Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: TEPaul on June 23, 2008, 12:17:53 AM
-
The early accounts in newspapers and club histories commonly referred to "experts" as the ones responsible for course planning and design of courses.
Who were they generally referring to around the turn of the century and into the teens?
I submit in almost every case they were merely referring to what they considered to be good golfers.
-
Tom,
Why don't we lay off this Merion business for a while?
-
David,
Where in what Tom wrote does the word "Merion" appear? Where is it even implied?
Lest you forget or don't want to bother reading one post above yours, Tom wrote, "The early accounts in newspapers and club histories commonly referred to "experts" as the ones responsible for course planning and design of courses. Who were they generally referring to around the turn of the century and into the teens? I submit in almost every case they were merely referring to what they considered to be good golfers."
Give it a break for once...
Tom, I agree with you completely. It seems that most of the "experts" were good players and that anyone from Scotland was both a good player and an expert before even teeing it up.
-
David Moriarty:
Why don't you try to stop turning every single thread by some of us in Philadelphia into another thread about Merion or into something about you? We've all heard of the term "self possession", I'm sure, but this is getting sort of ridiculous on your part. Are you going to try to turn discussions about clubs like Oakmont and Myopia and a number of others of that same early era into something about you too? ::)
-
It depended upon their expertise.
Have at it. I for one will sit this one out.
-
"It depended upon their expertise."
That appears to be very true---eg their expertise as golfers!
"I for one will sit this one out."
Thank you. That would be much appreciated and seemingly an excellent idea.
-
In most cases expert would refer to a golf architect. I just ran into it the other day. Carl Fisher the developer of Miami Beach was discussing the design of one his courses. In that case the expert turned out to be Willie Park II.
-
TE -
I've seen some of the ads from those early days, promoting an expertise in laying out courses 'along the most modern and scientific lines'. I've wondered:
- what would've qualified for 'the most old-fashioned and unscientific lines'? and,
- there must've been a whole lot of people who were decidedely NOT experts for this term to be used so often
Generally, the early golf ads remind me of those for cure-alls sold out of wagons by travelling salesman, the kind that cured baldness, bad livers and nervous disorders alll...
Peter
-
I've seen it numerous times in reference to course architecture and construction but the one common denominator among the accounts I've seen is that they were proficient and experienced players, whether amateur or professional, which seemed a rare commodity at the time.
-
Almost without exception the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designers of clubs such as GCGC, Myopia, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley etc. were considered to be good to very good golfers of their time and seemingly the best golfers those clubs had. The clubs and newspaper accounts at the time invariably seem to refer to them as "experts" when their involvment with the design of those club's courses was mentioned.
With all those men from those clubs mentioned it seems the common thread amongst them all was the vast amount of time they spent involved in their projects, in every case a number of years and sometimes decades.
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for and of necessity had to turn to someone with more experience to do it for them such as original course routing and design. This does not appear to be the case. I believe we all probably need to accept that despite the fact they had no previous experience in design, they most certainly had some very strong ideas about what golf and architecture should be and that they simply acted on this themselves in their original design projects. H.C. Fownes may be the best example of this yet, although Boston's Herbert Leeds most certainly seems to be another excellent example.
The latest example seems to be Oakmont and H.C. (and W.C Jr) Fownes. In the case of H.C. there does not even seem to be anyone remotely on the horizon who he turned to for advice architecturally as Merion did with Macdonald and Whigam. Part of this could certainly be at the time H.C. began he did not have much connection with the USGA or the Lesley Cup (which would not actually be formed until 1905). The latter two entities is were MCC had much stronger connections when they moved to Ardmore.
Another point is it just does not seem to be historically appropriate or accurate for this site or anyone for that matter to simply make the assumption that it's a GIVEN men like that could not have routed and designed their own courses and that they all had to find someone with more experience to do it for them. The accurate historic record of almost all the clubs mentioned above seems to indicate otherwise.
For this reason I believe this era and that type of "amateur/sportsman" designer and his common modus operandi is a most important one in the evolution of American architecture. It would not be half as interesting if the courses they did were not considered so great and so enduring.
It is also interesting to note after WW1 this age of that type of "amateur/sportsman" designer seem to slow to a stop and virtually die out. This as well, has to indicate some very important factors in the history and evolution of American architecture.
-
As far as golf's concerened, aside from maintenance science, I doubt the term has changed in it's origins since the earliest days. That being self-proclaimed.
-
X is the unknown. Spurt is a leak under pressure.
-
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for and of necessity had to turn to someone with more experience to do it for them such as original course routing and design.
Not to pull David into this thread, but I believe if anything the Merion threads showed me that you are wrong about this Tom.
One mistake I believe has been repeatedly made is discussing the creation of Merion but using the end product as the basis. Mike Cirba has repeatedly made the case that Merion's initial iteration was so bad, or at least so far from its later acclaimed state, that half the holes were wholly redone. He has also demonstrated that the routing, far from being a work of genius, was actually essentially pre-ordained based on the land, its configuration and its parameters. I do understand Mike's reason for making these observations was to riddle the notion that CDM was responsible for the initial creation, but the same facts also lead to the obvious conclusion that Wilson didn't really know what he was doing at first.
Is it therefore wrong to say Wilson, when he began, was indeed too inexperienced and did not know enough to create what would later become Merion?
-
"Not to pull David into this thread, but I believe if anything the Merion threads showed me that you are wrong about this Tom.
One mistake I believe has been repeatedly made is discussing the creation of Merion but using the end product as the basis. Mike Cirba has repeatedly made the case that Merion's initial iteration was so bad, or at least so far from its later acclaimed state, that half the holes were wholly redone. He has also demonstrated that the routing, far from being a work of genius, was actually essentially pre-ordained based on the land, its configuration and its parameters. I do understand Mike's reason for making these observations was to riddle the notion that CDM was responsible for the initial creation, but the same facts also lead to the obvious conclusion that Wilson didn't really know what he was doing at first.
Is it therefore wrong to say Wilson, when he began, was indeed too inexperienced and did not know enough to create what would later become Merion?"
ahughes:
One thing I have never done in these Merion debates is to use what you call the 'end product' as any basis at all in these debates with the likes of David Moriarty's and Tom MacWood's apparent belief that Macdonald was more involved in the original routing and design of Merion East than the club and us have given him credit for. The only timeframe I'm concerned with is between 1910 and 1911 when the course was initially routed and designed and constructed and then let grass-in for a year between Sept 1911 and Sept 1912.
Whether Mike Cirba or anyone else claims the course in 1912 (when it opened for play) was really bad is not at all the point either. The entire point is who routed and designed it in 1911 and was Macdonald's roll in that minimized by the club at that time.
We believe it was not. Apparently some such as Moriarty and MacWood believe it was. Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed the course in 1911 and they received advice and suggestions from Macdonald in that effort just as Merion's architectural record has always shown.
Macdonald approved one of Wilson's and committee's course plans stating that it contained the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world. That doesn't sound to me like Macdonald thought that first iteration was all that bad. ;)
But again, the point isn't how bad or how good the course was at that time or even how inexperienced Wilson was in 1911. The only point is if it is historically accurate that Wilson and his committee should be given architectural attribution and credit for the routing and design and creation of Merion East in 1911, as the club has always said.
We believe Wilson and his committee should be given that architectural attribution and credit as Merion's record has always shown which has always included the advice Macdonald/Whigam provided in only two one day visits to Ardmore, and the advice they provided Wilson and his committee at NGLA during a two day visit there.
Furthermore, you can read in Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" that the club and its board when they said to the MCC membership in a letter in early Jan. 1911 that "experts are now at work on the course..." that the board's letter could not have been referring to Wilson and his committee simply because they had no previous experience in golf course architecture and that consequently the board must have been referring to Barker or Macdonald and Whigam.
We believe that assumption and that premise is completely wrong and that the board most certainly was referring to Wilson and his committee as those "experts" as many others did at that time simply because they were very good golfers.
Frankly, it makes no sense at all to say Barker was "at work" designing the course in 1911 because Barker hadn't been there since June 1910 and never returned and Macdonald and Whigam weren't there between June 1910 and April 6, 1911 during that one day visit when they went over the grounds and over various plans Wilson and committee had created in the winter and spring of 1911 and approved one of Wilson and committee's course plans.
-
I would be cautious about placing an absolute on the meaning of "expert".
I like this quote from AG1912.
Some golf experts are those who can take an obscure subject and by explanation make it still more obscure.
-
Tom, I'm sorry, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing? I am not referring in any way to who deserves credit (or blame) for the intial iteration of Merion nor am I trying at all to suck you back into a discussion of Barker, routings etc. I am not nearly foolish enough to place myself in the middle of that discussion ;)
I am referring to Wilson, and trying to make the case that contra your thesis in this thread he was both too inexperienced and unable to create a great course. Obviously that changed later, but was there much of his first efforts that would bolster your contention?
-
"I am referring to Wilson, and trying to make the case that contra your thesis in this thread he was both too inexperienced and unable to create a great course."
ahughes:
Is the point you're trying to make that you think Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in 1911 to be able to route and design and create Merion East with his committee?
If that's your point, perhaps there are a few things you might need to know about Merion's history such as what the club's board meeting minutes say about that.
I suppose anyone could just assume that the committees responsible for the creation of Merion East could sit in a club board meeting and completely lie to their board members about what they'd been doing for the last four months but what really is the chance of that happening in the real world? I realize that kind of analysis and assumption and conclusion might happen on here but I don't think I've ever heard of it happening in the real world and certainly not to a club like MCC and Merion. ;) ::)
-
Tom,
It could just as easily be seen as PR, i.e., who the heck would say "Course X was designed by a noted in-expert"
-
It has always amazed me in my career whenever I have built a feature on a golf course how valuable the golf professional's insight is when I bring him out for advice in layout. There is no question in my mind that the better players have a good innate sense for design. It will be really interesting to see what Tiger comes up with in his design. He sure has a prime piece of property to work with.
Part of being an expert is being confident and having that swagger. Travis must have been very confident in himself as an architect when he came back from being the first American to win the British Open. And who would question his opinion at that point?
-
The early accounts in newspapers and club histories commonly referred to "experts" as the ones responsible for course planning and design of courses.
Who were they generally referring to around the turn of the century and into the teens?
I submit in almost every case they were merely referring to what they considered to be good golfers.
TE,
I'd agree.
I believe that the term was one of "relativity" and probably refered to the most experienced golfers, which tended to be those golfers who were well traveled and competed in tournaments.
-
JimK:
I really don't know what you're saying or asking in that post.
-
Good golfers!
-
"TE,
I believe that the term was one of "relativity" and probably refered to the most experienced golfers, which tended to be those golfers who were well traveled and competed in tournaments."
Pat:
I think when we look at some of those "amateur/sportsmen" designers of the likes of Leeds, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al etc who created such great courses over such extended projects, we can't just look at them through our on eyes today and what the alternatives are for us (if we could take it back to their times). We need to look at what their alternatives were in their eyes back then and it really wasn't much if one contracted with a professional back then as we do today.
None of the so-called professionals back then had done a thing in America of real qualty or note, and that's what they were looking at.
Who did the best work back then in the few courses that were any good say before NGLA got real notice? "Amateur/sportsmen" designers did like Leeds, Emmet, maybe Travis and the Fownses did and had and every single one of them was a good player and was called an "expert" because of just that. I don't even think Ross had gotten any real notice that early as a contract architect.
Not to mention that these guys mentioned were mostly pretty rich and powerful and well educated guys and with some pretty strong ideas and they obviously felt they could just do it themselves as well as anyone could. And of course we can overlook the fact that they were basically concentrating on single projects only---eg the ones that made them famous.
This seems to be pretty well borne out at the end of the teens and into the 1920s when the quality of professional architecture work had begun to ramp up in real quality and get notice----then it just wasn't that necessary for the likes of the Leedses, Emmets, Fownes, Wilsons and Crumps ("amateur/sportsmen designers all) to do what they once had in the decade or two before that.
In my opinion, this isn't just about understanding them better it's about understanding their particular time better.
Back then, if you were a really good player there seems to be no question most expected that you could design courses too. Ever bit of evidence---club records, newspapers and magazines of that time are just rife with that attitude back then and it is just not good for anyone today to try and say they were too inexperienced to do what they did, particularly when it is totally provable that they did do what they've been given credit for.
This isn't about glorifying what they did and making historically inaccurate legends out of them as a few on here just can't seem to stop thinking---it was the truth.
It's more about us figuring out how they did it and not so much about IF they did it. ;)
-
I think when we look at some of those "amateur/sportsmen" designers of the likes of Leeds, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al etc who created such great courses over such extended projects, we can't just look at them through our on eyes today and what the alternatives are for us (if we could take it back to their times). We need to look at what their alternatives were in their eyes back then and it really wasn't much if one contracted with a professional back then as we do today.
None of the so-called professionals back then had done a thing in America of real qualty or note, and that's what they were looking at.
Who did the best work back then in the few courses that were any good say before NGLA got real notice? "Amateur/sportsmen" designers did like Leeds, Emmet, maybe Travis and the Fownses did and had and every single one of them was a good player and was called an "expert" because of just that. I don't even think Ross had gotten any real notice that early as a contract architect.
Not to mention that these guys mentioned were mostly pretty rich and powerful and well educated guys and with some pretty strong ideas and they obviously felt they could just do it themselves as well as anyone could. And of course we can overlook the fact that they were basically concentrating on single projects only---eg the ones that made them famous.
This seems to be pretty well borne out at the end of the teens and into the 1920s when the quality of professional architecture work had begun to ramp up in real quality and get notice----then it just wasn't that necessary for the likes of the Leedses, Emmets, Fownes, Wilsons and Crumps ("amateur/sportsmen designers all) to do what they once had in the decade or two before that.
In my opinion, this isn't just about understanding them better it's about understanding their particular time better.
Back then, if you were a really good player there seems to be no question most expected that you could design courses too. Ever bit of evidence---club records, newspapers and magazines of that time are just rife with that attitude back then and it is just not good for anyone today to try and say they were too inexperienced to do what they did, particularly when it is totally provable that they did do what they've been given credit for.
This isn't about glorifying what they did and making historically inaccurate legends out of them as a few on here just can't seem to stop thinking---it was the truth.
It's more about us figuring out how they did it and not so much about IF they did it. ;)
TE
I think it might be misleading to throw all these guys under the same generalizations - each has a different story.
Leeds-Definitely one of the long term architects, tweeking and perfecting over many years. However he wasn't even a member of Myopia when the course was first laid out. A very good golfer.
Emmet-He is defintely responsible for the early form of GCGC along with George Hubbell (they also sought the advice of Alex Findlay) circa 1900, but wasn't the turning point at GCGC when Travis later overhauled the course? Went on to become one of the most prolific golf architects in American history. A good golfer.
Travis-His earliest design experiences came with JD Dunn at Ekwanock and other NE courses, also around the turn of the century. He was reponsible for overhauling GCGC from around 1908 to 1911, after that time his power at the club was diminished. Went on to become a full time golf architect. One of the premier golfers in the world. Unlike the others not independently wealthy.
H. Fownes & W.Fownes-I'm not sure it is accurate to lump these two men into the same catagory, as far as the roll in the design of Oakmont. I'd like to see more info on the development of Oakmont. Defintely a long term overseer. Both very good golfers, though W.Fownes was more accomplished.
Macdonald-Began designing in the 1890s in Chicago. He had no problem seeking the advice of others when laying out his ideal course in 1906. Another long term man, tweeking and perfecting over a period of years. Went on to become the premier golf architect in America. A very good golfer.
Crump-His project began in 1913 and the American design landscape was much more developed. Sought the advice of HS Colt among others. Good local golfer.
Wilson-Merion began in 1911, again the American landscape was different at that time than say 1900 or 1906. Colt had come over. William Watson and HH Barker were doing good work. Herbert Strong was starting to get going. NGLA, GCGC and Myopia were very good. Wilson headed a committee that sought the advice of experts. Good local golfer; not in the same income group as most of the others.
The time frames are all slightly different and the particulars are also unique. I'm not sure it is useful to lump them all under the term amateur/sportsmen as you define it. You also have to consider the fact that Emmet, Travis, and Macdoanld went onto become full fledged golf architects. You could probably include Wilson in that group as well (although he might be more part-time). Fownes and Leeds were really devoted to a single golf course. I'm also at loss why you think the term 'expert' is more closely tied to these men as opposed to HS Colt, Willie Park, Donald Ross, and other professional architects referred to as experts.
-
Is the point you're trying to make that you think Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in 1911 to be able to route and design and create Merion East with his committee?
Tom, yes, that is exactly my point in a sense. He was clearly able to route/design/create the initial iteration of Merion in 1911, but notexperienced or skilled enough to create a course of much quality. Is there really any doubt of that? If we accept Mike Cirba's contention that almost anyone could have routed Merion initially as there weren't really any options with that land parcel, then what was the great strength of Wilson and committee's first go? It was a course devoid of hazards and therefore strategy that needed to be substantially reworked and remade over time to be considered great.
I suppose anyone could just assume that the committees responsible for the creation of Merion East could sit in a club board meeting and completely lie to their board members about what they'd been doing for the last four months but what really is the chance of that happening in the real world? I realize that kind of analysis and assumption and conclusion might happen on here but I don't think I've ever heard of it happening in the real world and certainly not to a club like MCC and Merion
Tom, I don't see what the board minutes have to do with Merion in 1912. Either the course Wilson and committee created was a good one or it was not. Or am I not getting your point?
Also, you said earlierI believe we all probably need to accept that despite the fact they had no previous experience in design, they most certainly had some very strong ideas about what golf and architecture should be
With Wilson as an example, what do you mean? Is there any documentation about what his ideas may have been?
-
ahughes:
My Goodness, the entire point here on these Merion threads for about the last five years has never been about whether the 1912 course was good or not only about who routed and designed it. ::)
When Macdonald approved one of Wilson and committee's routing and design plans for the course he mentioned that he felt the last seven holes would be the best of any inland course in the world, so apparently Macdonald thought it was a good course.
-
Tom, are you sure you actually read my post? ;) I have said nothing about anyone other than Wilson and his committee being responsible for Merion in 1912 (for several reasons, not least because I have no desire to find myself mired in something I can't escape).
Having said that, it is my understanding that Merion in 1912 was not much of a course. Am I wrong about that? If I am right, then is it not safe to say Wilson was likely too inexperienced and without the skill/knowledge to create a great course at that time?
Not sure what to make of CBM's comments--it could be interpreted or dismissed so many different ways.
-
I feel that I should probably weigh in here (relunctantly ;)) because it was likely my fervent defense of Hugh Wilson and the committee's role in the design of Merion that led to a bit of hyperbole on my part that I think may be a bit misunderstood.
In essence, I stated three things;
1) Like Marshall McLuhan's "Media is the Message", my contention is that in many ways at Merion's first course, the "property was the destiny", because there is absolutely no way to route a 6200yd golf course on the original property without the holes north of Ardmore Ave. running north/south and the holes below it running east/west. Once the narrow, L-shaped, "Johnson Farm" property was purchased, there was a very finite limit to the ways one could route a full, "championship" golf course, because the narrowness of the property wouldn't permit much anything else. The routing that was done was quite good, excellent in stretches, yet even with that...
2) The original routing was significantly changed over time with fully 7 of the original 18 holes changed either wholly or in part within the first dozen years. Holes completely changed by 1924 included 1, 10, 11, 12, & 13, while holes 2, 8, and 14 all had their greens moved from the original location. Also, the 17th green and perhaps others were completely rebuilt.
3) And, what opened in 1912 was an "unfinished, rough draft" without many of the bunkers built. I sense this was because Macdnald had taught them that the "principles" of the great holes were largely dictated by the bunkering strategies, and this is likely what he went to study. Also, other early "experimental" features like Mid_Surrey mounding around the 9th green proved to be short-lived.
So, yes, Hugh Wilson and his committee were definitely still learning in 1912, but they also came up with a very good routing, that in stretches had flashes of inspiration and brilliance that still exist to this day. Over time, the weaker parts were eliminated and the course was refined and even "perfected" throughout the rest of Hugh Wilson's life, with much assistance from William Flynn and Joe Valentine.
However, the course that opened in 1912, that was designed and routed by Hugh Wilson and committee, approved by Charles Macdonald, and built by Fred Pickering was not a bad, or horribly amateurish course, or anything that was indicative of someone who didn't know anything. In fact, it was immediately hailed as a course that had the potential to be Philadelphia's first real "championship course", something that was quickly realized.
I simply argued that the course that opened in 1912 didn't require some great routing expertise or prior course architectural experience as others have contended.
-
ahughes:
I don't see any reason to speculate about whether Merion East was not a good course in 1912 due to inexperience on Hugh Wilson's part. These threads have been all about whether he and his committee routed and designed it or whether Macdonald did in some way for which he was never given appropriate credit.
-
He was clearly able to route/design/create the initial iteration of Merion in 1911, but notexperienced or skilled enough to create a course of much quality. Is there really any doubt of that?
Alex Findlay, well-known Scottish golfer and course designer in both the United States and Great Britain, had traveled extensively, playing courses all over both. He also authored a column called Breezy News about Golf and Golfers, in which he described Merion’s East course shortly before the opening. He said,
"The last five are the most wonderful in this country. In fact, I cannot recall having seen such a succession of holes anywhere. They must be seen and played over in order to be appreciated."
CBM said something similar, that seven of the holes equaled any in the country. If five to seven holes are the best in the country, I can't see the course as being of low quality.
William Evans, golf writer and insider on the Phillie golf scene, wrote in 1913 that "Mr. Wilson ...has no superior as a golf architect." Just a year after Merion opened, it was said he has no superior as a golf architect. This again suggests Merion was a quality course from the start. The later changes simply made it better.
-
Obviously, with only dozens to hundreds of courses in the US, an expert had a much lower threshold to meet in terms of numbers of courses designed, compared to today. TePaul had made similar points on the Merion threads, noting that the profession of gca was almost non existant, and certainly developing at best.
It makes sense that the best golfers probably were considered experts. In the case of Hugh Wilson, it has been shown that he had something to do with the construction of a course earlier. He was probably made head of the Merion committee based on having one more course design/construction experience than anyone else at the club.
But, there were many kinds of experts, in lieu of the golf course architect as head of the project as you would expect now. Didn't CBM consult Raynor for his construction and surveying experience, and another engineer for rudimentary irrigation and the USDA and seed salesman for turf and soils?
Merion use Fred Pickering initially as a construction foreman, who may be undercredited for the initial results, even if fired later for drunkeness.
So, maybe its no different than today. The public figured golfers knew all there was to know about architecture, but behind the public press releases were many talented people with some contributing knowledge that never get credit for the results.
Now, if we wanted a true architectural history of those early courses, wouldn't it have to include the names of the horses who pulled the scoops? ;D
-
Jeff
Thanks for the very commonsensical post.
-
I don't see any reason to speculate about whether Merion East was not a good course in 1912 due to inexperience on Hugh Wilson's part.
Tom, please see your quote below, and what you describe as one of the points of this thread.
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for
Jim Nugent, I hear ya, and have no doubt those quotes are accurate, though I would mention that CBM's comment was made before the course was even built. After all the wrangling on the Merion threads, one thing that has been made clear to me is that taking little newspaper snippets here and there is likely a mistake. I doubt the accuracy, and there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole (not much has changed in 100 years :().
But from a logical point of view, how good can a course really be if it has virtually no hazards? Where would the strategy come from? This is the Merion issue that continues to elude me--take away almost all the bunkers from Merion today, and how good a course could it be, even granting that the routing today must be better than the original routing that was changed so much. I readily admit I do not have a good sense of how the course was initially, but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole. Why is Merion v 1.0 any different?
-
Al,
From some old readings, it was a trend to add bunkers later, perhaps because they weren't sure of themselves architecturally, or perhaps because in many cases, there wasn't the money initially. But even at top clubs, the ideas of modifying cousres after opening was, I think, well established. Many places got open just so members could play and then brought in Ross, Mac, Tillie, whoever to shore up the course, even as early as the teens.
Inthe case at Merion, is it possible that at Merion the bunkers were left out specifically because the intent was for Wilson to see the courses in Scotland. Maybe he meant to go before, but got delayed, so they waited until he got back to finish off the course? Sorry to introduce more speculation about Merion.........
-
Jeff, that seems plausible and likely prudent. But could a course that did not have its hazards built really be called a good/great one? As a pro, can you picture Merion initially being very good without its bunkers?
Thanks,
Andy
-
"Tom, please see your quote below, and what you describe as one of the points of this thread.
Quote
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for
ahughes:
Yes, that's what I said. I mentioned that because in the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" one of the assmptions or premises seems to be Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in early 1911 to have been able to route and design Merion East with his committee, therefore C.B. Macdonald/Whigam must have done it for them. I just don't believe that follows and particularly not with the board meeting evidence that says Wilson and his committee did it anyway. ;)
-
Andy,
You made the comment that, "but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole..."
This isn't true. What makes the road hole great rather than merely very good is a single bunker, the one in front of the green. That bunker dictates everything from tee shot to risk/reward of layup to many times playing it safely as a three-shot hole by going right and short of the green. Misplayed shots that enter it ruin rounds and championships and those that are misplayed long because of it give the hole the real reason to be known as the "road" hole.
If there were no other bunkers on that hole that single one would cause it to be always considered great. It proves that it takes very few bunkers to make a hole great and therefor very few bunkers on a golf course to make it great as well...
-
ahughes:
This particular thread is not supposed to be just about Hugh Wilson and his inexperience when he started anyway. There are a number of other "amateur/sportsmen" designers who seem to have done good work like he did with their first efforts as well. The notable examples are seemingly Devereaux Emmet (GCGC), Herbert Leeds (Myopia) and H.C/W.C. Fownes (Oakmont), George Crump (Pine Valley). By the way, all of these men were very good golfers!
"But could a course that did not have its hazards built really be called a good/great one? As a pro, can you picture Merion initially being very good without its bunkers?"
ahughes:
Where have you gotten the idea that the original Merion East had NO bunkers?
-
Jim Nugent, I hear ya, and have no doubt those quotes are accurate, though I would mention that CBM's comment was made before the course was even built. After all the wrangling on the Merion threads, one thing that has been made clear to me is that taking little newspaper snippets here and there is likely a mistake. I doubt the accuracy, and there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole (not much has changed in 100 years :().
But from a logical point of view, how good can a course really be if it has virtually no hazards? Where would the strategy come from? This is the Merion issue that continues to elude me--take away almost all the bunkers from Merion today, and how good a course could it be, even granting that the routing today must be better than the original routing that was changed so much. I readily admit I do not have a good sense of how the course was initially, but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole. Why is Merion v 1.0 any different?
Al, they did not have to build the quarry. They did not (I think) have to build the stream that meanders around at least one hole there. I don't know enough about the course to speak of much else. Except I thought Merion got wide, deep praise when it opened.
BTW, it would not surprise me if M&W had something to do with the quarry hole. Macdonald talks about the quarry in his June 1910 letter to the Merion Golf Committee.
I have a question for Mike Cirba. If there was only real way to route the course from the beginning, how/why were they able to change so many of the holes later? Or did they not re-route those holes?
-
You made the comment that, "but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole..."
This isn't true. What makes the road hole great rather than merely very good is a single bunker, the one in front of the green. That bunker dictates everything from tee shot to risk/reward of layup to many times playing it safely as a three-shot hole by going right and short of the green. Misplayed shots that enter it ruin rounds and championships and those that are misplayed long because of it give the hole the real reason to be known as the "road" hole.
Phil, we are in complete agreement. The Road Hole bunker was included in the group 'any bunkers'. My point was, take away all the bunkers on the hole (the one in front of the green is part of that group) and it loses much of its appeal and greatness.
-
ahughes:
Where have you gotten the idea that the original Merion East had NO bunkers?
Tom, see below from MikeC. This was commonly mentioned in the Merion threads. If it is not true, please say so. But it was never refuted or argued that I am aware in those threads.
3) And, what opened in 1912 was an "unfinished, rough draft" without many of the bunkers built. I sense this was because Macdnald had taught them that the "principles" of the great holes were largely dictated by the bunkering strategies, and this is likely what he went to study.
-
Jim Nugent,
Merion bought property south of where the creek crosses on #12 sometime after 1920 to create enough room for today's 10th, 11th and 12th holes.
At the time, the present 13th hole was created, as well, and the 1st was wholly reconfigured from a dogleg left to a dogleg right with the old 10th green now out of the way.
I'm not sure I'm describing the events wholly accurately, but that's the general gist of how it went down.
Andy,
"Far and Sure" reported just after the course opened;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts, conceived by the Construction Committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."
I don't have it in front of me, but the Tillinghast account in "American Cricketer" mentioned something more definitive about the bunkers. It certainly didn't have "none", it just didn't have all that were planned to be built, either at inception or as play proceeded and ideas for new placements of bunkers generated.
Jeff Brauer brings up a great point that the rush was on to get the members playing on the course.
-
Jim Nugent, I hear ya, and have no doubt those quotes are accurate, though I would mention that CBM's comment was made before the course was even built. After all the wrangling on the Merion threads, one thing that has been made clear to me is that taking little newspaper snippets here and there is likely a mistake. I doubt the accuracy, and there seems to be quite a bit of hyperbole (not much has changed in 100 years :().
But from a logical point of view, how good can a course really be if it has virtually no hazards? Where would the strategy come from? This is the Merion issue that continues to elude me--take away almost all the bunkers from Merion today, and how good a course could it be, even granting that the routing today must be better than the original routing that was changed so much. I readily admit I do not have a good sense of how the course was initially, but my gut says that if the Road Hole didn't have any bunkers, it would not be nearly as great a hole. Why is Merion v 1.0 any different?
Al, they did not have to build the quarry. They did not (I think) have to build the stream that meanders around at least one hole there. I don't know enough about the course to speak of much else. Except I thought Merion got wide, deep praise when it opened.
BTW, it would not surprise me if M&W had something to do with the quarry hole. Macdonald talks about the quarry in his June 1910 letter to the Merion Golf Committee.
I have a question for Mike Cirba. If there was only real way to route the course from the beginning, how/why were they able to change so many of the holes later? Or did they not re-route those holes?
Jim,
For starters, additional land was purchased which allowed the construction of the current 11th green and 12th tee. This had a cascading effect as it permitted the club to reroute the first hole as a dogleg right, and not have the 10th green and 11th sit on the opposite side of Ardmore Ave from their respective holes. Furthermore, the additional space allowed the club to shift the 13th hole to its present site, with the green sitting near the old first tee.
-
Quote
One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for
ahughes:
Yes, that's what I said. I mentioned that because in the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" one of the assmptions or premises seems to be Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in early 1911 to have been able to route and design Merion East with his committee, therefore C.B. Macdonald/Whigam must have done it for them. I just don't believe that follows and particularly not with the board meeting evidence that says Wilson and his committee did it anyway.
Tom,
If the course was no great shakes when it opened, wouldn't that imply that Wilson and committee were indeed too inexperienced or perhaps without the needed knowledge and skills? That has nothing to with CBM and Whigham or the board minutes.
Al, they did not have to build the quarry. They did not (I think) have to build the stream that meanders around at least one hole there. I don't know enough about the course to speak of much else. Except I thought Merion got wide, deep praise when it opened.
Jim, but that would still leave most of the course. And I agree Merion seemed to have garnered high praise from even before it opened. I am not sure I see how that can be though with bunkering witheld til later.
Thanks,
Andy
-
"Far and Sure" reported just after the course opened;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts, conceived by the Construction Committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."
Mike, thanks. 'Far and Sure' seems to be where I am. Do you have a good sense how the course could have been so highly praised at its opening, even earlier in some cases, with much of the strategy still to come? Is that more an indictment of American golf at the time?
-
Andy,
This might help. I don't have the American Cricketer article by Tillinghast, but this is what Jim Finegan wrote summarizing the Tillinghast article;
"Tillinghast reviewed the new course at length in the American Cricketer and was generally appreciative of its merits;
"...16th, 17th, 12th, and 3rd are the best holes. The old quarry, which is traversed by the last three holes is a wonderfully effective natural hazard an makes these holes a fine finish...The yawning quarry makes the 17th look fearsome enough but the terror is more imaginary than real. The 16th is a corker..It is a real gem...If your drive is a good one, before you stretches the old quarry, its cliff-like sides frowning forbiddingly. Just beyond, and sparkling like an emerald, is the green, calling for a shot that is brave and true. It seems almost like a coy but flirtatious maiden with mocking eyes flashing at you from over her fan, and as you measure the distance between, you are fired with the ambition to show off a bit..."
"No one will ever play Merion without taking away the memory of No. 16..." (and then goes on to describe the 3rd, 7th, and 13th - my words)
Then Finegan writes;
"Summing up, Tillinghast pointed out that comparatively few bunkers were yet in place, then concluded on a somewhat muted note: "I believe that Merion will have a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying out for one for many years. The construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers."".
-
"If there was only real way to route the course from the beginning, how/why were they able to change so many of the holes later? Or did they not re-route those holes?"
JimN:
Even if some types of sites are easier to route than others for various reasons---eg narrow sites like original links sites or narrow L shaped sites like Merion East (where there is not much side to side latitude) there is never just one way to route and arrange holes, that's for damn sure, and certainly not on Merion East's site either. The fact is Wilson and committee did many different "course" iterations in 1911 and with the advice and suggestions of Macdonald/Whigam on April 6, 1911 they all settled on the one they thought the best and that's what they took to the board for approval. But there was never just ONE routing or course or layout for Merion East in the winter of 1911, the fact is they came up with a number of iterations.
-
"Tom, see below from MikeC. This was commonly mentioned in the Merion threads. If it is not true, please say so. But it was never refuted or argued that I am aware in those threads."
ahughes:
This is probably where misinformation that gets perpetuated comes from. There are a few early photos of Merion East but in no way are they comprehensive of the whole course. And there are no aerials for the course either until the early 1920s. There are also no drawings or plans left that we've ever seen for this first stage (about 1911-1915 when Flynn began to make hole drawings).
So, the point is, I doubt anyone on here really knows just how many bunkers were constructed on the course in that first phase of constrution (from about April 1911- Sept. 1911).
Frankly, most anyone who's spent time in the field watching architectural construction knows that in most cases bunkering, particularly around greens is something of a matter of "form follows function". In other words, to generate fill for various aspects of construction (greens ?), the way to do it is to make cuts which very often become the bunkers! ;)
-
"Tom, see below from MikeC. This was commonly mentioned in the Merion threads. If it is not true, please say so. But it was never refuted or argued that I am aware in those threads."
ahughes:
This is probably where misinformation that gets perpetuated comes from.
Tom,
I feel like a National Enquirer reporter! :-\ :-[ ;)
Seriously, I think my comments are being taken to an extreme here, perhaps due to some of my more hyperbolic blasts from the past. ;D
I never said there could only be one routing....I know there were several. My point is that the constrained, oddly-shaped property limited how the holes could be routed, at least in terms of general direction on each side of the road. This differs considerably from, say, a 120 acre symmetric, "square" property without a public road, an existing clubhouse, a large quarry, etc.
In terms of the bunkering and the "work in progress", "rough draft" nature of the course upon opening, I'm simply iterating what "Far and Sure" wrote, as well as Finegan's summary of Tillinghast's "American Cricketer" reference to bunkering.
-
"Seriously, I think my comments are being taken to an extreme here, perhaps due to some of my more hyperbolic blasts from the past. ;D"
Mike:
That very well may be but I'm quite sure you've noticed, as I have, that on this website people tend to take one's meaning about various things in ways that was not exactly intended by the one who said them. Hell, you can even see that some on here put all kinds of meaning and even words on some of the things said that aren't even close to what that person said. ;)
For instance, someone on here said I've been recommending that certain historical information should be "CENSORED". I never said anything like that---not even close. All I said is I do sometimes question the relevance of using some historical information with some subjects, particularly if the implication or inference is it's far more important to that subject somehow than basic commonsense can pretty much tell it is. ;)
-
"My point is that the constrained, oddly-shaped property limited how the holes could be routed, at least in terms of general direction on each side of the road. This differs considerably from, say, a 120 acre symmetric, "square" property without a public road, an existing clubhouse, a large quarry, etc."
MikeC:
That's true on a site of the configuration of Merion East---eg there's no real latitude to go sideways from the general direction of the holes but that in no way means it's totally obvious that the holes should stop and start where they do or that the par selections come where it does or that the sequencing be what it is.
Furthermore, there is one massive unanswered question to do with almost all these early so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers of that era and the way they all went about their projects---and that is did they take the massive amounts of time they did on their projects simply because that was necessary to overcome their inexperiences along the way or did they enter into those projects both knowing and intending that they would do it that way over such extended periods of time?
There actually is a brief discussion in those agronomy letters about this very thing and this very subject. If I can find it, I'll post it.
-
"Summing up, Tillinghast pointed out that comparatively few bunkers were yet in place, then concluded on a somewhat muted note: "I believe that Merion will have a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying out for one for many years. The construction committee, headed by Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers."".
TEP/Mike, perhaps my comments on Merion's first iteration were overharsh? Tillinghast seems to make the same point re bunkers though he makes clear it was not zero bunkers, and Mike also offered the quote earlier 'without many of the bunkers built'.