to ply so long whatever it really was (very few on here seem sure anymore, if, in fact they ever were).
I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Err ... Ah ... let me rephrase that.
I think you'll be surprised. ;D[/color]
But I've got to hand it to you guys, you are almost as good at pumping something up for release as Selznick was at pumping up Gone With The Wind for its release.
That's an interesting comment.
My dad always told me that people want what they can't have, and if you want to sell something, try the "negative" sell.
I've tried NOT to hype David's paper.
But, apparently, there's a clamoring to see his work.
I wouldn't like to see David rush his project to production, but, I'll be interested in the comments and discussion that follow its introduction.[/color]
I did get perhaps a glimpse of David's precursor thinking to his "WHITE PAPER" ;) and that is that he said recently he thinks we here in Philadelphia----the "Triumverate" or whatever you call us, are 'too close' to Merion or the issue of Merion's architectural history.
That may be true.
I recall the ardent discussion related to Merion's bunkers, Fazio and MacDonald & Sons.
Perhaps we're more animated in our discussions when it involves an Icon in American golf[/color]
"Too close" to it, huh? I always thought the idea with architectural research and analysis was to get as close to the subject and familiar with it as possible and I wouldn't even suspect David Moriarty would disagree with that. And so, that could probably mean only one thing----eg he will suggest that we are "too close" to it to be objective about it and therefore that requires the reinterpretation of it by someone from California who hardly knows it and has been there, what, once, if that?!
I would seek others opinions, but, to me, it seems as if there's an aggressive defensive posture in the air, regarding David's work.
I can only tell you that I previously disagreed with David on a number of issues, some of them Merion related, but, after reading his presentation, I've changed my mind on a position I long held.
If David's premise holds steady in the face of refutation, well, then he's done his homework. And, if his premise fails in the face of refutation, his his efforts will have been worthwhile, as he pursued an interesting subject and presented a credible position.[/color]
That would be an interesting slant indeed. But I sure hope he doesn't try to accuse us of slanting Merion's architectural history unless he really does have something pretty interesting here we've heretofore never seen or considered. I, for one, would be very interested to see some material on that stage of Merion's creation we've never before seen! All HAIL the "WHITE PAPER"! :P
I can't speak to whether or not you or others have seen what he's presenting. I know I hadn't, but, I'm not nearly as well versed in certain areas as you, Wayno and others.
I tried to read David's work with an open mind.
Based upon my limited knowledge of his subject, his paper seemed well researched and well reasoned. Are there holes, gaps and unknowns ?
Probably, but, to my mind, he presents sufficient evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.
You'll have to make up your own mind on the scope and validity of his presentation.
I'm anxious to see the collective of information that may, or probably will be brought forth by others, when his paper is presented.[/color]
-
Patrick,
I'm honestly excited to see what David has uncovered, but I do have to say that you sound to be hedging your bets quite a bit more than you did just a few days back. ;)
Still...an open mind awaits here. I'm really hoping to learn something about a period where there are indeed gaps in our understanding.
-
The 1915 Wilson quote that TEPaul includes above is not the only reference Wilson makes to MacDonald's influence. In Bahto's book there is a similar quote, which Bahto dates at December 1916 which is very similar. One of the differences is that the Bahto quote also includes the sentence:
Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we could use."
Doesn't this raise the the possibility that these were actually MacDonald's the missing sketches from MacDonald's trip? Is it possible that these are the missing sketches that Wilson brought back from his trip? If so, then that would explain what happened to MacDonald's sketches, at least.
DavidM posited an interesting question with this thread back in 2006, didn't he?
Too bad the responses have been deleted.
Reminds me of something I used to joke about with a few friends in academia. We called it it Nietzsche's Three Stages of Academic Nihilism:
Stage One: Attack. (Bolster your own thesis by attacking and ridiculing others.)
Stage Two: Dismiss. (If attacking doesn't work, diminish the importance of the other thesis by denying its importance and relevance.)
Stage Three: Embrace. (If dismissing also fails, then simply claim that their theory has been yours all along.)
__________________________________
TEPaul.
Another reason that posts ought not to be deleted is that it makes it too easy for posters to try to rewrite the history of their past positions.
-
David,
How could anybody embrace a theory you haven't presented yet? Or attack or dismiss it for that matter??
I agree with you that there isn't much point of going back through this thread trying to keep track of what was being said with all of the deletions, but I don't recall any of us embracing anything that was brought up at that time.
As for your new material, I'm hoping to be able to do so.
-
Pat:
I'm looking forward to his report with a very open mind particularly since I have no idea what it's about.
But I certainly will say that Merion's position in the evolution of American golf architecture is a great big story, in my opinion, that very much needs to be told on a rather comprehensive scale (even though it has been told in a smaller more localized context although Wayne's 160 page chapter on the architectural history of Merion is a grander context). Obviously so is Pine Valley as to its position in perhaps not just the evolution of American golf architecture but world-wide (compare Alison's Hirono in Japan).
And I'm not even talking necessarily about their actual architecture or the status they've always held---I'm talking about the significance of them in the evolution of golf course architecture as to HOW they were created and BY WHOM. That's a "process" that needs a lot more attention in the study of golf architecture's evolution, in my opinion.
The reasons they happened when they did and by whom and how is probably some of the most significant events in golf architecture's history for a number of reasons and one of them most certainly is the event that happened in Southamption with NGLA and the theretofore unusual way an amateur sportsman like Macdonald went about it. It's not that he was exactly the first here or over there to do it that way but he made such a splash which NGLA I think his "process" (an amateur architect or a group of them) got real attention and others decided to go that route. I think that is as important in the history of architecture as their actual courses or their styles but of course one must also consider how such masterpieces could occur with such a "process".
In that vein, the words in Alan Wilson's report about the creation of the two Merion courses; "First of all, they were both "homemade"", and, "a "Special Construction Committee" designed and built the two courses without the help of an architect" should probably ring through the ages as a significant connection particularly since Alan Wilson immediately follows that by "Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of designing the National Links at Southampton,..."
We can see quite clearly that Wilson did not even think of Macdonald as an "architect" and for the likes of us today we absolutely MUST understand precisely what he meant by that to understand clearly Merion or any of these people responsible for that kind of course via an unusual "process."
In other words, as I said on a post yesterday, if Macdonald hadn't tried to do NGLA THE WAY he did I seriously doubt Merion and Wilson and his Committee would have either. The same may be said of Crump.
That, though, is a very diffrent thing from Macdonald deserving more architectural credit for those courses than he was given credit for by architects and clubs like Pine Valley and Merion.
I'm looking forward to Moriarty's report. I think we all know in this business we're in on this website that information is currency. To me it's what we do with that currency and in analyzing it.
-
"TEPaul.
Another reason that posts ought not to be deleted is that it makes it too easy for posters to try to rewrite the history of their past positions."
David:
Of course I have no idea at all what you might write about Merion in your upcoming article but if it turns out to either conform or contrast with my own feelings and opinions of Merion, Wilson et al, Macdonald etc, I wouldn't worry too much, if I were you, about me changing my opinions on here from what I once put on this thread to embrace something you've said on here or may say in your paper.
The reason I say that is unlike you, this website is not the only place I've offered my opinions on this very subject. I'm very much on record that way with a large article I did for the Phladelphia Golfer magazine as well as the USGA US Amateur program. And both those articles precede you coming to this subject on here by quite some time.
I have not changed my opinions on Merion or the Philadelphia School of Architecture from about 2004 until now so there is no chance if we happen to agree on what you're about to write that I got it from you.
Timelines really do have an interesting way of establishing various "facts".
Matter of fact, I hope you found access to those two articles on Merion and Wilson and the Philadelphia School of Architecture on the Internet in your research and in writing your arcticle. I've never looked for them there but knowing the way the Internet can be they're probably there somewhere. I would welcome your article if it counterpoints something I once said on the subject.
That's a lot of what we should do on this website. Certainly some of us did it with Tom MacWood's seemingly respected article on here entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf."
-
In that vein, the words in Alan Wilson's report about the creation of the two Merion courses; "First of all, they were both "homemade"", and, "a "Special Construction Committee" designed and built the two courses without the help of an architect" should probably ring through the ages as a significant connection particularly since Alan Wilson immediately follows that by "Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of designing the National Links at Southampton,..."
We can see quite clearly that Wilson did not even think of Macdonald as an "architect" and for the likes of us today we absolutely MUST understand precisely what he meant by that to understand clearly Merion or any of these people responsible for that kind of course via an unusual "process."
TE - this kind of 'historical perspective' stuff is particularly interesting to me, and all new to me. Not only does Alan Wilson not call Macdonald an architect, but look at the words he uses in relation to NGLA, i.e. instead of simply saying "the men who designed NGLA" he says "the men who conceived the idea of designing NGLA"...as if 'conceptualizing' the idea of a sea-side course emulating the great holes from the UK was just as important as the 'designing/building' of the golf course itself, from the ground up. (It's almost like we'd say that Mike Keiser 'conceived the idea' of creating a first class, golf-first golf resort on the Oregon coast, i.e. a description that we use today for developers and not architects).
Maybe a nothing point, but it seems clear that we today would never use that kind of language to describe the main process involved in the actual design and construction of a golf course -- and language does seem to follow thinking/ideas...which means their ideas back then were different than ours...actually, I'm not sure what any of this 'means' exactly, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a pretty important aspect of any modern-day analysis of who did what when and how back in those days
Peter
-
Peter Pallotta said:
“TE - this kind of 'historical perspective' stuff is particularly interesting to me, and all new to me. Not only does Alan Wilson not call Macdonald an architect, but look at the words he uses in relation to NGLA, i.e. instead of simply saying "the men who designed NGLA" he says "the men who conceived the idea of designing NGLA"...as if 'conceptualizing' the idea of a sea-side course emulating the great holes from the UK was just as important as the 'designing/building' of the golf course itself, from the ground up.
Maybe a nothing point, but it seems clear that we today would never use that kind of language to describe the main process involved in the actual design and construction of a golf course -- and language does seem to follow thinking/ideas...which means their ideas back then were different than ours...actually, I'm not sure what any of this 'means' exactly, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a pretty important aspect of any modern-day analysis of who did what when and how back in those days.”
Peter:
Obviously, you have questions to about Merion, its time (1911), its design, its rather unusual “process” for that time, and the men who did it because of that rather unusual process in American architecture.
Apparently David Moriarty had those kinds of questions about a year and a half ago when this particular thread began. Look at the title of it and look what he said in the initial post:
On November 21 at 2:03pm he said in his initial post:
“While I am fuzzy on the details, I do recall a discussion about the characteristics and origins of this hole, and thought this article might supply a bit more information from a contemporary source. For example, the unattributed article describes the green as follows:
The green is . . . completely surrounded by by breastwords and trenches, so that the result of the shot is always in doubt until the golfer scales the last rampart and glares or smiles at what his hands have done.
I found this particularly interesting for at least two reasons . . . first, the unattributed author seems to be of the opinion that the approach shot was blind. Second, his description (result in doubt . . . scaling the rampart) reminds me of MacDonald's description(s) of the virtues of the approach on an Alps hole.”
This article certainly isn't dispositive, but it is another piece in the puzzle . . .”
Obviously at that time he must’ve had questions about Merion or at least one of its holes. And he says it’s just another piece of the puzzle. What puzzle? What was he puzzling over at that time? Well, here’s what was next:
Bob Crosby asked at 2:18pm:
“What is the puzzle?”
And at 5:52pm David Moriarty responded with this:
“B Crosby asked:
What is the puzzle?
Well it probably depends upon who you ask. My puzzle was whether Merion (not the Haverford Merion) can be viewed as a rejection of what had been going on in Philadelphia, and a turn back to links inspired and heathland inspired courses.
Another puzzle was whether CB MacDonald and his work significantly influenced the design of Merion, and/or whether MacDonald actually advised on the project.
Another puzzle is whether the 10th could properly be called an Alps hole.
Another puzzle was whether the green complex was modeled after that of Alps Holes.”
I wonder if his “puzzles” over Merion have changed in the last year and a half. Is his upcoming article “white paper” going to ask and try to answer those “puzzles” of his, those questions back then or have some of them been answered over the last year and a half by others. Or perhaps he has become even more confused and has other questions now he might try to answer.
But the thing that fascinates me most about all this from David Moriarty is that very first thing he said in response to Bob Crosby a year and a half ago;
“ Well it probably depends upon who you ask. “
;)
-
David,
How could anybody embrace a theory you haven't presented yet?
I dont know, but it is interesting to watch them try.
I don't recall any of us embracing anything that was brought up at that time.
I dont recall anyone embracing anything I brought up at the time either. In fact I think we both remember that the reception was far from an embrace. Yet if we read TEPaul now, it seems there was never really much disagreement at all. Moreover, TEPaul and unnamed "Philadelphia Boys" seem to have new theories which strike me as quite familiar.
Judging his ironical and ignored post above, I'd say they struck Shivas the same way.
_____________________________
I have not changed my opinions on Merion or the Philadelphia School of Architecture from about 2004 until now so there is no chance if we happen to agree on what you're about to write that I got it from you.
Really? Did you write in those past articles about your new theory? That perhaps the reams of sketches came not from Wilson's trip to Europe but from Macdonald and NGLA? That Wison didnt go to NGLA to prepare for his trip abroad, but to talk about Merion? That even if they didnt design Merion East, Macdonald and Whigham generally deserve a heck of a lot of credit for its creation?
Funny because I recall your your previous posts on these matters, and I detect that your position has, shall we say, evolved. In fact, I even have copies of some of your past posts on these issues, even some you deleted.
Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you. But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past.
It'd be much more productive to move forward. That is what I am trying to do.
_____________________________
i.e. instead of simply saying "the men who designed NGLA" he says "the men who conceived the idea of designing NGLA"...as if 'conceptualizing' the idea of a sea-side course emulating the great holes from the UK was just as important as the 'designing/building' of the golf course itself, from the ground up. (It's almost like we'd say that Mike Keiser 'conceived the idea' of creating a first class, golf-first golf resort on the Oregon coast, i.e. a description that we use today for developers and not architects).
Maybe a nothing point, but it seems clear that we today would never use that kind of language to describe the main process involved in the actual design and construction of a golf course -- and language does seem to follow thinking/ideas...which means their ideas back then were different than ours...actually, I'm not sure what any of this 'means' exactly, but I'd imagine that it would have to be a pretty important aspect of any modern-day analysis of who did what when and how back in those days
Peter,
It is not a nothing idea at all. I don't think many today understand how important NGLA was to American golf. Not the course itself, but the concept of building a course based on links principles. While we can find a few examples of others doing similar things to a lesser degree at around the same time (Myopia, Garden City, maybe Maidstone, maybe Tillie's course from around then-- I cant think if the name but the one with the Alpinization,) NGLA was a huge deal for years before and after the course opened. In fact I'd say it was revolutionary for american golf.
Don't have time to go into detail now but it is hard to understate its importance.
-
Dave, just to be clear...I'm not saying that you were the first one to ever wonder if the missing sketches were actually CBM's sketches, not Wilson's. All I'm saying is that you appear to be the first one to ask this question on this board...for all I know, that question had been asked many times in the past. Then again, maybe it hadn't. I just don't know.
MikeC: how's that for fair & impartial?? ;)
I'm not saying I was the first to ask either. But these are not new ideas and they were not well taken when I suggested them. Judging by the reaction I received then, I find some of the recent posts to be ironic.
-
"Really? Did you write in those past articles about your new theory? That perhaps the reams of sketches came not from Wilson's trip to Europe but from Macdonald and NGLA? That Wison didnt go to NGLA to prepare for his trip abroad, but to talk about Merion? That even if they didnt design Merion East, Macdonald and Whigham generally deserve a heck of a lot of credit for its creation?
Funny because I recall your your previous posts on these matters, and I detect that your position has, shall we say, evolved. In fact, I even have copies of some of your past posts on these issues, even some you deleted.
Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you. But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past.
It'd be much more productive to move forward. That is what I am trying to do."
David:
Absolutely I did not. That new theory of mine came to me very early in the morning less than a week ago and as I recall I emailed it to Morrison, Cirba and Bausch and then put it on GOLFCLUBATLAS. It's on one of these threads maybe 5-7 days ago. I think you may have commented on it but I don't remember what you said about it, although I don't remember you mentioning you said the same thing a year or so ago. But maybe you did. All the recent posts are still there and nothing has been deleted. I noticed it when Shivas reposted that post of yours a few days ago. Perhaps, I'm like you with me and I sort of skim some of your posts. :-\
My theory that Wilson may've used Macdonald's sketches and drawings is sort of borne out of my constant impression on this whole trip or manifest thing that it really may not have mattered when Wilson went abroad first regarding what happened at Merion in 1911. In other words, it has never really seemed to me it would've mattered when he went as far as what he and his committee did at Merion and as far as what was written about what they did at that time and as far as what Macdonald had done for them at that time which is contained in those reports two Wilson reports.
I'm pretty certain it was Wilson who returned from abroad on May 1, 1912 even if some of the others here may not think so. I have another reason to be pretty certain about that. I'm certainly not completely convinced that Wilson did not go earlier though.
But, in my opinion, no matter when he first went or how often he went I do not think that changes anything about who was responsible for what happened at Merion in 1911 and who did it. I really do think those Wilson reports are accurate on that score.
One of the reasons I started thinking again about how it really doesn't matter when Wilson went was when Sean Arble told me recently how he too feels about that kind of thing. I started coresponding with him on the IM and I started thinking about another alternative for those often reported stories around here for about the last hundred years, I guess, that Wilson returned from abroad with all these sketches and drawings and surveyor's maps. And then I woke up the other morning and it just hit me that maybe they just saw him returning from NGLA with them, not from abroad.
There have always been some odd anomalies in the Merion history books---eg on the one hand they mention he went abroad in 1910 and on the other hand one mentions 'this romantic story that he almost went down on the Titanic on his way home.'
For many years we've realized the Titanic went down perhaps a year and a half after a possible trip of Wilson's in 1910.
-
"Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you. But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past."
David:
Oh, on the contrary, I think you do. If you didn't you probably wouldn't have said what you just did above. ;)
Believe me, I have no concern at all if you or anyone else can show and absolutely prove, and certainly to me, how I've reinvented where I stood in the past on any matter and any issue to do with Merion as long as you've been interested in it. Frankly, I would welcome any mis-consideration or mis-analysis or mis-interpretation I've ever been responsible for and I'm sure there've been more than a few on all the things I've tried to analyze to do with golf course architecture and golf courses.
I firmly believe this is what this stuff is all about----eg people who are really interested in this stuff and really interested in getting to the bottom of the accurate history of it all certainly do ply down some roads of inquiry and analysis they know they may misinterpret or just may miss things along the way that someone points out to them later, and shows them what they missed or how they misinterpreted something.
Frankly, the thing that most concerns but ultimately just interests good researchers are the things that they know may be out there somewhere they were not able to find that will make it necessary for them to reinterpret what they have analyzed and concluded without it. That is the very reason we actually do hope you have something new, some new facts and historical material either we or Merion has not been aware of. Mike Cirba said the same thing and so do I. You may not believe that but it's absolutely true. We want the truth, whatever it is in the final analysis, and we really aren't concerned where it comes from or from whom. And that is the very reason we are challenging you to produce something like that if you have it.
I got that in spades from Jim Finegan, a great golf and architecture writer and history writer and researcher too. I pointed out to him how that misinterpretation of the meaning of a simple date on the "Blue/red" line topo of PV took him way down the wrong road on his interpretation on that map of Colt and Crump. He's a stand up guy, though, and he immediately understood and took it like the kind of guy he is. That wasn't easy because his PV history book had just gone to print.
So, please, get those old deleted posts or anything else you can find and show everyone on here, including me, how I reinvented where I stood in the past. Again, you will not embarrass me---I guarantee it. I welcome it and we will all learn from it I'm sure. Everybody makes mistakes in research and analysis but by all means show us all where I reinvented any postion I've had on the architectural history of Merion.
Seriously, David, it will not embarrass me. If I was wrong on something, then I was just wrong, but I would like you to point out exactly how because if you do I certainly can and will learn from it and I think others will as well. In my opinion, that's what this website should be all about!
-
I got that in spades from Jim Finegan, a great golf and architecture writer and history writer and researcher too.
I pointed out to him how that misinterpretation of the meaning of a simple date on the "Blue/red" line topo of PV took him way down the wrong road on his interpretation on that map of Colt and Crump.
He's a stand up guy, though, and he immediately understood and took it like the kind of guy he is. That wasn't easy because his PV history book had just gone to print.
TEPaul, David, et. al.,
If anything, this shows us that club histories can be flawed, and, that we shouldn't automatically accept written accounts as the gospel, despite the apparent credibility of the author.[/color]
-
"TEPaul, David, et. al.,
If anything, this shows us that club histories can be flawed, and, that we shouldn't automatically accept written accounts as the gospel, despite the apparent credibility of the author."
Patrick:
You're not kidding! The thing with Finegan and his interpretation of the date on the "blue/red line" topo is important to particularly such as us but I'm not sure it's all that important in the broad scheme of things. Being around PV and its members as much as I have and as long as I have I've been aware that their perception of what Colt did and what Crump did has pretty much covered the entire spectrum. Some have thought Colt routed and designed the course and Crump just spent years building it to that routing and design. Others weren't even aware of Colt and thought Crump basically did everything. The truth and accurate history is it was neither and finally unraveling the meaning of that "blue/red line" topo and corroborating the story it tells with all kinds of other material (particularly Tillinghast's ongoing writing) via an ongoing timeline tells the story in detail and very accurately of what Colt did and Crump did.
With this trip thing or manifest thing with Wilson and Merion it probably isn't of much significance at all because it seems like no matter when he went that just won't change the truth of what he and his committee did at Merion East, including the truth of what Macdonald/Whigam did which I believe is accurately contained in the Wilson reports. As far as I can tell the club's histories has always been aware of the odd anomalie of the reported 1910 trip and the story of him almost going down on the Titanic which happened perhaps two years later. It seems the club just never thought that anomalie would have much influence on the truth of the early creation of Merion East and what the Wilsons reported in that vein.
I, for one, agree with that completely. This trip or manifest thing is nothing more than trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
But if this website and Merion want to know something that really did promote a reinterpretation of the architectural history of Merion nothing on these threads can touch the significance in that vein of what Wayne Morrison produced on the architectural history of the courses concerning William Flynn's part and significance. Those plans that were found in a barn in Bucks county where they had been for over half a century helped tell that story and created that reinterpretation entirely. That is what anyone can and should call a massive reinterpretation of the story of who was also responsible for Merion East.
And why didn't those Wilson reports give him more credit for what he did? Because those reports primarily focus on the first year or so of the construction of the Merions and at that point he didn't have the influence and the roll he did later from about 1916 on
-
David:
Two days ago you said to me:
"Funny because I recall your your previous posts on these matters, and I detect that your position has, shall we say, evolved. In fact, I even have copies of some of your past posts on these issues, even some you deleted.
Don't get me wrong Tom, I have no desire to play "I told you so" or to start pulling up your past posts to try and embarrass you. But please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of others by frantically trying to reinvent where you stood in the past."
And two days ago I said to you:
“Oh, on the contrary, I think you do. If you didn't you probably wouldn't have said what you just did above.
Believe me, I have no concern at all if you or anyone else can show and absolutely prove, and certainly to me, how I've reinvented where I stood in the past on any matter and any issue to do with Merion as long as you've been interested in it.”
David:
I’m waiting for you to show me why and how you recall how any of my positions on the architectural history of Merion has changed. You say you have copies of some of my past posts on these issues, even some I deleted? Could I please see those posts or even one of them that shows how or why any position I’ve had about Merion’s history has changed because of anything you’ve ever said or produced? If you either can’t or won’t produce anything like that then you probably shouldn’t say such a thing, don’t you think?
The irony here seems to be that basically you and I may’ve thought very similarly about Merion’s history all along. If you don’t think so it would be very helpful of you, at this point, to point out why you don’t think so.