Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Joe Bausch on April 07, 2009, 11:14:56 AM
-
Alex Findlay lived in the Philadelphia area for many years and wrote for a newspaper called the Evening Telegraph. He penned golf articles, sometimes as often as twice a week, usually under the headlines of "Breezy News About Golf And Golfers; Tales of the Links as Told by an Expert Whose Fame Spreads Over Two Continents".
I've made available on my web page many of these articles that I've retrieved from microfilm. Currently I've processed those that I have from 1912. All of them are here:
http://www.myphillygolf.com/uploads/archives/1912EveningTelegraphFindlay/index.html (http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/ET/AHF/)
Many are not easily readable because of the poor transfer to the microfilm. And one of those 'Breezy' articles from June 22, 1912 contains info about the upcoming Merion course and Findlay meets with Wilson. I've written the pertinent parts of that article below:
The writer spent a pleasant hour last Wednesday afternoon with Hugh I. Wilson, wandering over the new Merion golf course, which he has spent so much of his time on. His main object is to make this the king-pin course of Pennsylvania. I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall.
It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc. Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad. He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes. I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality, is a myth. Golfers simply for sake "O' Auld Lang Syne" play over it once in a while. It is worn out, void of grass, and the only thing that will stop golf balls from running all over the place are deep pot bunkers, cruelly placed, and when at the bottom of one of these, woe betide you! Many of them are on the putting greens. I know my second shot to the seventeenth two or three years ago should have rested at the pin, but, instead of that, it rolled into an unplayable bunker, and instead of playing toward the hole I really had to play away from it. I was playing Andrs. Kirkaldy at the time (old Tom Morris' successor), and that particular hole cost me the match. My nice three at the last hole came too late to be of any use. But the traps are as fair for one as they are for others.
Wilson had no end of a good time, and is sorry at not having gone over years ago. It certainly broadens one's ideas. He now possesses golf knowledge that will stand him in good stead for many years to come. By the way, he negotiated St. Andrews (as keen as it was) in eighty strokes and actually registered a nice seventy-seven on the x,xxx-yard course at Sandwich, and that, too, against our own Fred Herreshoff, but Fred took more than 77. Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country, such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I. We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf.
On September 14, 1912 the Evening Telegraph published the following blurb about the opening of Merion which occurred on Saturday, September 12:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/ET/09141912ET_250.jpg)
-
Joe,
These are absolutely tremendous articles of wonderful historic value. Thanks for all of your efforts!
It seems that Hugh Wilson had a little bit of the "Bobby Jones initial reaction" to The Old Course, but it is surprising to learn that Findlay didn't seem to care much for it, either.
I took the liberty to post your original scan, as well as a blow-up of the toughest to read portion;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3361/3421611666_c71439c0eb_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3420804457_540b32a093_o.jpg)
-
My goodness, Joe - what fine, fine work you're doing. Since my reading on these subjects is so limited I can't say for certain - but it seems to me that you've found an article that hasn't seen the light of day (or been referenced by anyone) in over 90 years. Well done!
Peter
-
This article, if believed accurate, would seem to confirm David Moriarty's assertion that Wilson's trip was in the spring of '12. It also implies that CBM laid out a number of the holes and that Hugh Wilson liked them.
-
My goodness, Joe - what fine, fine work you're doing. Since my reading on these subjects is so limited I can't say for certain - but it seems to me that you've found an article that hasn't seen the light of day (or been referenced by anyone) in over 90 years. Well done!
Peter
P2, only the Free Library of Philadelphia has the entire run of the Evening Telegraph on microfilm. And the quality of the material on reels is frequently very poor. The images Mike posted above (which I sent to him and a few others in case they didn't believe what I had found ;) ) took quite a bit of work to be readable.
-
This article, if believed accurate, would seem to confirm David Moriarty assertion that Wilson's trip was in the spring of '12. It also implies that CBM laid out a number of the holes and that Hugh Wilson liked them.
Henry,
This article absolutely confirms David Moriarty's contention that the first Hugh Wilson trip to Europe was in the spring of 1912.
However, it doesn't imply, much less confirm the latter assertion. I believe that the "others" that Findlay is talking about is other Alps holes, or other template holes, or even other courses Macdonald "laid out" for Wilson to visit during his overseas voyage.
He already makes clear in the first paragraph that he is not ready to even discuss "the possibilities" of the course at this early juncture, so it's highly unlikely that a few sentences later he'd term "many" of the holes at Merion as "great".
Findlay also seems to be possibly questioning whether the Alps hole itself is actually great, or even conceding that it is, seems to be questioning whether a hole requiring a long, blind second shot over a large sand dune works as a good template model for an inland course and seems pleased that Wilson himself is now conceding that it is indeed a bit problematic.
-
This article, if believed accurate, would seem to confirm David Moriarty's assertion that Wilson's trip was in the spring of '12.
Correct, IMO.
It also implies that CBM laid out a number of the holes and that Hugh Wilson liked them.
Incorrect, IMO. I believe Findlay was referring to the other Alps holes that CBM had done already.
-
Joe,
I agree...I think it's important to read the context of what Findlay is discussing..
I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall.
It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc. Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad. He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes. I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality, is a myth...
Besides, if Macdonald had already done the layout, what would be the need for Wilson to go through all of this trouble, why would Findlay write this glowing article about a "construction foreman" (when it's clear that was Pickering's job), and why would Findlay write that Wilson himself, "...now possesses golf knowledge that will stand him in good stead for many years to come. Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country, such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I..."
I also find it very interesting that the Opening Day article clearly confirms that Wilson and Committee "mapped out", the course, which clearly means routing and not just construction.
I will shortly post one other document that makes clear that Wilson and committee both Laid out (planned) and Constructed the course.
-
Joe,
You've done it again - Great find!
PS - I love the last sentence in the article: "On one of its sides parking spaces have been provided for members desiring to witness the matches without getting out of their motor cars."
-
After the Merion East course opened in September 1912, a number of the members approached Edward Sayres with the following;
Notice that it's very clear that to these men who personally witnessed the whole thing, the term "Construction Committee" referred to creating something new, and they make very clear exactly who was "laying out and constructing" (two distinct tasks) their new golf course over the past many months.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3420951497_ebcafa4521_b.jpg)
-
Oh boy, a post regarding the history of Merion, fresh with microfilm evidence. I think I'll pop some popcorn, get a cool, refreshing beverage, and sit back and see what develops. ;)
Cheers,
Brad
-
Man, that must have been one heckuva shindig for Wilson: $7.50 per plate in 1913. Yowser! ;D
-
I think some serious and careful study of exactly what Findlay wrote is required BEFORE simply explaining away the part that it appears he is assigning to C.B. McDonald.
Findlay clearly is refering to Wilson's & the new course when he states, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course..."
Wilson's reaction to what was created at Merion AFTER seeing the real hole? That follows immediately. "He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..."
This shows that efforts to imitate the great holes of the U.K. were being tried at Merion. It is THAT which Findlay seems to be clearly refering to next when he states, "But many of the others..."
These "others" are NOT on other courses but part of the MERION design. This means that his next statement, "as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." shows that C.B. had some definite hand in at least partially designing the original course.
I don't see any other way to interpret what Findlay wrote...
-
Phil,
Joe and I have had and discussed this aricle since Saturday.
Who exactly is giving it "serious and careful study" here and who is flying into a knee-jerk response hoping for lord knows what reason to prove that "Far and Sure" is not Tillinghast?
There has never been a question that the principles of the great holes were intended to be implemented at Merion, or that Wilson and Merion sought to benefit from Macdonald's specialized study, knowledge, and advice in that regard. I'm not sure how that's anything new here?
Think about it....the course at this point was at such a raw, unfinished state that even if the intention was to build template models, they were just then at the point of considering how to even do so (witness Wilson's newly learned comments about the challenge of building an "Alps" on the Merion property).
Findlay states right up front that he's not even ready to fully discuss "the possibilities" of the new course.
Yet, your "serious and careful study" of this article over the past 20 minutes would lead you to state that the only possibility of what Findlay wrote at that premature date is that "MANY other holes at Merion ARE GREAT"?!? :o ::) ;)
-
Mike,
If Joe has not shared with you the definitive proof that i gave him several months ago that Tilly is definitely NOT Far and Sure, that is something you need to take up with him. There is a little piece of information about where F&S was during the winter of 1911 that Tilly definitely WAS NOT at. But that is a discussion for another thread one day...
I'm sorry that you have taken what I said a bit too hard. I am NOT stating that CBM designed Merion or that Wilson didn't. I AM stating that Findlay appears to be stating that CBM "laid out" or partially designing some other holes.
I can't see how you, or anyone else, can interpret what he wrote, and please take another look at my comments about it, to mean anything else. The question for me isn't so much one of WHAT he said, but WHY he said it.
Could he have been misniformed? Yes. Heck, I've seen a newspaper article that stated that Tilly designed Olympia Fields! Of course that is absurd and completely incorrect.
Your interpretation of the events there need to be rethought. You stated, "Think about it....the course at this point was at such a raw, unfinished state that even if the intention was to build template models, they were just then at the point of considering how to even do so..."
They most definitely were NOT at the point of considering how to build them when Findlay wrote this article, for in fact he clearly states that BEFORE Wilson went to the U.K. Otherwise he would not have written, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..."
I am of the opinion that this article, if completely correct, shows that the work that they did based upon CBM's advice may have been inferior in some places. That if CBM had laid out some of the holes as the article seems to clearly imply, then the only reason for sending Wilson over was because men such as Findlay must have convinced the committee at Merion that the work was not done well despite what CBM stated. Otherwise, again, why would Findlay have told Wilson to watch "carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick..." BEFORE he went to the U.K. as he stated, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland..."
Mike, you definitively stated that Findlay was refering to holes built or laid out by CBM at OTHER courses and this was not a reference to MERION. The structure of the snetences clearly indicate otherwise...
-
Phil,
What I'm saying is that they are just now at a point of trying to figure out how to build them "on the ground" with their natural conditions. I'm not asserting that they hadn't thought about it for some time prior. Why would Findlay have termed himself unwilling at this juncture to even discuss "the possibilities" of the new course, and then say many holes at Merion are "really great"?? It makes no sense.
Six months after Findlay wrote this piece, Tillinghast wrote under his own name for Philadelphia Record;
"Of course, it is too soon to critically analyze the various holes, for at present, they are not completed in any sense, nor will they be for many, many months."
Seven months after Findlay wrote his piece, Tillinghast wrote under his own name for American Cricketer;
To attempt an analysis of many of the holes today would be manifestly unfair..."
Not coincidentally, seven months after Findlay wrote his piece, Tillinghast (which you dispute) as "Far and Sure" wrote for American Golfer;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used. "
Given the primitive state of the course a half-year prior, why in the world would Findlay write that MANY of the holes at Merion "are really great", especially after saying he wasn't ready to even discuss "the possibilities" of the new course in his article right up front?
-
Mike,
Other than your continued incorrect attribution of what F&S wrote to Tilly, I COMPLETELY AGREE with everything that you wrote in this last post of yours.
Yet you still seem to be missing the ONLY POINT that I made... that Findlay clearly stated that when Findlay wrote, "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." these holes were at Merion and NOT on other courses that he designed as both you & Joe stated.
Again, I am NOT stating that CBM designed Merion. I am stating that FINDLEY has stated that CBM designed SOME of the holes at Merion.
Was he wrong? I don't know, but this DEFINITELY must give pause to consider what has been written before...
-
Philip,
You are sure Findlay wasn't talking about the other great holes of the British Isles which CBM had laid out in drawings for all to see, particularly Wilson when he visited CBM at NGLA ?
I tried to just back up in the article to find the first noun that "others" could be referring to.
I can't believe I have the audacity to get in involved in a Merion thread ;D
-
Mike,
I'm pretty sure that I am reading it correctly. Here is what I wrote:
Findlay clearly is refering to Wilson's & the new course when he states, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course..."
Wilson's reaction to what was created at Merion AFTER seeing the real hole? That follows immediately. "He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..."
This shows that efforts to imitate the great holes of the U.K. were being tried at Merion. It is THAT which Findlay seems to be clearly refering to next when he states, "But many of the others..."
These "others" are NOT on other courses but part of the MERION design. This means that his next statement, "as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." shows that C.B. had some definite hand in at least partially designing the original course.
I don't see any other way to interpret what Findlay wrote...
The reason for the above comments was because of the following exchange:
Henry E - "This article, if believed accurate... also implies that CBM laid out a number of the holes and that Hugh Wilson liked them."
Mike Cirba - "However, it doesn't imply, much less confirms the latter assertion. I believe that the "others" that Findlay is talking about is other Alps holes, or other template holes, or even other courses Macdonald "laid out" for Wilson to visit during his overseas voyage..."
Joe Bausch - "Incorrect, IMO. I believe Findlay was referring to the other Alps holes that CBM had done already..."
I completely disagree with their understanding of what Findlay wrote. The "many of the others" he mentioned were in direct reference to the one he already had... and that was the "Alps" hole on Merion. Like wise the "others" would be there as well.
They certainly could NOt have been "other template holes, or even other courses Macdonald "laid out" for Wilson to visit during his overseas voyage" as Mike considers as these "other holes" were designed and built by CBM. He hadn't done any work in Scotland, had he?
That they may be "other Alps holes" that he had already done as Joe mentioned also appears incorrect on its face. Anyway, by this line of reasoning, at the very least, one MUST give credit to CBM for having designed AT LEAST the Alps hole!
-
Philip,
I'm sure there are many ways to interpret what Findlay wrote, but I would agree with your explanation as being the most logical one.
-
My reading was that Wilson "imagined" that an Alps would work at Merion but Findlay wasn't so sure. So, he wanted Wilson to pay attention when he got to Prestwick. When Wilson returned he realiized it might be tough to "make" at Merion. However, the other holes that he was advised to see are "great". What could this "great" mean? My guess is they were great for "making".
-
The interpretation that this sentence means, "Macdonald laid out many great holes at Merion" and which suggests Findlay would make that statement about a golf course that was in such a raw state of both concept and construction that both he and Tilly were uncomfortable analyzing the course even a half year later also, once again, begs the question of why Alex Findlay, by all accounts a good and honorable man, who lived into the 1940's, wouldn't have set the record straight when everyone erroneously credited Hugh Wilson with the design of Merion over the next 30 years.
Was Findlay also part of the Philadelphia conspiratorial Syndrome??
I've seen more believable Oliver Stone movies! ;)
-
Mike Malone,
I agree...he's clearly either talking about "others" as other examples of Alps holes built previously by Macdonald or more likely, what you mentioned, which is that Findlay believes other concept holes made famous in America by Macdonald and recommended to Wilson by Macdonald should work out great at Merion.
He certainly isn't passing value judgement on holes that are half built.
Also, when the course opened in Sept, Findlay's review does NOT mention Macdonald.
Joe...perhaps ypu can post that one as well?
-
Philip, the only thing I'd strongly disagree with in your comment is that the meaning is clear. To my eye it ISN'T clear.
Findlay writes "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot."
So one has to decide, as Findlay continues, is he talking about Merion or "that famous old spot" when he writes "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." It is that word "others" that is problematic, and from a grammatical standpoint it is not absolutely clear whether Findlay means 'other holes at Merion' or 'other Alps holes,' as his preceding two sentences mention both. I re-read that part of the paragraph twice to decide what I felt he was talking about. For myself, I would tend to believe that he is talking about other Alps-style holes, simply because that was the last thing that he mentioned in the previous sentence.
Still, it is certainly unclear enough for some to wonder............and some will !
If, however, Findlay was talking about Macdonald designing holes at Merion, surely this wouldn't be the only time in all of his writing that he would mention this?
-
Four months later, Merion opens and Findlay does a course overview.
There is no mention of Macdonald, yet Wilson and Committee are credited for doing at Merion what Leeds has done at Myopia. Fred Pickering's construction work is also highly lauded.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3421552865_a31dfb2322_o.jpg)
-
Kirk,
Very good analysis on your part to see what subjects come just "before" Findlay uses the word "others"...
Also, I think the sentences right "after" that one might give a pretty clear indication of what Findlay was getting at, as well. You'll notice he does not break for a new paragraph, but continues as if one continuous thought.
After all, didn't Macdonald lay out for Wilson which holes and which courses to see abroad; his itinerary, if you will?
After expressing some concern or doubt to Wilson about the applicability or desirability of One Particular Hole...the Alps hole at Prestwick, which Wilson then confirms the difficulty of "making" at Merion after he's seen the original in person, Findlay continues;
"But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality, is a myth..."
-
Joe...perhaps ypu can post that one as well?
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/ET/AHF/09111912ET_250.jpg)
-
Sorry Joe...forgot I already had a copy of that one from another source.
-
Kirk:
I like your analysis in Reply #23. Having looked at that article for the last few days it seems what Findlay meant or is referring to by “But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great” certainly isn’t clear. Frankly, having read a few other Findlay articles from that newspaper he isn’t much of a writer, at least vis-à-vis clarity.
My take, at the moment, is Findlay is just referring to the only other so-called copy or template holes that had been laid out in America by Macdonald at that time (June 1912). And at that particular time the only template holes done by Macdonald would be those of NGLA. Piping Rock, Macdonald’s second course, that followed NGLA, contained some of those so-called template or copy holes that were given the same names as their counterparts abroad was still in the building stage in 1912 (it opened in 1913 a year after that Findlay article). It seems the first review of Piping was done in 1913 by Devereaux Emmet.
I grew up at Piping Rock and if it has an “Alps” hole it would probably be the 12th or perhaps the 15th which simply play the second or approach shot blind over a natural ridgelines. So if Findlay was referring to other “Alps” copies Macdonald had done at that point, NGLA’s could be the only one at that time (June 22, 1912).
Findlay wrote in that June 22, 1912 article:
“He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.”
I feel what Findlay was probably referring to when he mentioned “others” was what he had just said that immediately preceded it----eg ‘that famous old spot.’ I feel Findlay was referring to those famous holes abroad (he apparently called them “famous old spots” (like Prestwick’s #17 (Alps), Eden, Road, Bottle, redan etc, that Macdonald had just gotten recent attention for the reuse of over here at NGLA only, at that time.
Furthermore, if Findlay was referring to “other” so-called template holes at Merion, at that point (June 1912), I can’t even imagine what they would be other than the 3rd which was sometimes referred to as a redan and the 15th green which was initially referred to as an “Eden” type green which, by the way, was just about universally condemned as a practically unplayable green because it was far too canting and was rather quickly changed. If Findlay was referring to that one as one of the “others” by Macdonald that were really great, he was certainly about the only one who ever said that about that particular supposed GB copy.
Findlay’s remarks that are being analyzed here certainly are not clear at all. But if that particular article was or is all the evidence available about who designed and built Merion what Findlay meant in that article may be worthwhile speculating on.
However, that Findlay article is by no means the only evidence of who designed and built Merion East; far, far from It, in fact. The club’s own board and committee meeting records that described in April 1911 both who was involved and the process involved that lead to the plan or course they approved for creation and construction are quite comprehensive and very clear about who designed and build Merion East.
Consequently, I just don’t see the need for any of us to overly speculate on what Findlay meant in that single very unclear reference in that particular article; not to mention that elsewhere Findlay himself stated that Wilson and his committee designed the course just as a number of other newspapers and reporters had as well around that time.
Another important thing to consider is if Macdonald did in fact design "other" holes at Merion East he would've had to do it in a single day because that was the extent of the time he spent on that site during the design and approval phase. I very much doubt he could've done that kind of thing in that short a time but I do understand that others will overlook that or rationalize it away somehow. ;)
-
I certainly agree that , at the least, it is not clear. That is why I mentioned another possible interpretation. If we assume he was a decent thinker, if not a good writer, then "others" refers to something different from the Alps hole because he starts with "but". I think it is logical that it is the other "good holes" that are different in some way . My guess is that they are different as to their application to the Merion site.
There is much debate about what part CBM played in Merion, but their is no debate that he was an advocate for the use of his templates. So, the simple explanation would be something to do with the templates and how Wilson's visit educated him about their applicability to the Merion site.
-
Duh...sometimes I'm admittedly slow, but tonight this whole thing came crystal clear to me in a flashback to sixth grade. ;D
Alex Findlay is one of my heroes, as I have always admired his passion for the game and the elegant simplicity of his designs, but Tom Paul is correct; he isn't much of a writer.
Despite his literary limitations, Findlay has nevertheless inadvertedly managed to provide considerable first-hand proof almost 100 years after the fact that Hugh Wilson designed Merion and C.B. Macdonald didn't.
How's that, you say? Didn't we already confirm that the language in the article is vague at best, indeterminate, confusing, and misleading at worst?
Well...no, I don't believe we have.
For while Findlay's writing is often rambling and certainly not logically organized, his meaning is nevertheless quite clear once we apply Miss Rawlings' Sixth Grade grammar rules.
You see, it was driving home from work tonight that I remembered Miss Rawling's, and how she'd instruct us to always find the actual main subject of any paragraph, no matter how carefully the author has managed to hide it. ;)
Let's start with the first problem with Findlay's writing, paragraph structure. His second paragraph starts with a sentence that was clearly meant to be the concluding thought in his first paragraph, which deals almost entirely with the new, immature Merion golf course. Findlay tells us quite clearly that the course is not ready for in-depth analysis or review. So, with that in mind, let's correct the first paragraph by adding the appropriate last sentence;
"The writer spent a pleasant hour last Wednesday afternoon with Hugh I. Wilson, wandering over the new Merion golf course, which he has spent so much of his time on. His main object is to make this the king-pin course of Pennsylvania. I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall. It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc."
It's very clear that Findlay isn't ready to make any kind of on-the-record assessment of the Merion course or its holes at this early date. He says that to the reader right up front, probably as a bit of journalistic defense against the course possibly failing to meet high expectations and a quite lofty well-publicized goal of becoming one of the country's very best courses.
Findlay then goes on to report on Wilson's recent trip abroad, which he has just spoken to him about in person. In the next two paragraphs I am going to strip out all of the anecdotal sentences talking about golf playing, and scores, about Wilson's "feelings", and bring it to its bare factual bones, which is a discussion about the great courses and great holes Wilson went to see that Macdonald recommended he visit, and the long-term benefits of his golfing education abroad;
"Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad. He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes. I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrews."
"Wilson had no end of a good time, and is sorry at not having gone over years ago. It certainly broadens one's ideas. He now possesses golf knowledge that will stand him in good stead for many years to come. Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country, such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I. We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf."
What Findlay is referring to as "really great" that Macdonald "laid out" for Wilson are the various holes and courses in Macdonald's recommended itinerary of "leading courses" and "good golf holes" that made up Wilson's overseas study. "Others" are those holes besides the Alps hole at Prestwick that Findlay questions the applicability of for whatever reason (either he doesn't consider it a great hole, or he doesn't believe it will work on the inland Merion course) and which Wilson now agrees will be a tough challenge to emulate.
Ahhhh....I hear you say....you've taken out the most important part! Those juicy bits where Wilson states his intent to build an Alps Hole, which seemingly proves that Macdonald had his hand firmly in the original design.
Fair enough...let's put it back in and examine it, because once we do, it truly is the best part. Ironically, it's also the exact place where Findlay proves to us who designed Merion.
"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which HE REALLY IMAGINED existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. "
Read carefully what Findlay is saying. Is he saying "...which CB Macdonald designed", or "...which Wilson needs to construct to Macdonald's plans", or even "...which he plans to construct", or anything remotely implying less than the very act of imaginative creation??...of the very essence of DESIGN??
Who on any golf course project does the "imagining"?
CB Macdonald and his ideal template holes certainly provided some of the inspiration, and impetus, and original direction for the creation of the new Merion course, but who took that ball and ran with it, and imagined the holes, and drew up multiple plans, and then constructed, tinkered, and dreamed and worked until the very original, very naturally based masterpiece was completed?
Alex Findlay makes it all very, very clear, despite his pained prose.
-
It is that word "others" that is problematic, and from a grammatical standpoint it is not absolutely clear whether Findlay means 'other holes at Merion' or 'other Alps holes,' as his preceding two sentences mention both. I re-read that part of the paragraph twice to decide what I felt he was talking about. For myself, I would tend to believe that he is talking about other Alps-style holes, simply because that was the last thing that he mentioned in the previous sentence.
This may have been responded to already, but how many Alps had CBM laid out when this article was written?
-
It is that word "others" that is problematic, and from a grammatical standpoint it is not absolutely clear whether Findlay means 'other holes at Merion' or 'other Alps holes,' as his preceding two sentences mention both. I re-read that part of the paragraph twice to decide what I felt he was talking about. For myself, I would tend to believe that he is talking about other Alps-style holes, simply because that was the last thing that he mentioned in the previous sentence.
This may have been responded to already, but how many Alps had CBM laid out when this article was written?
David,
Please see my post above.
The two inserted sentences about the Alps Hole I believe are the source of confusion in the proper interpretation of this article.
I believe when Findlay refers to "others" being "really great", he's talking about "leading courses" with "good golf holes" that Macdonald recommended for Wilson as a course of study abroad. Basically, Macdonald laid out Wilson's overseas itinerary, which is how the story was always told.
-
David,
You asked, "This may have been responded to already, but how many Alps had CBM laid out when this article was written?"
The answer is NONE!
"Others" CANNOT mean other "Alps" holes already designed by CBM. To say that it means other courses is also incorrect (IMO) as Findlay was speaking of golf HOLES in mentioning the "Alps" at Merion and not golf COURSES.
What I would like answered, if at all possible, and I wish that Wayne were here because he should know, is how close was Findlay to the Merion people and Wilson?
Findlay eveidently knew that Wilson was being sent abroad to study the courses BEFORE he went and had opportunity to examine both what was on the ground already and opine that what they had attempted had FAILED!
Again, that great sentence, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course..."
By the way, why has NO ONE mentioned that his FINISHING this sentence with the phrase, in direct reference to Wilson, "on his course" CLEARLY also CREDITS WILSON with the design credit for it? That it is NOT refering to the CONSTRUCTION of the course can be seen in his earlier reference in the same letter to Pickering...
-
"There is much debate about what part CBM played in Merion, but their is no debate that he was an advocate for the use of his templates. So, the simple explanation would be something to do with the templates and how Wilson's visit educated him about their applicability to the Merion site."
Mayday:
You're right, there has been and still is much debate about what part CBM played in Merion; and that debate which is far too much debate on that point, in my opinion, has all gone on and only gone on on this website! Is what part Macdonald played in Merion a necessary debate to have at this point? I suppose it is if those doing the debating have only small bits and parts of the recorded and chronicled details of the history of the creation of Merion, particularly from within the club and at the time it was happening back in 1911-1913. For those who are aware of all of that, rather than the just bits and parts such as some single newspaper article, there is no necessity to debate what part Macdonald played in Merion, and there never has been because the club itself actually recorded what he did do including the time he spent on it which was not longer than a day in June 1910 and another day in early April 1911 (that's all-in about 48 to 72 hours on site for Macdonald, the first day being an inspection of the property and about six months at least before anyone from the club who was assigned responsibility to create a golf course created any plans for the actual layout of Merion East ;) ). If that latter fact doesn't tell golf course and architecture historians and analysts something important about the modus operandi of routing and designing a golf course, I'm afraid those historians and analysts aren't worth much in a productive debate on this issue of the creation of Merion East.
I know where all this started and why, and I think others on here who are even remotely interested in this subject should know it too. If anyone would like to know, all they have to do is read and review a thread in the back pages of this website. I believe it is entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" posted by Tom MacWood back in 2003.
Review that thread and anyone can see why this Merion/Macdonald debate began on here, why it got traction and morphed into a larger debate and eventually an essasy about how Macdonald was never given the credit he deserved for Merion East and why Wilson was seemingly given too much credit.
Obviously the intention was to reveal new information or a new analysis of the history of the creation of Merion and who in the main was responsible for its design. Did all these debates produce and reveal any new and interesting information that can now be basically documented and deserves inclusion into Merion's accurate creation history?
Yes it did and the two salient issues are the fact that Wilson went abroad to analyze architecture in GB in the spring of 1912 for no more than six weeks to two months rather than in 1910 for the seven months that had been reported in Merion histories over fifty years after the fact of the creation of Merion.
The only other salient point revealed on the history of Merion East (and west) is the most interesting process and structure (organizational and financial) that was used by a group from the club (MCC) and a group of real estate developers to secure not just the land for the golf course but also the app. 200 more acres of the residential layout to the west and north of the course.
In my opinion, the other primary issue on the development of Merion East that has been revealed recently is the remarkably important part that the strong connection of particular MCC members back then to the PRR was and what-all that meant not just to MCC and Merion but to much of the Main Line of the Philadelphia suburbs! ;)
All of this all taken together essentially produced the finding, laying out, designing and constructing of Merion East and West, and it took a number of years of continuous work on the part of a number of people from MCC. With all that the fact remains in all that time C.B. Macdonald did not spend more than 48 to 72 hours at this site at Ardmore Pa. If that doesn't tell reliable golf course historians and analysts something important about the routing, designing and constructing of Merion East, then I guess nothing can or ever will.
-
"David,
You asked, "This may have been responded to already, but how many Alps had CBM laid out when this article was written?"
The answer is NONE!"
Phil:
While I very much doubt it has much impact or influence on whatever Findlay may've meant in his article posted above (June 22, 1912) about "Others", that statement of yours above may not be technically true unless one has some very intimate knowledge of the design and construction schedule of Macdonald's second course that used some of his "template" models----eg Piping Rock.
The fact is Macdonald was contacted in 1911 by the principles of Piping Rock to do a course for them and the course was opened for play in 1913, meaning it was probably well into its design and construction in 1912 when this Findlay article was written. Did Findlay or Wilson see Piping Rock and one or two of its holes that can be considered "Alps" iterations before this article was written? It's certainly possible but we don't really know that, do we?
It also seems to me to be a good question if some are claiming that "others" in Findlay's article meant other Macdonald type template holes AT MERION that Macdonald was responsible for and which Findlay claimed were 'really great' then why had not Macdonald done the same thing for this so-called "Alps" template iteration at Merion that Findlay claimed Wilson was struggling with? ;)
-
"There is much debate about what part CBM played in Merion, but their is no debate that he was an advocate for the use of his templates. So, the simple explanation would be something to do with the templates and how Wilson's visit educated him about their applicability to the Merion site."
Mayday:
I don't think there is any question at all that Macdonald certainly was a strong advocate of the GB template hole concept (copying famous hole PRINCIPLES) and he very likely was with Merion, at least in concept.
This is very much written throughout the internal administrative records of Merion in the early days (1911-1914) at least when they refer in their records to Macdonald. It would certainly seem that Wilson went abroad basically for that pupose (after-all MCC and Wilson very much did seek out Macdonald's advice in this over-all vein). There is no question either that early on numerous people from within and without Merion referred to at least three of the holes of Merion East by their template hole names abroad (Alps, Redan and Eden).
However, Wayne and I have felt for a number of years that for whatever his or their reasons, Wilson and Merion as well as some other American architects actively began to pull away from that Macdonald template hole concept and to go in other architectural stylistic and type directions with their golf course architecture. Wilson's unique and novel bunker style is just one of a number of good examples of this evolution.
-
David,
You asked, "This may have been responded to already, but how many Alps had CBM laid out when this article was written?"
The answer is NONE!
"Others" CANNOT mean other "Alps" holes already designed by CBM. To say that it means other courses is also incorrect (IMO) as Findlay was speaking of golf HOLES in mentioning the "Alps" at Merion and not golf COURSES.
Phil,
At the time Findlay wrote, Macdonald had built Alps holes at NGLA, Piping Rock, and Sleepy Hollow and all were in various stages of opening/construction.
I don't know enough about the Chicago Golf Club courses to say whether any existed there, but perhaps others can comment.
However, we also know that "Alps" holes existed on quite a number of US courses by 1912, including ones at Ardsley and a number of early prominent courses. How many of them did Macdonald build, or was he responsible for suggesting? We don't know, but we do know that Macdonald became fascinated with the idea of building his course of "ideal holes" around 1897.
We also know, from a 1905 New York Sun article about Macdonald's efforts to form a club to support his ideal course idea, the following;
"No one is better qualified to approach the assigned task, for besides being a true golfer, Mr. Macdonald has had a wide experience in planning out links. He laid out the first course of the Chicago Golf Club, at Wheaton, where the distances and the order of the holes was the same as at old St. Andrews, and he has been called in as friendly adviser whenever a noted course has been in construction in the east."
What I would like answered, if at all possible, and I wish that Wayne were here because he should know, is how close was Findlay to the Merion people and Wilson?
Findlay eveidently knew that Wilson was being sent abroad to study the courses BEFORE he went and had opportunity to examine both what was on the ground already and opine that what they had attempted had FAILED!
Again, that great sentence, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course..."
Phil, I'm not sure Findlay is saying Wilson or anyone else has failed. I think he's saying that he's been over the terrain of the new Merion course and really can't find the type of abrupt rise that seems fundamental for the building of an Alps hole.
I don't think Findlay was necessarily opposed to the concept; he actually built an excellent one at the 11th hole of Reading Country Club in PA, where an abrupt rocky rise is utilized extremely well.
I just think he's saying that if you're going to try to build something like that, you need the correct landform to accomplish it, and didn't see evidence of it on his walkthrough of Merion's property.
By the way, why has NO ONE mentioned that his FINISHING this sentence with the phrase, in direct reference to Wilson, "on his course" CLEARLY also CREDITS WILSON with the design credit for it? That it is NOT refering to the CONSTRUCTION of the course can be seen in his earlier reference in the same letter to Pickering...
Phil, I agree with your interpretation, but thought others might argue that it was simply a colloquialism when Findlay referred to Merion as "his", meaning Wilson's course.
To say that it means other courses is also incorrect (IMO) as Findlay was speaking of golf HOLES in mentioning the "Alps" at Merion and not golf COURSES.
Honestly, I think he was using these terms almost interchangeably, and I'll explain why.
The whole novel idea that Macdonald came up with was to build a golf course of 18 "Ideal" holes. Before that time, even the storied great courses overseas that Macdonald admired maybe had a small handful of great holes, but certainly not all of them.
The following New York Sun article from 1905 discusses all of this in great detail, but for our discussion purposes, the basic idea is that Macdonald would have sent Wilson to Prestwick, say, to specifically look at the Alps and "Cardinal", holes, and then to St. Andrews, to see the Eden and Road, and perhaps 2 or 3 others, and to Troon to see the Postage Stamp and Rail holes, etc., etc...
So Findlay knew his readers understood this, because Macdonald had trumpeted this idea for many years now. I think when he refers to "leading golf courses" with "good holes", he's using the terms almost interchangeably, assuming the reader knows that when he says Prestwick, the reader knows he's talking about the famous holes there....the ones that Macdonald placed on Wilson's itinerary.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3418431781_27451efd9b_o.jpg)
-
Tom,
What you say about Merion moving away from the templates seems consistent with my reading of this Findlay piece. He seemed to be alerting Wilson that the Alps may not work at Merion so pay close attention when you go to Prestwick. It certainly makes sense that Wilson admired CBM's use of templates at NGLA but that anyone who walks the Merion property can easily see that forms don't need to be forced onto that land. The land dictates the shape of the hole.
I'm confident that the "others" refers to the other holes in GB that were recommended by CBM to be used as the templates.
I imagine Flynn couldn't wait to get rid of the Alps hole!
A 50th reading allows that he might be referring to the GB courses not just the holes.
-
It appears Alex Findlay was definitely closer to this process than previously known, having also advised Hugh Wilson prior to his trip abroad, and then getting this tour of the course and time spent with Wilson on his return.
That shouldn't be surprising.
We already know from previous findings that fellow Philadelphia A.W. Tillinghast was there very early on, as well, and is in fact the only outsider who made claims to having seen the "plans" for the new Merion course prior to construction.
On April 30th, 1911, a few weeks after Macdonald's second visit to Merion where he helped the committee choose the best one of five "plans", Tillinghast wrote;
"Recently I heard several players disucssing the prospects of the new course at Merion, and one stated that in his opinion it was futile to endeavor to produce a championship course in the vicinity of Philadelphia because the conditions were so unfavorable - the character of the soil, rank native grasses, worms, etc., etc."
"This is sheer folly. The conditions about this section are not at all iimpossible; as a matter of fact, they are rather good - not as easily handled as some other parts of the country, but on the whole, very satisfactory..."
"I have SEEN enough of the plans of the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realization of the hopes of the committee."
Tillinghast does talk a little about the involvement of Macdonald. In May, 1912, he writes;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3423477693_19e5846dfb_o.jpg)
My guess is that the greenkeeper in question who Merion has landed is the renowned Mr. Fred Pickering.
Later, after the course at Merion opens, Tillinghast, writing in "American Cricketer", states;
"...I wish to say that I believe Merion will have a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying for one for many years. The construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers."
There is no mention of Macdonald.
For anyone who still believes that Hugh Wilson was simply a "constructor" to Macdonald's plans, it does beg the question of why Tillinghast thinks "all golfers" owe him deserving congratulations! ;)
-
Joe -
First, thanks.
Second, look at your 09/11/1912 entry. It's hard to read, but is Findlay saying that Pickering was the "architect" of Merion? If so, the reference to Wilson and his committee at the beginning of the same paragraph makes little sense.
Perhaps your text is clearer than mine.
Bob
-
Bob,
Findlay is referring to Pickering's construction, shaping, and grow-in work.
There is a better copy of the article just above that one, but what it says is;
"The construction committee, consisting of Hugh I. Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, and Toulmin, have done for Pennsylvania what Herbert C. Leeds and committee did for Massachusetts - built the two nicest courses in their respective states. Fred Pickering made Wollaston, Woodland, and Belmont, Mass; Lake Placid, N.Y., and Atlanta, GA., and others too numerous to mention, but this, his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements. He has had much of his own way in the planting of the right seed and in the general makeup of the course and to him we owe thanks for one of the prettiest courses in America."
-
Mayday:
Regarding your post #38, I think anyone who is really familiar with these so-called Template holes of Macdonald's is aware that many of those template holes abroad were not exactly something that could be or should be copied over here on sort of a blank canvas, if you get my drift.
Macdonald very much said as much and the history of the types of holes he used at NGLA that were basically templates pretty much proves that. For instance, he said he wanted to do a biarritz at NGLA but could not find a landform on the site that was naturally suitable for it.
The interesting thing about NGLA's redan and Alps is how he explained the landforms he found on that site that were suitable for those two templates and how they were naturally suitable.
An Alps hole or a hole sort of mimicing the type of hole it was abroad (Prestwick's #17) and certainly NGLA's #3 or Piping's #12 or #15 naturally had pretty much what it took to do an Alps hole or mimic the strategic shot values of THE Alps hole abroad. The landform used originally at Merion for their #10 obviously didn't naturally have what it took for that kind of hole or strategic mimic and apparently Wilson recognized that and also why! ;)
Furthermore, when Findlay mentioned that Wilson had imagined an Alps hole at Merion East that could probably be explained by some of the natural landforms at Merion East if they had been used in particular ways. There is no question that Wilson and his committee did "numerous" course routings in the winter of 1911 that they (Wilson and his committee) honed down to five different courses or routings by the early spring.
If, for instance, they had tried to come up what is now the 11th hole from the opposite direction (pretty hard to do in a routing sense with the lack of available land they had at that time in that particular corner of the property) or if they had tried to come at #16 green site before they blew the top off the quarry (also pretty hard to do since they needed to swap land early-on to get the distance on that hole and the preceding hole) those might have been somewhat NATURALLY conducive or suitable for something of a blind "Alps" hole approach.
-
Bob:
When a guy like Findlay said the things he did about Pickering (construction) versus the men who routed and designed Merion East (Wilson and his committee even if they were called by MCC "The Construction Committee") all I think he was saying is that Pickering was a very accomplished "professional" FOREMAN who ran the crews who actually physically built the course or those types of projects back in those days.
As you can see from the likes of Wilson and his committee members, as well as Fownes, Crump, Leeds, Thomas, Emmet, Macdonald, Whigam et al, those types of guys (the so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers) as most of the photos from back then indicate did not exactly roll their sleeves up and start digging on bunkers and such. Almost invariably those kinds of guys were out there in suits and three-piece suits! ;)
Men like that back then basically just didn't do things like that----eg they hired people to do those things and they simply directed them and oversaw them but generally through a foreman like Pickering or later Flynn who probably did get their hands dirty to some extent but perhaps even they tried not to.
It will be pretty obnoxious to some today, I'm sure, because it totally smacks of class stratification or even elitism back then but there was a very prevalent old saying back in those days in the ranks of those men and women mentioned (basically that old WASP world) that went like this-----"You do not WORK with your hands!"
To them that saying obviously reflected some kind of manual professionalism that many in that class just didn't think suited them or should be done by them.
Remarkable to contemplate today, for sure, but nonetheless completely true back then and more than a little historically documentable and confirmable! ;)
Even look at some of the interesting photos of Tillinghast on numerous sites; he was either dressed in a suit or he was dressed like he was about to launch out into the African bush on a God-damned SAFARI!! Do you think Tillie ever deigned to get his hands dirty out there or to even get off his shooting stick from where he waved his arms and hands and directed the peons to physically build what he wanted?!?
OF COURSE NOT!! As some of those old Grand Dames from that class back then frequently said in company----"That's JUST NOT DONE, my dear!" ;)
-
Could Merion East have been the first truly "American" golf course, having eschewed verbatim copies of "old world" templates?
-
Dan:
At the very least, the likes of Ron Prichard has for years maintained that the basic bunker style of Merion East created what he says is essentially the generic American bunker look.
-
Tom,
That seems to be true after reading the articles. The novice in me sees Merion putting together a committee of members led by Wilson that take inspiration from existing courses, but designing and constucting their own new course with an independent bent.
-
Thanks Mike. Very helpful.
Bob
-
Could Merion East have been the first truly "American" golf course, having eschewed verbatim copies of "old world" templates?
Dan,
One source I was looking at the other day called it the "most natural" course in the country upon opening.
I'll see if I can dig it up today.
I think it's very clear from Alan Wilson's report as well, that these guys knew that what they were doing was different, and intentionally so.
-
Dan,
Here's the article in question published in the Philadelphia Ledger 9/14/1912 that called the course "natural";
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3425952901_135c634c80_o.jpg)
Here's what Alan Wilson wrote on that topic;
"We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten."
"The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not."
-
Mike - more great info.
I think it's safe to say that Merion East has lost none of its charm :)
-
It also seems to me to be a good question if some are claiming that "others" in Findlay's article meant other Macdonald type template holes AT MERION that Macdonald was responsible for and which Findlay claimed were 'really great' then why had not Macdonald done the same thing for this so-called "Alps" template iteration at Merion that Findlay claimed Wilson was struggling with? ;)
Tom. It's possible that if CBM only spent a limited amount of time there (I think you suggested 2 days) that his "Alps" hole was not so great. Wilson may be struggling with how to fix it up?
A couple of other items that seem peculiar to me in this article is the use of the present tense in describing "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great". Everything else in the paragraph is past tense.
Lastly, if Wilson had just returned from the UK and CBM didn't lay out any of the holes at Merion, why does Findlay even mention CBM at all? Nowhere do they discuss Wilson's trip to NGLA.
-
Hi Henry,
For detailed answers to your first two questions, I'd refer you to my posts 30 and 37 on this thread.
The last question is answered, as well, but short version is that Macdonald is mentioned because he is the one who recommended which great holes and courses Hugh Wilson should visit in Europe. In effect, he "laid out" Wilson's itinerary.
-
"Lastly, if Wilson had just returned from the UK and CBM didn't lay out any of the holes at Merion, why does Findlay even mention CBM at all? Nowhere do they discuss Wilson's trip to NGLA."
henryE:
I think Findlay mentioned CBM because he was speaking about using European models for holes and obviously CBM had recently become well known (NGLA) for the use of and proposal to use hole models from abroad.
-
Joe Bausch,
Thanks for posting another terrific article. Out of curiousity, have you posted all of the found articles mentioning CBM's and/or Barker's role in the creation of Merion East? Thanks again.
___________________________
HenryE:
I agree with your common sense reading and frankly find the alternate interpretations to be untenable, at best.
Here is what Findlay wrote:
I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.
From this we know that, according to Findlay:
- Wilson mistakenly thought ("imagined") he had built a good "Alps" hole at Merion.
- Findlay disagreed, and told Wilson to take a closer look at the real thing.
- After viewing Prestwick, Wilson agreed that Merion's Alps hole needed a lot of work.
- While Findlay did not like the early version of Merion's Alps Hole, he thought that "many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
The article also confirms that there was no earlier study trip abroad.
_____________________________
Dan Herrman:
To name two, neither Myopia nor NGLA had "verbatim copies of 'old world' templates." Both are American and predate Merion. Plus, the article indicates that Wilson was trying to build a hole based upon an "old world template," even though he had never seen the old world hole.
-
Out of curiousity, have you posted all of the found articles mentioning CBM's and/or Barker's role in the creation of Merion East? Thanks again.
No.
Have you?
-
Out of curiousity, have you posted all of the found articles mentioning CBM's and/or Barker's role in the creation of Merion East? Thanks again.
No.
Have you?
I think so. As far as I know I have posted, provided, and/or referenced every such article I have. If I come across any that haven't been posted I will surely post them. But I am on the wrong side of the continent, so my access to the actual articles is somewhat limited.
Do you suppose we could take a look at the other article(s) mentioning CBM's and/or Barker's role in the creation of Merion East.
I am sure we are all curious as to what else is out there.
Thanks.
-
I've always felt with some of the famous courses from this early era it would be so instructive to be able to compare "preconstruction" topo map countours of the property with the contours of the finished product.
Probably top on my list of preconstruction topo countour maps to compare to the finished product would now be Merion East, without question.
I've been reading the first six months or so of the letters between Hugh Wilson and Russell Oakley and it appears Fred Pickering came on board with Merion about the beginning of July 1911 (provided Pickering actually is the unamed man Wilson is referring to with about twenty years of experience (which seems a bit long to me in that early era)). At that point the greens seem to be getting close to be ready for seeding.
I mention this about Pickering because obviously Pickering had a pretty good amount of experience with Alex Findlay and would continue to have experience with him.
The other thing that interests me so much about Wilson's correspondence with Oakley is even if recognizing that Wilson is talking with him about grass and agronomy and all the minutae relating to same there is preciously little ever mentioned by Wilson as what one might call actually shaping of man-made architecture on this course. It almost seems like they are essentialy just laying the course right on the natural contours of the site, and this is why I would love to compare the preconstruction contour lines with the finished product. In other words, it could be a whole lot more minimalistic, particularly the greens and their sites, with a few exceptions (such as the 10th), than any of us have ever realized.
When some referred to this course as an unusually "natural" one they may be speaking pretty literally.
Obviously the original Alps 10th was a notable exception on the course (particularly the remarkably high and manufactured rear of the green) and that might explain why Wilson seemed to be unhappy with it when mentioning to Findlay that it would "take a lot of making" to equal the original.
Also Wilson references the preconstruction topo map of Merion in his first letter to Oakley (he sent Oakley a copy of it) on Feb. 1, 1911. He refers to it as a blueprint. He does not specifically mention if any layout or holes are drawn on it at this point but he does call it "the course." ???
Perhaps by "the course" he means the entire property but perhaps not.
BTW, Wilson and his committee visited Macdonald/Whigam at NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. By that time Wilson and his committee had generated 'numerous plans.'
-
If Hugh Wilson had experience with an Alps hole previous to creating Merion East it certainly would've been NGLA's but it also would probably have been Myopia's. This seems logical since Myopia was often mentioned before Merion got to work creating Merion East. George Crump was certainly familiar with Myopia and attempted to mimic some aspects of its 16th hole with his 12th green.
-
Joe Bausch,
Thanks for posting another terrific article. Out of curiousity, have you posted all of the found articles mentioning CBM's and/or Barker's role in the creation of Merion East? Thanks again.
Hi David,
Good to hear from you. Hope all is well with you and your's.
I can answer your question.
Joe has done the lion's share of the research by a long shot, but one afternoon when we were in the free library of Philadelphia I came across the following article, which I only have a copy of, and not a digital copy or photo.
It's the only mention I've seen of H.H. Barker post June/July 1910, but since there was no confirming evidence in any other account, including the club minutes, we didn't make much of it, or at least I didn't. And the fact that you still seem convinced the Macdonald did the work, as evidenced by your latest posts, probably means that you won't put much stock in it either.
However, for what it's worth, here's a report from the Philadelphia Press, Thursday, November 24th, 1910. No byline is included, unfortunately. Perhaps Joe knows who the primary golf writer was with the publication, but there are some other mistakes in this account so it may have been just a staff writer.
I think you'll likely agree that the writer was not a golf writer, and he seems more interested in the railroad part of the deal and displays very little in the way of golf knowledge. In fact, his comments seem much like boilerplate from some of the language in the June/July timeframe of that year.
MERION CLUB BUYS
FINE GOLF LINKS
Pays $85,000 for 117 Acres Near
the Present Location at
Lakewood
EXPERT TO LAY OUT COURSE
Lakewood, N.J. Nov 22 - As one result
of the recent deal involving $85,000 the
Merion Cricket Club, of Philadelphia, is in
the comparatively near future to have a new
golf links, which will be the equal to any course
in this country. A syndicate, including among
others, W. W. Atterbury, a vice-president of the
Pennsylvania Railroad: Horatio Gates Lloyd, of Drexel
and Company, Philadelphia, A. F. Huston, Rodney Griscom,
and Robert W. Lesley, have bouth 330 acres of land
adjoining Haverford College, 117 acres of which have
been transferred to the Merion Club for golfing purposes.
The location is about two miles from
the present course. Although the average price
paid for the land was $1800 an acre, the 117 acres was sold to the
Cricket club for $725 an acre, or less than half what they cost. However,
the Land Improvement Company, which is the name of the syndicate that
succeeded another organization, expects to more than recoup itself by the
enhanced value which the linnks will give the adjoining property.
It is an $85,000 transaction for the Merion Club.
Will Be Famous Course
The club's present course occupies
72 acres owned by the Pennsylvania
Railroad for which a nominal rent of approximately $3000 a year
has been paid, also 30 acres owned by Clement A. Griscom, who has always
given the use free. However, as the land owned by the railroad company is
likely to be lost any day, it was decided to buy a new course outright, which
will eventually be made to compare favorably with Myopia, Garden City, and other
famous links. Most of the property was owned by the Pennsylvania Railroad.
The Philadelphia and Western Railroad, a third rail fast trolley, is to have a
station practically at each end of the course, affording exceptional transportation.
Herbert M. Barker, former Irish amateur champion, and now professional at
Garden City has been secured to lay out the new course, and says it can scarcely be beaten in this country. Herbert J. Whigam and Charles B. Macdonald
both of New York, and national amateur champions in the early days of the sport,
have also gone over the property carefully and agree with Barker.
HenryE:
I agree with your common sense reading and frankly find the alternate interpretations to be untenable, at best.
Here is what Findlay wrote:
I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.
From this we know that, according to Findlay:
- Wilson mistakenly thought ("imagined") he had built a good "Alps" hole at Merion.
- Findlay disagreed, and told Wilson to take a closer look at the real thing.
- After viewing Prestwick, Wilson agreed that Merion's Alps hole needed a lot of work.
- While Findlay did not like the early version of Merion's Alps Hole, he thought that "many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
The article also confirms that there was no earlier study trip abroad.
David,
You're certainly correct that this article confirms no prior trip abroad by Hugh Wilson. I'm glad that matter has been laid to rest and I think that was a very valuable find on your part.
I think the rest of your interpretation of the Findlay article is pretty strained, as you have to add "imagined" words that Findlay or Wilson never used to make each of your points; little action verbs like "built" , or subjective adjectives like "good" that you've just kind of snuck in there like they were parts of the original text just tend to change the whole meaning of the article, don't you think? ;) Or is that your intent?? ;D
Very nice try, though! Especially impressive after all of this time...nice to see you still have the old touch! ;D
In any case, we've been down this road before and I've seen the MCC Minutes and you haven't had that privilege, so once again, as I've said on another thread, I think your paper did have some really good value in that it sent a few of us into digging up a whole lot of information on Hugh Wilson and early Philadelphia golf that not only has academic research value, but that may end up having actual positive impact on the ground in the case of Cobb's Creek.
I certainly don't want to get into another lawyerly debate about the meaning of words. I'm perfectly comfortable that the truth is now known and CB Macdonald did have a advisory role in helping the Merion Committee select the best of their 5 routings on a single day onsite in April 1911, about a month after the committee had visited him at NGLA for an overnight stay.
As Findlay points out, and the minutes confirm, Macdonald also recommended which courses Hugh Wilson should visit abroad to view his "ideal holes" in person. That lore turns out to have been quite accurate.
It also turns out that Alan Wilson meant exactly what he said when he used the plural, when he said that CB Macdonald "advised as to our plans."
Apparently, this was nothing new, much less novel. A full seven years prior, the 1905 New York Sun article I posted above talks about Macdonald doing "friendly advisor" work all over the important east coast clubs in the early days of golf. I think that's great, personally, and I'm sure he was very helpful and a real advocate for good and sound golf design.
However, are we to then give Macdonald design credit for every east coast club where he might have spent a day or two with the inhouse committees?
It also turns out that the local Philadelphian "inside golf" guys like Tillingast and Findlay, who were there and witnessed the process, were dead-on when they credited Wilson and Committee with the design and construction at Merion. Given your interpretation of Findlay's article that you've just expressed, don't you find it very odd that Macdonald isn't even mentioned in Findlay's opening day review of the course? ::)
As far as those minutes, I heard earlier this week that the Flynn book that Wayne Morrison has been working on is now going to press, so I'm hopeful you'll get a copy and we can finally put this matter to rest. My understanding is that it will include verbatim accounts of those MCC minutes, which make very clear that no routing was approved (despite the many iterations of "plans" the committee devised) til late April, 1911, with Robert Lesley reporting for Hugh Wilson and Committee to the Board. They will also make clear that Macdonald recommended which of the Committee's plans to use, and that's the plan that went to the board for final approval. Somewhat magnamoniously, Macdonald says that if they use that particular plan, they will have the finest 7 finishing holes in the country. They will also make clear that both the 3 acres that Macdonald recommended they buy back in July 1910, as well as the land along Golf House Road that was swapped in the Francis Land Swap Deal were both purchased after that approval date in late April 1911, prior to construction. Once you see them, the timelines of everything should become much clearer.
As it turns out, partially due to the work you've put forward and the corresponding research in reaction to it, Macdonald's role as a superb advisor to the Merion Committee was confirmed and probably even accentuated, but what we now also know in much greater detail than ever before is that Hugh Wilson kicked some serious ass, and fully deserves to be known as he always has been as the architect of Merion.
-
Mike:
1. "Herbert M. Barker, former Irish amateur champion, and now professional at Garden City has been secured to lay out the new course, and says it can scarcely be beaten in this country. Herbert J. Whigam and Charles B. Macdonald both of New York, and national amateur champions in the early days of the sport, have also gone over the property carefully and agree with Barker."
Interesting you guys decided that this wasn't even relevant enough to bring to light, especially given the date of the article.
2. As for the Findlay article, I quoted Findlay directly. Here, again, is what Findlay wrote:
"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
Nothing about Macdonald's travel advice to Wilson. Nothing about his other courses or holes. Certainly nothing as creative as "He 'laid out' Wilson's itinerary."
Just read the words. Findlay didn't like Merion's Alps Hole. "But many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great."
3. Given the above two examples and others past, I am sure you will understand why your take on the meeting minutes is far from dispositive. Whether you know it or not, there is much more in those documents than what has been thus far acknowledged. Regardless, no use discussing these documents until we can all see them.
-
The Flynn book is now going to press?? :o
Wow, that's great to hear because it sure has been a long time in the researching and making! However, since my name is on the book with Wayne Morrison I wish I'd been told it was about to go to press. Would anyone care to tell me the name of the "press" that's publishing it? ;)
The truth is the book is now on our own DVDs and it is in the process of editing. Wayne has spent the last couple of months on a complete edit run-through, and at the moment I would say it is still in the editing, fact-checking and confirming, rewriting and perhaps some rearranging mode.
In this modern world of technology does it mean a book has gone to press when we put it on our own DVDs to more easily work on it and transport it? ???
If that's true I wish someone told me that too. But one thing I can guarantee is that if I'm going to have anything to do with this book I sure will insist that it will not go out to anyone again like a former contributor to this website who about four to five years ago without asking asking the permission of the authors or even mentioning it to them took an incomplete, unedited and certainly unpublished portion of it and put what it said on here and criticized its accuracy and its authors!
Nevertheless, without quoting from the book that does contain MCC meeting minutes transcriptions, I don't mind discussing in a general sense only, and certainly in a non-adverserial and unargumentative way how some subjects, issues, people and events that are relevent to this particular thread are presently being treated and cast in this unfinished and certainly unpublished book.
Hopefully that can help contributors to this website who are still interested in these lugubrious discussions of the history of Merion East and who have heretofore not been privy to certain material that has not yet been put in the public domain understand where we are coming from with it and how----and hopefully it can help us too.
-
When we have found relevent material (and if we find more) on the entire history of Merion East golf course, whether it be newspaper or magazine articles, personal reports of those involved at the time or intimately familiar with the course and time, we will quote them and explain what we feel they mean. When this book is published of course we're just fine with anyone drawing whatever conclusions they want about any of it and what it means.
1. With H.H. Barker, what we know at this time is that he was hired in June, 1910 to do a drawing of a course on land that was at the time not completely decided on by MCC and which would not be purchased from the developers/owners for about six more months. We also know from a letter by Barker to one of the developer/owners (Connell) at that time that his drawing was what he referred to as "a rough sketch."
We also know from a July 1910 report to the MCC Board of Directors by the MCC Search Committee created to find new land for MCC's golf course that Barker was not hired by MCC but by that developer/owner (Connell) who was not part of MCC and not an MCC member as were all the others on the MCC Search Committee.
We have been aware of various newspaper reports (perhaps for years now) including the one from Nov. 1910 by some unamed writer posted above that MCC had hired Barker to do their new course. As far as we can tell that was not true and the reason we believe that is there is absolutely no mention at all of Barker from MCC itself and its own records AFTER that July 1910 report of the MCC Search Committee to the MCC Board that the independent developer/owner of the land had brought in Barker on his own account ("on his own account" is the way the MCC Search Committee report explains independent developer Connell's hiring of Barker and that it was not MCC that had hired Barker).
We do understand that when some on here today see something like that Nov 1910 newspaper article by some unamed reporter (posted above) that they tend to put a lot of stock in its accuracy. We think they tend to do that simply because they are only considering that single article in a vacuum (they are not comparing it to MCC's own records from that time and following that time).
But the truth is there is a ton of supporting material from that same time, just before it and following it contained in MCC's own administrative records that explains in detail what MCC was doing about the design and creation of their new course to come, and none of it had anything to do with Barker. Those administrative records of the club explain in some detail the work of the commttee that was formed at the end of 1910 or very beginning of 1911 that only consisted of Wilson and four other members of MCC (Griscom, Lloyd, Francis and Toulmin) that was charged with routing, designing and creating the new course.
And it goes without saying, at this point, that those administrative records of the club also mention the advice and counsel that C.B. Macdonald and H.J Whigam lent to the club on three separate occasions during what appears to be a day in June 1910, two days at NGLA in early March and a single day in early April 1911, the latter two being with Wilson and his committee (at that point the former Search Committee had been disbanded or actually somewhat merged into a new committee with Wilson and its chairman).
A report to the board in mid-April 1911 explains what Wilson's committee had done to that date which included the creation of 'numerous plans', the two day trip to NGLA, followed by the creation by the Wilson Committee of five different plans (how different we don't know and may never know without seeing them). In early April Macdonald/Whigam returned for a single day and went over those five plans and the grounds and seemingly selected one of those five plans and said they would approve of it.
It is therefore our contention that Merion's own history has always been correct and its history book is correct in saying that Wilson and his committee were the designers of Merion East with some 'kindly help and advice' from fellow gentlemen/amateurs Macdonald and Whigam.
It is also our contention that given Macdonald and Whigam were presented five plans by MCC on April 6, 1911 and that they spent only a single day with them and at Ardmore (the MCC minutes say a single day), that it would've been virtually impossible given the total lack of time for Macdonald and Whigam to have routed and designed a golf course on that site in a single day. ::)
Naturally, anyone can disagree with that contention and try to assume and conclude either on this DG or in some essay that Macdonald/Whigam could've or did virtually create their own routing and course design in that single day. If someone wants to do that and contend it on this website then by all means be our guests. If they do however, I, for one, certainly reserve the right to consider them to be pretty poor golf course architecture analysts and GCA historians! And I have a hunch Merion GC probably will as well if they don't already. ;)
-
As far as the accuracy of Macdonald setting Wilson's itinerary in his GCA study trip abroad that lasted some duration between about March 2 to May 1, 1912, we have never seen any actual evidence of that fact from that time. We do recognize that has apparently been passed off as a fact in more recent years but the point is, some in-depth "timelining" of this kind of thing generally shows it to be what it really is-----eg just speculation.
To me it would seem fairly logical to assume that given that Wilson and MCC did state back then that Macdonald and his son-in-law Whigam had advised them on their Merion East project but noone I know of from back then actually involved with the project said it.
It would certainly not surprise me if Wilson was more directly advised on his itinerary over there by his good friend George Crump as Crump had spent about three months over there doing the very same thing in the end of 1910.
Here's another fact that I think is really interesting and in the end of these analyses should probably reveal a lot about just what was going on with MCC, the Wilson Committee, and the creation of the course in 1911, and that is from app. the end of 1910 until the middle of July 1911 the golf course was not even owned by MCC OR the recently formed MCC Golf Association (Co)----it was owned by Horatio Gates Lloyd (a member of Wilson's committee) AND his wife!! ;)
-
2. As for the Findlay article, I quoted Findlay directly.
David,
Actually, you didn't just use Findlay's exact words. Instead you spun them as such, adding your own interpretive verbiage;
From this we know that, according to Findlay:
- Wilson mistakenly thought ("imagined") he had built a good "Alps" hole at Merion.
- Findlay disagreed, and told Wilson to take a closer look at the real thing.
None of the bolded words were written or even implied by Findlay. They are your words, your implication, and your interpretation.
As far as the single November article, there is no supportive evidence that ever mentions Barker again, and the property Barker considered later changed. That's why it was given no credence.
Besides, didn't you just tell us that a proper interpretation of the Findlay article is "Macdonald laid out many great holes at Merion" even after Findlay tells us he isn't even ready to discuss the possibilities of the new course given its state of immaturity? If you're sure that Macdonald laid out Merion, then haven't you already dismissed Barker, as well? :-\
You first tell us that Macdonald had to be the one who designed it, and now fault us for not giving a single, unsupported Barker article any credence because there is no corresponding evidence. Yet you purposefully misrepresent, ignore, and dismiss again and again the vast mountain of evidence we've supplied since your original article was produced that credits Hugh Wilson, including tens of news articles, and vouches from Tillinghast and Findlay.
Your inconsistency in determining which news articles are valid and which are not is rather convenient, don't you think?
I think at this point your "Anybody But Wilson" motives are pretty self-evident. I'm not sure what you have against the guy, but he certainly is deserving of better.
Tom,
I didn't mean to misrepresent the state of the book. I had heard that it was going to be distributed by DVD for some very valid reasons, not the least of which is the size, and I also knew it was being edited and finalized.
You also raise a good point about Wilson's trip and Macdonald. I also meant that Macdonald recommended Wilson's itinerary in a broad sense, as Macdonald had been trumpeting the "ideal holes" abroad here in the states for at least a decade at the time Wilson went overseas, so virtually everyone in golf knew which holes and which courses were given Charlie's public blessing. He had also emulated quite a number of them at NGLA by then, of course.
I had also assumed from memory that the minutes supported direct recommendations of where to visit from Macdonald but I'm evidently wrong as you'd know better. Perhaps I assumed when they spent that one day going over the course at NGLA (which is supported by the minutes) that there was a lot of discussion about which holes overseas were being copied there by Macdonald and assumed that Macdonald had recommended these as ideal for Wilson to visit.
-
The November 24, 1910 article off of microfilm from the Philadelphia Press newspaper:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/Nov24_1910_PhilaPress.jpg)
-
Mike:
The MCC minutes say nothing about Macdonald recommending to Wilson where to go abroad or even anything about any particular kind of hole to consider for Merion East. The minutes from 1911 only mention that Macdonald and Whigam were back at Ardmore for a single day to go over the grounds again and the plans that the Golf Committee report given by Leslie on the Wilson Committee said the Wilson Committee had generated throughout 1911 to that date in the middle of April when the board meeting was held.
I would assume the information in Leslie's report was probably given to him either in writing or verbally be Wilson. As to what Macdonald and Whigam and the Wilson Committee did and talked about during those two days in the second week of March 1911 all we've ever had was the report I just mentioned plus a report Wilson wrote in 1915 or 1916. The latter has been on here in the past a few times. The report on the Wilson Committee by the board in April 1911 has not been transcribed on here for the reasons we have given also a number of times----they belong to MCC not Merion GC and they have never been in the public domain as far as I can tell. Clearly that doesn't seem to matter to some on here but it matters to us if it matters to MCC.
As far as Wilson's trip abroad, obviously we now know he went over there just about a year after that meeting at NGLA and that visit from Macdonald/Whigam to Ardmore. We also know his trip abroad was considereably shorter than had previously been reported (perhaps six to seven weeks max compared to the six to seven months that seem to have had some currency in the last four decades or so).
So with just that information available so far who set Wilson's itinerary is just speculation even though we do see in this Findlay material that he claims to have mentioned to Wilson that he should see the original "Alps" hole at Prestwick before he left.
As to Merion having a number of template holes from abroad as Macdonald had at NGLA, it looks to me that Merion considered that and tried to do some of it (Alps, Eden, Redan) in the beginning but then in the next few years seemed to prefer to get away from that kind of thing. That has been the story around Merion for years and it's looking pretty true to me. Some, like Herbert Warren Wind, later wrote that Wilson was far more general in his interpretations of architectural principles from abroad at Merion than Macdonald had been at NGLA and it also looks to me like Wind was right about that.
I suppose it's a pretty good question as to how or why Findlay even knew Hugh Wilson or why he came to walk the course with him but it now seems certain that Findlay and Fred Pickering had already had many common projects in architecture in the past (before that June 1912 article posted above) and would continue to work together on common projects in the future.
-
"Whether you know it or not, there is much more in those documents than what has been thus far acknowledged."
Mike and Joe:
Look at that remark from the long lost Merion essayist!
He has never laid eyes on that material but somehow he seems to know there is much more in them than has thus far been acknowledged on here. That's a pretty neat trick, don't you think? To me it says a lot more about this laughable "Philadephia Syndrome" nonsense from a couple of people on here in the past than it says about the architectural history of Merion. ;)
-
Joe:
Thanks for posting that November 24, 1910 Philadelphia Press article again. We've seen it before but have no idea who wrote it, not that that really matters. Nevertheless, a plethora of recorded material from the administration of the club around that time and in the days and weeks and months to follow undeniably indicate Barker was never hired to lay out a golf course for MCC (you should note, one of the titles to the article says Barker "To lay out a course"----eg that would indicate the future). Matter of fact, Barker was never actually hired by MCC itself at any time, not in June of 1910 when he did that "rough sketch" of property that would not be purchased for about six months and perhaps not even in the exact form Barker was looking at and at no time after that.
The fact is it just didn't happen that way in the months and years to come and the club is rife with documentary written material of it.
To me this is a really good example of how and why information in some newspaper articles should always be taken with a grain of salt as to its accuracy. Apparently some on here cannot understand or accept the fact that if a newspaper article says something will happen in the future that it may not have actually happen that way when the time came. Perhaps people who think that way do not appreciate well enough that things often change regarding what is sometimes reported may happen in the future. And that is definitely the case with that particular Philadephia Press article about MCC and Merion East golf course and its Wilson Committee.
To even assume that Barker was hired to lay out the course and that actually happened it would virtually make total liars out of the entire Board of Directors of MCC, its Golf Chairman Robert Leslie and Hugh Wilson, his brother, and Hugh Wilson's committee et al and everything that was recorded and reported after that particular article was written in Nov. 1910. Matter of fact, it would probably make liars out of Tillinghast, Findlay and even Macdonald and Whigman too! ;)
I think this might call for a new essay on here on how exactly literally scores of people involved at a golf club in those days, including the people and writers they knew well could all get together and agree on and produce a total lie as to who designed a particular golf course.
What was that movie in the last few years where some Hollywood producer got together with some screwballs in the US Government's administration and created a totally bogus production in a studio in Hollywood of a war in middle Europe that never happened at all? This new essay could be GCA's version of that. ::)
Wait a minute, don't we already have an essay like that about Merion on here? ;)
If, at this point, anyone really interested in this particular subject is contending all those people got together and created a total lie, then I really don't think they should be on this website and they surely should not try to pass themselves off as credible golf architecture analysts and historians----not on Merion at least. ;)
-
Tom,
Rather than a movie it's probably more like a bad soap opera, or perhaps a better analogy is something like "Horror Movie", with frequent, recurring sequels, each one worse than the previous.
Speaking of conspiracy and saying that multiple folks were in on a lie, it's probably a good time to again recall exactly what Alan Wilson wrote. Alan Wilson was a very important leader within Merion and a very good golfer, as well, all the way back to the 1890s and their first courses. This is what he wrote;
Merion’s East and West Golf Courses
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. 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”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. 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 ground 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 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 Committee, 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 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 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 the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other.
The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.
-
"Tom,
Rather than a movie it's probably more like a bad soap opera, or perhaps a better analogy is something like "Horror Movie", with frequent, recurring sequels, each one worse than the previous.
Speaking of conspiracy and saying that multiple folks were in on a lie, it's probably a good time to again recall exactly what Alan Wilson wrote. Alan Wilson was a very important leader within Merion and a very good golfer, as well, all the way back to the 1890s and their first courses. This is what he wrote;"
Mikey:
Oh, I don't know----I don't think I would say that. I think it's all kinda fun; at the very least it certainly is funny. I realize much of it is minutae, but Hey, that's what some of us on here are into, right? ;)
A few years ago I did not quite appreciate what a remarkable man Alan Wilson was in the world of early American golf and I am sorry to hear some of the things that have been implied about him on here and what he wrote about the creation of Merion such as that report he wrote in 1926 was either hyberbole or just some inaccurate paean and attempt to glorify his recently departed brother.
If William Philler, the thirty five year treasurer of MCC who was in the process of writing the first history of MCC thought that's what he was going to get out of Alan Wilson or that Alan didn't know much about the entire creation of those golf courses, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have asked him to write that report for him.
As a golfer he was probably just OK----I very much doubt he ever gave his brother Hugh much of a run for his money on the golf course.
-
Tom,
Somewhere I have something from the 1890s where Alan Wilson is called one of the top golfers in the area.
Of course, since about 100 people were playing golf in Philadelphia at that time, that might not have been too much of an accomplishment. ;)
By the way, "Horror Movie" IS a comedy. It's just a very bad one. ;D
-
"By the way, "Horror Movie" IS a comedy. It's just a very bad one. ;D"
So is the GCA "In My Opinion" essay "The Minimized and Mutilated Faces of Merion." I'm sorry, I mean "The Missing Faces of Merion." :'(
You know what that wonderful Welsh MP Aneiran Bevan said: "You've got to take humor wherever you can find it."
I'm not sure how "dispositve" that quotation is or whether its more than a little "untenable" under the circumstances but I'm trying to do my best anyway.
-
The November 24, 1910 article off of microfilm from the Philadelphia Press newspaper:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/Nov24_1910_PhilaPress.jpg)
Joe,
Since that article says that Barker will "Lay Out" the course, can we assume that Barker was constructing with shovel-in-hand as per the following definition included in David's essay? ;)
"Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.” In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design. To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” This was precisely how Wilson used the phrase. “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.' The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan, and Macdonald and Whigham gave them a good start in understanding how to do so."
"Wilson’s entire discussion of his role focuses not on the planning, but on the building."
Tom Paul,
The following from Hugh Wilson in 1916 is where I made my assumption that Macdonald had told Wilson which courses to see overseas, and which holes to study. I had mixed up this with the MCC minutes.
Irregardless, I agree that Wilson likely had other advisors in this regard like Crump, and clearly Findlay, and probably even others of the Merion Committee like Lesley and Perrin who went abroad frequently. However, Macdonald was the one who really trumpeted the idea, so in many ways, he laid out the itinerary of quite a few travelling golfers at that time, history would suggest.
"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 correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. "
-
Mike:
Right, I forgot how that essay characterized what Wilson and his committee actually did----eg actually BUILT the golf course THEMSELVES to some phantom Macdonald/Whigam routing and design plan or perhaps H.H Barker's 1910 "rough sketch" for non-member and real estate developer Connell.
Can't you just see Wilson and particularly a couple of captains of industry like Rodman Griscom and particularly Drexel & Co partner, Horatio Gates Lloyd, out there on that Ardmore site in the heat of that 1911 summer with their suit jackets and vests off, their neckties loosened and their sleeves rolled up digging on bunkers and shit and being told what to do by the likes of the semi-inebriated project foreman Fred Pickering!?!
I'm sure it probably happened just like that and if it did how in the hell could Merion have possibly NOT created a world class golf course?! Maybe our esteemed GCA essayist can find that long forgotten newspaper article by the highly respected golf reporter Ebenezeer Wiffensnoofer that reports that Hugh Wilson was a pretty good golfer, a respected golf agronomy expert and pretty good on architecture (after about ten years of being a "NOVICE" ;)) but that Man could he ever, and right outta the old proverbial "Box" with little to no training, wield one mean shovel and hoe! ??? ::) :P
-
Mike Cirba,
Here is what Findlay wrote:
"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
Read the words. Nothing about Macdonald's travel advice to Wilson. Nothing about Myopia's Alps. Nothing about CBM's other courses or holes. Certainly nothing as creative as "He 'laid out' Wilson's itinerary."
All your nonsense and hemming and hawing doesnt change the fact. Nor does your nitpicking about words used in my explanation of what the quote meant after I set out the actual quote.
Bottom Line: From the article we learn, among other things, that:
Findlay didn't like Merion's Alps Hole, but thought many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great.
Nothing you have written or will write can change this.
____________________________________________________
Mike Cirba and TEPaul,
You can can write all you want about what the minutes say. But until those documents (not just the minutes) are available for us all to see, it is all just noise, for reasons that should be obvious to everyone by now. If these discussions over the years have proven anything it is that you guys obviously cannot be trusted to accurately dissimenate source material.
I mean come on, Guys, in this single thread:
1. We have about four different absurd interpretations of a not too difficult couple of sentences by Findlay, and absolutely no recognition of the simplest and most obvious interpretation.
2. We have TEPaul claiming that he and Wayne have been sitting on the Barker article for years, even though it goes to the heart of the matter so often discussed on this board, and even though they have repeatedly assured us that they have brought everything to light.
3. We have Cirba admitting that he was also trying to control the record by sitting on the same article. (Particularly ironic given Cirba's past righteous outrage and false accusations and paranoia about me supposedly sitting on documents.)
4. We have both of you guys trying to justify why it is just fine for you to attempt to control the record by failing to disclose a newspaper article stating that Barker was hired my M.C.C. to build the course.
5. We even have Cirba misrepresenting the meeting minutes to justify his fantastic reading of the Findlay article ("'laid out' the itinerary" ?!?!)
6. And of course we have TEPaul waxing on about how it is me who cannot be trusted with source material. That's rich.
I'm not back here to argue with the two of you. Your minds have been set for years on these issues, and no amounts of facts will change this. I just wanted to pop in and remind anyone still reading how absurd this has all become, and to take everything you guys write with a huge grain of salt.
-
Tom,
I know you're not much on news accounts, but thanks to the marvels of modern archiving capabilities I've been able to go back and find photographic evidence of both Hugh Wilson and H.H. Barker working together under the iron-hand of the combined forces of dictatorial C.B. Macdonald, his toady H. J. Whigham, and the well-lubricated Fred Pickering.
If you look really closely I think you might be able to spot Lloyd and Griscom, as well.
I think that's Wilson on his knees (in the white shirt) in the foreground, praying to a merciful God, and asking, "Oh Lord...what did I ever do to deserve THIS!?!...I just want to play golf!!", probably presciently knowing full-well that nearly 100 years later he would be posthumously tortured in ways far beyond any of these tough, sweaty physical exhaustions he went through in building the Merion course. ;)
I think that's Barker on the left (dark clothing) seemingly taking a leak into the big pit they're digging while trying to build Charley's newest creation, the "Reverse Alps". ;D
Either that or Pickering has Charley's plans upside down again!! ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3429637610_dc0608380e_o.jpg)
As is evident in this photo, even Wilson's wife Mary was pressed into service by the diabolical Macdonald and his lackeys, bringing some turf sod over to her husband, working feverishly to build yet another Raynoresque, high-grass-faced bunker.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3545/3428822599_cfdb5a1f4c_o.jpg)
-
David Moriarty:
If you choose not to take our word for what those MCC meeting minutes say, and for that reason you'd prefer not to discuss their contents on here, that's certainly your own prerogative, but believe me we could definitely not possibly care less at this point or any other point in time.
At some point you may see that transcribed material or you may never see it (that's sort of up to you if you do or do not choose to go about this as we have by making arrangements with the clubs first) and you are certainly free to put whatever tortured spin you want on what the material you have never seen means----I think we've all seen how capable you are of doing that with whatever incomplete research material you did have when you wrote your essay on Merion.
However, the fact remains, unless literally scores of people involved back then conspired to create a lie and drum up some massive untruth, Wilson and his committee routed and designed that golf course but with some help and advice from their friends Macdonald and Whigam. But of course we've always known that, and certainly way before either you or MacWood came along questioning what it meant in detail, and the club has known it since the beginning and that is the way it was always recorded by MCC and Merion GC and accurately so.
-
David,
Do you think the November 1910 article that claims the club hired Barker to lay out the course is historically accurate?
A yes or no answer will suffice. And if you're honest with us, you'll at least admit the answer is no.
Before you accuse me or Joe of sandbagging, please at least recognize that we were hoping to find any shred of supporting evidence in any other accounts before picking the scab off of this issue again.
That article brought no "NEW" information forward, and contains INACCURATE information.
On the other hand, the Findlay article that Joe uncovered certainly introduced new information, so we thought it was very valuable and posted it here.
-
Mike,
Of course you guys were sandbagging! You had a Nov. 24, 1910 newspaper article stating that HH Barker was hired to lay out the course, and by your own admission you sat on it. What is this if not sandbagging!
Imagine the shoe is on the other foot. Imagine that the Nov. 24, 1910 article said that Wilson had been appointed to design the course, and I sat on the article because it was uncorroborated, contained some other inaccuracies, and because it was inconsistent with everything we know thus far. You would come out of your skin!
Do I think that the article is accurate?? I haven't thought much about it yet, but parts of it obviously are, and for reasons you apparently have not considered. But what I think or what you think about the accuracy has nothing to do with the issue of sandbagging. It is part of the historical record and has to be exposed to the bright light of critical examination by all.
You obviously think my beliefs about Macdonald should shape my views of the article. I don't work that way. I try to let the source material shape by beliefs, and not the other way around. That way I can avoid taking absurd positions like the one you take regarding the Findlay article . . . "'laid out' the itinerary" indeed.
It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years: It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.
Ask Joe Bausch whether it is okay in Chemistry to hide research because he does not like what conclusions others might draw from it. If it is flawed, identify the flaws, but do so in the light of day where everyone can draw their own conclusions. I imagine it was Joe who insisted on bringing the article to light after I asked him what else he had. Surely he knew that sitting on the document was the wrong thing to do.
But lets set that aside, because there have been very important revelations in this thread.
We now know, among other things:
1. Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion, including not only the weak 10th (in his opinion), but many of the great holes as well.
2. The Phil Press reported on Nov. 24, 1910 all of that which is in the article above, including among other things, that Barker was hired to lay out the course.
Those are the facts. Draw whatever conclusions you want about the accuracy of these two reports.
-
Ask Joe Bausch whether it is okay in Chemistry to hide research because he does not like what conclusions others might draw from it. If it is flawed, identify the flaws, but do so in the light of day where everyone can draw their own conclusions. I imagine it was Joe who insisted on bringing the article to light after I asked him what else he had. Surely he knew that sitting on the document was the wrong thing to do.
DM, it is wonderful to have you back.
-
Thanks Joe. And thanks again for all your terrific leg work.
Anyone interested in getting to the truth has got to be greatful to you bringing the source material into the light of day.
You guys aren't sitting on anything else, are you? If so, mind if we take a look?
-
Ahhh....David...you are amazing! ;D
Obfuscate, confuse, mislead, redefine, refuse to answer any direct questions, and then start from the top and do it again. What are you, a lawyer or something?! ;)
Since you interpret what Findlay wrote as "C.B. Macdonald laid out the holes at Merion, I guess you're saying that C.B. Macdonald was strictly involved in "the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” Macdonald had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan."
After all, isn't that how you defined what it meant when Hugh Wilson said that he and the Committee laid out the holes at Merion?
If Macdonald actually did the conception and planning of the course, wouldn't another word be more applicable?
Say...something like "Mapping Out"? That might be a term that would define the routing of the golf course pretty unambiguously, don't you think?
Yet, not a peep from you about the other article Joe posted that states very clearly that Hugh Wilson and his Committee "mapped out" Merion as reported opening day in the same newspaper that Alex Findlay wrote for. (see below) If it was inaccurate, and Alex Findlay knew better that Macdonald had created the course, why didn't he correct the record sometime in the next 30 years as everyone around Philadelphia gave credit erroneously to Wilson? Was Findlay another of the Philadelphia Conspiratorial Syndrome??
Didn't you find that article of historical interest?
Once again...selective study. You claim to be after the truth yet claim absurd interpretations (such as that Joe Bunker was talking about Merion West as the new course at Merion nine months before it opened) of articles that don't fit with your theories, and ignore, dismiss, or twist definitions of words to suit your purposes.
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/ET/09141912ET_250.jpg)
You also state "as fact" that "Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion,"
Findlay did no such thing.
Findlay said that Macdonald laid out "Others".
It is not clear in the least what he means by that. He could be talking about other Alps holes, other template holes such as at NGLA, other courses he trumpeted as having ideal holes....
in fact, it would be ludicrous for Findlay to pronounce individual holes at Merion as "great" when he first tells everyone that he's not even ready to discuss the "possibilities" of the new course given its state of immaturity.
As far as the November article about Barker.
This is not a court of law, no matter how you try to make it into one.
The Merion threads you started here in the past have been exhausting, frustrating, and ultimately demaning to all of us as we let our frustration with each others intractable positions turn into some pretty ugly dialogue. It's why I'm trying to keep things humorous here this time, before it gets out of hand again.
So, when I came across that article, I shared it with Joe and we found it to be interesting because it presented something that was strange and not supported by any other evidence.
I did think about posting it and I'm betting Joe thought about it, as well. But, we never did discuss doing so, and I think separately we probably both came to the same conclusion that unless we had something really interesting, or something really new, or something we thought was clearly valid, we didn't want to open this can of worms again.
At least I know that's what I thought...
Joe can speak for himself, much as you want to speak for him in some effor to make him think you're on his side. ::)
Do you know that Joe and I discussed prior and agreed to post this newest article, simply because it was valid, it was first-hand, and it was newsworthy and valuable?
In fact, BOTH articles we posted are valuable, much as you choose to pretend that the other article that states Wilson and his Committee "mapped out" Merion doesn't exist.
-
David,
Mike and Joe are the definition of integrity. There's no way they're "hiding" anything.
I do give you credit, though.... You questioned the dominant paradigm and initiated more research that has been very successful. It's not easy going through fiche after fiche after fiche. Their research is truly like looking for a needle in a 200' high haystack.
Not only are they men of integrity, they're both extraordinarly wonderful gentlemen. Please trust me when I stress that their goal is not obfsucation or worse. Their only "iron in the fire" is a passion for history.
One last note, the Free Library of Philadelphia is open to all for research.
-
David,
Mike and Joe are the definition of integrity. There's no way they're "hiding" anything.
I do give you credit, though.... You questioned the dominant paradigm and initiated more research that has been very successful. It's not easy going through fiche after fiche after fiche. Their research is truly like looking for a needle in a 200' high haystack.
Not only are they men of integrity, they're both extraordinarly wonderful gentlemen. Please trust me when I stress that their goal is not obfsucation or worse. Their only "iron in the fire" is a passion for history.
One last note, the Free Library of Philadelphia is open to all for research.
Dan, DM seems to think that it is comparable to compare historical research for giggles on the architectural origin of a golf course with the research in my profession. Interesting, eh? Not a single person on this site has ever made a claim like that to me. But I'm going to think about it long and hard to make sure I haven't been 'hiding' some chemistry research results from my peers. ;)
-
Dan:
You're right, Mike and Joe have come up with a ton of good old not seen in years newspaper article and magazine research on the Philly area, on Merion and a number of other clubs in the area.
On all that additional research on Merion with just a minor exception or two of articles that were in error from the day they were printed, all their research just confirms what Merion and us here have always known and always maintained----eg that Merion East (and West) was routed and designed by Hugh Wilson and his committee with some help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam which the club both recorded and recognized them for from Day One.
So the real irony after all that great supplemental research confirming those facts is David Moriarty still just as staunchly refuses to accept any of it and what it means, as he always has. He is still apparently trying to maintain that somehow Macdonald's roll was minimized by the club or us. I guess he has to continue to do that or else he would essentially be admitting that his scatter-brained logic in his essay is just about entirely bunkum with the single exception of his discovery that Wilson went abroad in 1912 rather than 1910. Not exactly a totally insignificant discovery, mind you, but for numerous reasons most certainly not something that leads to the logic that he tried to use to assume and then conclude that Wilson was too much the novice to have been able to do what he actually did do there from 1911 to his death in 1925.
But the irony to that last one (the 1912 trip) is the club never even said Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for seven months until about a half century after the fact of the creation of Merion East by Wilson and his committee. That fact always seems to be sloughed aside on these Merion threads. I guess if it wasn't constantly sloughed aside on here, there probably wouldn't be anything else left to argue about or discuss regarding the history of Merion. ;)
-
Dan, DM seems to think that it is comparable to compare historical research for giggles on the architectural origin of a golf course with the research in my profession. Interesting, eh? Not a single person on this site has ever made a claim like that to me. But I'm going to think about it long and hard to make sure I haven't been 'hiding' some chemistry research results from my peers. ;)
First and most importantly, Joe, I meant no offense and would never cast aspersions on your integrity or ability in your occupation. That has happened plenty to me on here and elsewhere by some friends of yours, but it is not my style.
Second, the comparison is yours, not mine. In one of your first posts ever to me you noted that you did scientific research and that you thought the peer review process should be pretty much parallel here. I was just reminding you of this and hoping you'd fill in Mike Cirba and the gang on what proper peer review requires.
I'll be very surprised if are backing away from the standard of open and honest disclosure because this is for fun. Golf is fun and games too, yet we don't lower our standards of behavior there, do we?
___________________________________
Mike:
You can insult me all you like. It wont change the facts.
1. I've explained many times the various uses of the phrase "laid out" and won't again on these boards. If you have a problem with the way Findlay used the phrase, take it up with him.
2. Of course the other article about the opening is germane. In fact I think I cited it in my Essay. But it is neither new nor all that promising a resource. If you read it carefully you'll notice that it borrows heavily (but not necessarily accurately) from Findlay's articles.
3. If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest. It is not worth my time to counter.
4. Findlay's meaning will be clear to anyone who reads it carefully.
- He did not like the original version of Merion's Alps. "BUT" thought "many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great."
- "But" is a conjunction signifying contrast or exception from the idea to which it connects. In context, the only idea to contrast is Findlay's (and then Wilson's) disapproval of Merion's Alps hole! It makes no sense if you plug in any of your meanings. It makes no sense grammatically, and it makes no sense logically.
- There were not "many Alps holes" to contrast.
- There is no reason to believe that Findlay was talking about supposed itineraries.
- There is no mention or reason to infer that they were talking about other supposed CBM templates, Alps or not. Such an interpretation renders the passages nonsensical.
- And even if he was writing about Macdonald's other Alps holes or templates (he wasnt,) this would still put Macdonald as responsible at Merion. Why else contrast Merion's to his other holes!
Only one reading makes grammatical and logical sense. That you summarily dismiss my interpretation with no reasonable explanation whatsoever speaks volumes about your approach to this entire endeavor.
-
Joe Bausch:
On the first page you wrote that you "believe Findlay was referring to the other Alps holes that CBM had done already."
Given that at the time of the article there were not "many other[]" CBM Alps holes to contrast with the Alps at Merion, do you still believe this? If so, could you explain why? If not then what do you think the passage means?
-
“It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years: It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.
But lets set that aside, because there have been very important revelations in this thread.
We now know, among other things:
1. Findlay reported, among other things, that CBMacdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion, including not only the weak 10th (in his opinion), but many of the great holes as well.”
David Moriarty:
That’s pretty typical of you. You just said you’ve been saying to me and Wayne for years that it’s not up to us to decide for the rest of us (“WE” on here) whether or not source material is accurate etc. And then a mere few sentences later you conclude that ‘”WE” now know Findlay reported among other things that Macdonald laid out at least some of the holes at Merion, including not only the weak 10th, but many of the other great holes as well.’
It looks like you need an education on the definition of consistency, self contradiction or hypocrisy.
WE don’t know anything of the kind, Friend, so zip it in telling us what WE NOW KNOW, particularly after you just got finished with the fact you’ve been telling us not to tell the rest of those on here what’s accurate. WE certainly do not know that Findlay meant Macdonald laid out any holes at Merion, including the 10th. Findlay never said that, not about Merion anyway! If that's your opinion, then just say it's your opinion, PERIOD.
“4. Findlay's meaning will be clear to anyone who reads it carefully.
- He did not like the original version of Merion's Alps. "BUT" thought "many of the others as laid out by Charles McDonald, are really great."
- "But" is a conjunction signifying contrast or exception from the idea to which it connects. In context, the only idea to contrast is Findlay's (and then Wilson's) disapproval of Merion's Alps hole! It makes no sense if you plug in any of your meanings. It makes no sense grammatically, and it makes no sense logically.”
Findlay’s meaning certainly is not clear to everyone who reads his remarks carefully, and he most certainly did not ever say those “others” laid out by Macdonald that he said are really great are AT MERION or are even Alps holes. And don’t try to give anyone on here a lesson in grammar, I doubt anyone on here needs that from you, particularly since one of the last things Findlay was when he wrote was grammatically correct.
If you have an opinion on something on here then say it’s YOUR OPINION, but don’t tell the rest of us what WE now know, particularly after your stupid remark about Wayne and me.
One of these days you’re going to need to get around to facing up to and answering the numerous questions put to you on here that if you are still maintaining Macdonald routed and designed Merion despite all the contemporaneous evidence to the contrary then what does that say about the scores of people involved with Merion back then who said Hugh Wilson and his committee designed the course?
Are you completely incapable of answering a question like that and if so what does that say about you and what you have been doing and implying and saying on this website about Merion for years now? ;)???
-
Speaking of Alex Findllay, take a peek at the history of Coatesville CC here: http://www.gapgolf.org/clubs.asp?cid=25 (scroll down a little to get to the history - do a search for Findlay to get to the good part).
Coatesville shares little with Merion, but I think it's interesting how this Findlay project went a few years after these artices. I'm not implying anything here but the fact that it's an interesting story that involved Findlay.
-
“It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years: It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.
I am referring to the fact that you and Wayne have been playing us for fools by sandbagging the source material for many years. See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react. There are numerous other examples but let's let bygones be.
WE don’t know anything of the kind, Friend, so zip it in telling us what WE NOW KNOW, particularly after you just got finished with the fact you’ve been telling us not to tell the rest of those on here what’s accurate. WE certainly do not know that Findlay meant Macdonald laid out any holes at Merion, including the 10th. Findlay never said that, not about Merion anyway! If that's your opinion, then just say it's your opinion, PERIOD.
. . .
If you have an opinion on something on here then say it’s YOUR OPINION, but don’t tell the rest of us what WE now know, particularly after your stupid remark about Wayne and me.
First, we are not friends. Second, everything on here I write is my opinion, based on my understanding of the facts. Feel free to disagree, but I'd appreciate if you changed your tone.
One of these days you’re going to need to get around to facing up to and answering the numerous questions put to you on here that if you are still maintaining Macdonald routed and designed Merion despite all the contemporaneous evidence to the contrary then what does that say about the scores of people involved with Merion back then who said Hugh Wilson and his committee designed the course?
Are you completely incapable of answering a question like that and if so what does that say about you and what you have been doing and implying and saying on this website about Merion for years now?
I'd be glad to answer this and any other questions but not before I see the source material. I have yet to read a single contemporary account that says that Wilson planned the routing and conceived of the holes. Surely you understand why I won't take your word for it that such documentation exists.
If it did exist, it is my opinion that we'd have seen it long ago.
-
David, What about post 9?
Granted, it's not a newspaper, but it's a good source of info.
-
David, What about post 9?
Granted, it's not a newspaper, but it's a good source of info.
We covered this in great detail many times in the past, and I am not here to rehash old arguments. In short, the members said he worked hard in laying out and constructing the course, and that of the Committee, he deserves the most credit. Similar to what Alan Wilson said years later (maybe this letter was Wilson's source.) I don't disagree with any of it. But it says nothing about who conceived of and chose the routing, or who conceived of the hole concepts.
Also Dan, this is a single document out of volumes of documents (not the minutes) that Wayne Morrison agreed to provide to me, but then broke his word. It is just the kind of cherry-picking that has corrupted this entire process for years. We should take every such cherry-picked, selectively produced document with a huge grain of salt.
-
"First, we are not friends."
David Moriarty:
No, we certainly are not. I used the term Friend in that post above in the sense that Quakers use it. That's why I capitalized it which you probably wouldn't understand either. It's kind of a Pennsylvania term since this state I live in was begun by William Penn, a rather well known English Quaker. The Quaker term Friend does not necessarily mean one either referring to someone or being referred to must be friendly.
It's pretty clear you don't like me which never has and never will mean a jot to me and I doubt I could think of another person I like less than you at this point. So of course we're not friends and so what? ;)
But none of that means we can't have an intelligent conversation on here on golf course architecture or the accurate history of Merion. The only problem is you either don't know how to do that or you are incapable of it.
You did make another remark above about Barker and what Wayne or I ever said about him on here and I will be happy to answer it civily despite all your "woe is me" histrionics on this website. ;)
-
TEPaul,
It was not a question so don't bother answering. I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of this with you.
-
"I am referring to the fact that you and Wayne have been playing us for fools by sandbagging the source material for many years. See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react. There are numerous other examples but let's let bygones be."
On H.H. Barker, if I said Wayne and I have known about him for years as to some connection to Merion I was wrong to say that. I have known about H.H. Barker for years for a number of reasons but I do not believe I was aware of him to do with some connection to Merion until your essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" appeared on this website. My recollection is that was about a year ago, not years ago, and I do not at this time remember seeing that Nov 24, 1910 article about Merion and Barker in the Philadelphia Press or Telegram.
As to whether or not Wayne was aware of him years ago in some connection to Merion or that Nov 1910 article, you'd have to ask Wayne about that.
But since you mentioned him in your essay and thanked Tom MacWood for making you aware of him as perhaps the second best architect in America at the time ;) we surely did look back through the complete Merion archives and even MCC's archives, as you know.
The fact is Barker was a complete nonentity in the creation of Merion. MCC never hired him at any time and the fact is the Merion record is rife with who did route and design Merion East in 1911 and none of it had a thing to do with Barker.
I do remember you said on one of these many lugubrious Merion threads that have been generated on this website only because of your and Tom MacWood's incessant and ridiculous implications that Wilson was glorified and Macdonald slighted and even that Macdonald must have routed and designed Merion that it might be considered AT LEAST POSSIBLE that Barker's self proclaimed "rough sketch" of the Merion property before it was even put together and six months before it was bought, might have been used by MCC or at least something on it might've been remembered when Wilson and his committee set about their work over six months after Barker was here in June 1910.
Well, sure, David Moriarty, anyone can say ANYTHING under the sun might be possible but the fact is Merion's administrative record of that time and all that was written about it ACCURATELY during those years in the Merion administrative records (these are not some indirect newspaper accounts they are MCC's own ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS) says Wilson and his committee designed Merion East.
I think one of these days you're going to need to address our constant questions TO YOU of why in the world you think, claim or imply the board and the committees of Merion back then when they were trying to move their course from Haverford to Ardmore would sit there and meet in front of one another and LIE TO EACH OTHER about what they were in the midst of doing and who was doing it.
The fact is you just can't deal with that reality and the truth of the history of Merion because you made a damn fool of yourself with that essay you made public on here and clearly you are incapable of admitting how ridiculous and illogical it was given all the other counter-pointing facts involved in the creation of Merion East.
-
"TEPaul,
It was not a question so don't bother answering. I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of this with you."
Question or not, David Moriarty, I'm going to keep answering whatever I feel like answering on here from you or anyone else whether its agreement or disagreement or just discussion. It's the same old drill, pal, so maybe the time has come again for you to take one of your six months powders or should I say pouters? ;)
-
Earlier today you wrote . . .
We have been aware of various newspaper reports (perhaps for years now) including the one from Nov. 1910 by some unamed writer posted above that MCC had hired Barker to do their new course. .
But now you write . . .
On H.H. Barker, if I said Wayne and I have known about him for years as to some connection to Merion I was wrong to say that. I have known about H.H. Barker for years for a number of reasons but I do not believe I was aware of him to do with some connection to Merion until your essay entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" appeared on this website. My recollection is that was about a year ago, not years ago, and I do not at this time remember seeing that Nov 24, 1910 article about Merion and Barker in the Philadelphia Press or Telegram.
As to whether or not Wayne was aware of him years ago in some connection to Merion or that Nov 1910 article, you'd have to ask Wayne about that.
Too funny. I figured Wayne would try to curb your enthusiasm at some point, but he really shut you down. When your own writing partner won't stand by your stories maybe it is time to cool it a bit. He must owe you big time, but that is between the two of you.
Anyway, I'll file this under "If You Say So," next to Wayne's claim that he had seen Barker's cover letter to the June 1910 routing, but that "it slipped his mind."
Surely you are starting to understand why I have no interest in discussing this or anything else with you. Everything you write completely lacks veracity. In fact the only reason to even look at your posts is that if you make a claim, then the opposite is probably true. At the very least your claims are incomplete and misleading. This is especially true when you are making claims about documents that you guys are hiding, like the MCC docs. And the more adamant you are, the more sure we can be that there is more to it than you are letting on. And you have been pretty adamant about a few things lately. When are you going to learn that so long as you are hiding source material, your unsupported claims can only hurt your cause?
"TEPaul,
It was not a question so don't bother answering. I have absolutely no interest in discussing any of this with you."
Question or not, David Moriarty, I'm going to keep answering whatever I feel like answering on here from you or anyone else whether its agreement or disagreement or just discussion. It's the same old drill, pal, so maybe the time has come again for you to take one of your six months powders or should I say pouters? ;)
Good one. But I think you may be confusing my desire to get to the truth with pouting.
I stayed away from the site because I had more important things to do and because my involvement had become unproductive for me and others. (I know that is probably impossible for you to comprehend since this gca.com is apparently all you've got.)
This Findlay article brought me back because it is too important to let you guys gloss over. I am sure I'll be around when anything else important comes out.
But by all means keep posting all you want, just don't expect me to play along. Except maybe to glean what didn't happen.
-
David,
I, too, say a sincere welcome back!
Unfortunately the thread is really degenerating here and so i have exited myself from it for a few days. The ONLY REASON I am posting now is to clear up a few "facts" that are being thrown about and to ask for some civility by ALL!
The first "fact" is this statement:
"See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react..."
I know for a FACT that this isn't true.
This article was first found just PRIOR to the GCA holiday gathering enjoyed by many at the Tom Paul barn. I know this because the PERSON WHO SHOWED IT TO TOM & WAYNE shared it with me at that time. I asked if he had shown it to TOM & WAYNE and he replied that he had JUST DONE SO a FEW DAYS before. I STRONGLY recommended that he post it on GCA despite the fact that I was certain that it would be VERY controversial. He made the decision, at that time, not to do so because he wanted to give careful consideration as to WHEN might be the right time to do so. I know this person well and can COMPLETELY vouch for his integrity in this matter.
So both Tom & Wayne have only known of this for several months and it wasn't being hidden from anyone, rather, it was being delayed. I am also well aware that the person who shared it with me is relieved that it was revealed on here. That simply wasn't and isn't the case.
What this also means is that NO ONE has been hiding, obfuscating, concealing or any other word one may want to use this article.
David, you stated that, "Only one reading makes grammatical and logical sense. That you summarily dismiss my interpretation with no reasonable explanation whatsoever speaks volumes about your approach to this entire endeavor..."
Whereas I agree that there is only one grammatically correct reading, you have now personalized this FAR TOO MUCH. OTHERS have stated this same understanding from the beginning of the thread onward and had their concludions disagreed with quite strongly. For example, in post #12, I stated:
"I think some serious and careful study of exactly what Findlay wrote is required BEFORE simply explaining away the part that it appears he is assigning to C.B. McDonald... Findlay clearly is refering to Wilson's & the new course when he states, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course..." Wilson's reaction to what was created at Merion AFTER seeing the real hole? That follows immediately. "He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..." This shows that efforts to imitate the great holes of the U.K. were being tried at Merion. It is THAT which Findlay seems to be clearly refering to next when he states, "But many of the others..." These "others" are NOT on other courses but part of the MERION design. This means that his next statement, "as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." shows that C.B. had some definite hand in at least partially designing the original course... I don't see any other way to interpret what Findlay wrote..."
Again, in post #19, Henry stated that, "Philip, I'm sure there are many ways to interpret what Findlay wrote, but I would agree with your explanation as being the most logical one..."
So this isn't YOUR "interpretation" that is either being "summarily dismissed" or strongly disagreed with. It is one that has been drawn by others as well and disagreed with quite strongly BEFORE you made a single post! By taking such a disagreement so personally you show a lack of respect for the others who have both shared and disagreed with what you wrote. Also, you bring back to the site, the anger that created so many problems in the past. This must not continue for everyone's benefit.
In line with that, the LACK OF RESPECT shown to David since his initial statements, regardless of who "threw the first stone" so to speak, is ALSO an example of the anger and vitriol that MUST NOT be allowed to continue and MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!
Guys, we've lost too many fine minds on this site because of discussions that become too personalized and insulting. To do so is a disrespect to Ran & everyone who is a member and chooses to participate. Please stop it now.
-
Man...I sure hope my legacy to golf research doesn't solely consist of coming across an obviously error-filled article claiming that Barker, a good five months after he's been on site, ha now been hired to lay out Merion...
The article is completely unsupported and not worth being used for toilet tissue, except as muckraking this whole non-issue once again.
David,
Do you not see the irony and inconsistency of dismissing the scores of articles and personal accounts stating that Wilson "laid out" Merion as being exclusive of routing the course and conceiving the holes - in fact, you claim that wording makes him a day laborer to ABW's (anybody but Wilson) plans, yet cling to a single obviously erroneous account of Barker "lay out" and a single account of Findlay stating the MAcdonald "laid out others" as solid design gold.
-
MikeC:
You know, of course it is old ground to go over and we've all been there many times before discussing and arguing what Wilson and his committee's roll was with Merion East and what Macdonald/Whigam's may have been, but I appreciate that you reviewed the meaning of terms used by these men back then, particularly when they wrote about specific events and the terms they used to describe them.
Again, I bring up what was meant with specific events with the use of the term "laying out."
As you point out by quoting from David Moriarty's essay on Merion, "The Missing Faces of Merion" he virtually hinges his entire logic, assumption and conclusion that Macdonald/Whigam must have routed and designed Merion East and Wilson and his committee could only have actually constructed (built) the course to that Macd/Whigam "plan" on the fact that the term "laying out" must have meant the actual BUILDING of the golf course, the actual construction of it in fact! (He even offers an Oxford English Dictionary definition of the term "laying out" to apparently try to prove his point).
His clear implication therefore is that Wilson and committee could not have been involved in routing and designing the course on a paper plan if the term "laying out" was used such as in 'we laid out a plan.'
But, you know, Mike, a time-line is a very beautiful thing in how it can virtually prove the accuracy or in Merion's case the virtual lack of accuracy of this claim that Moriarty is making as to what "laying out" actually means or meant to those men involved with Merion in 1911.
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course....."
and,
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day....."
So what does the use and beauty of a timeline prove when one considers the meaning of a term like "laying out courses" or "laying out plans" in the context of Wilson and his committee or Macdonald/Whigam? Well, when one fits the known and agreed upon dates into the puzzle or question, it's totally obvious; proof, in fact.
No one has ever said, or ever claimed, that Macdonald/Whigam had a thing to do with Merion or Wilson and his committee between June 1910 and the visit to NGLA which according to a letter from Wilson himself can be proved took place in the second week of March 1911.
But yet the wording of Wilson's report to the Board, given by Golf Chairman Robert Lesley in the middle of April 1911 proves that Wilson and his committee "LAID OUT many different courses" before the second week of March 1911 (the next and only second time Macd/Whigam became involved with the Merion project) and "FIVE DIFFERENT PLANS" FOLLOWING their NGLA visit. In neither case was Macdonald on hand at Merion to help them do this. Again, no one claims he was, not even the essayist Moriarty (although who the Hell really knows what he may "claim" next? ;) ). No newspaper or magazine does, no report does, nothing does or ever has!
But the most telling point that proves the words and term "laying out a plan" could not have meant in this case with Merion, the actual constructing or building of a golf course to a plan, is that no course, no plan had yet even been considered or approved by the Board of Directors of MCC. Therefore when Wilson himself used those words and terms ("laying out numerous courses" and "laying out different plans") to describe what he and his committee had been doing throughout the winter and spring of 1911, the Merion timeline proves that no actual building had yet happened and wouldn't happen for at least a couple of months!!
Of course I'm now assuming that no one would be silly enough to claim that Merion was actually out their building and constructing a golf course BEFORE their Board of Directors of the club considered and APPROVED (and obviously funded) what the golf course was to be! ;) I make that assumption while always understanding that some people, and one or two in particular, on these Merion creation threads have made some remarkably silly claims! ::)
When the TIMES various events TOOK PLACE are agreed upon by analysts considering some situational subject (in this case Macdonald/Whigam only saw MCC and the Wilson Committee three times---eg June 1910, at NGLA for two days in the second week of March, 1911 and the last time for a day on April 6, 1911) what a bullet-proof TIMELINE can prove is a very beautiful thing indeed!
Therefore, with the case of the meaning of the term "laying out" with Merion East it could not possibly have meant to those men involved with Merion East JUST the actual CONSTRUCTING or BUILDING of the golf course. It had to mean the routing and designing of it FIRST on a paper plan that we know existed from Wilson and his committee because the board meeting minutes state that paper plan was ATTACHED (the m.m.s state "attached here-with") to Lesley's Board report in the middle of April 1911 to be CONSIDERED by the club's board for APPROVAL.
-
Tom,
Thanks for sharing that.
Indeed it is a beautiful thing.
If there's a lesson here, one can't make the exact same terminology serve two separate, conflicting masters without getting caught in a web of obvious inconsistencies.
I know...I've fallen into the same trap at times..
-
Phil:
Thanks for your post of this morning.
A couple of things about your post: Just one for now;
1. I do not agree with your interpretation of what Findlay meant when he mentioned "others" in the context of Macdonald holes in the referenced article. I think Findlay was referring to "other holes" and probably template holes from abroad that Macdonald had done at that point (June 1912) that were really great. Frankly, that would pretty much mean, given the timeline of Macdonald's career, the template holes at NGLA) which I think a lot of people, at that point, certainly did thing were really great.
Of course, had Findlay actually said in that article "Other really great holes by Macdonald at MERION" then that would be clear as a bell as to what he was referring to about Macdonald and "Others" (holes). But Findlay did not say Merion and I don't think any amount of parsing grammar or whatever on here will ever prove what he was referring to.
Basically we are all just left with our own opinions on what he may've meant. My opinion, is further affected and influenced by the fact that Macdonald virtually had no time to design or create "other" holes at Merion unless someone actually thinks he could've done all that in a single day and given the fact that in that single day (April 6, 1911) Wilson and his committee showed Macdonald and Whigam five different plans of their own to consider!
I just bet that very very few who are commenting on something like what Findlay meant to say are even aware of the fact that Macdonald really did only have a single day to do this. Of course we've known this for a long time now because we are very familiar now with the administrative records of the club at that time and the timeline and details of it are very specific.
I do understand that many on here just dismiss or don't pay much attention to things involved in the foregoing and I do understand when they analyze these written events (newspaper articles and such) with very little experience with golf architecture on the ground they sort of fail to consider various things that are pretty obvious, pretty telling to what probably happened.
For instance,iIf they actually think Macdonald would have or could have done all that in a single day, I think they are totally nuts. People on here need to consider something like that more and consider it better because it really does involve the realm of what is reasonable or even possible.
-
"If there's a lesson here, one can't make the exact same terminology serve two separate, conflicting masters without getting caught in a web of obvious inconsistencies."
Mike:
That is the ticket---it truly is. And it's most certainly not just terminology, it is actual real life, real time events that took place in provable sequences. That reveals so much about how things happened who did them etc, etc that many have never previously realized----the truth actually, which can become undeniable.
Here's a rock solid perfect example of what I mean----what really good "timelining" can do and prove, and can finally clear up what many, many people for many years never realized.
Take Pine Valley. Very few were ever aware of what Crump may've done or Colt may've done at any particular time. Apparently no one bothered to consider what Tillinghast wrote in detail about what he saw of the holes that were fairly fully developed by Crump BEFORE Colt ever arrived at PV the first time (in other words no one ever considered the actual TIME of Colt's first arrival against descriptions of the course PREVIOUS to that particular Timeline event). Obviously that undeniably proves Crump developed and created those holes or at least that Colt couldn't have!
See what I mean about the beauty of really good "multi-event timelining" and what it can reveal? In that example all I can say is thank God for Tillie and his decades long comprehensive and descriptive architectural writing, particularly back in the early years of PV's creation. Of course it goes without saying that what Tillie described in detail about those holes before Colt ever got there is that his descriptions of the holes are basically the same way the holes are today (the far end of the "Timeline!" ;)
-
I think it would be interesting to know how many Alps holes existed in the US by June 1912 and how many Macdonald was responsible for.
If I understand the tinelines correctly, you likely had NGLA, Piping Rock, and Sleepy Hollow all in various forms of opening, and the 1905 NY Sun article on Mac and his "ideal holes" mentioned that he was involved in "friendly advisor" at every new big course that was built in the east at that time,
We also know his fascination with ideal holes abroad and copying them here went back a ways before then.
Given Findlay was credited woth playing over 2000 courses in his life, I'd be curious to know how many Alps holes Findlay thought Mac was responsible for in the US by mid 1912.
-
Mike:
I don't really know how many Macdonald's "Alps" holes were in existence at the time of Findlay's article or even if they were somewhat if Findlay was aware of them or if they were developed enough for Findlay to refer to them as really great. For the latter reason I would tend to throw out Piping and Sleepy Hollow because neither had opened for play in 1912. That is why I think Findlay meant Macdonald's template holes at NGLA probably including his "Alps."
One also certainly wonders why if Findlay was referring to "Others" as holes at Merion that were really great perhaps including the other two so-called Template holes at Merion (#3 and #15) then why in the world had Macdonald been so light on developing the Alps hole at Merion?? ;)
That doesn't make much sense to me and that's just another reason I don't believe Findlay was referring to those "Others" as any holes at Merion.
To completely shift gears here, and I preface it all by completely admitting it is total speculation on my part and just a vague opinion, but it seems to me Macdonald, certainly early on, was pretty fond of and prone to holes that either played over roads or had roads around them somehow (many of the Macdonald courses I know sure do that or did).
It occurs to me that if Macdonald had any influence on the routing and design of any holes at Merion (with his advice and help) that he may've suggested or encouraged Wilson to use those holes that routed over Ardmore Ave, including the original #10 (Alps) and #11 and #12 and Macdonald sure did notice that three acres behind the clubhouse both in June 1910 and April 1911 and suggested it's use to the club, apparently twice (at least it is so written).
If all that is in any way true, I think it would be pretty ironic to this kind of subject (Macdonald's influence on Merion) that all those holes are gone now and none of them lasted much more than a decade anyway.
One also wonders how well Macdonald actually knew Wilson. I have a feeling for some obvious reasons that he knew Lloyd, Griscom and Lesley better (for that the Lesley Cup would probably be key).
The reason I mention it is I have a letter from Macdonald to Wilson in June 1911 and he addresses Hugh as "Mr. Wilson". Doesn't sound very "familiar" does it? ;)
-
Tom,
Wilson and Mac played in team matches between Philly and NY some years prior. I'm not home but I'll post the article again tomorrow.
-
Phillip,
Thanks for the welcome, and for the voice of reason.
The first "fact" is this statement:
"See your post in this very thread where you claim that you guys have had this Barker article for years, but kept it hidden because you were worried about how others would react..."
I know for a FACT that this isn't true.
Actually Phil, I believe my statement is true. TEPaul did claim that he and Wayne had that document for years, and kept it hidden because of the possible reaction of others. He made the claim in a few different posts. TEPaul then suddenly changed his tune, I assume because Wayne ordered him to. Which of TEPaul's two versions is the fib? Personally, I don't know or care. Either way, TEPaul has an unfortunate and recurring veracity problem when it comes to dealing with the source material, and the double talk and manipulation of the source material severely damages the process.
This article was first found just PRIOR to the GCA holiday gathering enjoyed by many at the Tom Paul barn. I know this because the PERSON WHO SHOWED IT TO TOM & WAYNE shared it with me at that time. I asked if he had shown it to TOM & WAYNE and he replied that he had JUST DONE SO a FEW DAYS before. I STRONGLY recommended that he post it on GCA despite the fact that I was certain that it would be VERY controversial. He made the decision, at that time, not to do so because he wanted to give careful consideration as to WHEN might be the right time to do so. I know this person well and can COMPLETELY vouch for his integrity in this matter.
Thanks for posting what happened, I figured that there was more a back story that Mike had indicated. It seems that everyone involved was well aware of the potential significance of the document, which again begs the question why those who found it were sitting on it. What were they waiting for? Certain of us to die of old age?
I don't know who showed you the document, but Mike Cirba claims he is the one who found it, and that he was the only one with a copy and that there were no digital copies of it. Yet I really doubt it was Mike who showed you the document, based on your statement above:
-- By your description its sounds like there was quite a discussion and quite a few people who had seen the article. In contrast, Mike says that once he and Joe decided was unimportant and uncorroborated, he didnt think much of it.
-- By your description the person who showed you the document apparently knew that it was germane enough that it ought to be posted, eventually at least. In contrast, Mike claimed that because it did not meet his standards of corroboration, he gave it no credence and that he didn't think much of it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your description one bit, but both Mike and TEPaul have told quite different stories, and your description, even though true, does not erase their claims, even if false.
So both Tom & Wayne have only known of this for several months . . .
Not necessarily. You wrote that the person who showed you article also showed it to them last fall. This has nothing to do with whether or not they had known about it for years.
Surely the only reason we have the article now is that Joe Bausch wanted no more part in hiding source material, don't you think?.
___________________
As for your second point; what you see as my personalization of the interpretation of the Findlay article. That was not my intention, but looking back I can see how you could get that impression. In my first post I wrote to Henry: "I agree with your common sense reading and frankly find the alternate interpretations to be untenable, at best." I guess I should have said I agreed with you as well and perhaps with those who emailed me similar views about this thread before I even started posting. But to me this is the only "common sense" interpretation. In this regard, I had no intention of taking credit for figuring it out, but was referring to it as "my" interpretation only to distinguish it from the other interpretations, and not as a statement of ownership or origin.
Next time I'll try to be more careful with my words. You certainly did read it similarly or the same and that is worth noting. In fact, had you kept at it (and I don't blame you for not keeping at it) or had others come forward and backed you up, I probably would have stayed away entirely. But I've learned a few things by participating, so I guess I am glad I did.
-
"Tom,
Wilson and Mac played in team matches between Philly and NY some years prior. I'm not home but I'll post the article again tomorrow."
MikeC:
I know they did but I think maybe only once or twice. I've got the Lesley Cup history book right here. Actually back in their day The Lesley Matches were between GAP and later Pennsylvania against New York and Massachussets. Some years later they added Quebec and its been between those four teams ever since. The Lesley Cup Matches are pretty big (a fair amount of people) and obviously not all of them play together or get to know each other all that well. I've played on the Lesley Cup Matches for about fifteen years now. I'm actually on the Trustees of it as of last year. It's a super fine event and organization----very old world ethos---I love everything about the Lesley Cup. It's been going on for 104 years as of now. Back in the old days the Lesley players from those three and then four regions were definitely the very best amateurs those regions could produce---ie Quimet, Travis, Travers, Marston, Perrin, Crump, Tillie, Macdonald, Whigam etc but in later years the members are more people who have been involved in club or amateur association administrative matters. They've had some USGA presidents and such and some really good Rules people too on the Lesley over the years.
I think Macdonald only played in two of them very early on or maybe I'm thinking of Tillie. I don't think Hugh Wilson was much of a regular on them but I could be wrong about that.
-
Tomorrow or soon I will try to outline in a rather simple syllabus to most all the contributors and viewers on this website how this "Merion Thread Debate" (essentially the Macdonald/whigam or Wilson and committee routing and design dynamic) that has been going on here on GOLFCLUBATLAS for about 4-6 years now due to basically two men ONLY is the biggest waste of time and effort of any architectural issue or architectural question in the history of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com by a factor of at least TEN and likely more! ;)
-
Tom Paul,
I see you have thrown Merion's privacy concerns completely out the window and are now posting actual portions of their meeting minutes to suit your purposes. Does Wayne know about this? Does Merion?
Since Merion's privacy is apparently no longer a concern, don't you think it is about time we got to the bottom of this? Surely you realize that your claims are meaningless unless and until all of the source material is subject to critical review, not just those portions you that you cherry-pick to support your claims?
Seriously, do you understand the importance of critical review? If so, why do you think it does not apply to you and Wayne?
I'd appreciate an answer.
Don't get me wrong. By all means, keep leaking selective snippets to try and make your points. Did you read above where I wrote that your claims and your selective use the documents are a great contrary indicator? Well, thanks for your recent posts, they are very helpful.
_____________________
I think it would be interesting to know how many Alps holes existed in the US by June 1912 and how many Macdonald was responsible for.
If I understand the tinelines correctly, you likely had NGLA, Piping Rock, and Sleepy Hollow all in various forms of opening, and the 1905 NY Sun article on Mac and his "ideal holes" mentioned that he was involved in "friendly advisor" at every new big course that was built in the east at that time,
We also know his fascination with ideal holes abroad and copying them here went back a ways before then.
Given Findlay was credited woth playing over 2000 courses in his life, I'd be curious to know how many Alps holes Findlay thought Mac was responsible for in the US by mid 1912.
____________________________
Mike,
I think you should check your facts underlying your timeline of CBM's Alps holes, as well as your unsupported speculation about the possibility of numerous CBM courses and holes up and down the coast. My, your tune has changed on CBM's early productivity.
Honest questions:
1. Does what others and I have called the common sense interpretation of the Findlay article (the interpretation shared by me and others) have any merit whatsoever?
2. If not then, looking at what Findlay wrote, why not? (Where is our mistake? What have we missed? What doesn't make sense?)
-
"Tom Paul,
I see you have thrown Merion's privacy concerns completely out the window and are now posting actual portions of their meeting minutes to suit your purposes. Does Wayne know about this? Does Merion?"
Did I? Oh Shit, I guess I must have had a moment of "lazy-mindedness!!! Well maybe they will kill me for it.
On the other hand, now you have something you've been demanding and brow-beating some of us here in Philadephia for endlessly, so aren't you kind of at least a little pleased? :) ::) :P
Or is it a fib? ;)
Or is it just a shell game, David Moriarty? ;D
"Let's see, where is that pea; is it under the first shell or the second or the third?"
Personally, I think your fifteen minutes in the sun on your preposterous Merion architect scam has lasted longer than that which means far too long!
-
"Well, thanks for your recent posts, they are very helpful."
No problem, Sceebo, make the most of it, but try not to let it go all in some giddy rush to your head, because that has been proven to be a pretty serious void when it comes to the history of Merion! ;)
-
The article is completely unsupported and not worth being used for toilet tissue, except as muckraking this whole non-issue once again.
David,
Do you not see the irony and inconsistency of dismissing the scores of articles and personal accounts stating that Wilson "laid out" Merion as being exclusive of routing the course and conceiving the holes - in fact, you claim that wording makes him a day laborer to ABW's (anybody but Wilson) plans, yet cling to a single obviously erroneous account of Barker "lay out" and a single account of Findlay stating the MAcdonald "laid out others" as solid design gold.
Despite the tone, sarcasm, and absolutely absurd depiction of my position, there may be a legitimate question in here somewhere and I will attempt to answer it without rehashing too much.
We've covered this before at length but the phrase "to lay out" is very problematic for all sides because it is used different ways in different circumstances by different people, and not at all consistently. I've looked at the accounts of the creation of many dozens of courses and will continue to do so, , but at this time I believe that my understanding as set out in the essay is generally accurate. However, if one looks hard enough one can find the phrase applying to almost anything (except for maybe trip itineraries.) There is enough variance of use that I will probably take another shot at this section in my essay to clarify, that is if I am ever given a chance to update the essay with more current and accurate information.
That being said, while routing and conceiving of the holes was sometimes included in the meaning of "to lay out," it was often not included. And many of the other aspects of creating a golf course were often included, with or without the sometimes independent act of planning. For example, sometimes the phrase meant to stake out on the ground, sometimes it meant to construct, sometimes it meant to set out the hazards. Sometimes it is some or all of the above. Occasionally, it apparently meant plan, and little else.
So how do I know what they meant in the case of Merion? I look at how and when the term is used, and by whom, and I try to figure out what makes the most sense, realizing that I may have to modify my understanding as I learn more. I also try to imagine what the articles would say if Wilson (and Committee) routed the course and planned the hole concepts (as compared to other articles about other designers and courses. But mostly I try to figure out what makes sense in the context, and what the phrase might mean versus what it cannot mean, versus what it necessarily means given that context
For example, I take Robert Lesley's detailed description much more seriously than I would take statement by some anonymous reporter obviously cribbing off another article. In fact, Lesley's may be the second (to HW's) best and most detailed account, and one of the only ones of someone involved that described Wilson as having "laid out" anything. But Lesley wrote something like that Wilson (and the committee) laid out the course upon the ground based upon the advice of CBM and Wilson. I take him to mean exactly what he wrote.
Or take Alan Wilson's description to which you guys always return. AW writes that M&W were involved in the design process and only gives HW credit for that which M&W did not do! How you guys read this as necessarily meaning that Wilson was the initial designer is beyond me, especially given that the praise of Wilson is based upon much more than the initial design, and AW explicitly exempts what A&W did! Sure, he wrote that HW deserves more credit that the rest of the Committee, but that is not the issue at all.
Or take the 1913 letter about the thank you dinner for HW. Are they crediting him for the initial routing and hole concepts, or for all the work he undoubtedly had done throughout the entire process, including what had been done by then on the second course? If you think both then what is your basis? There is nothing indicating the former, but plenty indicating the latter. The phrase makes perfect sense whether he routed and came up with the hole concepts or not. And would a member who loves the new course even know about M&W's involvement? Especially given how little time you guys claim they actually spent at Merion? Seems hardly likely.
As for Findlay, for the reasons set out above by me and others, I cannot come up with any other reasonable understanding of the the usage other than that CBM planned other holes at Merion and they turned out great. If he had used another term or clarified, then that would have been great, but absent any other plausible explanation (none have been offered IMO) I will stick with what is simplest, most obvious, and most grammatically and logically correct.
It isn't a perfect system, but it is good enough to figure quite a bit out, one one comes at this with an open mind.
________________________
TEPaul,
Sceebo? Is that another one of your friendly Quaker terms?
As for what you revealed from the minutes, it is old news. You've blurted it out many times before, just not in direct quotes.
What I really learned is is that your latest version of the story has more holes than both Merion courses and the practice greens, combined.
But by all means, keep typing. You must have more beans to spill.
-
"But by all means, keep typing."
I'm quite sure I probably will as watching your self-centered clownish histrionics on the subject of Merion and some of us in Philadelphia frankly gets more entertaining as time goes on.
-
Mike,
Imagine the shoe is on the other foot. Imagine that the Nov. 24, 1910 article said that Wilson had been appointed to design the course, and I sat on the article because it was uncorroborated, contained some other inaccuracies, and because it was inconsistent with everything we know thus far. You would come out of your skin!
It is the same thing I have been telling Wayne and TEPaul for years: It is not up to you guys to decide for the rest of us whether or not source material is accurate or important or corroborated.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3379/3432871885_675a0efb1c_o.jpg)
Of course the other article about the opening is germane. In fact I think I cited it in my Essay. But it is neither new nor all that promising a resource. If you read it carefully you'll notice that it borrows heavily (but not necessarily accurately) from Findlay's articles.
If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest. It is not worth my time to counter.
David,
Could you please show us exactly where in your essay you mention about a Philadelphia News Article in Alex Findlay's paper where a Merion Opening Day report says the Merion East course was "Mapped Out" by Hugh Wilson and Committee?
Yet, you claim you knew of this article all along??
Are you now telling us that "Mapped Out" means the same as "Laid Out", which you've previously contended means "Constructed on the ground to someone else's plans" when applied to Hugh Wilson and Committee, yet means "Planned and Routed" when applied to anyone and everyone else but Hugh Wilson and Committee??
Did you think that perhaps some other folks here might have a different interpretation of what "Mapped Out" meant when applied to a brand new golf course and decided for yourself that those folks might not have your incredible prescient insight and didn't deserve to read for themselves and make up their own minds?
Please save your hypocritical "sandbagging" criticisms for someone else. You've clearly just admitted to that and worse.
The Barker article is not worthy of toilet paper and you know it. There is no record of Barker ever coming back to Merion after his single day there in June 1910 and you know THAT as well. This is a red herring and it's not worth publishing here.
On the other hand, if you had this opening day article mentioning Hugh Wilson and Committee "mapping out" the Merion East course and hid it from all of us all this time, and never even thought it worthy to mention in your article, then we don't have anything left to discuss because intellectual honesty has left the building out the left coast.
-
Mike, forgive me if this has been covered before, trying to follow the massive amounts posts that have been dedicated to Merion has been impossible for me, but what is the date of the above article you just posted?
-
David,
I simply want to say before this goes much further that we've had a very contentious debate, and if you found some of my joking insulting, then I sincerely apologize.
I had hoped to keep a lighter tone to this discussion than previous go-rounds, and hoped perhaps you'd respond in similarly jovial tone and spirit.
In any case, perhaps too much water has flowed under that bridge, but I remain optimistic that we will meet on other threads and discuss other matters much less conflicted in much more of a cooperative or at least a conversational and collaborative atmosphere.
I continue to strenuously defend my understanding of the early history of Merion and Hugh Wilson and Committee's role until such time as I see definitive proof to the contrary.
I admit that you've been in a difficult position, because you have not had the privilege of seeing in person some of the original MCC minutes, and I've tried to tell you for some time now that many of your interpretations fly in the face of those first-hand accounts, hoping that perhaps we'd meet cooperatviely somewhere between our polar opposites, recognizing that while your research has made some valuable contributions, such as the discovery of the 1912 Wilson Trip, as well as helpfully clarifying Macdonald's role, the attempt to diminish Hugh Wilson's original creative contributions in the process has not only been historically incorrect, but also unnecessary.
What you and Tom MacWood fail to recognize is that Hugh Wilson was indeed a PRODIGY, and a VIRTUOSO.
In your attempts to bring clarity to early golf course architecture by trying to link everything that took place to some previous experienced source(s), the thing you're both missing is that in-explainable spark of creative and original genius that populates the history of every art form.
Every great original artist takes what came before him, and steals the best ideas but then moves that art into new and creative, and bold original directions.
THAT is what Hugh Wilson did.
Unfortunately, history also shows that many of these great creative geniuses also burn out early and die young, and that also sadly was the case with Hugh Wilson.
Your research is well-meaning, David, and I greatly respect that. Digging though this stuff is never easy, and it's also sometimes difficult to keep any single individual findings in greater historical perspective.
But where I think you and Tom MacWood's conclusions ultimately come up short is that you both seem to have such a narrow and predisposed view of what you're looking for, and as such, the idea that someone without Macdonald's extensive background and experience could take his brilliant ideas and move them a generation forward in a single, short burst is just utterlly incomprehensible to both of you. Ironically, the sad fact is that both of you are both old enough and young enough to have watched The Beatles, Cassius Clay, Tiger Woods, Pete Dye, John Kennedy, Keith Haring, Kurt Warner, Bill Gates, Michael Jordan, and probably 100 other revolutionaries in other artistic fields and by now should probably know much better.
I simply don't believe either of you are giving those who came before us enough credit for revolutionary thinking of their own..
David Stamm,
The article I just posted was from the day after Merion East opened in September 1912, and David just now told us that he had this article all along, but saw nothing new, original, or important about it.
-
David,
Could you please show us exactly where in your essay you mention about a Philadelphia News Article in Alex Findlay's paper where a Merion Opening Day report says the Merion East course was "Mapped Out" by Hugh Wilson and Committee?
Yet, you claim you knew of this article all along??
Are you now telling us that "Mapped Out" means the same as "Laid Out", which you've previously contended means "Constructed on the ground to someone else's plans" when applied to Hugh Wilson and Committee, yet means "Planned and Routed" when applied to anyone and everyone else but Hugh Wilson and Committee??
Did you think that perhaps some other folks here might have a different interpretation of what "Mapped Out" meant when applied to a brand new golf course and decided for yourself that those folks might not have your incredible prescient insight and didn't deserve to read for themselves and make up their own minds?
Please save your hypocritical "sandbagging" criticisms for someone else. You've clearly just admitted to that and worse.
The Barker article is not worthy of toilet paper and you know it. There is no record of Barker ever coming back to Merion after his single day there in June 1910 and you know THAT as well. This is a red herring and it's not worth publishing here.
On the other hand, if you had this opening day article mentioning Hugh Wilson and Committee "mapping out" the Merion East course and hid it from all of us all this time, and never even thought it worthy to mention in your article, then we don't have anything left to discuss because intellectual honesty has left the building out the left coast.
David,
I simply want to say before this goes much further that we've had a very contentious debate, and if you found some of my joking insulting, then I sincerely apologize.
I had hoped to keep a lighter tone to this discussion than previous go-rounds, and hoped perhaps you'd respond in tone and spirit.
In any case, perhaps too much water has flowed under that bridge, but I remain optimistic that we will meet on other threads and discuss other matters much less conflicted in much more of a cooperative or at least a conversational and collaborative atmosphere.
I continue to strenuously defend my understanding of the early history of Merion and Hugh Wilson and Committee's role until such time as I see proof to the contrary.
I admit that you've been in a difficult position, because you have not had the privilege of seeing in person some of the original MCC minutes, and I've tried to tell you that some of your interpretations fly in the face of those first-hand accounts, hoping that perhaps we'd meet somewhere between our polar opposites, recognizing that while your research has made some valuable contributions, such as the discovery of the 1912 Wilson Trip, as well as helpfully clarifying Macdonald's role, the attempt to diminish Hugh Wilson's original creative contributions in the process has been historically incorrect, but also unnecessary.
What you and Tom MacWood fail to recognize is that Hugh Wilson was indeed a PRODIGY, and a virtuoso.
In your attempts to bring clarity to early golf course architecture by trying to link everything to some previous experienced source(s), the thing you're both missing is that spark of creative and original genius that populates the history of every art form.
Every great original artist takes what came before him, and steals the best ideas but then moves the art into new and creative and original directions.
THAT is what Hugh Wilson did.
Unfortunately, history also shows that many of these great creative geniuses also burn out early and die young, and that also sadly was the case with Hugh Wilson.
Your research is well-meaning, David, and I respect that.
But where it ultimately comes up short is because you have a narrow and predisposed view of what you're looking for, and as such, the idea that someone without Macdonald's background and expericence could take his ideas and move them a generation forward in a single, short burst is incomprehensible to you and Tom MacWood, and the sad fact is that both of you are both old enough and young enough to have watched The Beatles, Cassius Clay, Tiger Woods, Pete Dye, John Kennedy, Keith Haring, Bill Gates, and probably 100 other revolutionaries in other artistic fields and by now should probably know much better.
You're not giving those who came before us enough credit for revolutionary thinking of their own..
Wow. Not sure what is rushing through your veins, but you are on a roll!
Your argument is that Wilson was simply a PRODIGY and a virtuoso and a true genius???
But I am the one with a narrow and predisposed view of what I'm looking for?
Come on Mike. Wilson was great, not only for Merion East and Merion, but also for American golf. But let's be honest. I've seen Merion West and I've seen Cobb's Creek, and while they are both good they fall well short of genius or virtuoso. Seaview was nowhere near genius, either, from what I can figure from the record. So if you ever abandon your blind adulation you and others might want to consider what might really happened at the beginning of Merion East to lay the foundation for such a great course. There was plenty of design genius to go around at the beginning, but I don't think at that point that any of it was Wilson's.
As for the meeting minutes, they don't mean nearly what you think they mean. I am sure of it.
Anyway, I'll continue to stick to the facts, you go ahead and worship whoever you wish.
In the mean time, you might try getting some sleep.
___________________________
David Stamm,
The article I just posted was from the day after Merion East opened, and David had told us that he had this article all along, but saw nothing new, original, or important about it.
David, you'll have to forgive Mike. He has obviously gotten himself all wound up and mixed up. Unfortunately, he has his facts all wrong. Again.
I had the article, but I did not hide the article, and that is the key distinction.
Mike,
Surely you understand that we are all free to think what we want about source material? The problem comes when we start hiding and/or lying about the source material because we are afraid of what others might think. You do understand this, don't you?
I said I thought I discussed the article in my essay but it was actually in my posts around the same time. I'll let you figure out when and where.
More importantly, there was no sandbagging whatsoever. To the contrary, I readily and repeatedly disclosed the document to anyone interested. Plus, if it is the article I am thinking of then it is one of those articles from the Sayres scrapbook!
-- I disclosed all of those documents to Wayne and provided him copies of any he wanted.
-- Wayne had access to and presumably copied the same documents at the PA Historical Archives.
-- You told me that you had access to Wayne's Sayres documents, and are quite a bit closer to the originals than I am. If you don't recall the document you should take another look.
-- I also recall providing Joe Bausch with the citations (as best I could) of every one of these articles from the Sayres books. Have him check his notes.
So Mike, your allegation is way off base. I was open with the document as I could be.
What is this, the sixth or seventh time you have flown off the handle at me with some absurd allegation? You really ought to get your facts straight. It is getting pathetic.
-
Phew...David. Thanks for finally coming clean.
After billions of words, we finally get to your main point all along.
Merion East is too good to have been designed by Hugh Wilson.
But let's be honest. I've seen Merion West and I've seen Cobb's Creek, and while they are both good they fall well short of genius or virtuoso. Seaview was nowhere near genius, either, from what I can figure from the record. So if you ever abandon your blind adulation you and others might want to consider what might really happened at the beginning of Merion East to lay the foundation for such a great course. There was plenty of design genius to go around at the beginning, but I don't think at that point that any of it was Wilson's.
Man...I bet that felt good!
Also,
The article in question that states that Hugh Wilson and the Committee "Mapped out" Merion East...
Well...
Nobody here had that article until Joe Bausch found it last week.
Nobody else had it all of this time..
except you. :-\
Are you sure this is your final answer??
David, you'll have to forgive Mike. He has obviously gotten himself all wound up and mixed up. Unfortunately, he has his facts all wrong. Again.
I had the article, but I did not hide the article, and that is the key distinction.
Mike,
Surely you understand that we are all free to think what we want about source material? The problem comes when we start hiding and/or lying about the source material because we are afraid of what others might think. You do understand this, don't you?
I said I thought I discussed the article in my essay but it was actually in my posts around the same time. I'll let you figure out when and where.
More importantly, there was no sandbagging whatsoever. To the contrary, I readily and repeatedly disclosed the document to anyone interested. Plus, if it is the article I am thinking of then it is one of those articles from the Sayres scrapbook!
-- I disclosed all of those documents to Wayne and provided him copies of any he wanted.
-- Wayne had access to and presumably copied the same documents at the PA Historical Archives.
-- You told me that you had access to Wayne's Sayres documents, and are quite a bit closer to the originals than I am. If you don't recall the document you should take another look.
-- I also recall providing Joe Bausch with the citations (as best I could) of every one of these articles from the Sayres books. Have him check his notes.
So Mike, your allegation is way off base. I was open with the document as I could be.
What is this, the sixth or seventh time you have flown off the handle at me with some absurd allegation? You really ought to get your facts straight. It is getting pathetic.
Not sure what was in my veins last night, but it must have been the good stuff if I was able to draw out those revelations from you.
Now perhaps we can all finally move on.
-
“After billions of words, we finally get to your main point all along.
Merion East is too good to have been designed by Hugh Wilson.”
Mike C:
On these so-called Merion/Macdonald threads that have been on this website for about six years now there has been so much overarching mincing of words and argument over what they mean exactly, it’s probably necessary to get David Moriarty’s remarks just above completely exact, at this point.
This is precisely what he said that you paraphrased above:
“So if you ever abandon your blind adulation you and others might want to consider what might really happened at the beginning of Merion East to lay the foundation for such a great course. There was plenty of design genius to go around at the beginning, but I don't think at that point that any of it was Wilson's.”
I feel particularly his last sentence is the very idea and question that has been driving both Tom MacWood’s and David Moriarty’s continuous mission to expose that the architectural history of Merion as it involves Hugh Wilson (and/or C.B. Macdonald) is flawed and historically inaccurate.
Below is some more of what David Moriarty said recently on this particular thread and it’s of no real difference than what Tom MacWood said (and asked) back in 2003 on a thread he started that I feel strongly started all this endless debate about Merion and WHAT Macdonald's and Wilson’s (or anyone else's for that matter) EXACT ROLL was in the architectural creation of the East course. I think it would be instructive to bring Tom MacWoods 2003 thread back up so we could all see how remarkably similar what he said and what he asked is to what David Moriarty said again on this thread in the last few days. I think MacWood’s thread was entitled “Re: Macdonald and Merion?” At one point MacWood posted another thread that was around the one above that was about how various clubs tended to idolize or iconize their designers and therefore somehow skew the truth of what they actually did. There is no question in my mind that MacWood felt this way about Pine Valley and Crump and apparently he felt the same way about Hugh Wilson and Merion. It seems he even kept that string going with his questions and contentions about Leeds and Myopia. At some point following MacWood's 2003 thread about Macdonald and Merion, David Moriarty essentially joined him in his cause and with his essential question-----eg who did what exactly and perhaps hole by hole to conceive of the routing and hole designs of Merion East?
It is of course eternally fascinating to me why those two guys, particularly Tom MacWood (because his interest in this essential question was more than just with Merion), have never thought to post threads to ask the very same thing about Charles Blair Macdonald himself-----eg what part did he play EXACTLY and what part EXACTLY did others play in the architectural concepts and designs of the holes and courses that are attributed to him!! ;)
Here is what Moriarty said recently on this thread that is very similar to what MacWood said back in 2003:
“I'd be glad to answer this and any other questions but not before I see the source material. I have yet to read a single contemporary account that says that Wilson planned the routing and conceived of the holes. Surely you understand why I won't take your word for it that such documentation exists.”
“We covered this in great detail many times in the past, and I am not here to rehash old arguments. In short, the members said he worked hard in laying out and constructing the course, and that of the Committee, he deserves the most credit. Similar to what Alan Wilson said years later (maybe this letter was Wilson's source.) I don't disagree with any of it. But it says nothing about who conceived of and chose the routing, or who conceived of the hole concepts.”
Let’s consider again the essence of what they (MacWood and Moriarty) are asking (Moriarty can of course confirm it or deny it or add or subtract from it or amend it however he would like since it surely is his feelings about this course and its architects we are concerned with on these threads and these debates).
I will supply how we have tried to answer their real and primary question and I believe I will also uncover and exemplify the total futility of their essential question as well as the total futility of ever being able to supply exact answers to it. I think this is the very point of where these years long thread on this subject have gone and will continue to go, and why they will continue to get hung up in futility with no available answer. In fact, there simply are no answers available to us to the specific question they are asking about Merion. There never have been and consequently there never will be.
All we ever had available to us and I'm quite sure all we ever will have available to us and all we have ever presented and claimed was a long litany of reports and descriptions and attributions that in the creation of Merion East Hugh Wilson, the Chairman of the Committee that included four other fellow members that was charged by MCC to design and build the East and West course and who consulted Macdonald/Whigam and received some help and advice from them on the East course, was in the main the man responsible for Merion East and West.
Frankly, it is pretty unthinkable to me, not to even mention extremely illogical to me that literally scores of people at the time of the creation of Merion East would all get together and agree on some conspiratorial lie about what Wilson did and was responsible for. Why would any of them want to do such a thing back then or even think to do such a thing? What in the world would their reasoning be?? Did they dislike Macdonald for some reason? Did they have something against him? If they did there is not a vestige of evidence of it. There never has been as far as I can see. Quite the opposite in fact!
To me these are the essential questions that sort of conspiracy theorists like MacWood and Moriarty that involve the recorded histories of famous clubs and courses need to begin to ask themselves!
I said to MacWood on that thread back in 2003 that we did not have some specific list of who was responsible for conceiving of specific hole by hole design ideas and concepts and specific hole features and characterstics because that kind of thing was never recorded by anyone anywhere; on these kind of courses and projects, particularly from those days, something like that never was recorded. I doubt it has ever really been recorded like that on any golf course at any time! I’ve said that throughout these years long threads and debates, and I’m saying it again to Moriarty now.
-
Mike. You are way out of line once again, and have a lot of nerve to accuse me of sandbagging with the very documents I handed to you guys on a silver platter.
For the last time Mike, the article I have came from the Sayres scrapbooks, and you guys have a heck of a lot better access to those documents than me. In fact you told me that you did.
You may want to remember that I not only found those documents from 3000 miles away, I brought their contents to light and pointed all of you to them, encouraging you guys take a careful look (something I was unable to do from the West Coast.) I also sent copies of my stuff to Wayne, who had assured me that he would return the favor by sending me any copies I had not been able to obtain long distance. Not being a man of his word, Wayne refused to send me anything after he got what he wanted from me.
Now you accuse me of playing games with the very same documents? I won't read the documents for you Mike, or fly out and make you copies. It is not my fault if you had it all along but still missed it. So get off your high horse. Again.
_______________________________________________
TEPaul and Mike Cirba.
Can you believe it?? I dare write that I don't think Hugh Wilson was a design genius, at least when it came to routing a course and planning the hole concepts. And I am not even begging forgiveness for my blasphemy.
I will write it again, only louder so everyone hears.
I DON'T THINK THAT HUGH WILSON WAS A GENIUS WHEN IT CAME TO ROUTING A COURSE AND PLANNING THE HOLE CONCEPTS.
You guys really think this explains everything? And that this means that I think "Merion East is too good to have been designed by Hugh Wilson?" And that this belief has been driving me (and TM!) since 2003?
Hate to break this to you guys, but you've got it completely backwards.
I don't believe Hugh Wilson was a design genius because the facts as I know them do not justify the belief that Hugh Wilson was a design genius. Simple as that.
Yet you guys summarily dismiss and discount all my research, interpretation, explanation, and efforts because I have admitted I am a non-believer.
Interesting. You guys treat a deeply held belief in Wilson's genius as a prerequisite for understanding Merion East. This speaks volumes about your approach, rather than mine.
-
David,
That article was not in any Sayres Scrapbook photos any of us have seen.
In fact, until Joe Bausch found it on microfiche last week, none of us had ever seen it.
If you have a copy or photo from the scrapbook, could you post it here so that we can read the headline?
I would think the original Sayres copy is much more readable than the one Joe found and posted from fiche.
What about the article again did you find non-newsworthy about an opening day article in a Philadelphia newspaper claiming that Hugh Wilson and committee "mapped out" the East course at Merion?
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/ET/09141912ET_250.jpg)
Are you certain you aren't thinking about this article that IS in the Sayres Scrapbook?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3375/3435520821_37a02f1b85_o.jpg)
-
"I DON'T THINK THAT HUGH WILSON WAS A GENIUS WHEN IT CAME TO ROUTING A COURSE AND PLANNING THE HOLE CONCEPTS."
David Moriarty;
You don't think Hugh Wilson was a genius? So what? I'm not sure I'd say Wilson was a genius but he was the one who chaired the committee from MCC that routed and designed Merion East (even if it took app. 20+ years to complete) and he is rightfully considered the course's architect along with William Flynn who did so much architectural work on the course from about 1915 on to the date Merion expert Bill Kittleman figures the course was finally finished in the early 1930s.
"Yet you guys summarily dismiss and discount all my research, interpretation, explanation, and efforts because I have admitted I am a non-believer."
Not because you are a non-believer in Hugh Wilson; for me that has nothing to do with anything, but because your research, interpretation and explanation, if you are talking about your threads and posts on here about Merion and your essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" completely sucks.
You presented just about zero material research that explained or even implied Macdonald/Whigam or Barker actually routed and designed Merion East. And when presented with reams of research material from numerous sources from both within and without Merion on who actually did route and design the golf course you discounted or dismissed every bit of it.
It was all the most tortured logic and tortured written presentation imaginable in any attempt to fit Merion's history into some preconceived bullshit conclusion of what Macdonald/Whigam and HH Barker must have done and when, and what Wilson was incapable of doing!
If any analyst or historian approaches a subject like that one as you did with a patently preconceived conclusion the collected history of a subject like that one will inevitably catch you up and Merion's did that.
-
As I said above I haven't checked my files, but if that second one is from the Sayres documents, then it must be the one I have. They both appear to have been copied from the same Findlay article, or one was copied from the Findlay article then the other copied from the copy.
What about the article again did you find non-newsworthy about an opening day article in a Philadelphia newspaper claiming that Hugh Wilson and committee "mapped out" the East course at Merion?
I found it "not newsworthy?" What are you talking about? Perhaps in your zeal of last night you got yourself confused. Here is what I wrote when you asked me about the document:
. . .
2. Of course the other article about the opening is germane. In fact I think I cited it in my Essay. But it is neither new nor all that promising a resource. If you read it carefully you'll notice that it borrows heavily (but not necessarily accurately) from Findlay's articles.
3. If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest. It is not worth my time to counter.
. . .
Do you see where I wrote that the article is "germane?" So we have no more confusion, that means that I think the article is closely related to topic we are discussing.
You seem to think that if I don't rely on article then I don't consider it germane to the topic at hand. This is a mistake. You are confusing the question of the article's relevance, on the one hand, with questions of credibility, persuasiveness, corroberation, etc., on the other.
So again, the article is germane to the topic at hand. I just don't think it makes the case you think it makes. And it is of little value or importance to me for the reason noted above, but as I wrote, by all means knock yourself out with it for any purposes you like.
-
MikeC:
I have the Sayres Scrapbook on my computer and I'll check but I don't recall that article Joe Bausch found is in the Sayres Scrapbook. I'll ask Wayne about it. There's a ton of old newspaper and magazine articles in the Merion Archives, like a lot of these old clubs around here including Pine Valley. When things were written about clubs like that they tended to keep them and they became part of their on-going archives.
-
And Tom, don't forget the original routing according to Kittleman had the second tee right behind the first green. Again, crossing Ardmore Ave.
-
Bill:
Yes, we've always heard that. It seems hard to imagine if one happens to consider today's first green but of course the original 1st green was different and I could see players perhaps stepping behind it (since it was approached from way right of today's first green) or perhaps a bit to the left and behind it which would be impossible today given the direction players now approach the 1st green.
Nevertheless, if there was a tee for #2 in that position it must have been a pretty scary drive sort of teeing off to the 2nd fairway and playing diagonally across Ardmore Ave. No wonder it didn't last very long.
It sounds to me like some of the crazy advice that was apparently given to Wilson and his committee by those two wack-jobs from New York, Chuckie Homeboy MacCuckold and his sidekick son-in-law Herbie Joker Wigout-ham. ;)
On the other hand, it may've been Freddie Pickering's idea after he had about ten too many nips on the old flask and thought Ardmore Ave looked like a pretty fine fairway that had some pretty decent run to it!!
-
3. If you want to argue that: "The course is 6245 yards long as mapped out by [the Committee]" means that the Committee is responsible for choosing the routing and the hole concepts, be my guest. It is not worth my time to counter.
. . .
You seem to think that if I don't rely on article then I don't consider it germane to the topic at hand. This is a mistake. You are confusing the question of the article's relevance, on the one hand, with questions of credibility, persuasiveness, corroberation, etc., on the other.
So again, the article is germane to the topic at hand. I just don't think it makes the case you think it makes. And it is of little value or importance to me for the reason noted above, but as I wrote, by all means knock yourself out with it for any purposes you like.
David,
I think this last post of your's is a perfect post to end this thread.
-
-- 30 --
-
I think some serious and careful study of exactly what Findlay wrote is required BEFORE simply explaining away the part that it appears he is assigning to C.B. McDonald.
Findlay clearly is refering to Wilson's & the new course when he states, "I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course..."
Wilson's reaction to what was created at Merion AFTER seeing the real hole? That follows immediately. "He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot..."
This shows that efforts to imitate the great holes of the U.K. were being tried at Merion. It is THAT which Findlay seems to be clearly refering to next when he states, "But many of the others..."
These "others" are NOT on other courses but part of the MERION design. This means that his next statement, "as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great..." shows that C.B. had some definite hand in at least partially designing the original course.
That is how I read it too.
Can some one refresh my memory. Did Findlay ever say Wilson designed Merion?
-
Interesting how they put down TOC, calling it a myth.
-
"Can some one refresh my memory. Did Findlay ever say Wilson designed Merion?"
Jim:
Just go back and read the couple of articles on the first page by Findlay and the letter and such by Baily (board member of MCC) on the first page of this thread and I think you can answer that question for yourself. If Wilson and his committee weren't out there physically digging and shoveling and shit (which clearly they never did) then what do you think everyone back then meant when they said they "laid out" or even "mapped out" Merion East?
The mincing of words and definitions on these threads has gotten out of control. It looks like Moriarty in response to Cirba actually claimed when Findlay said in one of those articles that Wilson and his committee "mapped out" the course that Findlay must have meant those five men merely measured the golf course. ;)
Jim, if the board report states that Wilson and his committee spent a couple of months in the winter and spring of 1911 creating "numerous plans" and following their visit to NGLA they honed it down to "five different courses" and one of those course plans was approved of in April by the MCC board of Directors with a course plan attached to the report the board was considering to begin the construction of the course, do you really think ALL THAT actually meant all Wilson and his committee did was MEASURE the golf course once someone else routed, designed it and then built it for them? ??? ::)
Analyzing this course's architectural history and who did what even in the very beginning is definitely not rocket science to figure out what it means; and spending four pages on here analyzing the shit out of what this one single Findlay article means about "others" is definitely not even 1% of the way to go about it.
-
David,
I think this last post of your's is a perfect post to end this thread.
While I wish you'd felt that way the first time I posted it, I nonetheless think we have a bit of unfinished business, hopefully civilly.
First, the Barker article. Despite all the talk about what articles should and should be not be made available, I do appreciate that you did post the Barker article and, for that matter, that Joe posted the other article I mistakenly confused with another. Thank you both for posting these.
As Phil explained to me above, the delay in revealing the article is probably not worth getting bent out of shape over, and it is unfortunate that the discussion became so heated, and I apologize for my part in making it so.
My concern from the beginning has been with bringing out the information for all to consider, and in this regard I have long been frustrated with how, in my experience, Wayne and TEPaul have repeatedly played games with the source material relating to Merion's history. That being said, I shouldn't lump you in with them as long as we are in agreement that source material adddressing Merion's early history should brought to light for all to consider, even if it doesnt fit our previous understanding or or we find it uncorroborated unpersuasive, or even no better than toilet paper.
Are we now on the same page abut this?
Second, the Findlay Article. Again, thanks Joe for bringing it forward.
Mike, given that I have spent much time and effort trying to address your concerns, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions:
1. As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good. Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?
2. If not then why not? (Where is our mistake? What have we missed? What does not make sense?)
Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations. You have done that above. I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpetation.
Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation. For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so. It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed somehing.
Thanks
________________
Joe Bausch,
Since above you opined that Findlay was referring to other Alps holes built by CBM, I am curious as to what you think now, given the limited number of CBM Alps holes that existed when the article was written.
Do you still think Findlay was writing about CBM's Alps holes?
- If not, what to you think he meant now?
- If so, do you agree that by contrasting CBM's Alps with with Merion's 10th, then Findlay would have been implying that Merion's 10th is a CBM hole?
To put it even more broadly, if Findlay's "many others" refer to CBM golf holes anywhere and of any type, then wouldn't this imply that Merion's 10th was also a CBM hole?
Otherwise, contrasting Merion's 10th with CBM's holes wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?
Thanks.
-
David,
Thank you for your thoughtful message. I appreciate the sentiment and hope to respond in kind as well as answer your questions as best I'm able very shortly.
I won't be home this evening but I hope to be reply by mid-day tomorrow.
Thanks,
Mike
-
"To put it even more broadly, if Findlay's "many others" refer to CBM golf holes anywhere and of any type, then wouldn't this imply that Merion's 10th was also a CBM hole?
Otherwise, contrasting Merion's 10th with CBM's holes wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?"
Of course it would NOT necessarily imply Merion 10th (its original "Alps") was a CBM hole. A number of Americans went abroad back then, including Leeds, Emmet, Tillie, Crump and certainly Wilson, to analyze and look at the famous old holes over there and they were certainly all capable of essentially copying them in template form over here or parts of them over here. A number of Architects did that on their courses back then and actually still do, probably the most well known being the redan. Does that mean that all of them should be considered CBM holes? ??? ::) :o
Mentioning CBM holes as being really good in the same paragraph as Merion's #10----Alps---a copy of Prestwick's famous #17) makes plenty of sense if Findlay was speaking about architects, particularly over here such as Wilson, doing template copies of famous holes from abroad just as CBM had done in template form over here from a number of famous holes from abroad. In June of 1912 obviously the best of them by CBM were considered to be at NGLA.
-
(I'm sorry this is so long but you asked for a really considered and comprehensive answer to your questions and it takes some space. This also took me a while, for sure. I hope this gives this complex, long running issue the understanding it deserves for all and hopefully some agreement and an end to these time consuming threads on Merion, Macdonald and Wilson).
David Moriarty:
Well, since I guess I fall into the category of the "others" who you do not think have directly explained the basis for rejecting this interpretation (that Findlay is referring to "Others" as really good CBM holes at Merion), I'll give it another shot.
And I'm also going to strive to do it very civily.
You asked:
"As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good. Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?
If not then why not? (Where is our mistake? What have we missed? What does not make sense?)"
Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations. You have done that above. I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpretation.
Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation. For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so. It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed something."
1. I’m not suggesting that the interpretation that Findlay could be referring to “Others” as CBM holes at Merion makes no sense at all to some people, just that it is not the only interpretation that makes sense and in my opinion is an interpretation that makes much less sense than the interpretation that Findlay was referring to CBM holes ELSEWHERE. Firstly, Findlay does not actually say the "others" of CBM's that he said were really good are at Merion. Of course anyone could say, given how unclear Findlay's writing and meaning is in that particular article, that he means those he referred to as "others" were CBM holes at Merion. But the fact is undeniable that he did not actually say that. The fact is also undeniable that there are other ways to interpret what he did mean by "others" that do not include an interpretation that those "others" were CBM holes at Merion or even holes at Merion. Of course, I am certainly assuming, if you are asking these questions honestly and in good faith, that you will admit there actually ARE interpretations OTHER THAN YOURS, and certainly sensible interpretations (given close consideration of the information that follows) of what Findlay meant when he said "others" in that article. If you're not at least willing to admit that then I don't see that there's any reason to discuss this with you any more or any longer and one wonders why you even bother to ask in the first place.
2. The following just may be the most meaningful answers of all to your questions, particularly for those people who don't have a very good working knowledge of All the material DETAILS of the history of Merion East. They should be considered very carefully by you and others interested in this subject and should definitely not be dismissed, discounted and certainly not avoided. You should give a response to each and every point as to why it may seem implausible or unlikely to you. If you don’t you are simply not dealing with the realities of the material details of Merion East’s original history.
A/ C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam spent seemingly only two days----period----at Merion's Ardmore site over a period of approximately ten months, and as far as I can tell and the Merion detailed history records they did not ever again return to Merion for the purpose of advising and helping them after April 6, 1911. It is not exactly recorded if they spent more than a day there in June 1910 but it does seem it was a day or less given what he said in his letter he noticed there at that time and what he suggested to them at that time. It is not possible that Macdonald/Whigam could have routed and designed a course on that property at that time because he even said as much when he mentioned there wasn’t much he could do to make more suggestions without a contour survey map in front of him and he also implied they should get that done for themselves.
B/ It is probably possible that Macdonald/Whigam could have looked at Barker’s “rough sketch” of the property also done in June 1910 but that was never at any time mentioned by either Macdonald and Whigam or Merion. If they had decided to use that as a basis for a routing and design at any point in time it certainly should have been recorded by at least one of them or by the club somewhere in their very comprehensive administrative record keeping but nothing of the kind was ever mentioned by any of them about Barker and his “rough sketch” again except that he had done one for the developer George Connell for Connell’s account, meaning Connell paid for what Barker did and not Merion. After that “Search Committee” and board report in July 1910 Barker’s name was never mentioned again BY Merion. Of course that was all about a half year before Merion even bought the property. Obviously some later newspaper report (Nov, 1910) by some unknown writer from a newspaper (Philly Press or Telegram) Merion does not seem to have even subscribed to and couldn't conceivably contain anywhere near as direct or relevant information on Merion as Merion’s own comprehensive administrative records on the creation of their new golf course says that Merion hired Barker and will use him for their future course! THAT kind of report and information should be an indication and warning to all you study this stuff about what really is relevent and factual and what isn't. Obviously the information contained in that particular article came out of some five months old file (June 1910)and is not relevent to the factual history of what was going on at Merion to prepare for the routing and design of the East course and who would do it. That example should be a warning to all on here who put so much stock in the reliablity of ANY and ALL newspaper and magazine reports and information compared to a club's own administrative reports and records! In effect, H.H. Barker, at that point, was a total nonentity as far as what was about to happen about 2-7 months hence with the routing and design and construction of Merion East and who would be involved in it!
C/ The next time Merion had any contact with Macdonald/Whigam was nine months later when Wilson and presumably most of his committee went to visit Macdonald/Whigam at NGLA. That was apparently in the beginning of the second week of March, 1911 (from a March 13, 1911 letter to Russell Oakley from Wilson stating “we” had just returned from NGLA) . What they did during those two days at NGLA was pretty specifically recorded in the Board meeting minutes of MCC in mid-April 1911 via a report Wilson apparently made up to give to Robert Lesley to report to the board about what the committee had done with the course planning to that date. That report mentions that previous to going to NGLA Wilson and his committee had “laid out numerous courses.” Wilson sent a copy of a contour survey map of the course property to Russell Oakley at the US Dept of Agriculture on Feb. 1, 1911 and so we know Wilson and his committee had a topo contour map of the property to work on course routings and hole design plans before that point. Wilson mentioned to Oakley that Macdonald had recommended MCC be in touch with he and Piper for a soil analysis and to discuss the difficult problem of preparing the course for seeding and the difficult problem of seed selections. The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there (we can discuss some other time what-all that may’ve meant in a routing and hole design alteration on the five different Merion plans or the one they took to the board for approval less than two weeks hence).
D/ As far as I can tell neither Macdonald (nor Whigam) ever actually did a course routing drawing on paper at any time pre-construction for himself or anyone else----eg it seems Macdonald always depended upon Seth Raynor to do that for him (you or we or any of us should check with George Bahto on that but I do not believe he has ever seen an actual Macdonald course drawing and if he has noone I know of has ever seen one---even though apparently in the last year NGLA has found two Macdonald hole drawings (of NGLA apparently)). Raynor was never at Merion for the purpose of Merion East's design and if he was noone ever said so or recorded it. If the foregoing is true one needs to consider who actually did the drawing of the routing and hole designs of the course that was presented to the board only two weeks hence (I think it’s pretty obvious it was Richard Francis, their Wilson committee member who was also a professional engineer/surveyor who worked for George A. Fuller Co, a Philadelphia building construction contractor).
E/ Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.
3. Therefore, to address again why I think your interpretation that Findlay meant that the “Others” he mentioned in that article were holes by CBM at Merion don’t make much sense, I submit the following supplemental information and opinion:
A/ Macdonald/Whigam did not have the OPPORTUNITY and particularly they did not have the TIME to create a routing and/or hole design plans for Merion because for all the reasons shown above they just did not have the opportunity in June 1910, and according to the specific account of what was done at NGLA in March 1911 Merion’s own design plans were not even discussed or considered at that time (again what was discussed and considered and shown to them at NGLA was reported and it all had to do with NGLA itself and Macdonald’s sketches from abroad for NGLA, and not Merion Ardmore or Merion’s design plans). Therefore that would have only left Macdonald/Whigam a single day to create their own routing and hole concepts and designs for Merion, not to mention that Wilson and his committee had clearly spent months creating their own, five of which they asked Macdonald/Whigam to consider on that single day in April, 1911. For anyone who knows even a modicum about the practicalities and logistics and the time involved of routing and hole-designing certainly understands that all that could not and does not happen in a single day. And it is irrefutable that a single day is all the time and opportunity Macdonald/Whigam had to do such a thing even if Merion asked them to try to do such a thing. As far as I know, Macdonald was only involved with Merion one other time after that which only involved a letter from him to Wilson in June 1911 which spoke only about the amounts of manure, lime and fertilizer to use to prepare ground and greens for seeding.
B/ It does not appear from any evidence anywhere or at any time that Merion even considered asking Macdonald/Whigam to route or design their course or any holes on it for them, not to even mention that he probably wouldn't have even considered something like that, particularly at that time before his own course was even finished or open for play. All they apparently asked them to do is to show them or advise them (apparently over a period of only four days and only two of which were spent at Ardmore by Macdonald/Whigam) how they could do it themselves, apparently as they knew he had done with NGLA with a committee of amateur/sportsmen (himself, and with Whigam and originally Travis and later with Emmet and others of Macdonald’s friends from New York).
C/ It has never been documented, mentioned, suggested or even implied or rumored anywhere or at any time for over ninety years that Macdonald/Whigam actually routed any of Merion East or actually designed any of its holes. Nothing like that was even imagined by anyone that any of us here are aware of until both you and Tom MacWood came along on this website beginning in 2003 with that rather unusual suggestion or implication. I do not believe there is any documentary information available to us today about the original creation of Merion East that was not known by those men back then who were involved in it, including that mysterious remark by Whigam in a magazine eulogy to Macdonald in 1939 about Macdonld designing Merion, so if that doesn't say something about your Macdonald implication as to the routing and design of that course, I just can't imagine what would!
For the foregoing reasons I’ve just supplied in answer to your questions I hope you can understand why this interpretation you presented and asked about on the above post of what Findlay meant by “others” doesn’t make much sense.
I hope this answered the questions you asked and I hope it helps. There is more that supports what I’ve outlined here but this should be enough for now to answer your questions about why some of us don’t think your interpretation of what Findlay meant in that article of June 1912 makes much sense.
It also just must be considered with these kinds of questions of yours that the weight of evidence of who did route and design Merion East originally is so overwhelming and in so many places and from so numerous sources. For that reason I hope you can learn to appreciate its significance and not continue to discount it, dismiss it and certainly not avoid it when we present it to you. If you do, I’m afraid it casts significant aspersions on the integrity of not us here today but of all those people involved with and around Merion who have all virtually said the same thing about what Hugh Wilson did there back then close to a century ago now.
-
Tom Paul,
Thanks for that summary. I'll add a bit to it tomorrow, but I'll try to speak more directly to why I think David (and Phil's) interpretation of the article is incorrect, albeit easily read that way given Findlay's less than linear prose.
I do have one question, however. You mentioned that when Macdonald returned for a single day in April 1911, the MCC minutes reflect that Macdonald (and WHigham) went over the property and the five "different" plans they created after their return from NGLA in early March and approved one in particular that he and Whigham stated would lead to the best finishing holes of any "inland* course" in the world.
You also said that Macdonald and Whigham recommended they purchase an additional 3 acres at that time.
I don't recall seeing the second part of Macdonald repeating his earlier June 1910 recommendation about aquiring those 3 acres in conjuction with the approved/recommended plan. Instead, I recall the minutes reading something like, "In order to accomplish this it will require the purchase of 3 additional acres..." or something similar.
Did the minutes of April 1911 actually reflect Macdonald repeating his earlier recommendation from June 1910, or is that something you're inferring from his original site visit a year prior?
* presumably to differentiate it from NGLA. ;)
-
Mike Cirba:
I will bet you a 100 smackers that you are one of less than half a dozen people who have the patience and interest left in this subject to read that remarkably long post I just made. There was no way to truncate it though----eg all that info and explanation is necessary to outline that way to answer David Moriarty's apparently sincerely asked questions! ;)
-
"My concern from the beginning has been with bringing out the information for all to consider, and in this regard I have long been frustrated with how, in my experience, Wayne and TEPaul have repeatedly played games with the source material relating to Merion's history. That being said, I shouldn't lump you in with them as long as we are in agreement that source material adddressing Merion's early history should brought to light for all to consider, even if it doesnt fit our previous understanding or or we find it uncorroborated unpersuasive, or even no better than toilet paper."
David Moriarty:
God only knows how many times I've tried to go over this particular issue with you on here. Do you have absolutely no idea what I'm saying to you or do you just not care about our reasons and perhaps the club's own reasons?
That is a question I would like you do consider very, very carefully and supply me with an answer on this thread as soon as you possibly can.
You asked a question on here today and for some considered reasons why some might not agree with you on something as inconsequential as the interpretation of what an architect such as Findlay said in some article and I took the time and effort to give you the most honest and considered response I possibly can.
I'd like the same consideration from you on what I asked you above. I'm not going to hold my breath but I am the eternal optimist you know, even with someone like you.
-
"I don't recall seeing the second part of Macdonald repeating his earlier June 1910 recommendation about aquiring those 3 acres in conjuction with the approved/recommended plan. Instead, I recall the minutes reading something like, "In order to accomplish this it will require the purchase of 3 additional acres..." or something similar.
Did the minutes of April 1911 actually reflect Macdonald repeating his earlier recommendation from June 1910, or is that something you're inferring from his original site visit a year prior?"
MikeC:
I guess I inferred that----I probably shouldn't have because it wasn't specifically reported with words I inferred and as there is so much analyzing of every word and its meaning on here. What you quoted above is what was reported. It's just that the particular plan Macdonald/Whigam approved of which the Wilson Committee report mentioned was the same plan they were attaching to their report for approval and for the club to build required a motion on the Board that the Board approve that the club purchase that 3 acres and as you know those two holes (#12 green and #13) were originally built on it although that particular land no longer contains holes even though the club owns it. By the way, even if the Board approved the purchase of that 3 acres and recorded the price they would pay, that land was never actually purchased from the railroad by the club until 1961, exactly 50 years after the fact.
I realize I'm inferring something that is not recorded in Merion GC's history but to my mind the way that particular piece of railroad land played out with MCC from beginning to end tells me just how powerful a number of MCC members were in those days in both the management and the financing of the American railroad system, particularly including the great PRR, which I understand from a completely different piece of source material had the largest capitalization around 1900 of any corporation in the world (source material---William Morrison's book, "The Great Houses of the Main Line.").
Some of the guys at MCC and to do with the decisons involving the course back around the move of the course to Ardmore, before and afterwards, were some incredibly big heavy hitters, that's for sure. That alone is an interesting separate story as it relates to MCC. It looks to me like when MCC told the railroad they would like to acquire that small piece of land, the railroad basically responded: "No problem Sirs, why don't you just tell us how you want us to handle it?" ;)
-
Tom,
Thanks, that's my understanding as well. I do believe that C.B. Macdonald should get credit for originally recommending they consider purchase of those 3 acres of adjacent railroad land back when they first visited in June 1910 because it did provide certainly more options to routing holes in that intersection where the "L" connected on the property (prior to the club buying the land beyond the creek south of Ardmore Avenue in the 20s which in effect created today's holes 1 (later), 10, 11, 12, and 13, which replaced their earlier counterparts).
As we were discussing the other day, without that land you could have probably had 12 play as a very short uphill par four, and then put a par three where 13 is today, but the net effect is that you'd have 3 pretty short holes in a row...the original 11th, the abbreviated 12th, and today's 13th.
Ironically, this would have netted out to a course closer to the 6000 yard course that Macdonald and Whigham originally recommended the club build during that June 1910 visit. For reasons I don't understand, they seemed to think that there was no need to build a course as long as 6400 yards, and although I don't have the Macdonald letter in front of me right now, they very specifically made this point.
As it was built, and as the articles in this thread illustrate, the Merion course opened at 6,245 yards, with room to extend it to 6,500 yards as desired.
*EDIT*
I just went back and dug up Charles Macdonald's letter after his June, 1910 visit, and here's the specific section that talked about course yardage;
The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying. So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House. The opinon that a long course is always the best course has been exploded. A 6000 yd. course can be made really first class, and to my mind it is more desirable than a 6300 or a 6400 yd. course, particularly where the roll of the ball will not be long, because you cannot help with the soil you have on that property having heavy turf. Of course it would be very fast when the summer baked it well.
The following is my idea of a 6000 yard course:
One 130 yard hole
One 160 "
One 190 "
One 220 yard to 240 yard hole,
One 500 yard hole,
Six 300 to 340 yard holes,
Five 360 to 420 "
Two 440 to 480 "
-
While I wish you'd felt that way the first time I posted it, I nonetheless think we have a bit of unfinished business, hopefully civilly.
First, the Barker article. Despite all the talk about what articles should and should be not be made available, I do appreciate that you did post the Barker article and, for that matter, that Joe posted the other article I mistakenly confused with another. Thank you both for posting these.
As Phil explained to me above, the delay in revealing the article is probably not worth getting bent out of shape over, and it is unfortunate that the discussion became so heated, and I apologize for my part in making it so.
My concern from the beginning has been with bringing out the information for all to consider, and in this regard I have long been frustrated with how, in my experience, Wayne and TEPaul have repeatedly played games with the source material relating to Merion's history. That being said, I shouldn't lump you in with them as long as we are in agreement that source material adddressing Merion's early history should brought to light for all to consider, even if it doesnt fit our previous understanding or or we find it uncorroborated unpersuasive, or even no better than toilet paper.
Are we now on the same page abut this?
Second, the Findlay Article. Again, thanks Joe for bringing it forward.
Mike, given that I have spent much time and effort trying to address your concerns, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer my questions:
1. As you know, some of us think that Findlay's disputed statement means that he did not like Merion's original 10th hole, but thought that many other[] [holes] designed by CBM [at Merion] were very good. Whether or not you agree that we are reading it correctly, does this interpretation make sense to you?
2. If not then why not? (Where is our mistake? What have we missed? What does not make sense?)
Basically, I am not asking for you to again explain your alternative interpretations. You have done that above. I am asking you to directly address the merits the our interpetation.
Maybe I missed it, but I do not think that you or any others have directly explained the basis on which they have rejected this interpretation. For anyone else who has rejected your interpretation, I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for doing so. It seems solid to me, but maybe I have missed somehing.
Thanks
David,
Thanks again for your considerate post. I also apologize for contributing to the tone of this discussion becoming heated. We are both obviously passionate about this subject, and I do have to say that due to additional research largely stimulated by your original questions and White paper, we are all about as close as possible to figuring out the pertinent timelines of the creation of the original Merion course, as well as being able to strongly infer who was responsible for what, short of finding actual original drawings in someone's handwriting (which we'd likely still debate authorship of ;) ).
I also would say that I don't expect you'll agree with what I'm about to offer in way of explaining why I think your interpretation of the Findlay article is incorrect.
As background, as I've mentioned previously, you are at a disadvantage here because some of us have seen the MCC Minutes related to the "plans" for the new course at Merion and you have not. While in an ideal world all of this stuff would be in the public domain, I can't and won't fault Tom and/or Wayne for their decision to respect the wishes of others within those two clubs who did not want another public sideshow on here related to their organizations.
I think you have to recall that the Merion Golf Club went through basically a public trial here about their decisions to rebuild all of the bunkers by Tom Fazio; that little debate raised to the level of a Philadelphia Inquirer Sunday First Page Sports Section feature story! I know...I was one of the biggest dissenting voices at the time.
That was followed by a number of contentious go-rounds here based on questions about the origins of the golf course raised largely by you and Tom MacWood.
So given those public conflagarations, you might imagine that club was not looking to continue to be in the public spotlight on these issues, and that is their right.
I believe you also have to consider that Wayne and Tom are not only a historians, but Wayne is also a member of the club in question and Tom knows lots of people there. This is their home, and they live and play with and among these folks.
That being said, I do understand what you're saying when you say that they've used information selectively, or given out snippets of the information in the minutes. I don't want to speak for them, but I think the acrimonious tone here over time has contributed greatly to that result.
I can tell you, whether you believe me or not, that what they've provided on here has been accurately presented and about as comprehensive in terms of what's available on the subject as I could expect as a researcher.
I can also tell you that based on those minutes, I no longer have any remaining doubts as to who is responsible overall for the routing and hole designs at Merion. I also believe I have a pretty clear understanding of Macdonald and Whigham's very important role, and it's more than I originally believed.
All that being said, I'd like to move onto the Findlay article, and your interpretation (and Phil's as well as some others) in a follow-up post.
-
The article in question;
June 12th, 1912 - Alex Findlay
The writer spent a pleasant hour last Wednesday afternoon with Hugh I. Wilson, wandering over the new Merion golf course, which he has spent so much of his time on. His main object is to make this the king-pin course of Pennsylvania. I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall.
It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc. Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad. He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes. I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality, is a myth. Golfers simply for sake "O' Auld Lang Syne" play over it once in a while. It is worn out, void of grass, and the only thing that will stop golf balls from running all over the place are deep pot bunkers, cruelly placed, and when at the bottom of one of these, woe betide you! Many of them are on the putting greens. I know my second shot to the seventeenth two or three years ago should have rested at the pin, but, instead of that, it rolled into an unplayable bunker, and instead of playing toward the hole I really had to play away from it. I was playing Andrs. Kirkaldy at the time (old Tom Morris' successor), and that particular hole cost me the match. My nice three at the last hole came too late to be of any use. But the traps are as fair for one as they are for others.
Wilson had no end of a good time, and is sorry at not having gone over years ago. It certainly broadens one's ideas. He now possesses golf knowledge that will stand him in good stead for many years to come. By the way, he negotiated St. Andrews (as keen as it was) in eighty strokes and actually registered a nice seventy-seven on the x,xxx-yard course at Sandwich, and that, too, against our own Fred Herreshoff, but Fred took more than 77. Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country, such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I. We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf.
I'm going to try not to be redundant or reiterative here, which might be difficult because it's a challenge to question your interpretation without providing highly plausible alternatives.
I would first though reiterate, and I believe you'd concede, that Findlay's writing style is far from linear, structured, or logical. He jumps around and seems to get carried off in different directions before coming back to his original point.
Your interpretation hinges on the premise that when he talks about "Many Others" being "really great" he is talking about other holes at Merion than the proposed Alps hole that Wilson "imagined" and that Findlay has just singled out (and Wilson now agrees) as being problematic in some unknown regard.
I think we have to look at this article in context of both when it was written, and what the main subjects Findlay's discussing are.
It was written at such an early point that Findlay first tells us he's not even ready to discuss "the possibilities" of the new course. In fact, he goes to great pains to explain to us why that is, what the state of the grow-in is, and when he might be able to really do a serious analysis.
We also know that even six-seven months later, the course was still in such an unfinished state that Tillinghast didn't feel comfortable giving a fair review.
What does that tell us about the "course" that they were "growing in" at the time? To me it means that all they had done was create a routing, decide on general hole outlines, located and built tees and greens, and grassed the golf course. Early accounts state that almost no bunkers were originally built, and "mental hazards" (re: bunkering strategies) had yet to be implemented in any real fashion beyond the use of natural terrain to create interest.
to be continued...
-
...continued
The main idea of the second paragraph is that Wilson has just returned from his trip abroad where, "He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes."
One has to ask why he would have done this had the hole already been preconceived and designed in any detail by Macdonald. The reason is simply because they hadn't been. At this stage they were still dealing in very hypothetical theoretical ("imagined") terms, and Findlay jumps from his main point about Wilson studying the leading courses and holes abroad (that Macdonald had done previously and had recommended publicly over the past decade as "ideal") to point out that he advised Wilson to really look at the Alps hole in particular, with the implication that he's not convinced that one is desirable at Merion.
Why might that be?
Your contention is that he doesn't like the one that Wilson already built, but I don't think it was already built. I think there was a tee built, and a green built, and Wilson probably envisioned (imagined) the uphill nature of the latter part of the original 10th hole as approximating an Alps type approach. Macdonald may have even suggested it or concurred.
What else might Findlay have been implying? He could be saying that he doesn't like blind Alps holes, but I don't think that's likely. He could also be saying that while an approach shot over a large sandy mountainous dune might work well in the context of a seaside course, the application of that idea inland is less than desirable. In any case, I do think what he's saying is that Merion doesn't really have the type of abrupt feature in front of the green that makes the Alps at Prestwick (and NGLA) such great holes, at least where Wilson showed him that his Alps was going to be placed.
I think he's telling Wilson that without such a feature, you really are only going to end up with a second-rate hole if you try the Alps concept.
Wilson, after seeing the real thing, agrees in a way that also points out that the hole in question is nowhere near the finished product. Specifically, he says that he (Wilson) "is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal"...the original hole., because Wilson has now seen in person for himself just exactly how obtrusive and daunting that large abrupt sand dune is at Prestwick, which is even more severely abrupt than the one he saw previously at NGLA.
So, at this juncture, I think two points in the article are germane;
1) The course in question is at a very immature state with the bodies of holes really just imagined, and much too early for Findlay to even discuss "the possibilities" of the course.
2) Findlay is talking in larger terms about Wilson just returning from his trip abroad to study the famous courses and holes and his impressions after returning.
After veering into his little "aside" about the Alps hole, and his recommendations to Wilson concerning it, Wilson then interjects, "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. Macdonald, are really great."
So what "MANY others" might Findlay be mentioning?
Certainly, on the face of it reading the sentences back to back, your interpretation is viable. And if the first paragraph about the course's immaturity and Findlay's reluctance to discuss the possibilities didn't precede it would have more credibility.
But what else has Charles B. Macdonald "laid out" for all of the golfing world over the past decade?
Well...he's identified and laid out for American golf the list of courses and ideal holes abroad. He's written about them and publicized them in every available news outlet and among golf afficianados. He's laid them out for Wilson and committee that first night at NGLA, and the MCC minutes discuss that specifically they went over Macdonald's sketches and drawings of the great holes abroad before spending the next day walking the course and seeing for themselves the physical representations of those holes as created and interpreted and laid out by Macdonald.
I know you make fun of my "laid out" Wilson's itinerary, but this is exactly what I meant and I'm sure Findlay was aware in his dealings with Wilson (he clearly talked with Wilson before his trip abroad and after his return) that Macdonald had indeed recommended that Wilson study certain courses and holes abroad before "building" the strategies of the hole intereriors at Merion.
Macdonald's revolutionary idea is that each of the leading courses abroad had perhaps a handful of "great holes" that made them special, and he wanted to build a course chock-full of them. Findlay starts to tell us about Wilson's trip "visting all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent to the making of good golf holes", and after veering off with his personal account of the Alps hole, he then gets back to his main point...those leading courses and ideal holes "laid out" by Macdonald, either in abstract, educational terms and/or in concrete, realized terms such as he's built at NGLA and possibly Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock by this time.
Further evidence of this is the next sentence, which does not go on to describe any of the "many really great" holes at Merion, but continues to talk about the great courses/holes abroad the Wilson visited, which he's now using almost synonomously, when he lists, Prestwick, Troon, Formby, St. Andrews, etc., etc., before veering off into another personal story of his own play at The Old Course and their mutual disappointment with it.
So I think what "many others" that are "really great" refers to either;
1) Many of the other ideal holes and leading courses that Macdonald laid out for the golfing world (and in person to WIlson and Committee) and certainly applicable for emulation by Wilson at the new Merion course. The Alps, he clearly feels, is not, for reasons I've outlined.
2) Many of the copies of those holes already laid out by Macdonald at NGLA and in construction at that time at Sleepy Hollow and Piping Rock.
or
3) Both implied....many of both the originals and their emulated counterparts as laid out by Macdonald are really great and worthy of study and emulation.
Finally, the last paragraph really just continues to credit Wilson, both as a golfer and as a knowledgeable course and hole builder, who has now taken a necessary step to continue to develop the holes at Merion with the sound principles imparted to him by men like Macdonald and Findlay, and which he's now taken an advanced study course.
I hope this is what you were looking for from me and I hope it helps explain where I'm coming from.
Again, I'd simply point out that knowing the timelines and details of the MCC minutes which you haven't seen does indeed have some impact on my interpretation of this article...it couldn't help but do so.
Thanks again for the discussion and improved discourse.
-
Wilson visited leading courses with great/good golf holes. Other than Prestwick/ Alps he found courses/holes to be potentially adaptable to the Merion site. He liked many courses but was disappointed by TOC.
-
Wilson visited leading courses with great/good golf holes. Other than Prestwick/ Alps he found courses/holes to be potentially adaptable to the Merion site. He liked many courses but was disappointed by TOC.
Malone,
You just managed to say in 3 sentences what verbosely took me about 300. ;)
Nice summation.
-
I could have left out "great" and it would have been better.
-
"Tom,
Thanks, that's my understanding as well. I do believe that C.B. Macdonald should get credit for originally recommending they consider purchase of those 3 acres of adjacent railroad land back when they first visited in June 1910 because it did provide certainly more options to routing holes in that intersection where the "L" connected on the property prior to the club buying the land beyond the creek south of Ardmore Avenue in the 20s which in effect created today's holes 1 (later), 10, 11, 12, and 13, and eliminated their earlier counterparts.
As we were discussing the other day, without that land you could have probably had 12 play as a very short uphill par four, and then put a par three where 13 is today, but the net effect is that you'd have 3 pretty short holes in a row...the original 11th, the abbreviated 12th, and today's 13th."
Mike:
Not necessarily. I know exactly what you mean about how necessary those three acres may've seemed to some (like perhaps Macdonald) at the time for the development of good holes for #12 and #13 but very very few (at this point) seem to understand that they certainly could have resolved all that by just going farther west along Ardmore Ave instead of into that 3 acres railroad tract.
Again, very few today understand that at that point in 1911 it was a total snap to push the boundary on the bottom of the L on the north side of Ardmore Ave. west some more. Most probably think they couldn't do that then because Golf Club Rd limited or blocked them but it didn't exist then; it was only a road on a plan that could be rerouted any way they wanted to do it. And not to even mention that at that point Lloyd (and his wife) owned the whole 140 acre Johnson Farm and the Taylor place that is along the lower left side of what is today Golf Course Rd that back then was between the Johnson Farm land on the east and the Johnson Farm land on the west was owned by the HDC which Lloyd and his 3-4 other friends from MCC controlled anyway at that point.
From the old 12th tee, the 12th hole could have played to a green along the creek over Ardmore Ave a bit to the right of the present 13th green and the 13th hole could've gone back down to the west of the present driveway and behind old #10 green or it could've even gone in along the west side of the creek that the club owned near where the old 13th once was. If they'd pushed the 1st green to the west it may've lengthened the walk to the 2nd tee some but that wouldn't have been a real big deal.
If they'd done it that way instead of using that P&W 3 acres the only other problem would be that Lloyd and HDC would've been out some more acreage that was slated to be used for residential development but then of course the club could've just paid Lloyd or HDC the $7,500 they allocated to buy the railroad land.
The real irony here is that 3 acre old railroad tract where the old 12th green and old 13th hole once were is now completely obsoleted and not really used for anything even though Merion owns it as of 1961! ;)
By the way, MCC allocated $7,500 in 1911 to buy that P&W three acres but they never bought it until 1961 at which point they paid the outrageous sum of $11,000 for it. Not much price appreciation for the railroad in half a century is it? Sounds to me like even in 1961 the Men from Merion probably still had a pretty good headlock on the railroad and its business, huh? ;D
-
Guys - does the info here help at all? http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1900.html
It's an "Atlas of Properties Along the Pennsylvania R.R. Embracing 1 to 4 miles Each Side of the Road and From Overbrook to Malvern Station." from 1900.
Here's a map from 1881: http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1881/1881_10.pdf
Or, even better, a map from 1913: http://www.lowermerionhistory.org/atlascolor/1913/1913_12.pdf
-
Dan:
Thanks anyway for those links but unbelievably the appropriate one of those PRR land maps have been in the so-called Sayres Scrapbook from the beginning. Sayres was the secretary of MCC during these goings-on in 1910 and 1911 and he would become MCC's president around 1914 or so. If you get the right one from around 1908 you can see what that land of Merion that was once the so-called Johnson Farm and the surrounding properties looked like before the move of MCC to Ardmore.
-
TEPaul and Mike.
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful responses to my questions. I hope I am not being presumptuous if I thank Wayne as well, as I think I recognize some of his stylistic tells sprinkled in your detailed post, Tom.
I have started to review and consider your posts, but as luck would have it, real life calls so it may take me a bit of time to consider your posts, and prepare a thoughtful response.
Also, before I respond, I need to clarify a few things in answer to a question asked above by Jim Nugent, hopefully before his question slips to far away.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
David.
TEPaul, Were those Atlases really in the Sayres documents? I recall that I provided some of them to Wayne or at least pointed him to them. I think one appears in Merion's history.
-
Shivas,
You are a sick, twisted, and masochistic freak! Of course, that's why we love you! ;D
David,
I'll look forward to your thoughts as you're able. Thanks.
-
David Moriatry:
You're very welcome. I don't think it would ever be presumptuous to thank Wayne but no he has nothing to do with this thread or the site. The opportunity to come back is there but he feels it's just not worth it on here. I think that's a real shame and a loss to the site certainly with Flynn and Merion but that's life I guess. The reality of this website with some private clubs is apparently just not what some on here think it is or think it should be. It has nothing at all to do with hiding club histories or anything like that but the fact remains everyone has feelings and others need to understand and respect that if it's cooperation they want and are looking for. Wayne and I continue on with a lot to do with Flynn and Merion but it has nothing to do with this now.
Were those PRR atlases in the Sayres Scrapbook? I guess they were but I have no idea if what you have from the Sayres Scrapbook is all the same stuff I have in a file on my computer that is labeled "Sayres Scrapbook." I think I have 3-4 of those PRR plat maps in my file that show the way all that land was before the idea of moving a course there and also one that essentially shows the arrangement that was presented to the MCC membership in Nov. 1910. That one is not a PRR plat map though, at least I don't believe it is---it was done by another surveyor. I know you have that one because it was in your essay. That's the plan or plat from which you assumed Francis had already had his late night idea and why that Nov 1910 plan or plat showed that triangle at the northern end of the property. Fortunately or unfortunately, I think you will come to see that the over-all Time-line will prove it's impossible that Francis's idea created that triangle. It was that way anyway, and for pretty obvious reasons many months before Francis' idea for #15 and #16. But don't let's worry about that now. We can get to that some other time down the road somewhere.
-
When it comes to David Moriarty's questions in Post #133 that a few of us responded to at great length and in much detail, I would just suggest and recommend that even if his question basically related to interpretations of what Findlay meant in that article, particularly when he mentioned "others laid out by CBM that are really great," that we all take special care to consider the context in which we view that Findlay article.
What I mean is, if that Findlay article was all we had to determine what Macdonald may've done at Merion then it probably would be worth parsing the hell out of what he wrote and what he meant by that remark we are analyzing and about which David Moriarty is asking us about his interpretation of it.
But that article is not all we have by any means so the better context to analyze what Findlay meant in that article is to weigh it and consider it against all the other information available from Merion that shows us pretty clearly what would have been even possible for Macdonald to be able to do. In that vein, I think anyone can easily see given the extent of the recording of what Merion did with Macdonald which only involved essentially four days over ten months that it pretty much all boils down to a single day when he would've had the opportunity but a very serious limitation of time to actually create a routing and design plan for Merion.
That of course was April 6, 1911. Merion's committee and board records prove he and Whigam were only there that single day and they never came again to offer Merion there help and assistance. Matter of fact, we don't even know if they were there the entire day just that they only came that one day. So, if anyone thinks it was even possible for them to create their own routing and design plan for that course or even some of its holes in a single day (and considering Merion presented them with five of their own plans to consider on April 6, 1911) I would suggest the realities of golf course architecture would make that truly impossible for Macdonald/Whigam to do.
Not to even mention Macdonald was never known to draw routings for any course he was ever involved with. If someone thinks he did perhaps they should speak first to George Bahto.
And this all presupposes Merion even asked them to do such a thing, at any time. I find nothing at all relating to the history of Merion that the club ever asked them to do such a thing. I think all Merion asked them for was some help and advice with how Merion (and the Wilson Committee) could do it themselves.
This has been the story of the creation and history of Merion from everyone from then until 2003 when this suggestion was made on this website that perhaps Macdonald/Whigam did back then what everybody back then and through the years always said Wilson and his committee did.
But we also need to ask ourselves where did that suggestion or question even emanate from in 2003 and why? It emanated from a couple of newspaper articles from back then that said Macdonald/Whigam gave Merion some help and advice. It should be instructive to all that those two articles have been in Merion's archive likely from the day they were written. If the people involved in creating Merion East back then actually thought that article meant to say that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed their course I'm quite sure Merion would have gotten in touch with that newspaper or magazine and asked them where they got that idea. ???
The truths and the facts are not going to be found in parsing the hell out of that Findlay article; the truth will be found in weighing it and considering it in light of the meaning of everything else that is available and certainly including from Merion itself. And we have provided here a very reliable syllabus of what has always been available from the two clubs of MCC and Merion GC that was formed in 1941 out of the structure of MCC and the MCC Golf Association which was what the club was when they moved their course from Haverford to Ardmore.
Again, a reliable Time-line that can show what was possible and pretty much what wasn't at almost any point in time is a truly beautiful and remarkably useful thing in this kind of analysis and in this kind of business. ;)
-
I've heard through the grapevine that one David Schmidt is developing the hots for teacher Miss Rawlings given what I've described of her stern, authoritarian, rigid, demanding, catechismal, style of educational enforcement.
Don't be taken in by that description Dave.
In reality, Miss Rawlings was the WASP version of Blessed Sister Corporal Punishment of the Good Order of Angry, Frustrated, Unmarried Harpies.
If he tried to pass off that type of grammatical writing in her sixth grade class, she would have beaten the young Alex Findlay to a pulp and the poor fellow would never have lived to a ripe old age, much less designed any golf courses during it.
He likely would have become some type of voluntary Neutered Eunuch, singing in the Castrati Choir, and praying for an early death. ;) ;D
-
Can some one refresh my memory. Did Findlay ever say Wilson designed Merion?
Jim. Good Question.
The short answer is No. I am unaware of any such article.
TEPaul not only disagrees with me, he is incredulous:The mincing of words and definitions on these threads has gotten out of control. It looks like Moriarty in response to Cirba actually claimed when Findlay said in one of those articles that Wilson and his committee "mapped out" the course that Findlay must have meant those five men merely measured the golf course.
I guess he is referring to the Nov. 24 1910 article found on the first page of this post, because this article contains the “mapped out” language.
1. TEPaul believes that Findlay wrote this article.
2. He also apparently believes that the “mapped out” language is strong evidence that Wilson and Committee were the designers of the course.
He is mistaken on both counts.
First, Findlay was NOT the author of this article. The article was not attributed.
Second, the article appears to be a second hand recitation of earlier articles, and likely adds little to what we know about the creation of Merion East.
- The portion describing the golf course reads as if it were a crib of an earlier Findlay review, also on the first page of this thread.
- While it does contain some of the same information as the Findlay article, the derivative article is abbreviated, awkward, and none too accurate, as if the author had been sloppy or knew little about golf, or both. For just one example, while the Findlay article describes the 8th hole as "plain," the derivative article describes it as “at the end of a plain."
- While it is an entertaining read, it is difficult to figure what this derivative article adds to the discussion.
Third and most importantly, while the Findlay article praises Wilson and his Committee for building the best course in PA, Findlay did NOT write that Wilson and Co. "mapped out" the course. That language only appears in the derivative article.
Fourth, TEPaul is taking the unattributed article out of context. A closer look reveals that the "mapped out" language is used in the context of providing the total course distance, and is not necessarily identifying those who routed the course and created the hole concepts. Here is the passage:
”The length of the course is is 6, 245 yards, as mapped out by [the Committee,] but there is room for tee space to the extent of 2[xx] yards.”
Maybe I am crazy, but it seems to me that the derivative article is describing the length of the course, and is not necessarily discussing design attribution.
With that said, the long answer to your question is also a resounding NO. Despite TEPaul's post the contrary, I am unaware of any article where Findlay wrote that Wilson designed Merion East.
Here is TEPaul's post in its entirety:
"Can some one refresh my memory. Did Findlay ever say Wilson designed Merion?"
Jim:
Just go back and read the couple of articles on the first page by Findlay and the letter and such by Baily (board member of MCC) on the first page of this thread and I think you can answer that question for yourself. If Wilson and his committee weren't out there physically digging and shoveling and shit (which clearly they never did) then what do you think everyone back then meant when they said they "laid out" or even "mapped out" Merion East?
The mincing of words and definitions on these threads has gotten out of control. It looks like Moriarty in response to Cirba actually claimed when Findlay said in one of those articles that Wilson and his committee "mapped out" the course that Findlay must have meant those five men merely measured the golf course. ;)
Jim, if the board report states that Wilson and his committee spent a couple of months in the winter and spring of 1911 creating "numerous plans" and following their visit to NGLA they honed it down to "five different courses" and one of those course plans was approved of in April by the MCC board of Directors with a course plan attached to the report the board was considering to begin the construction of the course, do you really think ALL THAT actually meant all Wilson and his committee did was MEASURE the golf course once someone else routed, designed it and then built it for them? ??? ::)
Analyzing this course's architectural history and who did what even in the very beginning is definitely not rocket science to figure out what it means; and spending four pages on here analyzing the shit out of what this one single Findlay article means about "others" is definitely not even 1% of the way to go about it.
-
David,
I think Tom Paul made a mistake in assuming that article was Findlay's, as well. I think something I wrote might have given him that impression. I was hoping we might find a copy where the headline was readable, and where perhaps a byline appeared, but no luck to date. So yes, that article to date is unattributed.
In any case, I would simply note one correction, and make one remark.
The Findlay opening day article does not give credit to the Committee for "Building" the course.
It says the "course was constructed under the direction" of Hugh Wilson and Committee. Subtle, but very important distinction, I believe, and I'd also note that the Findlay opening day article makes absolutely no mention of Charles B. Macdonald, which seems extremely odd and even negligent if one also interprets Findlay's article from just three months prior as giving Macdonald credit for laying out "many great holes" at Merion. Findlay also lived and worked and built numerous courses in the Philadelphia area for the next 30 years, while scads of news accounts credited Hugh Wilson as the designer of Merion, which by then had hosted 2 US AMs, 1 US Open, and many other tournaments of note yet never once raised any voice of objection or dissention as to the true architect of Merion.
Also, you ask if you're crazy for believing that the unattributed, opening day news article giving credit to Hugh Wilson and Committee for "mapping out" the course, was actually applying a definition essentially meaning that Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin, and Francis deserved much credit for essentially measuring the course from end to end? :o
Please take this in humorous and kidding spirit, but if that's what you truly believe, it may be time for that pill. ;) ;D
Unless the Merion Committee all were practicing members of the Monty Pythonesque "Silly Walks Brigade", I would imagine that was something even their under-developed, golf-infantile minds could have comprehended and accomplished simply by measuring their respective strides and then walking around the course! I'm thinking that being Captains of Industry and all, they might just have been able to pull that admittedly difficult task off with some extra desire, some deep thought, and lots of personal ooomph! ;) ;D
-
David,
I think Tom Paul made a mistake in assuming that article was Findlay's, as well. I think something I wrote might have given him that impression.
In any case, I would simply note one correction, and make one remark.
I guess I could have made one remark, but I doubt Jim or anyone else wants to dig through the thread to try and understand what I was talking about, so I wanted to set it out exactly.
Plus, crediting the article to Findlay was not TEPaul's only mistake. In my opinion, TEPaul also took the article out of context. Moreover, he failed to mention the derivative nature of the article or to consider how the this diminishes the value of the article as a source of new and unique information.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to be uncivil or o imply that TEPaul is attempting anything underhanded. I am sure his mistakes were innocent. But I did want to set the record straight.
You wrote:
The Findlay opening day article does not give credit to the Committee for "Building" the course.
Mike, Please see your post No. 24, and the Findlay article you posted. In the last paragraph, Findlay wrote that they "built" the course.
_______________
While I was posting you added:
Unless the Merion Committee all were practicing members of the Monty Pythonesque "Silly Walks Brigade", I would imagine that was something even their under-developed, golf-infantile minds could have comprehended and accomplished simply by measuring their respective strides and then walking around the course! I'm thinking that being Captains of Industry and all, they might just have been able to pull that admittedly difficult task off with some extra desire, some deep thought, and lots of personal ooomph! ;) ;D
I guess you are trying to be funny and all with the absurd descriptions of what I must mean by "mapped out." Nonetheless, I am not sure what the caricatures of my position add to the conversation, especially when you guys treat them as accurate.
I didn't write that "mapped out" means they personally walked the course to measure it (although given that Francis was an engineer, they may have.) Likewise, I have never said that "constructed" meant that they were the ones out there with shovels. Yet you guys repeatedly write that these are what I truly believe.
While I am sure that your caricatures are easier to deal with than my actual position, misrepresenting my position gets us no closer to the truth.
-
David and Others,
I sent this to a friend in a private email and he encouraged me to post it because he thought it sort of encapsulated what I think happened, and I hope it's helpful here:
Six months after the June, 1912 Alex Findlay article, both Tillinghast and "Far and Sure" (I believe they were the same person but Philip contends otherwise) both stated that the course was so unfinished that they didn't want to venture a "critical analysis" of the course at that point.
I do know the course routing was determined and approved in April, 1911, and having seen the minutes of the Merion Cricket Club, I also am certain it was based on one of "five different plans" developed by the Merion Committee after their visit to NGLA in early March 1911. Macdonald came for a single day on April 6th and walked the property with them and helped them select their best plan.
However, I also believe that all that was actually in place when the course was originally routed that first year were locations of tees, fairways, and greens, and then grass was planted in the fall of 1911, and in the early spring of 1912, Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas of hole "strategies" he could use to develop hole "internals" on the Merion course.
Initial articles upon opening noted very few bunkers or "mental hazards" were yet in place. It's also why early articles mentioned that Wilson went abroad before the course was built, because in the minds of those early pioneers, building the course was an ongoing task. Many of the earliest courses underwent constant evolution and improvement, and all of the main courses in Philadelphia at that time...Philly Country Club, Philly Cricket, Huntingdon Valley, Springhaven, etc., went through almost annual change as bunkers were added, entire holes were changed or added, and the entire mindset seemed to be focused on staying up with the changing times.
I think their methods were very, very different from what we think of today with a new course opening, where literally everything down to the shapes, depths, locations of bunkers and greens and all other features are first mapped out before-hand to the letter, and then built by shapers and other craftsmen.
I think some of our mistakes and confusion in trying to figure out who did what, when, and where is applying modern thinking and especially modern terminologies to early course architecture and construction, when the chief goal at first was just to get grass growing on something playable where one could tee a ball on the ground and direct it to a hole in the distance.
Most of the rest came later, and it was in fact determined to be good and sound practice to play on the course at first for some time and then determine the appropriate locations for bunkers and such.
It was a method advocated heavily in early Philadelphia writing by Tillinghast and others like Findlay.
David,
Yes, you're right. I think perhaps we have too many Opening Day articles floating about!
Findlay did say once the course was opened that Wilson and Committee did what Leeds did at Myopia...built the best courses in their respective states.
Would you say that by 1912 H.C. Leeds would have been well known and lauded for having "built" Myopia Hunt Club to someone else's design?
You also tell me I'm misinterpreting your opinion when I perhaps poke fun at Hugh Wilson sweating moving boulders, or stepping off the distance of each hole, but let me ask you a serious question.
What exactly and specifically do you believe that Hugh Wilson and his Committee actually did up to and including 1912?
They had Fred Pickering onsite...a man who by that time according to accounts had already "built" hundreds of courses out there supervising construction and bringing agronomic and construction expertise.
What do you believe that Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee were responsible for specifically, and why do you believe they were given so much credit and contemporaneous celebration once they were finished?
My lord...Tillinghast stated that they deserved the thanks of "all golfers".
If they just ordered some laborers around, don't you think Tillinghast was a lunatic?
-
Mike,
I really do not think that yet another debate about the meaning of terms like "built" and "constructed" would be at all productive at this point.
Let's just say that the usage is similar to what one might mean if they wrote that Mike Kiser built Bandon Trails. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
-
David Moriarty:
In your post #157 and in your interesting examples in that post about newspaper articles in your #1, #2, #3, #4 points, what they are and how hard it is to interepret them and certainly how hard it is to have a modicum of faith in their accuracy about the real facts about architecture and architects you make my on-going point about the lack of reliabiltiy of newspaper information a lot better than I have or ever could! Thank you for that.
And all that is precisely why I'd rather rely on the internal administrative records of golf clubs then second-hand information from newspaper reports!
-
"David,
I think Tom Paul made a mistake in assuming that article was Findlay's, as well. I think something I wrote might have given him that impression. I was hoping we might find a copy where the headline was readable, and where perhaps a byline appeared, but no luck to date. So yes, that article to date is unattributed."
Mike and David Moriarty:
Well, hell, shoot me for it if you want to but the fact is I just don't put the faith in the reliability of information contained in newspaper articles that you and others might. As I think I've explained many times in the past, I prefer to go to the direct, not indirect, source of information on the subjects I'm interested in and I think that is the clubs themselves and their own records!
-
Are you guys still quibbling over what "laying out" or even "mapping out" actually meant and referred to back then? Man, that is pretty pathetic, particularly as the old "Timeline" application can both solve and explain that one too.
Here's an historical trivia question for you two argumentative birds:
"When was the first time anyone or any article referred to the "Laying out" process as "routing" or "designing?"
Knock yourselves out guys, if you ever do figure that out, I think you'll be very surprised. ;)
-
Ah, the shoots of a new Spring. The birds are singing, the bulbs are bursting out of the ground in uproarious colors and so is a new Merion thread!
As a Libran married to a Gemini with only enough stamina to skim the latest reincarnation, I have concluded that the answer is "Both!" Consider this:
1. New golf club is formed, founded by serious golfers
2. Grizzled old veteran designer(s) called in to help on both land selection and basic routing
3. Land chosen for the task, and acquired, over time, in bits
4. Young stud from the new club is chosen to oversee the building and development of the course, using very rough, 36 stakes in the ground sort of routing
5. Very early in the process, fast-learning young stud realises that within the general routing concept, much works but much also must be changed, and makes those changes
6. Young stud also realises that agronomic excellence is a crucial element for course greatness, so he learns voraciously and hires great people to work with him on this aspect of design
7. Together, the team dynamically creates a course which is soon and continuously recognised as one of the very best.
This is my best guess as to what happened at Royal Dornoch, beginning in 1886, with the grizzled veteran being Old Tom Morris, and the young stud John Sutherland, who was 22 years old at that time. Substitute Macdonald for Morris and Wilson for Sutherland, and I think there is a more reasonable description of the history than the either/or arguments in this and previous posts.
Good night, Gracie and Mrs. Calabash.....
-
Rich, excellent ideas.
-
Rihc,
It's even simpler than that, as I'll explain.
David,
I agree that it's non-productive to argue semantics once again related to built, constructed, laid-out, etc, but I'm not sure I'd ever say that Mr. Keiser "mapped out", or "layed out", or even "laid out plans" for any of the courses at Bandon so I'm not sure he's a good example.
All,
Last night I outlined what I thought the "state of the course" was when Findlay wrote his article, and I think there is enough evidence from Tillnghast and Findlay to support that understanding. "Far and Sure", whoever he was, supports that as well in his writing.
But last night at about 4am I woke up and something pretty fundamental occurred to me that I don't think I realized prior;
I think we've made a collective mistake in believing that if there was an Alps hole, or a Redan, or any of the template holes built in the first iteration of Merion East, that it was clear direct evidence of the routing and planning of one Charles B. Macdonald. That isn't so, and now when looks at the timelines, and the supporting evidence, the whole thing comes pretty sharply into view.
Let's consider the timeline;
June 1910 - The landowner Mr. Connell brings HH Barker to the large plot of land he wants to sell to Merion (Lloyd acting as the angel), and Barker sketches a routing that gets sent in what is essentially a prospectus package packet to Merion.
Later June 1910 - At the invite of Griscom, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham visit the proposed site for what seems to have been a single day with the intent of determining if the acreage proposed, the site specifics, and the inland soil would be appropriate to build a first class course. In July, their very general recommendations are sent via letter to Merion, recommending a 6,000 yard non-specific course, the purchase of 3 additional acres along the creek and mostly concerned with agronomics.
July - November 1910 - Not much written record, but one can reasonably assume that properations to purchase the land and to setup committees to deal with purchasing and possible construction is being done.
December 1910 - Mr. Lloyd purchases the 117 acres for Merion's use as a new golf club.
January - early March 1911 - Hugh Wilson and the newly formed Construction Committee work on putting together various plans of how to use the new land. They report later to the Merion board;
""Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course.....", which we now know happened around the end of the first week in March.
March 1911 - Wilson and Committee visit Macdonald at NGLA. The Merion minutes, and later Wilson writing in 1916, make clear that the first day was spent going over Macdonald's sketches of the ideal holes abroad and the second day spent going over the course at NGLA.
to be continued
-
Rich:
Interesting analogies to OTM and Sutherland at Dornoch. In that vein, have you any idea how long OTM was at or on the project at Dornoch---eg how many days or weeks or months or whatever he was on the land? How about the same for Sutherland?
When one begins to consider, which some on here don't really seem to be doing, these kinds of things, then what is even possible as well as what isn't tends to become a bit clearer! ;)
-
Tom
I don't know how long Old Tom Morris was at Dornoch, but I doubt it was more than a few days, which seemed to be his MO. Maybe if Melvyn is lurking he can add something here. Sutherland was Secretary at Dornoch for nearly 58 years (1883-1941). He hired Old Tom.
Rich
-
“However, I also believe that all that was actually in place when the course was originally routed that first year were locations of tees, fairways, and greens, and then grass was planted in the fall of 1911, and in the early spring of 1912, Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas of hole "strategies" he could use to develop hole "internals" on the Merion course.”
MikeC:
When you make a statement like that, it very much does need some clarification as to the details and specifics of what was involved here in both the designing and evolutionary creation of Merion East, particularly as it involved pre and post seeding and the growing in phase which lasted a year with Merion East.
Again the old timeline and the realities and practicalities of parts of it can show us the way. This subject is probably worth another thread because it is highly unlikely that we will ever find these explanations of the practicalities and realities of these kinds of things in any newspaper articles.
They are much more available to us by considering and analyzing the meaning of the correspondences of the people involved with the problems and solutions that were happening out there at that early time.
It certainly can be a good thread for numerous reasons. It would be much less about the question of Wilson or Macdonald and much more about how things happened back then and how they almost had to happen if approached the way Merion approached that project. I think it'll also be a thread that will bring in the likes of Bradley Anderson because the details and specifics of those practicalities and realities back then are pretty much right in his research wheel-house.
“You also tell me I'm misinterpreting your opinion when I perhaps poke fun at Hugh Wilson sweating moving boulders, or stepping off the distance of each hole, but let me ask you a serious question.
What exactly and specifically do you believe that Hugh Wilson and his Committee actually did up to and including 1912?”
This most certainly is the question isn’t it? When it comes to what the terms they used to describe what they were doing, we can pretty easily figure out what they meant by a term such as “laying out” by again using the realities of the old timeline to determine with conclusive proof at least what they couldn’t possibly have been doing when they used that term at particular times!
-
Rich, your analogy to Dornoch is interesting. I don’t think any would dispute that both MacDonald & Wilson had a part in the design of Merion. The arguments revolve around how much influence each of them had, and it is likely that there will always be some discrepancy based on differing interpretations. There appear to be two main contentious issues, however.
1. Does MacDonald deserve any formal design attribution? Truthfully, the individuals that have had access to and have thoroughly reviewed the historical record are probably the most qualified to determine the extent of each of MacDonald and Wilson’s contributions. That would be Wayne, Tom Paul, etc. It would appear that based on their review, they do not think any further recognition of MacDonald’s contribution is warranted and the historical record should stand that Wilson was the primary designer of the course. I have no issue with any of that and don’t think others should either. The contentious issue here is that there is a lack of trust between the differing parties and that critical information has been deemed to be proprietary preventing one of the parties from reviewing it. Perhaps, one day, the information will be shared, but if the club decides against it, so be it.
2. The second contentious issue has been the tone and disrespect shown towards fellow GCA posters. A number of nasty and personal things have been said and once said, it is difficult to forget, even after numerous apologies.
I, for one, think David’s essay is nothing short of excellent. While he may have drawn the wrong conclusions and misinterpreted some of the historical record, it is without question that he has brought to light numerous interesting and important facts about the early creation of Merion Golf Club. I think that had there been a minimum amount of respect shown, followed up with constructive rather than destructive criticism of his original essay, that none of this animosity would have occurred.
Unless there are any new articles or information that others would like to share, I doubt anyone will find further insights on the matter.
-
"I don't know how long Old Tom Morris was at Dornoch, but I doubt it was more than a few days, which seemed to be his MO. Maybe if Melvyn is lurking he can add something here. Sutherland was Secretary at Dornoch for nearly 58 years (1883-1941). He hired Old Tom."
Rich:
It may not be possible to know how long OTM was at Dornoch or at what time but my point is if it is possible to know and it turns out it was for only a day or two then that most certainly tells us some of the things it would be pretty much impossible for him to do for the simple reason he didn't have the available time there to do some of them. As the creation of golf course architecture definitely works on a fairly understandable and inevitable progression of events some of which must follow others this kind of thing (time on site and when) is very important to know, and if it is known it can be remarkably telling as to who may've done what.
Obviously if Sutherland was there all the time for 58 years well then that tells us most anything was possible from him.
-
MikeC:
On your post #167 I think I pretty much went through that whole "Merion" timeline in detail in post #136. My intention was to get this thread away from parsing the hell out of the meaning of just a couple of words in a newspaper article or newspaper article writers and to take it right into the recorded material fom Merion itself. Face it, the only possible place any credible newspaper article could ever come from anyway would be from the place and people from the place who were working on the project that was being written about.
-
"I don't know how long Old Tom Morris was at Dornoch, but I doubt it was more than a few days, which seemed to be his MO. Maybe if Melvyn is lurking he can add something here. Sutherland was Secretary at Dornoch for nearly 58 years (1883-1941). He hired Old Tom."
Rich:
It may not be possible to know how long OTM was at Dornoch or at what time but my point is if it is possible to know and it turns out it was for only a day or two then that most certainly tells us some of the things it would be pretty much impossible for him to do for the simple reason he didn't have the available time there to do some of them. As the creation of golf course architecture definitely works on a fairly understandable and inevitable progression of events some of which must follow others this kind of thing (time on site and when) is very important to know, and if it is known it can be remarkably telling as to who may've done what.
Obviously if Sutherland was there all the time for 58 years well then that tells us most anything was possible from him.
Correct, Tom, but what I'm pretty sure Old Tom did was:
1. Move the focus of the course from the lower links to the much better golfing land of the higher links where it sits today.
2. Identify and choose some of the greatest greensites that exist in golf today, particularly #3, 4, 5, 14 and 15 and 17
Not bad for a couple of days of work!
-
That could be Rich but do you have any idea if he stuck around to oversee something if it took some time to make it?
Obviously, another question involved in this would be whether or not OTM actually did some fairly comprehensive drawings for whoever was left behind to follow?
-
henryE:
At this point, the question and answer as to what-all Macdonald/Whigam may've done regarding the routing and hole design of Merion East pretty much just boils down to a matter of timing and particularly TIME.
In other words it all boils down to a single day---eg April 6, 1911. All the information recorded regarding Merion and Macdonald/Whigam from 1910 on essentially proves that was the one and only day they had to consider and influence Merion's routing and hole designs.
Let me ask you something henry. Have you ever actually tried to route and hole design a piece of property and put it on paper for a club to consider and approve it? If you have or even if you haven't do you really believe it could possibly all be done in one single day? ;)
It's beginning to occur to me that perhaps some of the people reading these threads are either not considering that extremely important point or don't exactly understand or appreciate it and what it means. The reason is probably because none of them have ever tried it or have ever had any experience in that way. It would probably be benefical in that vein to bring in the opinions on that point of the professionals on here or others who have had that kind of actual experience.
I have been thinking about this kind of thing for many years now----eg how long it takes various architects to actually do and produce various things such as a routing and hole designs.
It has occured to me that throughout architecture's history some are much quicker at it than others for all kinds of interesting reasons. It has occured to me that one of the fastest at it in golf architecture's history (at least a comprehensive "hole designed" routing (I'm not exactly speaking here about those very early so-called "eighteen stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" things or just a "stick routing" (basic points and lines)) may've been Mackenzie and perhaps Flynn (the Cascades is proof positive thereon, at least of a routing, not necessarily the "hole designing" of a basic routing sequence). And in modern times perhaps Doak or even my new found friend Lester George (for a most interesting reason of his modus operandi). I know Bill Coore pretty well over the years and I've been out on a number of sites and projects with him in the routing and then "hole designing" phase and I can definitely tell you he never would and probably never could attempt to route and hole design any site in a single day. He prefers to take generally many months at same or both.
I just don't think the viewers and contributors to this kind of thread can continue to overlook the realities of this because if they do I doubt they ever could or ever would find the truth of what really happened and by whom at Merion East.
-
Tom
I do not think that Old Tom generally hung around to supervise, nor did he leave any plans behind, which is one of the reasons why I thought the CBM/Merion analogy was a good one. What was different is the fact that at Dornoch (and elsewhere) there is solid evidence that OTM did in fact recommend important routing features which still exist today. I don't think that even the most ardent CBM supporter would way the same about his lasting influence on Merion.
Rich
PS--I do think, nevertheless, that Barker and (maybe) CBM were probably the "geniuses" behind the Merion routing rather than Wilson (possibly/probably excluding the 15-18 stretch), based on my recollections of previous threads.
rfg
-
"PS--I do think, nevertheless, that Barker and (maybe) CBM were probably the "geniuses" behind the Merion routing rather than Wilson (possibly/probably excluding the 15-18 stretch), based on my recollections of previous threads."
Rich:
Really? Have you ever seen a Barker or Macdonald routing for Ardmore (Merion East)? We never have and we've never seen one from Wilson and committee either but what we do know is one of their final five was attached to their report to a mid-April board meeting, and we do know it was approved and was built.
I'll even tell you a pretty interesting and more than a little maddening tidbit about it. On the actual meeting minutes from that report you can even see the old paper clip mark where it was attached! :'(
-
MikeC:
On your post #167 I think I pretty much went through that whole "Merion" timeline in detail in post #136. My intention was to get this thread away from parsing the hell out of the meaning of just a couple of words in a newspaper article or newspaper article writers and to take it right into the recorded material fom Merion itself. Face it, the only possible place any credible newspaper article could ever come from anyway would be from the place and people from the place who were working on the project that was being written about.
Tom,
I agree and I prefer not to type out the timeline again but I do think it's important for making my next point that people understand when Macdonald was originally at Merion in June 1910 and what he did, when the Committee went to visit him at NGLA in March 1911 (and what was discussed), and when Macdonald returned for a day in early April 1911 and what he did at that time.
I say that because it occurred to me overnight that I think many folks here have interpreted the fact that there are/were a few template type holes at Merion as some proof that C.B. Macdonald had to be directly involved with the design.
Coupled with the fact that David's essay discovered that Wilson didn't go abroad until the spring of 1912, how possibly could Hugh WIlson and committee have already routed and seeded those template holes before he even went to see the originals unless CB Macdonald had done it for them?
It's a fair question, and on the face of it seems to make a lot of sense.
However, when one considers the fact that most of the holes as originally grassed in Sept 1911 were pretty much "blank pages", using only what natural features where available, and with very little in the way of bunkers, "mental hazards", or other man-made touches that would ultimately create the various strategies of each hole. Relatedly, if you think about the definitions of the Ideal Holes as identified by Macdonald, the vast majority are largely defined by their pre-prescribed bunkering patterns that serve to create the strategic choices and demands of each hole type.
Alex Findlay's June 1912 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches".
But, we also do know that the first iteration of Merion did have a few attempts at Template style holes in the style of CB Macdonald, including the redan 3rd, the Alps 10th, and the Eden green at the 15th.
How could those have been conceived or created by Wilson if he hadn't gone abroad yet?
Well, they likely came from Wilson and Committee's trip to NGLA in March 1911, after which the Merion minutes reflect;
"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."
Approximately a month later, on April 6, 1911, M&W came and spent a day onsite with the Committee and selected one plan in particular that they claimed would lead be equal to the seven best finishing holes on any inland course in the world.
That was the plan that went forward to the Merion board two weeks later, along with recommendations that they buy 3 acres near the railroad tracks to accommodate the proposed routing as well as purchase the land of the Francis Land Swap, which was necessary to get both the 15th green and 16th tee up in the northernmost part of the property.
The Merion Cricket Club minutes reflect that Wilson and the Merion Committee spent the first night of their visit to NGLA going over Macdonald's drawings of the great holes abroad, and then saw his representations of them the next day in person at NGLA.
I have to believe this spurred excitement and further discussion among the Merion group on their return such as "That mid-length par three we have to that high ridge over the barn as our 3rd hole on Plan 31 might be a lovely spot to try a redan, Rodney", or "Why, we have to climb up that hill for our 10th hole on Plan 17...might that be a whopping spot to try an Alps-green Dr. Toulmin?" I think the Findlay article gives us some very good insight when he states that the Alps Hole that Hugh Wilson "imagined" at Merion will "take a lot of making", even a full nine-months after planting.
And they clearly did try to build some template holes, and apparently not very well in terms of duplication. Just think about the subsequent discussions/arguments we've had here about whether or not the 3rd green was a redan, what with it's back to front slope and inability to permit a running shot. Or better yet, I don't think there's a person here who would argue that the original Alps 10th hole at Merion was either a) very much like the original, b) a very good golf hole, or c) aesthetically pleasing in the least.
Findlay clearly wasn't too keen on the whole "Alps at Merion" idea from his article, Tillinghast severely criticized the "Eden" 15th green, and even seven months after Findlay's article, it's interesting to read what "Far and Sure"(whoever he was) thought about other borrowed elements in his January 1913 article in American Golfer;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used. For example, an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made on the fifteenth and, in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures. The hole in question is a two-shotter and the sloping green is so keen and barren of undulations that the player is practically forced to "skittle" his approach in fear of getting above the hole. Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced. On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet."
"However, I think that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious."
So, it seems that Hugh Wilson and Committee were indeed absolutely inspired by what Macdonald showed them, and they clearly seemed to believe at least at first that creating some template holes was a good idea, but somewhere along the design/construction early evolution of the course this quickly morphed into just little "obviously stolen" touches here and there, such as the "Valley of Sin" in front of 16 green and away from wholesale semi-doppelgangers of "ideal holes" in the way that the Macdonald developed and popularized.
But, Tom Paul is right...the story of who was responsible for the design of Merion East is what it always was and exactly what Alan Wilson claimed...that Hugh Wilson and Committee designed the golf course with the great advisory assistance of CB Macdonald and Hugh Whigham who "advised as to our plans.
Dave Schmidt and HenryE,
To a large extent I agree with both of your recent posts.
I'm very heartened that the tone here around this entire issues has improved considerably and I also agree that David's research and White Paper were well-constructed and ultimately served as the impetus for all of us going back and digging deep and ultimately learning much more about the origins and timelines of a most historic and beloved American golf course.
-
MikeC:
I've always wondered why anyone would necessarily assume that any template holes at Merion had to be conceived of by CBM, even considering Wilson had not gone abroad yet. Obvioiusly, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA in March, 1911. At that point they certainly had not finished their stated "laying out" process that apparently went on from perhaps January until April. And the record shows when they returned from NGLA they "laid out" a final "five different plans." At that point Wilson and his committee certainly could've been either inspired or motivated to do some template holes themselves from that experience. The record of the Merion committee reports and Wilson's recollections in his report four years later show that Wilson said Macdonald had done 'copies of famous holes from abroad' and obviously Wilson carefully examined them at NGLA in early March 1911 before submitting the final plan for approval for the East course.
These kinds of things, and this kind of logical timeline of telling events has ALWAYS been the primary reason I never saw any convincing logic in the assumptions, premises and essential concludion of "The Missing Faces of Merion" essay.
Not to even mention the Merion story that Wilson went abroad in 1910 for seven months did not even occur until perhaps half a century AFTER Merion was begun at Ardmore so clearly it had no affect at all on what really occured back then.
-
Wow, I am never going to catch up with all of this.
Mike and Tom, thanks again for your responses to my questions, raised many posts ago. This will by no means be a complete response but is meant as a start. Your answers went well beyond my questions, and while I appreciate that, I am going to have to respond in pieces.
Preliminarily, I see that you both find the Findlay column to be poorly written, noting “how unclear Findlay's writing and meaning is in that particular article.” (TP) “Findlay's writing style is far from linear, structured, or logical.”(MC) I disagree. While there are a couple of subtleties and non-linear passages, the article makes sense to me. I mention this because I think we ought not to throw out all reason and logic and simply fill in any meaning we like. Findlay wrote:
”I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.”[/b]
In addition to the obvious, in the first few sentences above Findlay is tactfully indicating that he did not think much of Merion’s Alps, at least in comparison to Prestwick’s. As I and others understand it:
- Wilson “really imagined” he had a good Alps hole at Merion.
- [Findlay disagreed] and told him to take a close look at the original.
- After doing so, Wilson [agreed with Findlay that] Merion’s Alps needed a lot of work.
After subtly indicating that the earliest version of Merion’s Alps hole was not very good, Findlay quickly turned back positive by contrasting the substandard 10th hole with the rest of the holes at Merion: “But many of the others, as laid out by CBM, are really great.” At least that is how some others and I read it.
TEPaul asked me whether I thought any other interpretations might make sense. If I only consider the article and do not consider what else I know, I think that the interpretation offered by Kirk Gill way back on the first page made some sense, even though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion. Kirk wrote:
It is that word "others" that is problematic, and from a grammatical standpoint it is not absolutely clear whether Findlay means 'other holes at Merion' or 'other Alps holes,' as his preceding two sentences mention both. I re-read that part of the paragraph twice to decide what I felt he was talking about. For myself, I would tend to believe that he is talking about other Alps-style holes, simply because that was the last thing that he mentioned in the previous sentence.
I agree that this makes some sense, especially if CBM designed Merion’s Alps hole. But FACTUALLY, this interpretation fails because in June 1912 there were not enough CBM Alps holes for Findlay think that many of the other CBM Alps holes were really great.
As for your critiques of my interpretation, if I understand you correctly . . .
1. While neither of you agree with my interpretation, both of you acknowledge that it is not internally illogical; it at least makes some sense.
2. However, you both reject my interpretation because, based on what else you know, my interpretation cannot be accurate.
3. You each offer your own alternative interpretation which, based on what else you know, you each believe is better and more reasonable than mine; To each of you, your interpretation makes more sense.
Thanks for acknowledging that my reading was not completely illogical. As for your alternatives, rather than again explain what I view as the shortcomings of your positions, I will instead just refer you to my past posts, and turn to what I feel is your main point: Findlay would never have written that CBM designed Merion, because you know for a fact that CBM did not design Merion.
I apply similar reasoning just above. (There were not "many" CBM Alps holes, so Findlay could not have been referring to CBM Alps holes) Likewise, you guys apply similar reasoning to dismiss the Barker article. (You both know that Merion did not hire Barker to design the course, so you dismiss the article as inaccurate, based on old information, and just plain wrong. While the Alex Findlay column has too much credibility to dismiss outright, it cannot mean what I think it means.
Do I correctly understand you both? Based everything you know, Findlay could not have possibly meant that CBM designed Merion, or even many of its holes?
Let me put it another way. What if Findlay had written: But many of the other holes at Merion, as laid out by CBM, are really great.
What would you think the passage meant then? Based on what you know, it is even conceivable that Findlay would ever have written such a thing?
I am going to stop here for now, to see if I am correctly understanding you both.
-
:)
(smily face for a great discusion underway)
BTW - I'm still interested in the last sentence in that Findlay article about the car parks that allow for viewing of matches.
-
David,
Thanks...I have a few comments and one clarification I'd like to make and will hopefully get to it in more detail early afternoon.
One thing I'd clarify is that although I mentioned "other Alps holes" as laid out by Macdonald as one possibility, I tend to think more that he meant "other ideal (template) holes" at other "leading courses" which Macdonald had "laid out" in two ways;
1) Macdonald laid out in a theoretical, instructional sense for everyone in the US for the better part of ten years which holes abroad and which leading golf courses were ideal to study and emulate . He wrote a number of articles, promoted the idea tirelessly, and I found related articles tonight that made clear that by this time Macdonald was very clearly identified as the father of the entire "ideal holes" concept.
2) During the previous couple of years, Macdonald "laid out" his own versions of those holes at NGLA (and was continuing to do so at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow at the time this was written).
I believe that Findlay is probably implying both meanings in his statement.
I would also slightly adjust your interpretation of what I was saying when I mentioned having seen the MCC minutes and that they are consistent with the Hugh Wilson as architect legend. They are, but we also now know that Macdonald came back to Merion for a day in April 1911 and recommended one of the five plans to the Committee, who then took that plan for board approval. Irregardless..
I would say that while certainly not implausible or illogical, I don't agree with your interpretation simply because I don't believe it's read correctly in the context of Findlay's article, main points, and in some cases even is contradictory to what Findlay just said (i.e., he's not even ready to discuss the "possibilities" of the course given its state so I find it extremely unlikely that he would then go on to say "many of the holes on that immature course "are "really great").
Also, I mentioned that I had seen the minutes simply because once one has seen evidence, one cannot help but view future evidence without that previous understanding, or view, if you will. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know very well in that regard.
-
"I apply similar reasoning just above. (There were not "many" CBM Alps holes, so Findlay could not have been referring to CBM Alps holes) Likewise, you guys apply similar reasoning to dismiss the Barker article. (You both know that Merion did not hire Barker to design the course, so you dismiss the article as inaccurate, based on old information, and just plain wrong. While the Alex Findlay column has too much credibility to dismiss outright, it cannot mean what I think it means."
David Moriarty:
That's about exactly right. The Nov. 24, 1910 article about Barker being hired by MCC to lay out a course for them is just wrong. That reporter and report (unattributed) said MCC hired Barker. They didn't; the developer (Connell) who was not a part of MCC hired him and Lesley's report to the board at the beginning of July, 1910 made that very clear (Lesley's report said Barker was hired "On Connell's account" and presumably since his report said it that is precisely what he and MCC meant). So in that vein that article was just wrong. The article also said 'Barker to lay out a course for Merion.' Obviously in that article those words speak to the future about some event after Nov 24, 1910 that just didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because we know what did happen in the future (after Nov. 24, 1910) and after the middle of June, 1910 Barker was NEVER AGAIN involved with Merion and if he was noone ever mentioned it which would be pretty strange, don't you think, particularly considering the entire goings-on at MCC, particularly from Nov, 1910 until April 1911 was very well recorded by the club itself as to what did go on and who did what and when?
I also have never believed that Findlay was referring to "others" as other CBM "Alps" holes because in June, 1912 (the date of his article) there basically weren't any other CBM Alps holes or none that were within a year or two of being opened for play. For that reason I just can't see how Findlay would have or could have referred to the "others as really great" as being CBM Alps holes.
"Do I correctly understand you both? Based everything you know, Findlay could not have possibly meant that CBM designed Merion, or even many of its holes?"
That's right, you understand us clearly or I think you understand me clearly.
"Let me put it another way. What if Findlay had written: But many of the other holes at Merion, as laid out by CBM, are really great.
What would you think the passage meant then? Based on what you know, it is even conceivable that Findlay would ever have written such a thing?"
Then, I, for one, would obviously think Findlay meant "other holes by CBM that are really great" were Merion holes. But, as you know, Findlay didn't say "others at MERION by CBM that were really great;" you just think he may've mean that. Based on what we know, particularly the total lack of time involved for Macdonald/Whigam to have been able to do something like that it is not conceivable to me that Findlay would have written that (that the "Others" were CBM holes at Merion) or could have meant that. THIS is precisely why I believe a very closely scrutinized TIMELINE is so very helpful to us now. Macdonald/Whigam, given the facts we have now could only have had the opportunity (the time) to do that on one single day or less (April 6, 1911). Do you disagree with that and if you do, why is that? I most certainly hope you are not going to disagree with that by trying to tell us again that you think MCC, its committeemen and its board were actually just lying or mistaken in what they recorded in committee reports and board meetings about something they were dedicatedly in the process of trying to accomplish! Why in the world would they do something like that at a time like that? ;)
"I am going to stop here for now, to see if I am correctly understanding you both."
Very good. I hope we have been clear for you.
-
I do find it oddly inconsistent that the June 1912 Findlay article speaks skeptically about Wilson creating an Alps hole at Merion, (whatever his reason), and also mentions that Wilson concurs after seeing the original and states that it will "take a lot of making".
Three months later Findlay's opening day article three months later tells us that the 10th hole features an approach just like the Alps at Prestwick. He wrote; "The tenth is a two-shot hole, and the second thereto requires a stroke precisely like that of the Alps, or seventeenth, hole at Prestwick, Scotland."
Does this mean that in Findlay's eyes, Wilson got it right over the next few months? I find it difficult looking at pictures of the hole and knowing the topography to think he really believed that.
-
"Alex Findlay's June 1911 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches"."
Mike:
Since there tends to be such close scrutiny on these Merion/Macdonald threads I would not want someone to pick up on an error in the future and claim you didn't know what you were talking about or that you were in error.
So, it's just a bit of house-keeping to say, but that Findlay article we're referring to was June 1912, not June 1911. Not to even mention that by June 1911 it does not even look like Merion had found Pickering yet and brought him on board.
Also, I'm not at all sure what you're driving at in post #186.
-
Mike:
Since there tends to be such close scrutiny on these Merion/Macdonald threads I would not want someone to pick up on an error in the future and claim you didn't know what you were talking about or that you were in error.
So, it's just a bit of house-keeping to say, but that Findlay article we're referring to was June 1912, not June 1911. Not to even mention that by June 1911 it does not even look like Merion had found Pickering yet and brought him on board.
Also, I'm not at all sure what you're driving at in post #186.
Tom,
Thanks...I went back and corrected that date.
Also, I rewrote some of Post 186 but I'm not sure I'm trying to make a point other than I find it odd that Findlay seemed to voice skepticism about Merion building an Alps, seemed to indicate that Wilson concurred, and then 3 months later writes that the approach to the 10th is precisely like the Alps at Prestwick!
Talk about hyperbole!
-
"Do I correctly understand you both? Based everything you know, Findlay could not have possibly meant that CBM designed Merion, or even many of its holes?"
That's right, you understand us clearly or I think you understand me clearly.
Thanks Tom, that clarifies things.
_______________________________
David,
Thanks...I have a few comments and one clarification I'd like to make and will hopefully get to it in more detail early afternoon.
One thing I'd clarify is that although I mentioned "other Alps holes" as laid out by Macdonald as one possibility, I tend to think more that he meant "other ideal (template) holes" at other "leading courses" which Macdonald had "laid out" in two ways;
1) Macdonald laid out in a theoretical, instructional sense for everyone in the US for the better part of ten years which holes abroad and which leading golf courses were ideal to study and emulate . He wrote a number of articles, promoted the idea tirelessly, and I found related articles tonight that made clear that by this time Macdonald was very clearly identified as the father of the entire "ideal holes" concept.
2) During the previous couple of years, Macdonald "laid out" his own versions of those holes at NGLA (and was continuing to do so at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow at the time this was written).
I believe that Findlay is probably implying both meanings in his statement.
Interesting speculation, Mike, but in my opinion little or nothing in the actual text directly supports any of this. Also, your theory seems built on shifting sand. You previously argued that Findlay meant that CBM laid out Wilson's travel itinerary.
The column is just not that opaque or esoteric, and we should not have to work so hard or infer so much to make sense of it. There is no justification for reading in so much without specific textual support.
. . . once one has seen evidence, one cannot help but view future evidence without that previous understanding, or view, if you will. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know very well in that regard.
No doubt. That is why, even if I set aside the way the phrase is used, I don't find the "mapped out" article to be all that consequential; because of what else I know (or think I know) about that particular article. What one knows helps shape how one views new evidence. And it seems pretty obvious that this is what is going on here. TEPaul agrees. Based on what else you guys know, you cannot possibly accept my reading of Findlay as accurate.
So while I am sure that you sincerely believe that your latest attempt to explain the article is accurate and correct, It seems that what is driving you isn't so much anything in the article, but rather your knowledge that Findlay couldn't possibly be saying what I think he is saying. It may not be absolutely clear what he means, but he cannot mean what I think he means. Isn't this a fair enough description of what is going on here?
If not, then why go into all this about the MCC records to try and figure out what Findlay meant? They should not matter in this context if they are not a basis of your rejection of my interpretation.
-
Shivas,
Your last post is proof that a little knowledge in a small mind is a dangerous thing.
You may be caught up in the old legend. In contrast to the old legend, I don't think there is any evidence that CBM "laid out" Wilson's travel itinerary. Certainly there is no reason to read it into the column as if it were commonly known fact to Findlay and his readers. Even Mike Cirba has apparently abandoned that reading and is onto something else.
Now onto your interpretation, where you may have surprisingly overlooked a few things.
1. In the key sentence Findlay is drawing a CONTRAST. He writes "BUT." Not "AND." So your version must read something like . . .
"Before he went overseas, I told Wilson to see the Alps (which Wilson now understands will take a lot of work to recreate at Merion) BUT CBM told him to see the Alps and a bunch of other really great holes."
Stripping it to its core . . .
I told Wilson to see the Alps. BUT cbm told him to see the Alps and other great holes.
Where is the CONTRAST?? More particularly, where is the contrast with many of the others are very good.
"I told him to see Prestwick's Alps [which is not so good.] But CBM told him to see Prestick's Alps and others and many of those others are very good?"
Where is that in the column? I don't see it.
2. The other thing you surprisingly missed is the reason Findlay sent Wilson to Prestwick in the first place:
- Findlay wrote Wilson "really imagined" that he had an Alps at Merion.
- Findlay apparently knew better.
* Otherwise why write Wilson "really imagined" it?
* And if he agreed, why send him to Prestwick to he look closely at the real thing?
- So Findlay sent Wilson to Prestwick to take a close look at the real thing.
- Seeing the real thing convinced Wilson that Findlay was correct, Merion's 10th needed a lot of work.
Again, only condensed:
[/i]"Wilson "really imagined" he had an Alps. [He didn't, so] I sent him to see the real thing. He know knows his Alps needs a lot of work."[/i]
And there you have the CONTRAST. Wilson [and Findlay] thought Merion's Alps needed a lot of work, BUT MANY OF THE OTHERS, LAID OUT BY CBM, ARE VERY GOOD.
-
David,
I really haven't moved onto something else. I simply provided more explanation of why I stated that in a very real way, C.B. Macdonald "laid out" Hugh Wilson's itinerary, both that night they spent going over Macdonald's sketches of great holes and courses abroad, as well as seeing in person which overseas holes Macdonald admired and emulated at NGLA when he built his own course.
I do contend that "others" are leading courses and great holes that Macdonald has trumpeted to every potential golfing audience in America for a decade at this point, and it's personalized to Hugh Wilson through the sketches and "principles" of those holes he showed Wilson and the Committee that night at NGLA, as well as his own interpretations of those holes he showed to Wilson and Co. the next day on the ground at NGLA.
-
As I recall Mike, before you were very specific about the column meaning that CBM actually laid out the itinerary. You even mistakenly referenced the MCC documents for support that CBM had specifically done so. Now your version is much more amorphous. Either way, there is no hook in the text for such a reading. Moreover, as I explain to Dave, both your specific and amorphous readings render the meaning nonsensical.
You seem to be adding what I have bolded:
"I sent Wilson to Prestwick. BUT Prestwick and many of the other holes abroad which Wilson decided to visit because CBM has been describing these holes and their importance for the past decade and also described these holes to Wilson and his Committee and went over the sketches he had made of them with Wilson and his Committee over a year ago while they visited him at NGLA are really great."
Not only is this very stretched. It doesnt make sense because there is no contrast between Prestwick and the other holes abroad that were great (of which Prestwick is also one.) , Unless Findlay did not like the Alps at Prestwick, but this is not supported by the text. Also such a reading would not only be illogical, it would completely change the meaning of not only the passage, but of other portions as well.
"I sent Wilson to Prestwick which I don't think is very good. BUT Prestwick and many of the other holes abroad which Wilson decided to visit because CBM has been describing these holes and their importance for the past decade and also described these holes to Wilson and his Committee and went over the sketches he had made of them with Wilson and his Committee over a year ago while they visited him at NGLA are really great."
-
And don't you think a scoop like that - design by the biggest name in golf at the time -
Was CBM really the biggest name at the time? What about guys like Park, Fowler, Colt, Braid, Travis?
-
Hi David M - I hope you've been well.
I think Dave S' post #197/reading makes a lot of sense - and it's the first one that does for me. I say that because it's a reading (the ONLY reading) that renders the whole of Findlay's article internally consistent.
The "many others as laid out by Macdonald are really great" line -- on its own -- suggested to me the same it does for you. EXCEPT: I couldn't understand why, if that's what Findlay actually meant, he could a) start his article by deferring any judgements about the far-from-finished course to a later date, and b) end his article by equating what Wilson was doing at Merion with what Leeds (at Myopia) and Macdonald himself (at NGLA) had done.
I think Shivas' reading of the line addresses both those issues, and makes (internally consistent) sense of the whole.
Peter
-
Shivas,
I still do not understand where you are getting this notion that CBM "laid out" his itinerary. If you are going to read that into the article shouldn't you have some basis for so doing? As I see it there is no basis either inside or outside the text.
These legends die hard, so I am sure it is difficult for us to imagine that CBM did not help plan the trip. But it would have been even more difficult for the readers (or Findlay) to come up with anything like your understanding, since you are reading in a legend that they haven't likely heard.
Another problem with your reading is that, while I agree that your assumption that Findlay did not think much of the hole at the time of the article was written, there is nothing in there about Wilson or Findlay dismissing the hole concept as unworkable at Merion.
- Findlay did not write, that, upon his return "Wilson agreed that the Alps concept cannot work at Merion."
- He did write that upon his return, Wilson was convinced that "it would take a lot of making" to equal to that to Prestwick's.
Wilson imagined he already had an Alps, so I told him to closer look at the real one, and he now is convinced that the hole needs a lot of work. This reading is consistent with Findlay's preface about not delving into the holes too deeply until the details were finished.
Again, I think the Merion Legend (at least as told around here) might be influencing your interpretation in this regard. Many around here look back on the original 10th with such disdain that one gets the impression that it was considered a terrible hole from day one, so it is hard to imagine that it lasted over a decade. Even then, while around here one might get the impression that the only reason they changed it was because it was a terrible hole, it is my understanding that the hole was changed so as to avoid having to play over Ardmore Avenue, not because it just did not work as an Alps.
To the contrary, reading the old reviews leads one with the impression that the hole was quite popular and impressive precisely because it played a like Prestwick's Alps. Before the opening one such review noted:
"The tenth hole is rated a two shot hole, and the second thereto requires a shot precisely like that of the Alps, or seventeenth, at Prestwick Scotland."
The reviewer? Findlay., which makes the disputed article written three months earlier all that much more interesting, doesn't it? To me it looks as if Wilson had some work to do after his trip and got to work. And Findlay very much approved of the result.
Did Wilson and Findlay change their minds about the hole? Or could you be reading the first article incorrectly?
_______________
While I don't recall off hand that any other earlier article used the phrase "laid out," CBM and Whigham's involvement in the creation of the course was mentioned in periodicals and newspapers before this quite a few times, going back into 1910. I don't think it would have been a shocker to anyone who cared when Findlay reported CBM's involvment. Nor do I think that the phrase "laid out" would have raised many eyebrows, given how ambiguous the usage of that term was at the time.
-
"Shivas,
I still do not understand where you are getting this notion that CBM "laid out" his itinerary. If you are going to read that into the article shouldn't you have some basis for so doing? As I see it there is no basis either inside or outside the text.
These legends die hard, so I am sure it is difficult for us to imagine that CBM did not help plan the trip. But it would have been even more difficult for the readers (or Findlay) to come up with anything like your understanding, since you are reading in a legend that they haven't likely heard."
David Moriarty:
I'm with you about Macdonald setting or "laying out" Hugh Wilson's itinerary while abroard for those up to maybe six plus weeks abroad in 1912; that is if I'm even remotely understanding your point when you question it.
I don't necessarily question, or I should probably say I don't really see it's relevence. In my opinion, it's just speculation anyway, albeit it interesting speculation but since I think I've seen everything and more that's now extant on here about this entire era of Merion, I must say I've never seen it ever mentioned anywhere that Macdonald "laid out" Wilson's itinerary abroad.
You call that idea old stories or old rumors or whatever, but frankly, I don't think they're old at all. I think that idea that Macdonald may've "laid out" Wilson's itinerary probably first started on this website, not with Merion or anywhere else. It's not just that old rumors died hard, it's even more fascinating how and where they begin in the first place! ;)
I mean it certainly is possible and perhaps even logical but so are a number of others doing that for Wilson such as Crump who was over there on a three month architectural tour in the end of 1910. Crump was obviously a pretty good friend of Wilson's for a whole lot of pretty obvious reasons. I don't believe Macdonald was and I only say that because the only letter I've ever seen from Macdonald to Wilson he addressed him as "Mr. Wilson." ;)
And when it comes to itineraries over there don't forget a lot of those men around MCC were Uber-world travelers both for business and pleasure. The fact is some of those guys were over there all the time and if they were dedicated golfers, the best clubs and courses were definitely no secret to them. I doubt any of them would've had to depend on Macdonald to tell them or Wilson where to go over there to look at the best courses and architecture.
And apparently Hugh had been asking a lot of questions about architecture abroad otherwise why would Findlay have told him to look carefully at Prestwick's #17 (Alps)? ;)
However, it seems you may be focusing on this mention of Macdonald "laying out" Wilson's itinerary just in a textual or even contextual way only in relation to Findlay's article. I admit, I'm looking at it in a much broader context like who those men were, who had been over there that a guy like Wilson really knew well to ask about it? Frankly, at that point in time in that particular world of people (MCC et al) going over there and looking at all the same courses was probably a bit like the English sophisticates taking what was well known as "The Grand Tour" (of the classical antiquities of the Continent, particularly Greece and Rome and Egypt.
There is another really interesting thing that is sort of a Merion/Pine Valley switcheroo here, I have absolutely never thought of before, that perhaps is for another time and another thread but that is noone has ever really known how Crump got onto Harry Colt. Did he see him over there when he went in 1910? Or perhaps, did Hugh Wilson tell Crump about Colt because there is no question in my mind when Wilson was over there in 1912 (about nine months BEFORE Crump even began PV) he stayed with Colt! I've never seen much connection to Colt and Macdonald but both Crump and Wilson sure had a connection to Colt! ;)
If that was off the flow of this thread and a diversion, I'm sorry about that but I just thought some of this might be worth mentioning for you. As you know, I'd like to see you guys get away from just parsing a sentence or two of Findlay's in a virtual vacuum because I really don't think that will get you or take you guys anywhere relevent. I'd like to see you guys try to put some of the interpretations of what Findlay meant into the larger and more important context of what was going on in this vein with Merion itself and what its reports and written record say about Macdonald's available time and opportunity to even be able to do what you are all debating here Findlay may've meant about CBM creating even conceptually holes at Merion (those "others"). ;)
Again, I think the larger context can help show that some interpretations of what Findlay may've meant by "others by CBM are really great" insofar as it might mean CBM laid out those "others" at Merion are virtually impossible for reasons I already cited to you on this thread.
-
Guys,
I'm not saying that Macdonald laid out Wilson's itinerary in a literal sense.
I'm saying that Macdonald spent a decade promoting the ideal holes and leading courses abroad here in the states, then spent a night going over them with Wilson and Co. in great detail, then showed them his versions of the holes at NGLA the next day.
In a very real way, Macdonald planned the itinerary of many of the Americans who went abroad to study the great courses there, and the "ideal holes", because he was the one who brought them to the general US golf public's attention, and he also went above and beyond to educate his readers and listeners and really anyone who would listen back then on their virtues.
In the case of Wilson and Co., it was a bit more personalized is all.
-
The "others" are the opposite of the Alps. It's not rocket science ???
-
MikeC:
I might take a bit of an issue with that last post of yours, at least for some of the early transatlantic travelers for a golf architecture education abroad. Macdonald sure as shit didn't plan any architectural study trip abroad for Herbert Leeds or even inspire him to go over there for what he (Macdonald) was proposing to do over here via NGLA in the coming years! Maybe Leeds even led the way for Macdonald somehow since he was over there doing that earlier (apparently 1901).
Or was he? Perhaps it was like "The Perfect Storm!" as according to Macdonald's auto-bio the idea came to him as follows.....
........he said he was inspired by the (1900-01?) London GOLF ILLUSTRATED controversy known as the "Best Hole Discussion" which he claims put the idea in his head to do a course of "ideal" holes over here (NGLA -6-10 years later). Leeds, on the other hand, went abroad in 1901-02? and came home declaring himself satisfied with what he had done at Myopia after what he studied abroad, and this just before or just after Myopia held a US Open on his expanded new 18 hole course (Myopia's second US Open, by the way).
Macdonald says in his auto-bio his two study trips abroad took place in 1902 and then again in 1904! Pretty interesting, huh? ;)
No wonder the early reports and early architects claimed Myopia was the (first) best course in America if not the world (Kirkaldy)!
-
"The "others" are the opposite of the Alps. It's not rocket science ;D"
Well, Mayday, parsing a sentence or a paragraph from an old newspaper article by a really bad early writer sure as hell seems to be treated when analyzed in a vacuum like rocket science on here in the last page or so! ;)
Why don't you and I just let these self-proclaimed English writing and sentence structure experts duke it out for a couple of days in their mission to grammatically ;) explain what really happened with the design of Merion East via a really bad writer's meaning about "others" and Macdonald and Merion? In the meantime why don't you and I just go hit some balls or play golf somewhere and we can come back and fill them in later on the facts of what really happened, or COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED way back when with the material that really matters to the MEANING of those newspaper articles? ::)
-
The "many others as laid out by Macdonald are really great" line -- on its own -- suggested to me the same it does for you. EXCEPT: I couldn't understand why, if that's what Findlay actually meant, he could a) start his article by deferring any judgements about the far-from-finished course to a later date, and b) end his article by equating what Wilson was doing at Merion with what Leeds (at Myopia) and Macdonald himself (at NGLA) had done.
Hi Peter.
1. I guess it is a matter of what you think "finished" is, but I hardly think the course was "far-from-finished." The course had been planned, built, and seeded and was growing in. We've known for a while now (or at least some of us have) that Wilson left many of the "finishing touches" until after he returned from abroad. But this was no blank slate. As TEPaul and Mike discuss somewhere above in this thread, Merion is a very natural course (despite the fame of its bunkers) and most of the strategy and interest is dictated by how the golf holes lay into the natural features of the place. Because of the brilliant use of the site, I don't think it a stretch to say that Merion's great holes were great pretty much before the "finishing touches" were added.
So while it makes perfect sense for Findlay to refrain from describing the course in detail until after the "finishing touches," he knew generally what was good and what was not, and the overall tone of the article was very positive. He surely knew what was great and what still needed work. For example, he may have done so subtly, but he got the point across that Merion's Alps still needed a lot of work. And without going into any detail, he contrasted this with many of the others, which were really great.
The beginning reminds me of another review, by either Hazard or Far and Sure, written after the course opened, where the author makes the same sort of statement about the course still being a "rough draft" and claims to be withholding judgment until everything is finished. That author goes on offer his opinion on much of the golf course, despite his statement.
2. As for the second point, you may want to take another look at the article. He does not equate their work product, but rather their study abroad:
"Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country as such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I. We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf."
He could not possibly mean to include anything about Wilson's routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!
__________________
Well, Jeez, Dave, I could just as easily ask you where you got the idea that Macdonald designed Merion...after all, your interpretation of the second paragraph of Findlay's letter relies on that supposition, doesn't it? It's not as if Findlay actually says that, is it?
Well, Jeez, Dave, you could, but then unlike you I'd have an answer. There is more than enough additional information out there to support a conclusion that CBM was responsible for Merion's routing. For one example, even the most ardent cannot deny that CBM returned to Merion and chose Merion's final routing on April 6, 1911. Moreover, his involvement had already been widely reported. So it does makes sense for Findlay could have meant that CBM routed the holes at Merion.
In comparison, your explanation is cut from whole cloth.
Goose. Gander. Don't you think?
Duck is more like it.
-
"He could not possibly mean (to) {sic} include anything about routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!"
David Moriarty:
Yes, that's true, and particularly considering that Findlay's article was written June 1912, a good thirteen and a half months after Merion's routing and design was approved by MCC and taken into the construction (and seeding) phase.
I hope that statement does not mean you still actually think and are suggesting that says anything at all about who routed and designed it or that you're suggesting that Macdonald/Whigam did? If you are still suggesting that, at this point, I surely would like to know why!? And please try not to give me the very same reason you did in your essay---eg Wilson and his commttee were too much the novices to have been able to do it on their own in the winter and spring of 1911 and so that somehow logically must mean Macdonald/Whigam (or Barker ::) ) HAD to HAVE done it for them!
I have felt and am hoping we have all come a long way since then to a better understanding of the Merion timeline of events and of Wilson and committee's roll in the routing and design of Merion East and Macdonald/Whigam's roll about the originally recorded "help and advice" they offered MCC in June 1910, at NGLA in March 1911 and for that single day at Ardmore in early April 1911.
I really hope I can say and feel that with some assurance now, because if I can't then that would mean you are also suggesting that Merion's committees and its Board of Directors were in error with their own records or that they were lying about what they said they were doing and who did it.
-
I really hope I can say and feel that with some assurance now, because if I can't then that would mean you are also suggesting that Merion's committees and its Board of Directors were in error with their own records or that they were lying about what they said they were doing and who did it.
I am not suggesting any such thing. Why would they have lied? The truth is that I haven't seen those documents so it is impossible for me to begin to develop a complete understanding of everything they might mean.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you and Mike providing your interpretations of what you think is important about the MCC documents, but as you have said repeatedly, the documents themselves are the best evidence, not the second-hand accounts. And your second-hand accounts raise more questions than provide answers, and appear to have many missing pieces and incomplete or missing details.
Moreover, even based on what you have represented about the MCC documents, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. In other words, I do not think that the facts you've listed support your conclusions. Plus, your descriptions seem to be missing plenty of information. Plus plenty is based not on direct facts, but on what you have assumed based on what you have read. All that being said, it doesn't make sense for me to get into a detailed debate about what documents mean when I have no access to those documents.
Bottom line is that, while I have no intention of being uncivil, I have serious doubts that those documents mean what you think they mean. I am more convinced than ever that I am still on the right track, and that M&W were the driving forces behind Merion's original routing and hole concepts.
Of course I could still be wrong, and there may be source information out there that does change my mind, but I have not seen it yet.
-
2. As for the second point, you may want to take another look at the article. He does not equate their work product, but rather their study abroad:
"Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country as such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I. We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf."
He could not possibly mean to include anything about Wilson's routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!
David,
Aren't you also aware that Findlay's opening day article wrote that Wilson and Co. did the exact same thing as Leeds did at Myopia...built the best courses in their respective states?
Findlay was very, very aware of what Leeds did at Myopia, which he called the best course in the US, even after the National was built.
Do you think he'd make this comparison lightly, or do you think he's saying that HC Leeds simply laid the course on the ground to someone else's plans as you claim Hugh Wilson did?
-
"I am not suggesting any such thing. Why would they have lied? The truth is that I haven't seen those documents so it is impossible for me to begin to develop a complete understanding of everything they might mean.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate you and Mike providing your interpretations of what you think is important about the MCC documents, but as you have said repeatedly, the documents themselves are the best evidence, not the second-hand accounts. And your second-hand accounts raise more questions than provide answers, and appear to have many missing pieces and incomplete or missing details.
Moreover, even based on what you have represented about the MCC documents, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. In other words, I do not think that the facts you've listed support your conclusions. Plus, your descriptions seem to be missing plenty of information."
David Moriarty:
Thanks for that response; it more clearly confirms what we've been through on here for over a year. What are the many missing pieces and incomplete or missing details you're referring to above? What is it about our descriptions you think are missing plenty of information? What information? If you've never seen those documents what leads you to believe something is missing from them on here? Would it have anything to do with your tendency to try to fit some preconceived conclusion on Macdonald's roll in Merion East into the history of a club's golf architecture before you've even seen what's made up that history for about a century now?
I can certainly understand you don't like or don't appreciate our interpretations of that material if it doesn't agree with your preconceived ideas and conclusions. Believe me, I'm sure anyone can understand that on here with the way this Merion/Macdonald/Wilson saga has gone on for over a year or a few.
But it's a free country, you know, and anyone is more than capable of just picking up the telephone and calling Merion Golf or MCC, explainng their burning interest in analyzing their golf architectural histories and attempting to establish a good working relationship with them on it.
I'm pretty sure both clubs have a telephone and a telephone number, as I recall using it in the past and somehow they miraculously appear in my address book. Perhaps you may care to explain to the viewers and contributors on here why you haven't done that yet and if you have what the problem is.
I'm all ears on that one and believe me I have as little idea on that aspect of your on-going analysis of Merion East's course as I'm sure the rest of these GOLFCLUBATLASers do. I've always assumed that anyone interested in writing an in-depth opinion essay on a golf course's architectural history would like to feel comfortable they have analyzed everything extant BEFORE writing their opinion essay rather than attempting to analyze a good deal of it AFTER the fact of making their essay and its assumptions, premises and conclusion available to a ton of people on the World Wide Internet.
But maybe I'm wrong about that. Maybe the new way is to just keep changing your essay as you learn more and hopefully get the thing semi-right someday.
Would you care to please answer some of those questions of mine on this post as I think they might be very interesting answers for our contributors and viewers on here?
Thanks, I appreciate it.
-
2. As for the second point, you may want to take another look at the article. He does not equate their work product, but rather their study abroad:
"Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country as such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I. We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf."
He could not possibly mean to include anything about Wilson's routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!
David,
Aren't you also aware that Findlay's opening day article wrote that Wilson and Co. did the exact same thing as Leeds did at Myopia...built the best courses in their respective states?
Findlay was very, very aware of what Leeds did at Myopia, which he called the best course in the US, even after the National was built.
Do you think he'd make this comparison lightly, or do you think he's saying that HC Leeds simply laid the course on the ground to someone else's plans as you claim Hugh Wilson did?
Yes, Mike, I do recall the article. In it Findlay seems to be following up on a few things he mentioned in the earlier one. Namely, in the earlier he wrote that Wilson's object was to make Merion the 'king-pin' course of Pennsylvania, but Findlay was not ready to make this pronouncement yet as they were still working on the course. In the latter article he follows up, noting the Construction Committee had built the nicest course in PA same as Leeds did fo Mass.
But Mike, you read way more into this than is there, especially given the parallels between the two articles. You say that Findlay says Wilson did exactly what Leeds had done, and then read this as a pronouncement about the routing about both courses. What he says is that they both built the best courses in their states, no more no less. Nothing about who originally routed either course.
Compare the articles: Findlay was not yet willing to to say that Wilson had built the best in state in the first article, because it wasn't grown in and they were adding the finishing touches. Had he really been talking about routing, this wouldn't make much sense.
-
Is it not possible that Findlay was one of the early adopters of what has become the grand tradition of "new-course-hyperbole", which has evolved today into the likes of Donald Trump, Gary Player, et al., to whom every new course they're involved with is the greatest thing ever created. ;)
Dave,
If he were not Alex Findlay that would likely be very true. However, I don't know if you're following the Myopia thread but Findlay was extremely versed in the goings-on at Myopia...he's evidently the one who brought Herd and Kirkaldy to play there in 1906 and later brought Vardon and Ray there (according to a golf course historian who used to participate regularly here).
At the time, Kirkaldy called Myopia the best course in the world, and it was widely reported.
For Alex Findlay to compare Merion and what Wilson did there to what Leeds did by 1912 at Myopia is a huge deal.
EDIT** - I'm putting it on the Myopia thread, but I thought I'd just place it here as well for convenient reading; It's from a former contributor here...if he wishes me to identify him he can just let me know.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3627/3449754649_47400e23a3_o.jpg)
-
Guys,
I'm not saying that Macdonald laid out Wilson's itinerary in a literal sense.
And I'm saying that in that one hour walk, Wilson told Findlay that but for CBM laying out a bunch of other other holes he should see in GBI, the ultimate success of the course might be up in the air (especially given that the ultimate success of the Alps concept remained questionable at that point. I'm saying that Wilson credited CBM in that conversation for giving him a whole bunch of hole concepts to see in addition to the Alps, and thank God he did... and that Findlay reported as such.
David, in the sentence, But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.; are you suggesting that this is Wilson's opinion or Findlay's? I ask, because I took it to be Wilson's (as both the sentence before and after also reflect Wilson's opinion). Most everyone else seems to interpret it to be Findlay's opinion.
-
"Plus plenty is based not on direct facts, but on what you have assumed based on what you have read. All that being said, it doesn't make sense for me to get into a detailed debate about what documents mean when I have no access to those documents.
Bottom line is that, while I have no intention of being uncivil, I have serious doubts that those documents mean what you think they mean. I am more convinced than ever that I am still on the right track, and that M&W were the driving forces behind Merion's original routing and hole concepts.
Of course I could still be wrong, and there may be source information out there that does change my mind, but I have not seen it yet."
David Moriarty:
Plenty is based not on direct facts but what I have read (of those direct facts?)?
I see. Pretty interesting take on your part then. You have NOT read them yourself and yet you seem to know they do not mean what I think they mean?!? That's a pretty neat trick; how did you determine that? ;)
You're more convinced than ever you're on the right track? OK, but what makes you say that since you've seen no more material than when you wrote your essay and you now have everybody who has seen those documents you haven't seen saying your essay reaches the wrong conclusion if that conclusion happens to be Macdonald/Whigam routed the course and designed its holes.
I do recognize that you have backed off from that or perhaps you've claimed you never meant that. You have said you're more convinced then ever that Macdonald/Whigam were the driving force behind Merion. I'm quite sure that in a golf architecture, routing, designing and construction context none of us on here have much idea what you mean by "Macdonald/Whigam were the driving force behind Merion." Would you care to elucidate and perhaps supply a few details about what that might mean?
There's also the small matter of Wilson's report to the Board in April that says we laid out numerous courses (in the winter of 1911 before going to visit NGLA) and then following the visit to NGLA we laid out five different plans. There is also the small matter that the only other time Macdonald/Whigam were at Merion after perhaps a day in June 1910 was that single day in early April 1911, ten months later.
Those are the facts (perhaps you will read them yourself someday and you will see. If at that point they do not say what we've told you they say then I could certainly understand your concern but that's not possible since they say just that---we laid out numerous courses and then five different plans and the fact is Macdonald/Whigam just weren't there to work with them on it before April 6, 1911, the single day they were at Merion, and not to return again for the purpose of helping and advising Merion) and it isn't very hard to understand what it means when you read it.
One thing they definitely don't mean is "laying out" as Wilson's report was using the term did not mean they were building the course on the ground to someone else's plan. As they were using the term "laying out" it could not possibly have meant that because at that point the course wouldn't go into the building phase for a few months and the board had not even approved a plan to build for the course at that point; they approved one of the five plans that had already been laid out (on paper---eg a survey map of the property) in the middle of April 1911 following the presentation of Wilson's report and one of the five plans was attached to that report that would be approved by the board as well as approved by Macdonald/Whigam with their description that in their opinion its last seven holes equaled any in the world inland.
If you still actually think Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed the holes of the East course there is also that question (well let me call it "problem" instead) of how they could've possibly done that in a single day! ;)
Maybe it would help you to understand these kinds of things better if, preparatory to your reviewing any additional documents from Merion's 1910-1911 architectural history, you spent a couple of weeks out on some site with some architect attempting to route a course on a site.
But just remember if they are using a CAD system that Macdonald/Whigam and Wilson and his committee didn't have such a thing in 1911. :-X
Oh yes, one other thing; I'm not aware that Macdonald ever drew a routing himself for any course he ever did. Are you? Have you ever spoken to George Bahto about that? I suppose he and Whigam could've just taken a bunch of stakes and routed a course themselves on the ground in that single day but what about the rest of the design? How did they do that in a single day? ;)
The other thing to consider is that at no time during those day each visits spread out by ten months did anyone ever say that MCC even asked Macdonald to route and design a course for them but they most certainly chronicled the fact that they asked him a number of questions about how they could do it themselves.
One of the things that I believe is the real fact of Macdonald's advice to MCC which actually continued in a letter he wrote to Wilson in June of 1911 is that the majority of what he advised them and particularly Wilson on was agronomy. You will note that most of that letter Macdonald wrote to MCC in June 1910 (a year before his last letter to Wilson on June 1911) had to do not with golf course architecture but with the problems of growing grass and establishing good turf. On that he even encouraged them to go to Baltusrol for advice as they, like Merion, were inland. However, even if those are the facts it doesn't play very well on this website---eg apparently most on here aren't very interested in agronomy, only architecture. Good thing the same isn't said about Hugh Wilson! ;)
And last, I'm very glad you do not wish to be uncivil. Either do I and I hope you don't think I'm being that.
Thanks, I hope you're somehow able to finally give some considered responses to those points made above why my (our) interpretation of the events of Merion in 1910-11, after having read all the material available to me, is that Macdonald/Whigam had neither the time nor the opportunity (a single day) to route and design Merion East even if someone asked them to do that which, from all available evidence, noone ever did; and apparently because they didn't have to; they had a number of their own routing and design plans they had developed in the previous 3-4 months to be presented to their Board of Directors for approval to actually build and for Macdonald/Whigam to review, advise on and hopefully approve one of them, which it is recorded he in fact did during that single day in early April, 1911. :)
By the way, assuming you have never seen that June 1911 letter from Macdonald to Wilson, I would be happy to supply it for you. It is in the public domain and not considered to be the private property of Merion Golf Club or MCC, and for that reason I would be glad to supply it to you or help you find it.
-
Here's a legit question: is this article the first published news report of CBM's involvement or were there others prior to this?
The reason I ask is that if it was the first, that'd be a pretty big scoop, don't you agree? And don't you think a scoop like that - design by the biggest name in golf at the time - would have warrranted more than a vague midsentence reference?
Shivas,
CB Macdonald was mentioned in Philadelphia news reports in June 1910, when he and Whigham toured the property and gave their blessing to the purchase of the land. None of the article suggested anything in the slightest about a routing or "laid out", much less "mapped out" by Macdonald.
Wilson and Co. went to NGLA in early March, 1911, and the MCC Minutes reflect that they spent the first night going over Macdonald's drawings of famous holes abroad and the next day walking and touring NGLA. This is mostly corroborated by Hugh Wilson's 1916 account.
Macdonald came back for a day in early April, 1911 and as Alan Wilson stated, "advised as to our plans", helping Wilson and Committee to pick the best of their "five different plans".
Tillinghast reported in the May 1911 "American Golfer", writing as Hazard;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3450594315_6c50f0347e_o.jpg)
About a year later Tilly wrote again in a Philly newspaper.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3423477693_19e5846dfb_o.jpg)
Finally, after the course opened, "Far and Sure", who many of us think is TIllinghast, wrote the following in American Golfer;
"Two years ago, Mr. Chas. B. Macdonald,
who had been of great assistance in an
advisory way, told me that Merion
would have one of the best inland
courses he had ever seen, but every
new course is "one of the best in the
country" and one must see to believe
after trying it out. I had hoped that
it was as good as reported, for it appeared
to be the one great chance to
provide Philadelphia with a real championship
course...It is too early to attempt an analytical
criticism of the various holes for
many of them are but rough drafts
of the problems, conceived by the con-
struction committee, headed by Mr.
Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited
many prominent British courses last
summer, searching for ideas, many of
which have been used. For example,
an attempt to reproduce the Eden
green at St. Andrews has been made
on the fifteenth and, in my opinion, it
has resulted in one of the few failures
The hole in question is a two-shotter
and the sloping green is so keen and
barren of undulations that the player
is practically forced to "skittle" his
approach in fear of getting above the
hole. Many of the imported ideas of
hazard formation are good, and the
grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have
been well introduced. On some of the
sand mounds I noticed the growing of
something which looked suspiciously
like the bents of Le Touquet. However,
I think that the very best holes
at Merion are those which are original,
without any attempt to closely follow
anything but the obvious."
Now, the only other person I know who wrote about Macdonald at Merion is Alex Findlay, in the article that spawned this thread.
Curiously, some find this one sentence stating that Maconald "laid out others" as some type of proof of his design, yet dismiss a slew of news articles stating that Hugh Wilson and Co. "laid out", "mapped out", "conceived of", "constructed", "built", "helped largely in the planning", "responsible for", and then also dismiss the Alan Wilson article where he tells us who designed Merion as well as Tillinghast articles upon course opening when he says that "Hugh Wilson and Co. deserve the thanks of all golfers", or Max Behr when he stated that Wilson did at Merion what Leeds did at Myopia and Macdonald did at NGLA, or when Alex Findlay said the same thing, or in any of the other following accounts;
Philly Inquirer – 9/15/12 – “Clubs & Clubmen” column
“Mr. Hugh Wilson went abroad to get ideas for the new course and helped largely in the planning of the holes.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 10/12/13 – William Evans
“Hugh I. Wilson, chairman of the Green Committee at the Merion Cricket Club and who is responsible for the wonderful links on the Main Line, has been Mr. Geist’s right hand man and has laid out the Sea View course. Mr. Wilson some years ago before the new course at Merion was constructed visited the most prominent courses here and in Great Britain and has no superior as a golf architect. Those who have visited the new course have commented warmly on its construction.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 11/1/14 - William Evans
“Then comes Hugh I. Wilson of Merion, whose word ought to count for a great deal, for he laid out both the Merion courses and the Seaview links. He has this to say.. "
Philly Inquirer 12/06/14 – Joe Bunker
“Hugh I. Wilson, for a number of year’s chairman of the Green Committee at Merion Cricket Club has resigned. He personally constructed the two courses at Merion, and before the first was built he visited every big course in Great Britain and this country. “
Philly Inquirer 1/24/15 – Joe Bunker
“Such experts as Hugh Wilson, who laid out the Merion and Seaview courses…have laid out the golf course in Cobb’s Creek Park.”
Philadelphia Public Ledger – 1/31/15 – William Evans
“A Committee made up of Hugh Wilson, the man responsible for the two Merion and new Seaview courses…will aid the park engineers in laying out the course (at Cobb’s Creek)”.
Philly Inquirer 4/23/16 – Joe Bunker
“Nearly every hole on the course (Merion East) has been stiffened (for the US Am) so that in another month or two it will resemble a really excellent championship course. Hugh Wilson is the course architect and Winthrop Sargent is chairman of the Green Committee. These two men have given a lot of time and attention to the changes and improvements. Before anything was done to the course originally, Mr. Wilson visited every golf course of any note not only in Great Britain, but in this country as well, with the result that Merion’s East Course is the last word in golf course architecture. It has been improved each year until not it is almost perfect from a golf standpoint.
Philly Inquirer 1/14/17 – Billy Bunker
“Hugh Wilson built both the Merion courses and the course at Seaview.”
Philly Inquirer 1/28/17 – Billy Bunker
“Both the Merion Cricket Club courses were built under the direction of Hugh Wilson who also laid out the Seaview course.”
Philly Inquirer 4/22/17 – Billy Bunker
“An expert like Hugh Wilson, who built the two fine courses at Merion believes every club would have better putting greens if not for the craze for lightning-fast greens.
USGA Greens Section report – February 1925 (after Wilson’s death)
“The mature results of his studies in golf architecture are embodied in the East Course at Merion, which was remodeled under his direction in 1923-24. It is safe to say this his course displays in a superb way all the best ideas in recent golf course architecture along the lines of its American development. For a long time to come the East course will be a mecca to all serious students of golf architecture.”
George Thomas – Year unknown (quoted by Geoff Shackelford)
“I always considered Hugh Wilson of Merion, Pennsylvania as one of the best of our golf architects, professional or amateur (note the early need for distinction). He taught me many things at Merion and the Philadelphia Municipal (Cobb’s Creek) and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them.”
Geoff Shackelford – “The Captain”
“Thomas spent considerable time studying Hugh Wilson’s work during the construction of Merion Cricket Club’s East Course in 1912, its West Course in 1914, and at a municipal course in Philadelphia, now Cobb’s Creek.”
Golf Illustrated – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast (a man who had been there since the beginning and witnessed the creation of Merion first-hand)
“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth. Yet, with it all, there was 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 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 architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”
...yet argue that because Alex Findlay wrote that "others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald are really great" is ready to assign design credit wholly at his feet.
Don't you find it a bit odd that three months later, this same Alex Findlay...one of the most knowledgeable and well-travelled men in the golf world an an architect himself...wrote an opening day article about Merion that didn't even mention CB Macdonald yet compared Wilson and Co. with Leeds and Myopia...a course he knew quite well?
Sometimes, as much as we all love a good mystery, common sense and the words of the people who were there and told us clearly what happened has to inevitably rule.
-
You know, I keep coming back to this quote.
"The problems, conceived by the construction committee."
Shiv,
I believe a more correct interpretation of that sentence would read;
"The problems of the holes, conceived by the construction committee..."
I agree that in and of itself, it may not be absolute proof.
However, when one considers that A.W. Tillinghast also wrote in May 1911 that he had "seen enough of the new plans" to be truly excited about the course, that he wrote in the "American Cricketer" in January 1913 after the course opened that Hugh Wilson and Committee "deserves the congratulations of ALL golfers", and when we consider that TIllinghast wrote in 1934;
"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 architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”
...Then I think that is more than proof and is borne out as well by the MCC Minutes.
All the rest is just ignoring the truth and semantic shenanigans. ::) ;D
-
Shivas,
I think it may help to re-read what Tillinghast wrote when the course opened in his January 1913 "American Cricketer" review.
Note that even a half-year after Findlay's article, the course is still very unfinished, yet does refer to the "builder's plans".
Also note that not a mention is made of Macdonald, yet somehow Hugh Wilson and Committee "deserve the congratulations of all golfers."
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3415/3450807893_dd7f9afe90_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3564/3450807897_eb78bdd3eb_o.jpg)
-
Mike - where do you and Joe find this (great) stuff? American Cricketeer from 1913. Wow!
-
Of course they do. Michael Jackson deserves the congratulations of all music fans for "Off the Wall" but that doesn't mean he wrote every song on it...
Dave,
If you truly believe that statement about "Off The Wall" you've lost all credibility with me. ;)
-
Shivas,
This exercise in parsing news accounts does become sort of silly and pointless, don't you think, especially when everyone in these guys time on earth credited Hugh Wilson and not a single soul credited CB Maconald. I mean, what's the point? Please tell me why what Tillinghast wrote in 1911, in 1913, and in 1934 isn't dispositive.
Tom Paul thankfully "laid out" exactly what the MCC Minutes have to say on these matters, and it's clear that Wilson and the Committee created the plans, and Macdonald helped them select the best one.
We are redundantly flogging a deceased equine. ;) ;D
-
(http://ui31.gamespot.com/1214/deadhorsebeat_4.gif)
-
"Tom Paul thankfully "laid out" exactly what the MCC Minutes have to say on these matters, and it's clear that Wilson and the Committee created the plans, and Macdonald helped them select the best one.
We are redundantly flogging a deceased equine."
MikeC:
A deceaded equine? Perhaps and thank you DanH for the caricature example of it. I just spoke to Shivas, and honest to God, you know I don't like and don't want any part of this endless parsing of the words of a bad writer like Findlay meant or what he MAY'VE MEANT to say when he said in that article---eg "Others......blah, blah, blah."
But with Shivas, tonight, on the phone, I speed-read the minute meeting text (prefacing that no one, NOT even a great "quick-study" lawyer could "audio-remember" the thing word for word. Shivas allowed previous and after to the fact that EVEN HE couldn't do that but he did, in fact, pick up and explain what he felt was the most important point of all or word----and most interestingly it was indeed, at least to me the most important point and word (AFTER I asked him to explain why a couple of time! ;) )---I ain't no lawyer and never wanted to be but nevertheless this is why we pay those guys as much as we do! It all revolved around the meaning and essential reality of the word "APPROVED" and what it means and couldn't mean in this Merion "laying out" and "plan" and "courses" Wilson report context----at least how it all pertained to what the reports and records say Macdonald did----ie "approved."
I'll let Shivas (UBER Chicago lawyer and word-expert, that he is ;) ) explain the rest himself!
Will Moriarty agree?? In my opinion, OF COURSE NOT, but that's what you PAY lawyers for---RIGHT----to argue your case as you sit back and watch it all with MIXED EMOTIONS?! ;)
Does this explain the architectural history of Merion? No, not really, because we've already done that and so have they at Merion and MCC, years and decades ago----but what I think this does do is put the preconceived historical revisionist David Moriarty in his place which now logically should be, could be, and in fact is----the corner, facing inward with a Dunce-cap on.
Thanks, Shivas, you earned your fee tonight and guess what----I ain't even gonna pay you!!
Well done, Pal! ;)
I'll just sit back now and watch. If I get bored I may fall asleep, I warn you I snore-----just give me a nudge and I should stop it.
-
Shivas,
Your post reminds me that there are really only 2 reasons someone in business brings in an outside consultant;
1) They are responsible for an area and want to find out what the hell is really going on.
and
2) They already know what they want to do but need the force of a respected outsider to help them sell it!
Of course, the men at Merion chose the latter, and thanks for your common sense approach.
Also, in light of all those news articles I cited earlier, can anyone name any occurrance, ever, of any golf course anywhere on the planet where the people who simply "constructed" a golf course received glowing press reviews for years afterwards?!
Or any press reviews?!?! :o ::) ;D
As I said, sometimes common sense has to apply.
-
Dave:
Thanks for that comprehensive post that pretty much centers around the meaning of "approval" or "approved" in this kind of Merion "plan" situation.
Again, interesting take on your part. It makes sense to me (sort of---eg I'll explain more about that later) and it certainly was something I'd never thought of before. But like all things said on these Merion threads, I'm quite sure others will probably disagree somehow and somewhat with your interpretation of what "approval" means in this particular case. Matter of fact, I think we can count on that, as it always has happened on these Merion threads and certainly by David Moriarty to what many others have said and interpreted to do with this Merion course move situation.
There're a few fairly minor corrections that need to be made in your post as to the details and technicalities of the Wilson Committee report to the board that was delivered at the Board meeting in mid-April 1911 by Robert Lesley, MCC's Golf Committee Chairman (who was not on Wilson's committee).
But when it comes to someone or some board asking someone to approve of essentially their own product, I should explain to you something that happened to me in that vein which was actually scarely similar to Wilson, CBM and the Merion course move situation from Haverford to Ardmore.
-
"Also, in light of all those news articles I cited earlier, can anyone name any occurrance, ever, of any golf course anywhere on the planet where the people who simply "constructed" a golf course received glowing press reviews for years afterwards?!
Or any press reviews?!?! :o ::)"
Yes, Mike, actually I can. Not necessarily a man who literally constructed the course himself but a man who surely oversaw all the construction of the course (and perhaps even paid for a good deal of it) and later had his name alone connected to the course and he got the attribution as its designer (router and hole designer). It was Frederick Hood of Kittanset. It took about 75 years to clear that one up (by the finding of design material of who actually did it) but now the club is just fine with attributing the design of the course to the man who actually did it (with perhaps a bit of help from his friend and mentor Hugh I. Wilson).
-
Shivas:
A bit of pretty minor fact-correcting in your post.
I don't think Wilson and his committee presented five different plans to the board for their consideration (and approval of one). They only presented one plan after consulting with Macdonald/Whigam on that single day in early April 1911 about which the Wilson report (to the board) says Macdonald/Whigam approved the plan that they (Macdonald and Whigam) described as having a last seven holes equal to any inland course in the world.
Clearly by that time (likely right around that time) Richard Francis had had his late night idea and bike ride to see Lloyd to resolve the issue on #15 and #16. That fact is reflected in a resolution on the board to swap land to accommodate Francis's idea as well as to purchase that so-called 3 acre railroad tract that Macdonald has suggested TWICE be used for the course (once in June 1910 and again on April 6, 1911).
-
Mike,
I am not going to re-debate all of the old articles with you again. You read way too much into these things while ignoring those that you do not like, and nothing I write will change this.
Shivas.
- M&W returned to the site and chose the best one of the five iterations of the routing; this tells you "game, set, and match;" he had nothing to do with choosing how the course was routed? Fascinating. (And here I thought choosing the final routing would have something to do with . . . errr . . . choosing the final routing?!?)
- And you take no pause to the fact that you know nothing about the genesis of the plans M&W chose between; nothing about M&W's prior input into the planning or process?
- And it makes no difference to you that, as for as you know, the plan and iterations could well have been their efforts at putting M&W's ideas onto paper and/or the actual land?
- And it doesn't matter one bit that TEPaul has admitted above that Macdonald might well have ultimately approved something different than their five iterations of the plan!
Shivas,
Your post reminds me that there are really only 2 reasons someone in business brings in an outside consultant;
1) They are responsible for an area and want to find out what the hell is really going on.
and
2) They already know what they want to do but need the force of a respected outsider to help them sell it!
Of course, the men at Merion chose the latter, and thanks for your common sense approach.
For once I agree with Mike.
Shivas, TEPaul's phone call to you had nothing to do with getting to the truth. You were brought in to make a sale. Your job is to convince us that he is correct, whether he is or not. And you have no idea whether he is or not because you have not seen or considered all of the records.
You should be getting paid. Not as a lawyer, but for shilling TEPaul's tonic.
The truth of MCC's records will speak for itself. But until we can see the records, then all this is just static and games. Ask yourself, if these records mean what we are being told (sold?) then why cannot we see them? Why the ruse? Why not let them speak for themselves?
-
"Tom, that's even more best practices. The Construction Committee reported to the Golf Committee, and then the Chairman of the Golf Committee reported to the Board? That just tells me that the whole process was structured properly by men familiar with best practices to avoid ill-thought out decisionmaking. That, to me, makes it even more impossible to believe that in the end, the Board would have merely ignored their responsibilities and had CBM approve his own plan. That simply makes no sense to me practically, procedurally, legally, socially, reputationally or rationally."
Shivas:
Yes, that seems to be the way it was structured. Wilson's committee (that was clearly not a permanent or "standing" committee within the MCC club structure but a form of an "Ad Hoc" committee (therefore Wilson may not have gone to board meetings which also includes the fact he would not become a board member until June 1912 (that also involves a most interesting story)) reported to Robert Lesley who was the chairman of the Golf Committee (a permanent and standing committee in MCC's club administrative structure). Wilson was on the Golf Committee too but as you might know generally only the chairmen of the permanent or standing committees attend Board of Director meetings of most clubs like a Merion (and mine).
But talk about smart guys and thinkers on how to easily resolve any future course plan (or land) problems just wait until you fully understand the roll of Horatio Gates Lloyd in this whole process, that even includes a guy we had never before heard of, T. DeWitt Cuyler, apparently MCC's primary lawyer (member) and perhaps one of the most powerful men in the country in regard to the American railroad system!
-
Shivas:
Are you fully aware yet who Horatio Gates Lloyd was? How about Rodman Griscom? Both of them were on Wilson's committee, among other things.
-
"- And it doesn't matter one bit that TEPaul has admitted above that Macdonald might well have ultimately approved something different than their five iterations of the plan!"
David Moriarty:
I did mention that as at least a possibility, in my mind, even if I've never seen an iota of actual evidence of it. When I mentioned that it was merely total speculation on my part. But I see that as at least a possiblity of what Macdonald/Whigam may've been able to do in a single day there with advice.
On the other hand, there is no conceivable way, in my mind, that Macdonald/Whigam either would have or could have come up with a routing and hole design plan of their own in just that single day and that was all the time they had there. There is simply no way anyone could've done something like that and if someone on these threads is suggesting such a possiblilty I have no compunction whatsoever in stating on here that they obvioiusly have no actual or practical experience in the field with golf architectural planning, routing and hole designing! ;) No one has ever questioned that because there's never been any reason to considering the events that were all recorded throughout that time by the club.
I can see the possibility of a bit of routing and hole design switching up in the perhaps #10-#13 sequence (I can explain how that could've quite easily worked as a single day alteration), particularly if none of the five Wilson Committee plans considered on April 6, 1911 included that railroad tract for holes. But I certainly think it is pretty likely that at least one of the five plans by Wilson and his committee did use that land for holes as we certainly do know that Macdonald mentioned that in June 1910 and that the so-called "Searvh Committee" recorded that fact back in their July 1 1910 report to the board. So I see no reason in the world why Wilson and his committee weren't aware of that suggestion when they worked on their 'numerous courses' and 'different plans' through the winter and spring of 1911.
-
"5 go the golf committee, which picks one and presents it to the board saying that this is the one that CBM approved."
Shivas:
The records aren't specific on that kind of thing but it looks to me like Wilson's Committee selected one of the five plans themselves and presented it to Lesley to take to the board meeting. But we can never really know stuff like that for sure because those kinds of minor details were never recorded by MCC. They generally aren't on any golf architectural project, and that is the inherent dilemma with subjects and threads like these Merion ones.
Back in 2003 Tom MacWood started all this off, in my opinion, with a thread he posted entitled something like "Re: Macdonald and Merion?"
He started it because he'd found two articles somewhere which said Macdonald and Whigam had helped and advised MCC on the East course and he wanted to know what that meant in detail. I guess he thought he had found something theretofore never known by Merion about Macdonald and Whigam (of course it goes without saying that those articles MacWood found had been part of the Merion record since the beginning and were reflected in their history book (which apparently Tom MacWood had never seen either)).
So he put that thread on here back in 2003 and we told him Merion had always recorded Macdonald/Whigam's help and advice at three times---eg a day in June 1910 at Ardmore, the Wilson committee visit to NGLA (which at that time we did not know the date of) and again for a single day in April, 1911 (the exact day we on here did not know at that time).
Tom MacWood asked who specifically had done what and where such as on what holes and so forth and we told him noone knows that because that kind of detail was never recorded. It is just as true today as it was back in 2003 when both me and Wayne told him that.
-
Shivas:
As for the last part of your Reply #241, what did I tell you above about the possibility of your recent interpretation getting disagreed with on here, as well as who it would be doing the disagreeing? ;)
Didn't take long did it?
If you'd like to get payed for your efforts why don't you send a bill to David Moriarty in California? You know where the Merion "The Missing Faces of Merion" essayist lives, right? I doubt he'd consider paying you for your efforts though, and not because you're not getting to the truth of what happened at Merion back then but because your interpretation of what happened with Merion back then is just not agreeing with his interpretation of what happened.
At this point, I'm not aware of anyone who has a pretty good working knowledge of the details of Merion's history back then that does agree with his interpretation of that time with Merion. A pretty good number of them, including a good number from Merion itself read it about a year ago and found it incredibly lacking and wanting, particularly in the logic of its assumptions, premises and conclusions. There probably are some on here who still have questions but the reason for that is none of them are aware of any or many of the details of the interesting tapestry of that time back then at Merion.
I sure do realize that David Moriarty wants to be given everything that's available because he mentions it on here in just about every other post but I would just suggest to him again that he pick up the phone and call both Merion and MCC about it as of course we've done for many years in the case of Merion Golf and in the last year in the case of MCC. Is there some problem with that or asking him to do that? If so, maybe he might want to explain what that problem is.
As for Merion itself, I'm pretty sure, at this point, they couldn't care less what David Moriarty's opinion on their history is.
That's just life, I guess, and generally everything happens for a pretty good reason. My own opinion has always been that this isn't about David Moriarty or the availability of all Merion's material for him and his essay, which noone around here or at Merion ever asked him to write as far as I know; this is only about the truth of Merion's history which I believe has been found to be accurate on the endless threads about it on here (with the single exception of the actual date of Wilson's trip abroad).
I do admit that all these threads on this website have basically been a debate about the accurate history of Merion East compared to David Moriarty's opinion of what it is in his essay and in his numerous posts on here. As far as his essay goes, I think he should've been comfortable that he actually had all the information available about Merion and from Merion and those who know it BEFORE he wrote his essay and put it on here.
Was he comfortable he had it all BEFORE he wrote that essay? Well, I guess any of us would just have to ask him about that, right? But from the way he's carried on on this website for a couple of years it sure doesn't seem he was comfortable he had all the information available that he needed BEFORE he wrote that essay, and the problem was it showed bigtime when he wrote that essay over a year ago!
But now, most all the available information has been put on here in one way or another anyway; and obviously more people who had not previously been aware of it are beginning to see what it means and why Merion's history has always been reported accurately. Unfortunately for David Moriarty he's probably beginning to see that too but to the extent it increasingly disagrees with that essay he wrote a year ago he's just having a hard time admitting it as it appears he always has had. From the look of it that probably won't ever change. But for the accuracy of Merion's entire history that doesn't matter either.
-
Mike,
I am not going to re-debate all of the old articles with you again. You read way too much into these things while ignoring those that you do not like, and nothing I write will change this.
David,
You miss my point. I have no desire to re-debate the wording in all of those articles crediting Wilson and Co. with you.
I'm merely pointing out the volume of articles during those days crediting Wilson and Co., versus the slim picking of anything and everything I could find that was ever written about Macdonald's role at Merion, and for the next 13 years that both of them were alive, or for the next 25 that Tillinghast, Findlay, and Macdonald were all still alive and I also am pointing out the strange irony of you and others claiming that Macdonald "laid out others" meant he routed Merion while the scores of articles saying Wilson "laid out Merion" means he constructed the course to Macdonald's plans. ;)
There is nothing ever written during their lifetimes that ever states that Macdonald laid out, built, mapped out, was responsible for, or anything else denoting authorship of the routing and/or hole designs of the course at Merion.
That's all.
-
Yes, Mike, actually I can. Not necessarily a man who literally constructed the course himself but a man who surely oversaw all the construction of the course (and perhaps even paid for a good deal of it) and later had his name alone connected to the course and he got the attribution as its designer (router and hole designer). It was Frederick Hood of Kittanset. It took about 75 years to clear that one up (by the finding of design material of who actually did it) but now the club is just fine with attributing the design of the course to the man who actually did it (with perhaps a bit of help from his friend and mentor Hugh I. Wilson).
Au Contraire, my friend. Wayne's findings and the efforts of you guys certainly brought everything appropriately to the attention of the club for proper attribution, but at least one Boston newspaper knew the truth prior.
I'm not sure where the modern story of Frederick Hood as designer of Kittansett originated (perhaps C&W??), but in 1986 a Boston Globe article about the coming US Open at Shinnecock reported;
"The original course was laid out by Scottish architect Willie Dunn in 1891. Bill Flynn, whose imprint is also on such American gems as The Country Club, The Kittansett Club and Merion, laid out the present course in 1931. Shinnecock Hills was the first American club to incorporate and was one of five charter members of the USGA."
A 1988 Boston Globe article states, "The Cascades was designed by William Flynn, a Bay State native who designed the Primrose course at The Country Club and The Kittansett Club. "
In fact, I can't find a single article anywhere prior to 1980 that mentions Kittansett Golf and Hood in the same paper, which is my point. There has simply never been a case where those who were responsible for only "constructing" a golf course received critical press review, much less "deserve the congratulations of all golfers".
Neither can I find anything early that mentions Flynn, but I did see one contemporaneous article where it's at least clear that a golf architect and turf experts were involved.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3453452014_790b85d009_o.jpg)
-
Mike:
I don't really know why Kittanset came to view Frederick Hood as their architect, even though he sure was the main man at that club and he was the one who was basically Flynn's "client", if you know what I mean. But it's not as if we weren't aware of articles from back around the time it was built including a very good one by prominent Boston sportswriter A. Linde Fowler who went into some very interesting detail about Flynn, the Philadelphia architect who'd developed a modern form of "scientific" architecture.
Obviously one reason must have been the club never had Flynn's plans and drawings and of course that changed when we showed them to Kittanset about 6-7 years ago and they could see they were identical to the way the course was built.
But one never knows how these inaccurate rumors of a club's history get started and eventually get some currency amongst some people and that is precisely why I think David Moriarty's essay on Macdonald and Merion is not a good thing at all. People who don't know much about Merion's architectural history might see just that one essay in the future and actually think Macdonald routed and designed Merion East or was the driving force behind it or whatever the hell it was or is David Moriarty was trying to say in it which certainly implied there was no way Wilson and his committee could have done what they did do in 1911 because they were all too much the novices or whatever.
And of course you'll recall what he used to construct that premise and assumption----eg the fact that Wilson really hadn't gone over there in 1910 as the club history said. I guess David Moriarty came up with the "novice" idea when he found that ship passenger manifest of 1912.
But what he didn't know (nor did we at the time) was that story of Wilson going abroad for seven months in 1910 and coming back with plans and drawings did not begin until perhaps 50 years after Wilson and committee did what they did at Ardmore and about 35 years after Wilson was in the grave.
So without realizing it David Moriarty based one of his most important premises on a story that turned out to have nothing whatsoever to do with happened a half century earlier during the actual routing, design and construction of Merion East.
-
Mike, don't get too excited about the conclusion I've drawn about the final plan that was approved at Merion.
First of all, just because it wasn't CBM's doesn't mean that it absolutely, postively was Wilson's.
Also, just because the final plan wasn't CBM's, it doesn't mean that he didn't have significant input into the final plan and it also doesn't mean that he didn't create a plan at some point earlier. It just means that when Lesley's committee dropped from 5 plans down to 1 and asked CBM to approve the plan to take it to the board, it absolutely, positively didn't have enough CBM in it to be considered CBM's plan by anybody in the room at the time.
Shivas,
Personally, I think all along it was mostly Dr. Toulmin, in the stairwell, with the baseball bat. ;) ;D
Why do you guys find it so difficult to give Hugh Wilson credit for what he did? :-\
Seriously Dave...you know how organizations work. Hugh Wilson was the Chairman of the Committee responsible for the creating a course on the new land. Whether or not he came up with every single idea is irrelevant. We already know what Francis did. We already know what the early 1913 Merion letter said and what the Alan Wilson letter said about who did most of the work.. The fact is, even if he didn't do most of the work, he's the one who was responsible for tying it all together, getting consensus, getting it approved, and then getting it built and then got another course designed, built and opened at Merion another 18 months later.
Not bad at all, for an amateur.
Also, you may be interested to know that in 1900, Hugh Wilson was a scratch golfer, had already won the first club championship at Belmont CC (which became Aronimink), played first man on their golf team and that the course at Belmont was designed by three men...including one Dr. Harry Toulmin.
Two years later Wilson was on the Green Committee at Princeton building and opening a course designed for the University by Willie Dunn.
You had Wilson the young stud brainiac who had played most of the best courses in the country and Griscom as another excellent, experienced player whose ultra-rich family had been involved with Philly golf since the beginning, you had Toulmin the aged veteran who had previous design and course building experience, you had Francis who like Raynor was the engineer/surveyor, you had Lloyd as the money man and course property owner who could take care of land and property issues with a snap of his fingers.
"...Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the 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 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 the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year." - Alan Wilson 1926
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3420951497_ebcafa4521_b.jpg)
by the way, if "laying out" meant "constructing" when applied to Hugh Wilson, then is the property reading of the sentence above that "Mr. Wilson has spent every hour of his spare time in constructing and constructing (and constructing and constructing? ;)) this course"? ;D
-
"Why do you guys find it so difficult to give Hugh Wilson credit for what he did?"
Michael:
That's a very good question for some on here. Matter of fact, it's probably THE question. Until a few came along on this website it never was much of a question, and it still isn't.
One of the true significant finds on Merion's architectural history though was from Wayne Morrison when he supplied Merion with the remainder of Flynn's Merion drawings about 5-6 years ago.
Merion had some of them because I believe Bill Kittleman understood to go see Connie Lagerman and/or David Gordon quite some time ago and so now Merion very much recognizes Flynn for what he did for Merion from about 1915 on.
This long running and seemingly endless thing about Macdonald's contribution completely pales in comparison to that.
The thing the recent questioners apparently didn't understand when they found those articles a few years ago mentioning Macdonald/Whigam for what they did for Merion earlier on was that that material had always been part of the club archives and had always been part of the club record and history. Matter of fact, Horatio Gates Lloyd, made a motion on the board that they formally thank Macdonald and Whigam and it was made part of the club record. That however, apparently was material that remainded in MCC's archives since then and never made it to Merion Golf Club's archives.
It probably is a very good question where material such as the latter should ultimately be reposited. Technically it was MCC's and probably always should be. Merion GC as it is presently constituted did not exist back then and wouldn't for about thirty years.
-
TEPaul,
So I see from your posts here and there that civilly discussing the relevant facts is out the window, and you are again back to ad honinem attacks and pontifications about just how horribly misguided all my work has been. Disappointing, but I cannot say I am surprised.
One reason I hesitate to engage in reasonable, civil discussions with you is that, as is the case here, they always end the same one of two ways.
-Either you become hostile as soon as I disagree with you (which is why I have been hesitant to address the plethora problems in your "time-line" post),
-or, you guys think you learn something that really puts me in my place (see your reaction to Shivas' interpretation of the use of "approved") and you cannot help but try to rub my nose in what you mistakenly perceive as your smoking gun.
A cynic might think that any civility on your part is purely rhetorical, designed to get me or others to come over to your side.
Regardless, I am not interested in playing your games. I will, however, set the record straight on occasion . . .
For the record, you are absolutely mistaken when you claim that you guys and Merion have known all about the extent of M&W's involvement since before all these conversations started, and that you and Wayne explained it to all of us when Tom MacWood first brought forward the documents. Merion obviously knew long ago when the events happened, but M&W's role had long been glossed over, minimized, and almost entirely forgotten (innocently I am sure, on the part of the clubs). But you guys have fought each and every revelation in an effort to keep the true history buried deep.
As for what I should or shouldn't have done before my essay, your opinion has changed on that quite a bit. Before I wrote my essay you repeatedly lied to me about this, telling me that officials at Merion were very angry about my research and that they wanted absolutely nothing to do with me or my project. Wayne too had indicated in no uncertain terms ("F--k You" for example) that neither he nor Merion wanted anything to do with my research or theories. So I found my own information.
But let's be honest, it would not have changed anything had I contacted you and Wayne, (who you have long indicated knows more than anyone else about Merion.) I already had everything you guys had, plus a lot more.
Sure, all of the relevant documents were under your noses, some as close as the library adjacent to the course. But you guys could not find them, did not understand them, or you conveniently forgot about them or ignored them. Likely it was a combination of all these. So going to you guys for information would not have gotten me anywhere. A few examples . . .
- It was me who brought the Sayre's documents and their significance to light. Not you guys.
- It was me who figured out the correct reading and importance of the Hugh Wilson Essay and the NGLA trip. Not you guys.
- And it was me who figured out how and why Merion got the property. You guys had some of those documents for years, but hadn't a clue what they meant until after my essay came out and after I explained to Wayne in great detail what had really happened with the property.
- As for the MCC records, I knew where they were and tried to get them, but couldn't get access as a non-member. It wasn't until you other efforts to counter my essay had failed that you guys finally bothered to go across town to look for those documents. (Remember, you always speculated they must have been lost in a fire!) I knew Wayne had gone to MCC for those documents before you guys even told me, and I was very glad that he finally did. I had hoped someone would bother to go over there once my essay came out. But that was before you guys started playing games with them.
So Tom, I think it fair to say that I found out what I reasonably could before my essay came out. You or Wayne could not have help me, nor would you have.
Not trying to be uncivil, Tom, but I have grown weary of your back-track and retrenching, where after every new revelation you claim you guys knew it all along, and that almost all of my work has been mistaken and misguided. While no one believes you, I still I wish you'd get your facts straight.
Thanks.
Now, hopefully, to the topic at hand.
-
Dave, I realize it is difficult given that we have to guess at what the documents actually say, but I think you've missed something rather important.
It just means that when Lesley's committee dropped from 5 plans down to 1 and asked CBM to approve the plan to take it to the board, it absolutely, positively didn't have enough CBM in it to be considered CBM's plan by anybody in the room at the time.
Lesley's committee didn't drop from 5 plans to 1. Nor did Wilson's committee. Nor did anyone else at Merion.
M&W dropped the plans down from 5 to 1. M&W didn't rubber stamp some final choice previously made by Merion, M&W made the final choice. M&W chose one draft and rejected other drafts. He had final say over the final plan. This is not "best practices" or even CYA. Macdonald was substantively involved. He was "the decider." He chose the final routing from drafts they provided him (drafts which were in all likelihood created based on his advice, ideas, and input.)
Yet even this underestimates M&W's role. We do not even know whether the final routing, chosen by CBM, was one of these 5 drafts! TEPaul admits this. (By the way, do we really know it is 5? Or is this just another assumption treated as fact?)
- And it doesn't matter one bit that TEPaul has admitted above that Macdonald might well have ultimately approved something different than their five iterations of the plan!
I don't think that's what he said.
It is what he said.
"- And it doesn't matter one bit that TEPaul has admitted above that Macdonald might well have ultimately approved something different than their five iterations of the plan!"
David Moriarty:
I did mention that as at least a possibility, in my mind, even if I've never seen an iota of actual evidence of it. When I mentioned that it was merely total speculation on my part. But I see that as at least a possiblity of what Macdonald/Whigam may've been able to do in a single day there with advice. . . . I can see the possibility of a bit of routing and hole design switching up in the perhaps #10-#13 sequence (I can explain how that could've quite easily worked as a single day alteration) . . .
[TEPaul claims that M&W must only have had limited influence on the routing because they were only there one day in April, as if they had to be on the site to influence the routing! Apparently he misses the irony that in the same paragraph he argues that Merion's routing had been influenced by a letter from Macdonald written the previous summer!]
For this particular discussion, what M&W added or subtracted is beside the point. The point is that TEPaul has no idea whether or not M&W added or subtracted anything to the one or more of the drafts. Which means that the documents do not address it, either. TEPaul is speculating.
So what happened? I think all we know for sure is that M&W chose the final routing. Here are some of the possibilities of how this went down. All are entirely consistent with the facts I have heard thus far.
-M&W chose 1 of the 5 drafts and rejected the other 4.
-M&W chose some combination of the 5 and melded them in to 1 superior plan.
-M&W chose parts of one or all the plans, but also modified them to his liking.
-M&W had already instructed them how to route the course, and the trip back was simply to see if they had gotten it right, and to choose which of 5 iterations of his plan would work best.
No matter how you slice the drafts, CBM was responsible for choosing the routing, and this necessarily involved substantive decision-making on his part.
-
David,
Question for you - If you thesis is correct, why do you think Merion would have buried the involvement of M&W? Wouldn't a course designed by them have had a better cachet than one designed by a member?
In today's terms, it's almost like having a Doak-designed course, but not telling anybody, and insisting that the designer was, say, the Green Committee chair.
-
David,
Yes, I'm quite sure that the stroke of genius that M&W achieved during a couple hours at Merion on April 6th, 1911 was far superior to the multiple routings and iterations proposed by the Merion Committee working at it diligently probably about every day for four months. ::)
Why in God's name would they even draw up plans and work on them all winter and early spring, including five different ones in the final month if they simply knew all along that the Great Router Macdonald, who had to date done a friggin mess of a routing at Chicago, and an out and back with heavy earthmoving at NGLA was going to come in ten months after his prior one-day visit and during about 8 hours of early April daylight and between bullshitting and I'm sure some sumptuous meals and reviewing the Committee's plans just come up with a knock-your-socks-off, world-class, staggering genius of a minimalist routing (as you hyperbolically presented it in your paper, even though 33% of it was wholly changed within 15 years, and another 3 greens were moved and/or wholly rebuilt) as well as the designs of the hole internals.
Who is the starry-eyed hero worshipper here worshipping myths?? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) :D
Your theory egregiously makes all of these otherwise seemingly good men of excellent reputation out to be liars and worse, and it's also the modern equivalent of Golf Guru Groupieism, with CB Macdonald playing the role of the Rain Man of Golf Architecture, who looks out over 120 acres (that he previously thought would make a pretty fine, rote, sporty, by-the-numbers 6000 yard course) after a pop or two and then has a stroke of genius and instantly and magically creates the Merion course we all know and love today, and then moves on to the next town to to show another group of ignorant village idiots the errors of their ways.
Oh yes, and then all of them conspire successfully over the next 95 years to hide the fact of Merion's true design origins from the rest of the world and they must have pictures of Macdonald with the cabin boy because shy Charlie never speaks up either over his next 25 years alive, and they also bought off every writer in the Philadelphia area, including TIllinghast and Findlay because these men continue to credit that sneaky Hugh Wilson in every publication through multiple US Amateurs and a US Open at Merion while all of them were alive.
All until you, David, came through and uncovered their clever ruse.
On the other hand, re-reading your lengthy last post you seem to be slightly moving from contending that Macdonald routed the course to him just being "The Decider" (ala George W. Bush) of Merion's various routings so perhaps we are making slight progress here after all. Of course, he was no such thing either, as the deciders were the Merion Board.
Perhaps they should be credited with the design too? :o :o ::)
-
Shivas,
My limited understanding is the Committee after returning from NGLA "had laid out five different plans" and then said that M&W came over for a day on April 6th and reviewed the plans and stated that if Merion laid it out according to one of the plans they approved that Merion would have the best seven inland finishing holes in the country.
I would think that means that M&W made the selection of the best plan, which Lesley two weeks later presented for approval to the board for the committee with the recommended plan attached.
Does that make them the designers...the course architects?? That's absurd, Shivas, and you know it.
Actually, if you think about it, "the decider" was the Merion Board, so perhaps they should get the actual credit for the design?? ::)
Weren't you one of the judges of the best architecture contest here recently? Do you feel by virtue of the architectural judgement you applied in your selection that you also somehow are now responsible for the design of the course you felt was the best of the bunch? ;D
-
David Moriarty:
That post #252 is truly sad. It's sad because it shows more than ever how incapable you are of taking any responsiblity for the complete mess this highly speculative and highly inaccurate essay of yours and your followup posts on here have wrought. You went about it entirely the wrong way by putting something out there with far less than sufficient research material. You did it without asking for anything from us here who would've been willing to help your interest in learning about the history of Merion and who've always had so much more material than you did and still do. Does anyone really wonder why you went about it that way? I don't think so.
You need to take responsibility for yourself and what you've done and just stop blaming everything and anything on me or Wayne or even Merion when others on here, and elsewhere, including those at Merion itself disagree with your interprations which continue to be completely speculative and highly illogical not to mention really insulting of Merion's history and particularly all the fine men who were part of it back then and recorded it.
The on-going problem involved in doing what you've done regarding Merion on a world-wide Internet website is there are a ton of people out there who just don't understand the details of the history of a club like that and they probably never will understand them certainly considering the question of whether they even have the interest to take all the time necessary to read them all, carefully consider them all and evaluate them as we have and Merion certainly has for many, many years. And so the kinds of questions and interpretations you've raised and gratuitously besmirched the club with is able to gain some currency and interest on here and from those people, at least for a while.
It is certainly not lost on me that Tom MacWood has said on here a number of times that in his opinion a club like a Merion is not even capable of producing an objective, unbiased, an factually accurate history of themselves or their attributed architect, Wilson. Apparently you agree with MacWood and everything you have done on this website regarding Merion suggests that.
But the people who live here and know that club, its members and its history a whole lot better than people like you two do know that is just not the case, never has been, never will be.
We're not even interested any longer in trying to disuade others on here from that ridiculous notion of MacWood's and now apparently yours too and all that it's wrought on this website. Neither the club nor us here who've known the course's architectural history so well for so long want your alarmingly illogical interpretations on Merion's history or even care what your interpretations are. Again, it goes without saying they never asked you for your interpreations and you never even bothered to informed them you intended to give them in the manner and modus operandi you have on here. Hopefully this will be a beneficial lesson for the future to others on this website who are good and sensible researchers and GCA analysts of what not to do.
-
Shivas,
My source is the exact same as what was read to you.
EDIT**
Dave,
Sorry...I didn't mean to be short. I was typing that response on the 17th green at Cobb's Creek playing golf with Joe Bausch.
I also don't mean to come off as "freaking paranoid" or defensive. Although, I'm not sure that charge is well aimed as I'm not the one who basically said you were whoring yourself cheap on a public website because you didn't agree with my interpretation of the Findlay article and even had the audacity to state that there is no way in hell that Macdonald would have "approved" his own plan.
So you little shameless tart, take that! ;) ;D
I'm also not the one so defensive as to claim an appreciative letter by the Merion membership to the club president a few months after opening recommending a dinner for the committee and special gift for Hugh Wilson as the guy who spent all of his time "laying out and constructing" their new course was simply a public BJ. ;)
I would think that most of the people who were there would not spend a lot of time and energy lauding the incorrect person, although at about $7 a head for the dinner, who knows. ;D
But back to the matter at hand.
My interpretation of your question comes from my reading of the MCC Minutes, which I don't have a copy of, but which I've seen enough of to feel comfortable with their meaning.
My INFERENCE is that M&W selected the best of 5 routings, simply because it's referred to as the plan they "approved", which is the common sense language you picked up on as making it impossible that it was Macdonald's authored plan. As you stated, why in the world would anyone ever approve of their own plan to others? ::)
There is nowhere I've seen in the minutes that specifically states that anyone discarded 4 plans and picked one. It simply says 5 different plans were created by Hugh Wilson's committee after return from NGLA, then a month later M&W came and spent the day and reviewed the plans, and there was a particular one that M&W "approved" that was recommended to the board.
Could the Merion Committee have first selected it as their best effort and then presented it to Macdonald for his approval? Absolutely, and that's probably what they did if you think about it. Wouldn't they have gone through the five plans themselves prior, and at least narrowed it down to their best effort or two to share with Macdonald?
All we know for certain, however, is that he approved it.
Also, because these minutes are not mine, and I don't have a copy, all I can tell you is that I am comfortable with my understanding of what they say, and what they mean, but I am not going to try and quote them from memory. In fact, that only things I've quoted here are things that were previously presented from the minutes that were already quoted.
My understanding is that you were read the exact same passage the other night, and possibly more, and you came to the same conclusion I did.
-
If Findlay used the same brain to write that article that he used to design Coatesville CC then I can understand the confusion ;D
-
I am surprised this debate popped up again. Like David, I think the weight of evidence still points toward Wilson as the man responsible for the creation of Merion. I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience. Like Rich, I do think this entire debate is blown way out of proportion when we consider that so much of the original creation has been altered by yet another player. Still, when I read the sentences below I don't know how they can't be open to interpretation. That said and with my beliefs about who created Merion clearly spelled out, here is how I read it.
"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
Findlay is asking Wilson to take a close look at Prestwick's Alps. Why? Because there is a disagreement between the two if what exists at Merion (be it rough layout, plan, sketch or just idea based on land forms) is really suitable in creating a good Alps. I don't read that an Alps exists, only that that the idea of a Alps exists, hence the use of the word "imagined". Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort. Findlay then ends by backing up the general idea of a template Alps because he knows CBM has created some good examples. I don't read that one was created at Merion by CBM, only that an Alps has been thought about and possibly CBM chose the land where one might exist. If anything, I think these three sentences point toward a rejection of CBM's input, at least on this one issue, if indeed it was CBM's idea in the first place.
Ciao
-
Sean,
What "other player" do you believe altered so much of the original design? Thanks.
-
Sean,
What "other player" do you believe altered so much of the original design? Thanks.
Mike
According to Wayne, what we have today is mainly a Flynn course.
Ciao
-
Sean:
Given the nature and inclination of some participants on this website to just discuss and debate and argue the hell out of the most remarkable architecture minutae and the meaning of it, I would caution against a remark like that one.
We said the same thing to Tom MacWood when he began these endless Merion threads on Macdonald's part in Merion when he posted a thread entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" in 2003. He asked who was specifically responsible for what on the holes and such of that course and we told him on the first or second post that we don't know that----nobody does, and nobody ever can simply because it was never recorded in anything approaching detail. Most every or any golf course project never does that.
I just wish he had taken our advice and just left it at that instead of creating a ton of unsubstantiatable speculation. ;)
But with Flynn, if one wants to accept the idea that the things he drew for Merion East may've been the detailed things he was responsible for in concept and design or whatever then we pretty much can tell what he did in detail and when on that course because we (and the club) now have all his old Merion drawings.
But like with Wilson and his committee or Macdonald and Whigam, with Flynn no one ever specifically recorded if the things he drew for the course where solely his concepts and designs, particularly since Wilson was so much part of everything there in that way until he died in Feb. 1925.
Other than that to say Flynn is mainly responsible for the course might be a bit misleading to some people and even to the entire architectural history of the course and I think we've seen on these Merion threads where that can lead in the hands of a few uninformed or even semi-informed architectural speculators! ;)
However, due to all the excellent research work done in the last few years on the two Merion courses, particularly by Wayne Morrison on primarily the architectural side, Merion G.C. I believe now considers itself to be and perhaps now always lists itself as a Wilson/Flynn design.
-
Sean:
Given the nature and inclination of some participants on this website to just discuss and debate and argue the hell out of the most remarkable architecture minutae and the meaning of it, I would caution against a remark like that one.
We said the same thing to Tom MacWood when he began these endless Merion threads on Macdonald's part in Merion when he posted a thread entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" in 2003. He asked who was specifically responsible for what on the holes and such of that course and we told him on the first or second post that we don't know that----nobody does, and nobody ever can simply because it was never recorded in anything approaching detail. Most every or any golf course project never does that.
I just wish he had taken our advice and just left it at that instead of creating a ton of unsubstantiatable speculation. ;)
But with Flynn, if one wants to accept the idea that the things he drew for Merion East may've been the detailed things he was responsible for in concept and design or whatever then we pretty much can tell what he did in detail and when on that course because we (and the club) now have all his old Merion drawings.
But like with Wilson and his committee or Macdonald and Whigam, with Flynn no one ever specifically recorded if the things he drew for the course where solely his concepts and designs, particularly since Wilson was so much part of everything there in that way until he died in Feb. 1925.
Other than that to say Flynn is mainly responsible for the course might be a bit misleading to some people and even to the entire architectural history of the course and I think we've seen on these Merion threads where that can lead in the hands of a few uninformed or even semi-informed architectural speculators! ;)
Tom
You may well be right, but I have no reason to doubt Wayne as he is well placed to find out the scoop, takes his research seriously and with a pinch of salt. I don't know him terribly well, but Wayne strikes me a solid citizen with no need to work to a pre-conceived agenda. At times it may come across this way, but we are all susceptible to hyperbole when our patience is tried. I only raised the issue of Flynn to add some measure of reality to al of this and perhaps perspective.
Ciao
-
"I only raised the issue of Flynn to add some measure of reality to all of this and perhaps perspective."
Sean:
Understood, and accepted in the spirit you offer it. Certainly adding a measure of reality and proper perspective has been my interest in these incredible Merion threads that seem to go off-track anyway at about every single rail and into the mindbending parsing of sentences and arguing endlessly over the meaning of come word in a vacuum, the meaning of both and such from some things that aren't all that relevent anyway in the broad scheme of things to do with the creation of Merion East. ;) I just offered that post above because I live here, have known Merion intimately including about 100-200 members for about thirty years and I've worked with Wayne closely on all kinds of things to do with architecture for about 6-7 years now, so I'm very close to both.
-
David,
Question for you - If you thesis is correct, why do you think Merion would have buried the involvement of M&W? Wouldn't a course designed by them have had a better cachet than one designed by a member?
Dan, you (and everyone else) would be better off if you ignored the caricatured versions of my opinion offered up by others. They tend to misrepresent and vilify my theses while ignoring what I have written.
Merion did NOT bury M&W's involvement. To the contrary, while they did not list out specifics (I wouldn't have expected them to) those who were there- including Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley- lauded M&W for their involvement. Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible. Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so.
Over the years, M&W's important contribution has come to be misunderstood and minimized, although I doubt Merion has ever done anything to intentionally mask or misrepresent what really happened. Even now, I doubt most of those at Merion have would have any problem fully acknowledging M&W's contributions. It is but a few overzealous individuals (at Merion and not) who have taken it upon themselves to protect and preserve the Merion legacy, whether it be the full and accurate story or not. While I am sure they think they are helping Merion, I cannot understand how their efforts are viewed as anything but an embarrassment to anyone following along, including Merion.
In today's terms, it's almost like having a Doak-designed course, but not telling anybody, and insisting that the designer was, say, the Green Committee chair.
You might be surprised. I have heard (second-hand) that occasionally a designer will provide a preliminary routing to a prospective client, only to later see that another has built a course suspiciously following the identical routing. More directly, it was not uncommon around this time for someone within the club to get credit for the creating the course, whether or not they planned the routing. This was at the very beginning of American golf course design, and our understanding of the process was in flux and the terminology to describe it was inconsistent and ambiguous, and the they did not necessarily emphasize or value the same things we do now. When the person who planned the routing was an outsider, that person would often only be involved for a relatively brief period of time (often not more than a day or two) and the value of the routing plan to the final product was not always fully understood or appreciated. In contrast, someone affiliated with the course (such as a chairman of the green committee) would often put substantial time, thought, and effort into a creation of the course, and that insider was often given the lion's share of the credit for its creation.
-
____________________________
I am surprised this debate popped up again. Like David, I think the weight of evidence still points toward Wilson as the man responsible for the creation of Merion.
Sean, glad to have your input. Good timing,as I was recently thinking about some of your posts from long ago, shortly after my essay came out. But before I get to that, let me say again that I have no doubt that Wilson deserves a huge amount of credit not only for creating Merion in 1911-1912, but also for overseeing it and improving it for many years to come. However, as you may recall, I have always focused on trying to determine who is primarily responsible for the routing and the hole concepts. It was in this regard that I was thinking of your old posts.
If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision. Your statement above echos your past posts; "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience."
Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation. Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.
If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan? Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design. Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?
___________________________
To the Findlay Article:
Still, when I read the sentences below I don't know how they can't be open to interpretation.
This thread proves that the language is open to different interpretations. That said I think we need to be careful our threads are consistent with both the text and the facts as we know them. You wrote:
Findlay is asking Wilson to take a close look at Prestwick's Alps. Why? Because there is a disagreement between the two if what exists at Merion (be it rough layout, plan, sketch or just idea based on land forms) is really suitable in creating a good Alps. I don't read that an Alps exists, only that that the idea of a Alps exists, hence the use of the word "imagined". Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort.
As I understand the facts, while the hole may not had all the "finishing touches," it was not a "rough layout, plan, sketch or idea based on land forms." It had been built and seeded, and it had been built as an Alps Hole. He wasn't merely considering abstract ideas and possibilities "based on land-forms." To the contrary, he had tried to build an Alps hole, including the requisite land forms on a CBM Alps hole such as the large berm behind the green. Moreover, Findlay indicated that Wilson really imagined that an Alps such as Prestwick's "existed" at Merion. It existed, it just wasn't like Prestwick's.
Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort. Findlay then ends by backing up the general idea of a template Alps because he knows CBM has created some good examples.
But CBM had not created enough Alps holes for Findlay's statement to make sense as you read it. CBM had built NGLA's Alps, but I don't even think that the few others he had designed by then were even open. [I have seen nothing that indicates that Findlay, a professional, had even been to NGLA at this point in time.] And there is nothing in the text about "the general idea of an Alps."
I don't read that one was created at Merion by CBM, only that an Alps has been thought about and possibly CBM chose the land where one might exist. If anything, I think these three sentences point toward a rejection of CBM's input, at least on this one issue, if indeed it was CBM's idea in the first place.
With all due respect, I think your understanding of what happened with this hole is mistaken. Given all the negative comments Wayne and others have made about Merion's original 10th, one might get the wrong idea that is was immediately identified as folly and scrapped at the very beginning. The reality was that the hole was praised, and was played as an Alps hole for over a decade. It is my understanding that the Alps was scrapped because Merion no longer considered it safe and prudent to play over an increasingly busy Ardmore Avenue. Even Findlay ultimately liked the hole.
After seeing Alps hole seeing Prestwick and realizing that Merion's Alps "will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot" Wilson did not reject the Alps at Merion. To the contrary, he got to making it equal that of the famous old spot, and Findlay was very appreciative of the result. Three month's later Findlay praised Merion's Alps, noting that the second shot at Merion closely resembled the second shot on Prestwick's Alps.
________________________
Sean,
What "other player" do you believe altered so much of the original design? Thanks.
Mike
According to Wayne, what we have today is mainly a Flynn course.
Ciao
I don't want to get into it on this thread, but I am very curious as to what Flynn had to do with designing the Merion, particularly when it comes to the routing of the course? I have read that he flipped the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, but what else did he do? Is he responsible for moving the second green, or was that under Wilson's watch?
-
Mike, Tom and Dave:
Who, precisely, went from 5 plans to 1? I presume it was the Golf Committee. If it wasn't, who was it?
And do we know what person or persons actually made that choice?
In other words, who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board?
This, to me, seems to be a rather important fact.
Dave's saying above that CBM made that pick. Is that true or not? And why?
I wanted to return to this because, as you said, this is a rather important fact. Sure, Mike sort of answered, but he has now backtracked.
What about TEPaul? Is he ignoring the question? Or did he call you to scold you for acknowledging the importance of the question? If so, did he happen to mention that it was M&W who chose the final routing?
Let's settle this point so we can consider the ramifications.
_________________________________
A HYPOTHETICAL FOR EVERYONE
A golf course architect inspected a site then later met with his team of associates to discuss the project and what the golf course architect thought could be accomplished on the land. His associates then returned to the site and came up with a number of possible plans for a golf course. Shortly thereafter the golf course architect returned to the site and reviewed the plans and the grounds. He then chose the one of the plans, but may have altered the plan before it went to final. Thereafter, his associate oversaw he construction of the course pursuant to the plan chosen and finalized by the golf course architect.
Who designed the golf course?
-
Shivas,
You missed the first part of my post.
Are you still asking who chose the final routing from the five possibilities? Or do you now know that it was M&W who did? Because, as you say, it is rather important, yet your question has not been definitely answered by anyone but me. Since you already know what I think and since I don't even have the documents, I don't think it was really me who should give us an answer.
To me, Dave, it's the guy whose plan got chosen, unless the architect/decider changed them so much that the plans more reflect his hand than the the associate's. Yes, the guy with his name on the door will get the credit or the blame, but to me, if he didn't design it, he didn't design it.
I think it's axiomatic because it's true that the guy in charge - in almost all human endeavours - gets more praise than he deserves when things turn out well and gets more criticism than he deserves when things go lousy.
What if the draft plans were all attempts at formalizing the architect's description of what he envisioned to be the best routing and golf holes?
In other words, what if the architect had previously told the associates specifically what they should try to accomplish with each of the specific natural features that existed on the site, and the drafts were their attempts to formalize what he had said?
_______________________
Who designed Barona Creek? I am not sure. I think Todd Eckenrode was the design associate who had most to do with the project, but I do not know if he came up with the routing and hole concepts or if it was someone else. Perhaps you should ask Mr. Eckenrode.
-
What if the draft plans were all attempts at formalizing the architect's description of what he envisioned to be the best routing and golf holes?
In other words, what if the architect had previously told the associates specifically what they should try to accomplish with each of the specific natural features that existed on the site, and the drafts were their attempts to formalize what he had said?
In other words, "hey, Dave, I hate to wreck your weekend, but by Monday I need a two-way stock purchase & merger agreement, with a double-dummy structure, with ABC's management and board to control the surviving company and XYZ's to resign at closing, with a 2-tiered escrow holdback on both sides, with 10% and 5% at 12 and 18 months, respectively, and $1MM baskets on both sides, except for environmental and IP, and a 5% management carve-out on sale of the surviving company...and it needs to comply with 368(a)..."
Yeah, then it's the partner's design, not the associates....
Exactly.
-
____________________________
I am surprised this debate popped up again. Like David, I think the weight of evidence still points toward Wilson as the man responsible for the creation of Merion.
Sean, glad to have your input. Good timing,as I was recently thinking about some of your posts from long ago, shortly after my essay came out. But before I get to that, let me say again that I have no doubt that Wilson deserves a huge amount of credit not only for creating Merion in 1911-1912, but also for overseeing it and improving it for many years to come. However, as you may recall, I have always focused on trying to determine who is primarily responsible for the routing and the hole concepts. It was in this regard that I was thinking of your old posts.
If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision. Your statement above echos your past posts; "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience."
Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation. Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.
If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan? Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design. Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?
___________________________
To the Findlay Article:
Still, when I read the sentences below I don't know how they can't be open to interpretation.
This thread proves that the language is open to different interpretations. That said I think we need to be careful our threads are consistent with both the text and the facts as we know them. You wrote:
Findlay is asking Wilson to take a close look at Prestwick's Alps. Why? Because there is a disagreement between the two if what exists at Merion (be it rough layout, plan, sketch or just idea based on land forms) is really suitable in creating a good Alps. I don't read that an Alps exists, only that that the idea of a Alps exists, hence the use of the word "imagined". Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort.
As I understand the facts, while the hole may not had all the "finishing touches," it was not a "rough layout, plan, sketch or idea based on land forms." It had been built and seeded, and it had been built as an Alps Hole. He wasn't merely considering abstract ideas and possibilities "based on land-forms." To the contrary, he had tried to build an Alps hole, including the requisite land forms on a CBM Alps hole such as the large berm behind the green. Moreover, Findlay indicated that Wilson really imagined that an Alps such as Prestwick's "existed" at Merion. It existed, it just wasn't like Prestwick's.
Now, Wilson is convinced that what indeed is "imagined" is not up to scratch to the original and that to make it so would require much effort. Findlay then ends by backing up the general idea of a template Alps because he knows CBM has created some good examples.
But CBM had not created enough Alps holes for Findlay's statement to make sense as you read it. CBM had built NGLA's Alps, but I don't even think that the few others he had designed by then were even open. [I have seen nothing that indicates that Findlay, a professional, had even been to NGLA at this point in time.] And there is nothing in the text about "the general idea of an Alps."
I don't read that one was created at Merion by CBM, only that an Alps has been thought about and possibly CBM chose the land where one might exist. If anything, I think these three sentences point toward a rejection of CBM's input, at least on this one issue, if indeed it was CBM's idea in the first place.
With all due respect, I think your understanding of what happened with this hole is mistaken. Given all the negative comments Wayne and others have made about Merion's original 10th, one might get the wrong idea that is was immediately identified as folly and scrapped at the very beginning. The reality was that the hole was praised, and was played as an Alps hole for over a decade. It is my understanding that the Alps was scrapped because Merion no longer considered it safe and prudent to play over an increasingly busy Ardmore Avenue. Even Findlay ultimately liked the hole.
After seeing Alps hole seeing Prestwick and realizing that Merion's Alps "will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot" Wilson did not reject the Alps at Merion. To the contrary, he got to making it equal that of the famous old spot, and Findlay was very appreciative of the result. Three month's later Findlay praised Merion's Alps, noting that the second shot at Merion closely resembled the second shot on Prestwick's Alps.
________________________
Sean,
What "other player" do you believe altered so much of the original design? Thanks.
Mike
According to Wayne, what we have today is mainly a Flynn course.
Ciao
I don't want to get into it on this thread, but I am very curious as to what Flynn had to do with designing the Merion, particularly when it comes to the routing of the course? I have read that he flipped the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, but what else did he do? Is he responsible for moving the second green, or was that under Wilson's watch?
David
Does anybody know when the Alps was built? Presumably, there was time to build some holes after Wilson's return and before Merion's opening. Is it not possible that an Alps was built even after Wilson returned and deemed the idea not at all ideal, but no better solution could be found at the time? I ask the questions because I don't know.
Regarding CBM and other Alps, I don't know how many were built by the time this quote was produced, but I don't see how it can be referring to anything else other than CBM's other Alps holes. Any other reading of "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." is stretched and unsupported by the text at hand. There just isn't any wriggle room David.
"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
To be honest, this quote smells very much apologetic to me. If I had to take a shot at what was going on I would say both Wilson and Findlay are rejecting an idea put forward by CBM. Perhaps you are right and the hole was built in some capacity before Wilson left, but I don't think so, well at least I don't think it was finalized which is to say it wasn't ready for consumption.
So far as Flynn's involvement goes, unless I grossly understood Wayne's words, Merion is 60% Flynn and that is what I recall to be an exact quote. To be honest, I am more interested in what Merion became rather than how it started and to me the involvement of Flynn is a fascinating concept.
Ciao
-
Dave Schmidt asked”
“Mike, Tom and Dave:
Who, precisely, went from 5 plans to 1? I presume it was the Golf Committee. If it wasn't, who was it?
And do we know what person or persons actually made that choice?
In other words, who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board?
This, to me, seems to be a rather important fact.
Dave's saying above that CBM made that pick. Is that true or not? And why?”
David Moriarty responded to it with”
“I wanted to return to this because, as you said, this is a rather important fact. Sure, Mike sort of answered, but he has now backtracked.
What about TEPaul? Is he ignoring the question? Or did he call you to scold you for acknowledging the importance of the question? If so, did he happen to mention that it was M&W who chose the final routing?
Let's settle this point so we can consider the ramifications.”
Shivas:
I’ll go through your questions:
1. “Who, precisely, went from 5 plans to 1? I presume it was the Golf Committee. If it wasn't, who was it?”
We don’t know who it was because neither the minutes nor the Wilson Committee report to the Golf Committee to be delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee, says specifically who the person was who made the decision to send only one plan to the board. By the way, Lesley was not on Wilson's Committee that was not a permanent or "standing" committee but Wilson was on the Golf Committee, that Lesley was the chairman of and which was a permanent or "standing" committee. I think I pointed all that out a few days ago. So in a club organizational structure like MCC had then obviously Wilson's Committee was a form of an "ad hoc" committee that worked under the aegis of the Golf Committee. That's pretty common in clubs like that one.
2. “And do we know what person or persons actually made that choice?
In other words, who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board?
This, to me, seems to be a rather important fact:
Again, we don’t know what person or persons made that choice. We don’t know who picked the plan that Lesley ultimately presented to the board because neither the Wilson Committee report to the Golf Committee nor Lesley’s Golf Committee report of the Wilson Committee report to the board mentions that specifically.
What we do know is the Wilson Committee report says that before visiting NGLA they had laid out many different courses and following their visit to NGLA the Wilson Committee then went home and rearranged the course and laid out five different plans. Then approximately three weeks later Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over the grounds and looked over the plans and said they would approve the plan they felt contained a last seven holes that were the equal to any inland course in the world. The report says the Wilson Committee sent that particular plan to Lesley and the board.
Other than that it does not say who precisely went from 5 to 1 or who made the decision to send the plan tothe board that Macdonald said they would approve of. Since Hugh Wilson was the chairman of the committee who had been charged by MCC with creating a golf course for the club and that committee began its work at the beginning of 1911 (this is from a club report to the membership), and his report to the board four months hence, said they had created many different courses in the winter and then rearranged them to five different plans in the spring, I would assume Hugh Wilson made the choice to send the one Macdonald/Whigam approved to the board. After all, isn’t that what committee chairman do----eg make the final decisions about what the committee does or is going to do? ;) But it doesn’t say that specifically anywhere (perhaps that wasn't recorded because noone felt it was necessary to record something like that and probably for good reason---ie it was probably pretty obvious to the men running Merion that the committee or man who ran the committee charged with creating a course for MCC made the final choice to send that particular plan to the board, don’t you think? But who the hell knows; maybe Wilson took a vote of his committee to see if they agreed to select the one Macdonald/Whigam approved of and send it to the board. I doubt it could’ve been Macdonald or Whigam who made the selection of which to send to the board because neither of them was on the committee that had been charged by MCC to create Merion East nor did either of them belong to Merion.
Frankly, I've never seen it written anywhere, I've never heard it said or even implied anywhere at any time that MCC even asked Macdonald/Whigam to create a golf course for them. All that has ever been said at any time (until a couple of speculators on this website came along) is that MCC just asked Macdonald/Whigam for some help and advice on how they could create a golf course themselves.
But again, it does not say anywhere who made the choice of which to send to the board, and so if you’all want to just parse sentences and argue over the meaning of a word or words endlessly to figure that out somehow or just continue to speculate about who made the selection or the choice to send the particular plan that went to the board, by all means, be my guest!
-
The hypothetical here implies that the Committee worked for Macdonald.
That is hardly the case.
Hugh Wilson was the man in charge and Macdonald was brought in to provide expert advice in certain matters, particularly around agronomy and construction issues, as I read the correspondence. They of course also used his knowledge about ideal holes and leading courses abroad as well as having him look over their "Final Five" and recommend the best.
In any case, it's a faulty analogy.
Shivas,
As far as the terminology back then, I can't say I've seen examples of routing being separated in the terms that were used. The most common terms I heard for what we today call the architecture of a golf course included "laid out", "built", "constructed", and "responsible for".
Perhaps Joe Bausch can weigh in as well, because although I'm pretty sure that there are exceptions, I can't think of any offhand.
-
Mike Cirba,
I just began to read this thread.
Below is a quote from you.
David,
Actually, you didn't just use Findlay's exact words. Instead you spun them as such, adding your own interpretive verbiage;
From this we know that, according to Findlay:
Wilson mistakenly thought ("imagined") he had built a good "Alps" hole at Merion.
Findlay disagreed, and told Wilson to take a closer look at the real thing.
None of the bolded words were written or even implied by Findlay. They are your words, your implication, and your interpretation.
One doesn't need David's bolded words to understand the quote from Findlay. He bolded words for emphasis for the most thick headed readers.
For you to deny the gist of the quote, because David bolded the words is ridiculous. The words stand on their own merit and their message is crystal clear. Here they are again.
"Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad. He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes. I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. ........"
I don't find anything disengenuous about David's summary as it seems to capture exactly what was stated above.
Now, it's back to reading the other 7+ pages of this thread
-
David
Does anybody know when the Alps was built? Presumably, there was time to build some holes after Wilson's return and before Merion's opening. Is it not possible that an Alps was built even after Wilson returned and deemed the idea not at all ideal, but no better solution could be found at the time? I ask the questions because I don't know.
A number of sources (including Hugh Wilson) wrote that the course was built in the spring and summer of 1911, and seeded in September of that year. If memory serves, Wilson returned from his trip in mid to late May of 1912 and the course opened in mid-September 1912. So while there may have been time between his return and the opening to build some bunkers and mounding, the backbone of the course was in place before Wilson's trip. As for the Merion's Alps Hole in particular, a photograph on a Holiday Dinner Program from 1911 shows part of the course and identifies the large mound at the back of the 10th green. As you know, the large mound behind the green was a typical feature on a CBM Alps hole. So some version of the Alps hole was there before his trip.
I don't think there is any reason to believe that Wilson rejected CBM's Alps hole as "not at all ideal." Wilson not only built the hole, he kept it for more than a decade. In fact, I have seen no evidence that Wilson rejected any of Macdonald's teachings on course design. In his 1916 article in the Turf for Golf Courses, Wilson is still praising the help Macdonald gave him with Merion; "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."
Regarding CBM and other Alps, I don't know how many were built by the time this quote was produced, but I don't see how it can be referring to anything else other than CBM's other Alps holes. Any other reading of "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." is stretched and unsupported by the text at hand. There just isn't any wriggle room David.
If an interpretation has an author speaking nonsense, then the interpretation is probably not correct. And no matter how you count them, there were not enough CBM Alps holes in June 1912 for your interpretation to make sense. "Many of the other [Alps Holes] as laid out by CBM" could not have been really great if there was only one or very few CBM Alps holes.
The other interpretation has no such problem and fits very nicely if one recognizes that Findlay is writing about the 10th at Merion, and if one at least recognizes the possibility that CBM routed the course. Cutting to the chase and leaving the CBM issue aside, I think we'll agree that he meant that Merion's 10th hole need a lot of work. Then, in contrast, he noted that many of the others were really great. Merion's 10th needs a lot of work, but many of the others are really great. Adding back in CBM shouldn't change the logic.
To be honest, this quote smells very much apologetic to me. If I had to take a shot at what was going on I would say both Wilson and Findlay are rejecting an idea put forward by CBM. Perhaps you are right and the hole was built in some capacity before Wilson left, but I don't think so, well at least I don't think it was finalized which is to say it wasn't ready for consumption.
I agree that is smells very much apologetic. But not to CBM. The article was not about CBM, but about Wilson and Merion. Findlay subtly criticized Merion's Alps hole, noting that it needed a lot of work to match the real Alps. But he followed this subtle but specific criticism with a broad compliment. Merion's other holes are really great.
So far as Flynn's involvement goes, unless I grossly understood Wayne's words, Merion is 60% Flynn and that is what I recall to be an exact quote.
60% Flynn? Wow. As far as the routing and hole concepts, off the top of my head, I think Flynn might have been responsible for flipping the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, shifting and moving the 2nd green a bit back, and tweaking the back of the 14th green. Other than that I don't know what the did to the backbone of the course. But I'd be curious to hear what else he did and why that work ought to be considered redesign work. They rebuilt the bunkers, but that project was started under Wilson. The built some new back tees but that surely does not constitute a redesign.
To be honest, I am more interested in what Merion became rather than how it started and to me the involvement of Flynn is a fascinating concept.
I too am interested in what Merion became, but in my opinion understanding the beginning shines a whole different light on what came later.
As for Flynn, I try to stay away from the topic generally. If I tread too closely to the topic of Flynn, feathers tend to get even more ruffled than when I write about Merion.
________________
-
"Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible."
David Moriarty:
It is just that kind of fucked up tortured logic and COMPLETE garbage that pisses off any reasonable mind interested in this subject.
You show us where Alan Wilson EVER credited his brother Hugh FOR THAT WHICH M&W WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!
GO ahead, get out ANYTHING you can find that Alan Wilson ever said about Merion East and SHOW US where he ever said anything like that. Don't avoid, evade, discount or try to rationalize this away anymore. YOU SHOW US WHERE HE EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Go ahead do it and stop torturing the events and records of those fine people back then. DO IT MORIARTY! SHOW US RIGHT NOW!
"Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so."
"IF" Findlay meant......!!!!!
That's a pretty big "IF" don't you think?!?!? (Turkey deleted ;) ). What are you trying to do now---make that remark look like it states some actual FACT of what Findlay MEANT??
And where did Findlay ever say "ROUTING?"
Are you now so confused over your own tortured logic and shilling of events and timelines that you now think Findlay's "others" (laid out by CBM) in his sentence is SYNONYMOUS with a golf course ROUTING, INCLUDING MERION's??
Matter of fact, try to show us if the word "ROUTING" was ever even USED by ANYONE within 20-30 years of Findlay's 1912 article on Merion.
Go ahead, quit avoiding the fact that you're constantly getting nailed by us in your own tortured logic. SHOW US how "others" could possibly mean ROUTING in that sentence. SHOW US where the word was even used back then.
Why don't you try to SHOW US how your tortured claim that "laying out" must mean actual building when Wilson and his committee used the term "laid out" referring to the plans they were drawing about 4-5 months BEFORE Merion East even STARTED TO GET BUILT!
SHOW US David Moriarty and stop avoiding every single question we ask that constantly proves you, your claims, assumptions, and conclusions wrong!
-
David,
Do you think the November 1910 article that claims the club hired Barker to lay out the course is historically accurate?
A yes or no answer will suffice. And if you're honest with us, you'll at least admit the answer is no.
Mike, if you and others were honest, you'd have posted what you have in your possession and not restricted its release.
As to the accuracy of the article, that should be able to be ascertained with additional research, but, by no means should this article or any other article be withheld
Before you accuse me or Joe of sandbagging, please at least recognize that we were hoping to find any shred of supporting evidence in any other accounts before picking the scab off of this issue again.
If someone did the same to you, would you think they were sandbagging ?
That article brought no "NEW" information forward, and contains INACCURATE information.
That's your conclusion, one that may not be universally shared.
DISCLOSURE should be the FIRST order of business.
Ascertaining accuracy would be the NEXT order of business
WITHHOLDING is improper.
On the other hand, the Findlay article that Joe uncovered certainly introduced new information, so we thought it was very valuable and posted it here.
I don't think that SELECTIVE posting is in anyone's best interest, unless there's an agenda.
Mike Cirba,
Who decides which newspaper articles are accurate and which ones aren't accurate ?
As to "failure to publish" accusations from both sides, rather than explain why there's been a failure or hesitation to publish discovered articles, why not publish what's PREVIOUSLY been published, introducing it to the record, and then publish/post qualifying documents that either support or refute the article ?
I have to tell you that I feel uncomfortable when people knowingly withhold articles that may not reinforce their position, and then use the excuse that they wanted to further "authenticate" them prior to releasing them.
It's disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.
If anyone discovers an article related to the subject they should post it as it furthers the pursuit of the truth vis a vis discovery and due diligence.
Whether the article is 100 % accurate, 50 % accurate or 0 % accurate will be revealed in time with additional research, but, to WITHHOLD these articles is wrong.
-
Tom Paul wrote, "SHOW US where the word was even used back then."
I just spent some time on SEGL, and I only found the word used twice before 1945 - once in 1922 that described a golfer shooting a 67 and routing the competition, and once in 1929 speaking about the economy: "Economies will be affected all along the line, in freight routing, in accounting, etc.
-
"If anyone discovers an article related to the subject they should post it as it furthers the pursuit of the truth vis a vis discovery and due diligence."
Patrick:
An article? Do you mean a newspaper article? Who has ever with-held a newspaper article on one of these Merion threads? As far as I'm concerned those things are provably all over the place as to accuracy, depending on when they were written, who wrote them, the sources used and whether or not they actually interviewed someone who was actually involved and would know first hand.
-
Dan Hermann:
Precisely. Good post. Thanks for that but it should be David Moriarty answering that question because he's the one who used the word on here above in connection with Merion East and C.B. Macdonald in 1910 and 1911.
I keep saying and just keep hammering away on here that if one plays fast and loose with events and facts on here the "OLD TIMELINE" will show the errors or their ways eventually, and just as clear as the noonday sun----in this case even with a words or a word---ie "routing" as it applies to golf course architecture!
I think Dave Schmidt made a pretty appropriate point in that vein recently. I told him Moriarty's essay mentioned that "laying out" meant building (a golf course) and not routing or designing one as per the definition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Dave Schmidt said: "Did he use a 1911 Oxford English Dictionary when he looked up the definition of "laying out?" ;)
-
Just thought I'd comment on a couple of things. First, Shivas seems to imply that it's somewhat absurd for MacDonald to approve his own plans, as his approval would appear redundant. This, however, is very common when an individual is charged with providing final approval on a proposal. Often, and very commonly when applying governance at a board level, a motion proposer also votes in favour of their own proposal. It's not really a big issue, except that Shivas seemed to draw conclusions from the notion that it didn't make sense for someone to approve their own plan/proposal.
Second, MacDonald's approval could simply be his agreement or blessing of a particular plan in an informal way. Nowhere have I seen it stated that MacDonald had any final approval (he may or may not have) on the plan that would be submitted to the board, rather, all we know is that he gave his approval (blessing) to one particular plan (whoever it was created or modified by).
-
I have a crazy question, and I apologize if this was asked and answered on prior threads or if the answer is known and obvious or whether it's simply not known, but back in 1910-1912, did anybody back then, in writing, ever separate or distinguish routing from any other part or parts of the course creation process? I don't know a lot of this stuff, but I'd imagine it would have been called arranging or mapping or creating the course of the holes or something like that. Did anyone, anywhere distinguish that part of the process in writing? Or was building a golf course thought of more holistically back then?
Not exactly sure to what you are asking. But as I explained above to Dan, it was pretty common for one person to plan the lay out (or stake out the course) and another (or others) to build the course. An extreme example would be the '18 stakes in an afternoon' golf professionals; they didn't stick around and lovingly nurse and develop the course into maturity, they staked out green locations and tee locations and maybe bunker locations and they were immediately on the road to the next town. One interesting contemporary example involves H.H. Barker, the same architect who drew out the first lay out plan for a course on the Merion property, and a prominent D.C. area club. If I recall correctly, Barker planned the layout for Columbia Country Club in or around 1909, but the course took a few years to get built and opened because of agronomy problems. Ultimately Dr. Walter Harban took over as chairman of the green committee (like Wilson, he also wrote an essay for Turf for Golf Courses) and reseeded much of the course. Over time he became the person most closely associated with the creation of the course and Barker's name pretty much dropped out of the courses history. Now I believe they credit Travis, who made some changes later.
Anyway, I believe that numerous examples exist where the person who actually planned the layout is not the person credited with creating the course. I just played one of the older courses in Southern California and according to a member who has researched the issue, its original design has been wrongly attributed to a prominent person in the regional golf association even though he had nothing to do with planning the course. I haven't read Wayne's lengthy draft on Flynn, but doesn't he claim that Flynn designed courses that others ultimately got credit for. I recall Wayne imploring me to drop my Merion research and to focus on NGLA, because he thought that individual's other than CBM played a large role in planning the course. And then there is the Myopia debate, which I do not have any interest in getting into here. Leeds gets all the credit for creating the course, but did he plan the original lay out of the holes? My understanding is that it is at least debatable. Pine Valley? Another one I have no interest in discussing for obvious reasons, but don't at least some early accounts that credit Colt for planning the lay out, and others who argue that Crump deserves the lion's share of the credit because he is the one who actually created the course (or a large part of it?)
Some of these are the larger and more famous examples, and ones in which I am not offering an opinion on personally and do not wish to discuss, but in my reading I have found many less famous examples where one person planned the layout and another, often the person who oversaw the creation or a later designer who made minimal changes, is credited with designing the course.
________________________________
Tom Paul wrote, "SHOW US where the word was even used back then."
I just spent some time on SEGL, and I only found the word used twice before 1945 - once in 1922 that described a golfer shooting a 67 and routing the competition, and once in 1929 speaking about the economy: "Economies will be affected all along the line, in freight routing, in accounting, etc.
Dan Hermann,
I didn't make it through TEPaul's post, nor do I plan to, so I am not sure to what you are referring. As I explained to you above, they didn't necessarily use the same terms we used or value the same things we did. It was all pretty new to them. Surely you understand what I mean when I say routing, don't you? I doubt I claimed anyone ever actually used the word then.
_____________________________________________
Shivas and All,
Over the past few days TEPaul has not only admitted that (according to the MCC minutes) M&W chose the final routing from the 5 plans, but also that this was the final plan that went to the board, and even that it may have contained changes made by M&W that weren't even in the other plans! Now we are to believe that the records in no way indicate that M&W chose the plan that went to the board?? Incredible.
Isn't it amazing how TEPaul and Mike portray the MCC documents as crystal clear and beyond reasonable dispute when trying to convince us to believe their version of the story. Yet suddenly, now that they finally realize that even their version of the facts undercuts their own story, they change their reading and can no longer draw any conclusions or even figure out what those portions of the documents really mean.
Despite TEPaul's new song and dance, he has already written repeatedly that it was M&W returned to the site, went over the grounds, reviewed the plans and chose the best one and that one was sent to the Committee. While I'd rather see the documents, I will take him at his word on this particular matter until I see proof to the contrary.
From TEPaul, post 136:
The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there . . . Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East.
-
_______________________________________
"Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible."
David Moriarty:
It is just that kind of fucked up tortured logic and COMPLETE garbage that pisses off any reasonable mind interested in this subject.
You show us where Alan Wilson EVER credited his brother Hugh FOR THAT WHICH M&W WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE!!!
GO ahead, get out ANYTHING you can find that Alan Wilson ever said about Merion East and SHOW US where he ever said anything like that. Don't avoid, evade, discount or try to rationalize this away anymore. YOU SHOW US WHERE HE EVER SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Go ahead do it and stop torturing the events and records of those fine people back then. DO IT MORIARTY! SHOW US RIGHT NOW!
"Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so."
"IF" Findlay meant......!!!!!
That's a pretty big "IF" don't you think?!?!? (Turkey deleted ;) ). What are you trying to do now---make that remark look like it states some actual FACT of what Findlay MEANT??
And where did Findlay ever say "ROUTING?"
Are you now so confused over your own tortured logic and shilling of events and timelines that you now think Findlay's "others" (laid out by CBM) in his sentence is SYNONYMOUS with a golf course ROUTING, INCLUDING MERION's??
Matter of fact, try to show us if the word "ROUTING" was ever even USED by ANYONE within 20-30 years of Findlay's 1912 article on Merion.
Go ahead, quit avoiding the fact that you're constantly getting nailed by us in your own tortured logic. SHOW US how "others" could possibly mean ROUTING in that sentence. SHOW US where the word was even used back then.
Why don't you try to SHOW US how your tortured claim that "laying out" must mean actual building when Wilson and his committee used the term "laid out" referring to the plans they were drawing about 4-5 months BEFORE Merion East even STARTED TO GET BUILT!
SHOW US David Moriarty and stop avoiding every single question we ask that constantly proves you, your claims, assumptions, and conclusions wrong!
TEPaul,
If you want me to discuss these matters with you, then you need to grow up.
-
"First, Shivas seems to imply that it's somewhat absurd for MacDonald to approve his own plans, as his approval would appear redundant."
henryE:
Whether or not Macdonald approved his own Merion East plan is sort of beside the point. What the real point is, is when would Macdonald have had the opportunity and the time to do his own routing and hole design plan for Merion East?
Can you shed any light on that, henryE? I'd love to know because even after having been asked on here a number of times it appears David Moriarty isn't even capable of considering the question? ;)
-
"TEPaul,
If you want me to discuss these matters with you, then you need to grow up."
David Moriarty:
Those kinds of posts and deflective responses really just aren't going to cut it on here anymore. This isn't about you so try not to make it about me----just answer the questions!
The longer you avoid them the more you will convince everyone out there in INTERNET land following these Merion/Macdonald threads how baseless everything you've said in your essays and in your posts on here about it really is.
Don't revert to personal responses just answer the questions I asked you on Merion! If you don't I'm just going to keep asking you. You know I will. This is only about Merion's architect and architectural history; it's not about you or me.
-
"I didn't make it through TEPaul's post, nor do I plan to, so I am not sure to what you are referring."
Dan:
Well, shit, is it any wonder why this turkey is a complete waste of time and effort on these Merion threads? He isn't even willing to read the posts of the people who can actually teach him something about the details of the history of Merion!
"As I explained to you above, they didn't necessarily use the same terms we used or value the same things we did. It was all pretty new to them. Surely you understand what I mean when I say routing, don't you? I doubt I claimed anyone ever actually used the word then."
It's not a matter or what Dan Hermann understands today, Moriarty. You made the point; excuse me, I should more ACCURATELY say you made the PREMISE in your ESSAY that when men like HUGH WILSON a century ago used the term "Laying Out" it meant "building" or "constructing" a golf course to someone else's plan to them and apparently that's the way they used it back then. You even cited Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "laying out" as meaning building not creating a routing and design plan on paper as Wilson and his committee did numerous times for Merion East.
By the way, was that a 1911 Oxford English dictionary you referred to? ;)
-
"From TEPaul, post 136:
Quote
The board report goes on to say that following the visit to NGLA Wilson and his committee did “five different plans.” It ends by reporting that Macdonald/Whigam returned to Merion for a single day (April 6, 1911) and went over their plans and went over the ground and stated that they would approve of a particular plan as they felt it contained what would be the best seven holes of any inland course in the world! As they had done the previous June, Macdonald also suggested on April 6, 1911 that Merion should acquire that 3 acres behind the clubhouse which belonged to the P&W railroad and was not a part of the 338 land deal between Lloyd and the developers that included the land for the golf course that had already been purchased actually in the name of Lloyd and his wife. Presumably, as per Macdonald’s suggestion to that effect, by April 6, 1911, at least, one of the plans incorporated that 3 acre P&W land for some holes (that would be the land that included the old 12th green and the old 13th hole which no longer exist). I also believe it was just previous to this time (April 6, 1911) that Richard Francis conceived of his idea with Lloyd to do the land swap to create enough space in the existing triangle to construct the 15th green and 16th tee that would bring into design Merion's famous Quarry hole (#16). David Moriarty, in my mind, it is more than possible, although definitely not certain, that none of the five Merion plans on that day in April included that P&W land and that in fact may’ve been an architectural or conceptual suggestion that Macdonald/Whigam made on their own during that one and only single day they were there . . . Within two weeks, the plan that Macdonald/Whigam said they would approve of was taken to the board and considered and approved and that was the routing and design plan used to create the original Merion East."
David Moriarty:
I'm very interested to know why you'd bother to quote that. What's your point exactly?
I can certainly see that something like that is POSSIBLE (to switch up a hole or two in just a single day on one of Wilson and committee's plans), even though there is no evidence of it. But something like that which is a fairly minor "plan" adjustment is just speculation on my part, and it's a very long way from Macdonald having the time or the opportunity to actually route and design the holes of Merion East or to be the "driving force" being Merion East which seems to be your recent fall-back position on the actual meaning of your remarkably illogical and tortured essay.
Perhaps you've just never been able to see or understand the distinctions or the reasons for them between the two. If that's the case, it's not surprising at all, believe me, and it's no knock on you really as you just don't have any practical experience with golf course architecture so how could one even expect you to understand or appreciate these things like Macdonald just didn't have the time or opportunity to do what you've been suggesting for some years now that he did at Merion IN ONE SINGLE DAY?
-
David
Does anybody know when the Alps was built? Presumably, there was time to build some holes after Wilson's return and before Merion's opening. Is it not possible that an Alps was built even after Wilson returned and deemed the idea not at all ideal, but no better solution could be found at the time? I ask the questions because I don't know.
A number of sources (including Hugh Wilson) wrote that the course was built in the spring and summer of 1911, and seeded in September of that year. If memory serves, Wilson returned from his trip in mid to late May of 1912 and the course opened in mid-September 1912. So while there may have been time between his return and the opening to build some bunkers and mounding, the backbone of the course was in place before Wilson's trip. As for the Merion's Alps Hole in particular, a photograph on a Holiday Dinner Program from 1911 shows part of the course and identifies the large mound at the back of the 10th green. As you know, the large mound behind the green was a typical feature on a CBM Alps hole. So some version of the Alps hole was there before his trip.
I don't think there is any reason to believe that Wilson rejected CBM's Alps hole as "not at all ideal." Wilson not only built the hole, he kept it for more than a decade. In fact, I have seen no evidence that Wilson rejected any of Macdonald's teachings on course design. In his 1916 article in the Turf for Golf Courses, Wilson is still praising the help Macdonald gave him with Merion; "Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."
Regarding CBM and other Alps, I don't know how many were built by the time this quote was produced, but I don't see how it can be referring to anything else other than CBM's other Alps holes. Any other reading of "But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great." is stretched and unsupported by the text at hand. There just isn't any wriggle room David.
If an interpretation has an author speaking nonsense, then the interpretation is probably not correct. And no matter how you count them, there were not enough CBM Alps holes in June 1912 for your interpretation to make sense. "Many of the other [Alps Holes] as laid out by CBM" could not have been really great if there was only one or very few CBM Alps holes.
The other interpretation has no such problem and fits very nicely if one recognizes that Findlay is writing about the 10th at Merion, and if one at least recognizes the possibility that CBM routed the course. Cutting to the chase and leaving the CBM issue aside, I think we'll agree that he meant that Merion's 10th hole need a lot of work. Then, in contrast, he noted that many of the others were really great. Merion's 10th needs a lot of work, but many of the others are really great. Adding back in CBM shouldn't change the logic.
To be honest, this quote smells very much apologetic to me. If I had to take a shot at what was going on I would say both Wilson and Findlay are rejecting an idea put forward by CBM. Perhaps you are right and the hole was built in some capacity before Wilson left, but I don't think so, well at least I don't think it was finalized which is to say it wasn't ready for consumption.
I agree that is smells very much apologetic. But not to CBM. The article was not about CBM, but about Wilson and Merion. Findlay subtly criticized Merion's Alps hole, noting that it needed a lot of work to match the real Alps. But he followed this subtle but specific criticism with a broad compliment. Merion's other holes are really great.
So far as Flynn's involvement goes, unless I grossly understood Wayne's words, Merion is 60% Flynn and that is what I recall to be an exact quote.
60% Flynn? Wow. As far as the routing and hole concepts, off the top of my head, I think Flynn might have been responsible for flipping the direction of the dogleg on the first hole, shifting and moving the 2nd green a bit back, and tweaking the back of the 14th green. Other than that I don't know what the did to the backbone of the course. But I'd be curious to hear what else he did and why that work ought to be considered redesign work. They rebuilt the bunkers, but that project was started under Wilson. The built some new back tees but that surely does not constitute a redesign.
To be honest, I am more interested in what Merion became rather than how it started and to me the involvement of Flynn is a fascinating concept.
I too am interested in what Merion became, but in my opinion understanding the beginning shines a whole different light on what came later.
As for Flynn, I try to stay away from the topic generally. If I tread too closely to the topic of Flynn, feathers tend to get even more ruffled than when I write about Merion.
________________
David
I have already stated that the passage in question is debatable as to its meaning. That said, it is quite evident that both Findlay and Wilson were not satisfied with the Alps as it existed, imagined or real - that is quite clear from the text. I never stated that Findlay and Wilson rejected the idea of CBM's template holes. I said they rejected the specific Alps at Merion and yes, it eventually disappeared - which would suport the idea that it wasn't ideal. If Findlay was referring to other templates at Merion that CBM designed, what are these holes? I know a supposed Redan exists, which in fact is sheer nonsense because the 3rd is most certainly not a Redan in concept or design. I find it very presumptous on your part to assume that CBM didn't have at least two other Alps in existence which the sentence could be referring to (and logically should be if the structure of the sentence is followed correctly) especially since we know at least one did exist.
Like I said before, your reading could be correct, we will likely never know, but I do believe your interpretation wholly depends on CBM being the designer of Merion and that is a very big if.
Ciao
-
I find it very presumptous on your part to assume that CBM didn't have at least two other Alps in existence which the sentence could be referring to . . . especially since we know at least one did exist.
First, it would take more than two Alps holes for your reading to make sense. He said "many of the others" so there would have to have been enough CBM Alps holes for him to distinguish the "many" really great CBM Alps holes from the even larger set all CBM Alps holes, whether really great or not. That sounds like a whole lot of Alps holes. More than a few.
Second, I didn't think I was assuming much at all. Were there many CBM Alps holes in existence in June 1912? I don't think so, but I am willing to listen.
If Findlay was referring to other templates at Merion that CBM designed, what are these holes? I know a supposed Redan exists, which in fact is sheer nonsense because the 3rd is most certainly not a Redan in concept or design.
I don't think he was referring to specific templates at Merion. I think he is referring to every hole on the course. Merion's 10th needs work, but many of Merion's other holes are really great.
As for your comments about the Redan, so noted, now and before. But you must realize that it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is a Redan. What matters is whether they thought it was a Redan. And they did.
But perhaps we should agree to disagree on the matter of the Findlay article. At least I think I have said my piece.
I wonder if you could perhaps address my other questions, from above. I am very curious as to what you think.
If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision. Your statement above echos your past posts; "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience."
Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation. Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.
If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan? Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design. Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?
-
I find it very presumptous on your part to assume that CBM didn't have at least two other Alps in existence which the sentence could be referring to . . . especially since we know at least one did exist.
First, it would take more than two Alps holes for your reading to make sense. He said "many of the others" so there would have to have been enough CBM Alps holes for him to distinguish the "many" really great CBM Alps holes from the even larger set all CBM Alps holes, whether really great or not. That sounds like a whole lot of Alps holes. More than a few.
Second, I didn't think I was assuming much at all. Were there many CBM Alps holes in existence in June 1912? I don't think so, but I am willing to listen.
If Findlay was referring to other templates at Merion that CBM designed, what are these holes? I know a supposed Redan exists, which in fact is sheer nonsense because the 3rd is most certainly not a Redan in concept or design.
I don't think he was referring to specific templates at Merion. I think he is referring to every hole on the course. Merion's 10th needs work, but many of Merion's other holes are really great.
As for your comments about the Redan, so noted, now and before. But you must realize that it doesn't matter whether you or I think it is a Redan. What matters is whether they thought it was a Redan. And they did.
But perhaps we should agree to disagree on the matter of the Findlay article. At least I think I have said my piece.
I wonder if you could perhaps address my other questions, from above. I am very curious as to what you think.
If I recall correctly, in the past you have indicated that the person(s) responsible for choosing the final design should be credited with that design, because regardless of whatever input they may have sought and/or received from others, the design was ultimately their decision. Your statement above echos your past posts; "I still don't think it matters much if he sought outside help, in fact, I would have expected him to seek outside experience."
Am I understanding you correctly? If so, I'd ask that you consider a few details that have come out since your previous participation. Here is TEPaul's version of what happened in March and April of 1911:
-- After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
-- Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), M&W returned to Merion to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
-- After reviewing all the draft plans and again going over the ground, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
-- Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, and had chosen and "approved" of the version presented.
If this is what happened, then weren't M&W in charge of choosing the final plan? Sure, the Committee may have come up with some draft plans after meeting with M&W, but short of the Board's final approval it was M&W who made the final decision, at least of those involved in the design. Wouldn't you therefore credit them with at least this aspect of the design?
David
"I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great."
I don't think your reading is accurate at all in context of what was written. The reason for Wilson to visit the UK was to look at original design concepts. The entire passage is about the 10th, an Alps. If Findlay is suddenly and out of nowhere is now talking about the remainder of the course with the last sentence I would be very surprised because that sort of thing isn't even hinted at earlier. Maybe there were more than two Alps in existence, I don't know, but to me, this seems more reasonable than to suddenly state out of the blue that CBM was the designer of Merion - which in fact the passage doesn't state - that is your interpretation which is biased by your previous conclusions that CBM is largely responsible for Merion.
I don't know who reduced the plans from 5 to 1. It seems to have been a committee decision. Unlike Tom P, I don't necessarily agree that it was the Chair's call because often times the Chair of a committee only has a deciding vote. To my way of thinking, if it was solely Wilson's call there wouldn't be a committee - it would be Wilson calling the shots. In other words, the job of a chair is not to make the ultimate decisions for the committee. His job is to chair the meetings so they are effective and to the point and ensure that progress is made toward the goal. So, absent any direct evidence (which I haven't seen) I can only conclude that Wilson was the driving force behind Merion with the help of committee members and other outside advisors which CBM seems to be one of.
Honestly Dave, I could care less who designed the original iteration of Merion. I find the entire debate fascinating, but I haven't seen you produce any killer evidence which demonstrates that CBM was the designer of Merion. I think it would be wild if indeed CBM were the designer of Merion because it would represent a major departure from his "style" and perhaps a great many people may then think of him very differently.
Ciao
-
DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer? Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?
-
Why wouldn't Merion have hosted a celebratory dinner for Macdonald and Whigham and trumpeted the news worldwide that their new course was designed by M&W? These guys were the creators of NGLA and Macdonald was probably the most famous golfer in America.
In fact, why would they hide it?
David's article claims they of course meant no slight over the next 30 years when every single article credited Hugh Wilson with never again a single mention of Macdonald the rest of their respective lives, and that Tillinghast and Findlay were silent partners in this "slight oversight", but always implying some conspiratorial tones to hide the truth.
I thought that this subject was exhausted, but I have to admit...this new tack of CB Macdonald as "The DECIDER", ala George W. Bush, is such a fresh, soft, runny, squishy set of bull turds that have been "laid out" that it smells from here to Kentucky. ::) ::) ::) ;D
Such simple little common-sense questions that David consistently and purposefully fails to answer in his seeming "search for the truth" get lost in the semantic nonsense, and now that Macdonaldite Patrick has jumped in to defend David I see this thread breaking all records. :D
At the point where David seriously tried to argue that the article stating that Macdonald "laid out others" is dispositive proof that he designed the holes at Merion while simultaneously dismissing scores of reports, internal minutes, and eye-witness accounts by men like Tillinghast that Hugh Wilson and Committee "laid out Merion" meant they were construction workers following Macdonald's one-day plan I should have run like hell from this intellectually dishonest circle-jerk.
In fact, given the early 1913 Merion letter crediting Wilson and committee for "laying out and constructing" the new course spelled it slightly differently, I'm waiting for David to suggest that "laid out" in the case of Macdonald means course routing and design while "layed out" in the case of Wilson means "laying around, or engaging in other prone activities", and citing the Portugeuse Slang Dictionary of 1908 as his source." ::) ;D
So, have fun, fellows.
A wise person advised me to avoid this thread a few weeks ago.
I'm now taking his advice and I'd advise him to do the same.
-
Sean Arble:
The following is another example of how David Moriarty has constantly tried to rationalize that CBM even could have routed and designed the holes of Merion East.
“I don't think he was referring to specific templates at Merion. I think he is referring to every hole on the course.”
Notice how he said he feels Findlay was referring to every hole on the course of Merion East that are the “others” that Findlay said CBM has laid out that are really great!
Sean, I can very easily show you how that assumption of Moriarty’s is a virtual impossibility but for me to show you and others that you have just got to stop parsing those sentences in Findlay’s article. They are largely irrelevant and unimportant when you carefully consider WHAT ELSE I am about to tell you and have told you before on this thread but perhaps you didn’t read it or appreciate the extreme importance of it.
C.B. Macdonald and Whigam JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY to substantially design or redesign Wilson and Committee’s Merion East plans because they JUST DIDN’T HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT!!! And this doesn't even broach the fact that Wilson and committee and MCC at no time ever even asked them to do something like that because if they did noone, but noone has EVER mentioned or implied such a thing about Merion East.
If you really want to understand the truth of the architectural history of Merion East and who did it including who was in the main responsible for it, eventually you’re going to need to deal with that reality.
Would you like to do that, Sean, or do you want to spent all your time looking at something and trying to analyze something that is largely irrelevant to this matter, not to mention incredibly unclear as to its meaning in and of itself (the Findlay article)? What I’m speaking of can show any analyst the truth here who is even semi-familiar with the realities and practicalities that have to do with time and opportunity in GCA when it comes to substantially routing and designing a plan for a golf course.
It’s your call, just let me know.
-
Sean Arble:
Consider the quote below:
"-- In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different any of the five drafts they had reviewed."
Now find it in the bottom half of Moriarty's Post #298.
It is in the part that Moriarty says is my version of events. I said that in a single day it is possible, in my opinion (and I stated that my opinion on that point was merely speculation on my part) that M&W could've made some suggestions in that single day in April that could've created a MINOR alteration in the routing and design plan that went to the board for approval. I even supplied a logical example on this thread of what that MINOR alteration may've been but I NEVER said or implied that "it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was substantively different from any of the other five drafts they had reviewed."
I hope you understand, Sean, that MINOR is just about the antithesis of SUBSTANTIVE! ;)
The latter remarks in quotes are Moriarty's words not mine even though he attributes them to me in his post #298. He has always had a odd way of doing that with the remarks of others on here. Obviously he does it for a reason---eg he thinks it makes it appear that what others have said somehow makes his point. The fact is I have always categorically disagreed with him about this very point regarding Merion and Macdonald, and I said so a number of times on this very thread.
He altered my own words to try to make it look like I said or believe that it was possible that Macdonald altered the plan (that went to the board for approval) so that it was substantively different.
I don't believe that and I never have, and I believe I can prove it with Merion own record. Quite the opposite in fact; I believe it was virtually impossible for Macdonald to have even been able to do that and again I can quite easily show you why I believe that was virtually impossible for him to do.
-
David M.
I sure hope you wouldn't send someone to prison based on your interpretation of Findlay's words. I can see various interpretations as possible but none are clear.
-
Tom P
None of this means much - thats where we differ. For me its entertainment. For you and some others it seems to be life and death. That said, if you have evidence that CBM couldn't have had significant input into Merion by all means do tell. Just saying CBM didn't have time because he was only on site two days doesn't cut it for me. I think one heck of a lot of planning can be accomplished in two days - especially given the time lapse between visits. CBM could easily have been pondering "solutions" for design for many, many hours before his return visit. I am not saying this is what happened, but its possible. As I say, do tell. It would end a bit of entertainment for me, but then we could move onto what Flynn did - tee hee.
Ciao
-
Tom Paul,
I slightly disagree about time for a routing.
We know that HH Barker put together a routing for Joseph Connell of the Merion property during a day's visit. We also know Merion dismissed it and for reasons I'll mention later, they were probably insulted, as well.
We also know EXACTLY what CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham RECOMMENDED for the property during their one-day visit in June 1910 and they did in fact "lay it out" for the Merion Committee. They recommended a "sporty" 6000 yard course with rote, formulaic hole lengths and they put it in writing. They also recommended purchase of an additional 3 acres because they weren't sure that the property looked at was quite big enough for their pre-fab 6,000 yard course. I'm sure someone sitting down could place those pre-defined, hole-length jigsaw puzzle pieces somewhere on the map of the property for better or worse, so that would evidently make them the architect of Merion in David's eyes..but evidently the Merion Committee didn't think too much of this stupid idea either, as they shortly started to lay out "many" possible plans for the new property on their own.
We also know that various early "architects", mostly Scottish professionals, would lay out "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon" for another set of starry-eyed novices, each believing they were going to get a first class course, the very best of its type, and those professionals would receive about $25 for their "services". Of course, this always happened when members of a club hadn't the slightest idea or intent of how to begin on their own, ESPCIALLY and almost solely when a club was just getting started in golf, which was not the case with Merion.
However, THIS is now what David and others are now boiling their arguments down to....that Macdonald and Whigham did an "18 stakes, single-day" routing of Merion in some sudden flash of arrogance and inspiration!
This of course ignores several important facts.
Although there were many one-day early routings, none of them were very good, or seem to have lasted the test of time. In fact, there were all sorts of problems with them, including drainage, lack of interest, agronomy, etc.
Perhaps Macdonald's sterling "out and back" routing at NGLA was done in a day, because they moved heaven and earth to create the holes there and it's almost "anti-minimalist" in construction and wholly different from Merion in that regard. :o
This theory also ignores the fact that Merion never asked Macdonald and Whigham for a routing.
It ignores the fact that there is no record or mention of a Macdonald and Whigham routing, layout, plan, construct, or anything else meaning authorship not only in the Merion minutes, but in any news accounts of the time or for the next 25 years Macdonald was alive.
It ignores the fact that the Merion Committee themselves had laid out many plans over the winter of 1911, and also ignores the fact that they "rearranged the course and laid out 5 different plans" of their own after visiting NGLA, and it morevover ignores the fact that the only other mention of plans in the MCC minutes says that Macdonald "reviewed" their plans, and approved one.
It also ignores the fact that for Macdonald to suggest "18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon", he'd be dealing with a whole bunch of more important people than the starry eyed novices just starting clubs that most of the early Scottish pros dealt with. Here he was dealing with Captains of Industry, men of HUGE import, and men who had already built a 15 year old very successful, highly respected golf club that had hosted major championships on their original course and he was dealing with men who had played all over this country for a decade and had travelled abroad and who knew a ton about the early game.
He'd also be telling them that the work they had done for the previous 4 months wasn't worth a damn, and that he could do better in an afternoon! :o ::) ::) ::) ::) Think about that!
For him to come in there in the few hours of early April daylight, between meals and reviews of plans and other social niceties, presuming to do a half-assed job of routing a golf course for this well-established, highly respected club in a single day, a practice that was already regularly criticized severely by a maturing and more knowledgeable US Golf world, after he himself had just spent FIVE YEARS trying to get NGLA right, would have been an insulting societal slight of the highest order, and the height of arrogance and stupidity.
-
Mike Cirba:
You make some good points in about the first four paragraphs of your last post. It is possible, of course, to sort of run around some site in a single day and produce a basic routing. God knows a lot of early architects did that and apparently most all the early ones who called themselves professionals. Bernard Darwin actually described in a most revealing way that particular one day process of 19th century "laying out" in a single day.
Why did they do it that way? Obviously because that's all they were asked to do, that's all they were paid to do for a single day, and most all of them in that era that preceded NGLA and Merion East had to get back to their real wage earning day jobs.
But the entire modus operandi, the entire structure and process of C.B. Macdonald's golf course architecture approach was about as much the polar opposite of that one-day stick routing approach of H.H. Barker's effort at Ardmore as it was possible to be. Macdonald/Whigam did not put anything on paper in June of 1910 and Macdonald's own words in his letter to MCC's Search Committee virtually indicates WHY!
And why was his approach so different? Well, he said it himself in crystal clear terms in his own book. Merion was obviously paying some attention to the vastly different way he went about it at NGLA which actually wasn't novel on his part because others (Leeds, Fownes, etc.) had done before them what he with NGLA and Wilson and committee with Merion was to do later.
But given all that I feel you are completely right with what you say about the way Moriarty is trying to cast all this to somehow try to fit a round peg into a square hole (that Macdonald somehow routed and designed Merion East or was the 'driving force behind it.'
By trying to do that he totally missed the point of all the likes of Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Fownes, Leeds were and how differently they went about GCA compared to some club professionals who sidelined in architecture at that time like H.H. Barker. The MCC Search Committee in their report to the board even described him that way----a professional at GCGC and they mentioned his plan had been solicited by and was "on the account" of land developer Connell and not theirs. Not at any time or in any place did they indicate they were going to use Barker in any way in what they were going to do at Ardmore in the coming months and years.
-
Sean,
TEPaul and Mike have told us that it was M&W who chose the final routing of the five draft plans.
______________________
Mike Malone, I suggested to Sean that we should agree to disagree on the Findlay reading, and you wonder whether I'd send him to prison for disagreeing with me? We'll have to agree to disagree on your approach, Mike.
____________________________________________
DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer? Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?
I think you might have missed my answer above.
David,
Question for you - If you thesis is correct, why do you think Merion would have buried the involvement of M&W? Wouldn't a course designed by them have had a better cachet than one designed by a member?
Dan, you (and everyone else) would be better off if you ignored the caricatured versions of my opinion offered up by others. They tend to misrepresent and vilify my theses while ignoring what I have written.
Merion did NOT bury M&W's involvement. To the contrary, while they did not list out specifics (I wouldn't have expected them to) those who were there- including Hugh Wilson and Robert Lesley- lauded M&W for their involvement. Over a decade later, even Alan Wilson acknowledged M&W's role in the design process, only crediting his brother Hugh for that which M&W were not responsible. Even in the disputed article, Hugh Wilson himself is Findlay's source, and so if Findlay meant that CBM planned the routing, it was likely because Hugh Wilson told him so.
Over the years, M&W's important contribution has come to be misunderstood and minimized, although I doubt Merion has ever done anything to intentionally mask or misrepresent what really happened. Even now, I doubt most of those at Merion have would have any problem fully acknowledging M&W's contributions. It is but a few overzealous individuals (at Merion and not) who have taken it upon themselves to protect and preserve the Merion legacy, whether it be the full and accurate story or not. While I am sure they think they are helping Merion, I cannot understand how their efforts are viewed as anything but an embarrassment to anyone following along, including Merion.
In today's terms, it's almost like having a Doak-designed course, but not telling anybody, and insisting that the designer was, say, the Green Committee chair.
You might be surprised. I have heard (second-hand) that occasionally a designer will provide a preliminary routing to a prospective client, only to later see that another has built a course suspiciously following the identical routing. More directly, it was not uncommon around this time for someone within the club to get credit for the creating the course, whether or not they planned the routing. This was at the very beginning of American golf course design, and our understanding of the process was in flux and the terminology to describe it was inconsistent and ambiguous, and the they did not necessarily emphasize or value the same things we do now. When the person who planned the routing was an outsider, that person would often only be involved for a relatively brief period of time (often not more than a day or two) and the value of the routing plan to the final product was not always fully understood or appreciated. In contrast, someone affiliated with the course (such as a chairman of the green committee) would often put substantial time, thought, and effort into a creation of the course, and that insider was often given the lion's share of the credit for its creation.
-
Sean,
TEPaul and Mike have told us that it was M&W who chose the final routing of the five draft plans.
______________________
David
I must have missed this. Where did Mike and Tom state this?
Ciao
-
David,
I wasn't referring to Sean but rather alluding to the fact that you are a lawyer. I imagine you wouldn't build a case on such an unclear piece of writing.
I believe that your comments on this thread depend on your reading of this murky article. If Findlay was not referring to other holes at Merion then it seems your premise is gone.
-
"First, Shivas seems to imply that it's somewhat absurd for MacDonald to approve his own plans, as his approval would appear redundant."
henryE:
Whether or not Macdonald approved his own Merion East plan is sort of beside the point.
Actually, if that were proved to be accurate, it would be the most critical point in this entire discussion. However, I'm not suggesting at all that is what occurred. I'm merely suggesting that what Shivas thought to be a critical observation is really not a conclusive issue.
What the real point is, is when would Macdonald have had the opportunity and the time to do his own routing and hole design plan for Merion East?
Can you shed any light on that, henryE? I'd love to know because even after having been asked on here a number of times it appears David Moriarty isn't even capable of considering the question? ;)
It's a fair question and I doubt with my limited knowledge of the subject I could "shed any light" on the matter. You have made the general assertion many times that MacDonald just didn't spend enough time at Merion to route and design the course. I am just not as comfortable suggesting that his little amount of documented time on site is sufficient evidence to suggest that he definitively could not have had a major role. One thing that would be good to know was whether or not a topographical contour map of the property was ever provided to MacDonald. I think I remember him asking for one at one time?
DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer? Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?
Dan, I think this is a great question that some have tried to explain, but that no one has answered .
-
"David
I must have missed this. Where did Mike and Tom state this?"
Sean:
There you go---eg a very good question indeed! Where did we say that? Nowhere! We didn't say that and certainly not the way Moriarty said it!! That's Moriarty's interpretation of what we said which isn't specifically the same thing we said and consequently can potentionally vastly change the meaning of what we said!
If you'd like to know what I said specifically on this point, just read my post #281 above---it's all there in real detail.
We went into considerable detail with what we did say on this very point but Moriarty has admitted on this thread that he doesn't even bother to read my posts all the way through so how in the world could he ever possibly understand what I am saying? The correct answer is he can't and he doesn't.
As I said to you on an IM, Sean, I'm more than willing to have a good discussion with you on Merion but not with Moriarty distorting our discussion.
-
Uh oh...does anyone else see a slight problem here?
I guess we'd better file this one under the category of "How many men does it take to supervise Construction of Merion to CB Macdonald's design plans?" ;)
I'm beginning to think that ignorant slacker Hugh Wilson didn't do a dad-gummed thing! ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3463178648_69556d30e4_o.jpg)
-
Sean,
TEPaul and Mike have told us that it was M&W who chose the final routing of the five draft plans.
______________________
David
I must have missed this. Where did Mike and Tom state this?
Ciao
Sean, for the past year, Tom and Mike have repeatedly acknowledged:
1. After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
2. Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), Merion brought M&W back to Ardmore to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
3. After reviewing all the draft plans and going over the grounds, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
4. In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
5. Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, chose and "approved" of the version presented.
Mike and TEPaul cannot now seriously dispute that this is what they claim happened. They have the documents and I invite them to correct me where I am wrong.
Tom' s post 136 is one place where he admits that M&W chose the routing from the five draft plans. Given the volume of their posts it would take me a Month to find a decent sample size set of places they have written this, but here are a few places they have:
Then with the day back at Ardmore on April 6, 1911 at which time Macdonald and Whigam looked over their ground again and what they had done with it with their final five plans and then they got them to approve one of their five plans they'd done since returning from NGLA which they took immediately to their board and had it approved and then proceded to build it.
In early April Macdonald and Whigam came to Ardmore for a single day and went over the plans created by Wilson and his committee, they toured the grounds, they then selected one of those plans that they described as containing the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world (later reported in the newspaper). The committee gave that plan to the board and it was approved and construction began.
Shivas,
My limited understanding is the Committee after returning from NGLA "had laid out five different plans" and then said that M&W came over for a day on April 6th and reviewed the plans and stated that if Merion laid it out according to one of the plans they approved that Merion would have the best seven inland finishing holes in the country.
I would think that means that M&W made the selection of the best plan, which Lesley two weeks later presented for approval to the board for the committee with the recommended plan attached.
______________________________
Henry,
Only looking at the two days on site is very misleading. Among other things . . .
- We know that CBM was in contact with Merion and advising them between June 1910 and April 1911.
- We know Macdonald told them that he could not know for certain if a first class course would fit on their land without a contour map.
- We know Merion got a contour map and it is difficult to believe they kept it from CBM
- We know that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for help and that M&W met with them for two days.
So there was plenty of opportunity to plan the lay out at Merion, even had M&W not returned to the site.
-
There is not a shred of evidence that M+W altered any of Merion's "plans" in the least. In truth, the fact that nothing at all is mentioned of their contribution other than the fact they "approved" of at least one of the plans speaks volumes when read in context of the repeated mentioning the numerous plans that had been created by the Merion Committee pre and post the NGLA visit which makes the omission of any mention of M+W revisions all the more striking.
Also, I have no idea who selected the best of the five plans. The Merion Committee could very well have narrowed it down to their best effort or two prior. What you quoted of mine above is clearly labelled as my inferred speculation.
Also, there is absolutely no record of any ongoing commubications, much less collaboration between M+W and Merion between July 1910 and March 1911.
-
"Mike and TEPaul cannot now seriously dispute that this is what they claim happened. They have the documents and I invite them to correct me where I am wrong."
David Moriarty:
No problem but how many times do you expect us to answer the same question before you get it?
First of all, take a look at what you said I said in your post #281 compared to your post #315. Do you notice that the word "substantively" is in your post #281 describing what you say I said, and it isn't in your post #315 when you describe what you say I said?!
You're a lawyer, aren't you Moriarty? Lawyers work with words and the meaning they convey, right? Do you think the meaning changes when you USED the word SUBSTANTIVELY (different) compared to when you didn't?
Well I think the meaning can change and quite dramatically. The point is you said on here that I said "substantively" different. I never said that, as I'm sure you know. I don't believe that is just sloppy thinking and writing on your part either (although given the fact you have said you don't even bother reading some of my posts, that certainly is possible). I think it is all preconceived and by design on your part to distort and mislead. And that is not exactly what I'd call someone trying to get to the truth about something! ;)
That is one good example of both when and how you are wrong on here not just that time but most all the time.
There's no point in trying to deny it----how could you----there it is in black and white on those two posts for all the world to see.
All I did is just point it out.
-
I left out the word "substantively" because you objected to it, and I wanted to accurately convey what you have said in the past. I think you misunderstood what I meant by the word, but it doesn't matter to my point and is not worth arguing over, so I took it out. By my understanding and use of the word, adding three acres for two new green sites would certainly qualify as a substantive change.
But as I said, it doesn't matter.
What does matter is finally getting this straight. As I understand you, you agree that the MCC minutes indicate that:
1. After meeting with M&W at two days at NGLA, Wilson and his Committee came up with 5 draft plans for Merion.
2. Shortly thereafter (about three weeks after the NGLA meeting), Merion brought M&W back to Ardmore to review the five draft plans and to again go over the grounds (M&W had already gone over the property at least once before.)
3. After reviewing all the draft plans and going over the grounds, M&W chose the one plan they thought would work best on the site.
4. In the process, it is possible that M&W altered this plan, so that the final plan was different any of the five drafts they had reviewed.
5. Shortly thereafter, Lesley presented the plan chosen M&W to Merion's Board, noting that M&W returned to the site, considered the drafts and ground, chose and "approved" of the version presented.
You have the documents and I invite you to correct me if i am wrong.
-
Again, there is not a shred of evidence that M&W altered any of the Merion plans in the least.
When one considers the context which refers to the committee laying out many plans prior and "rearranging the course and laying out five different plans" after returning from NGLA, the clear omission of any mention of design input or suggested changes or any other contributions by M&W is very telling.
All we know for certain is he approved of at least one of the existing five Merion plans.
-
I agree that it is not uncommon for a member of a board or on a committee to vote for, alongside the other members of such board or committee, a plan that the member proposed (particularly where there's no self-dealing involved). After all, what's he supposed to do - vote against his own idea? However, CBM wasn't on any Merion committee. He was an outsider. And that's a crucial factual distinction. For CBM to approve his plan, in this context, would mean one man's approval of his own plan. Note the singular. That's what's redundant and makes no sense. I find that hard to believe. I would not find it hard to believe that CBM approved somebody else's plan. I would not find it hard to believe that the Committee approved CBM's plan. I would not find it hard to believe that the Committee approved a plan done by one of the Committee members, including the vote of the Committee Member that drew the plan. But I would find it hard to believe that CBM approved his own plan.
Just so you don't hang your hat on this not making any sense, there are other examples (numerous) outside of a board meeting context where this occurs regularly. For example, building architects & engineers will often develop plans/blueprints and send them off to a client for input. Those plans often get altered/updated based on client feedback. In the end, the architect/engineer approves the plan and yes, the bulk of the plan is generally their own, even if they didn't do the drafting or schematics themselves. That approved plan then goes forward to the powers that be.
-
Shivas,
I think we are outside the meeting process. M&W weren't on a meeting. They were out on the grounds considering various possible routing.
-
I think we're out of our minds! ;)
The April 6th date was the date M+W came down and reviewed the committee's various routing plans.
I believe the board meeting was two weeks later wjth Lesley reporting for Wilson's committee in report form (which by definition was communicated sometime prior to the meeting).
-
Shivas,
I laughed. I think we need a helluva lot more humor around these threads! ;D
-
Henry,
Only looking at the two days on site is very misleading. Among other things . . .
- We know that CBM was in contact with Merion and advising them between June 1910 and April 1911.
Agreed, but to what extent?
- We know Macdonald told them that he could not know for certain if a first class course would fit on their land without a contour map.
Agreed.
- We know Merion got a contour map and it is difficult to believe they kept it from CBM
Are we certain they got a contour map? If they did, I would agree that it's likely they would have shared it with CBM, particularly due to his suggesting one be acquired/developed.
- We know that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for help and that M&W met with them for two days.
Agreed.
So there was plenty of opportunity to plan the lay out at Merion, even had M&W not returned to the site.
This I cannot comment on, other than to say that if all your others statements and inferences above are true, it would appear more plausible.
-
“This I cannot comment on, other than to say that if all your others statements and inferences above are true, it would appear more plausible.”
HenryE:
Except they are all nothing more than David Moriarty’s speculations!
“- We know that CBM was in contact with Merion and advising them between June 1910 and April 1911.”
What the record shows and is not speculation is that after visiting Ardmore in June 1910 Macdonald wrote MCC a letter dated June 29, 1910 about his visit with Whigam to Ardmore. We have that letter, it was found this year by Wayne at MCC and made available on here. Other than that letter I don’t know of any communication with Macdonald and MCC until early March, 1911 when Wilson and apparently his committee went to NGLA for a two day visit.
“- We know Macdonald told them that he could not know for certain if a first class course would fit on their land without a contour map.”
That’s true and that would pretty much kill any notion that Macdonald could’ve come up with some routing or design plan on paper in 1910 which David Moriarty’s essay implies he did and also implies that Lloyd and Francis who were not even appointed at that time to the committee to create the course somehow helped Macdonald create that routing in 1910. Apparently, the reason Moriarty tried to create that premise in his essay was to explain how that survey map of the proposed course that was sent to the membership in Nov. 1910 had that triangle in the north corner. Moriarty assumed Francis’s late night idea had to have occurred before Nov 1910 so that triangle in the North corner could be created on that survey sent to the membership in Nov. 1910. But what Moriarty apparently did not know or understand and has still refused to admit is that triangle was always part property configuration on the north side of the old Johnson Farm that MCC used for most of their golf course. That very same triangle shows up on PRR plat maps of the Johnson Farm and surrounding properties going back years.
“- We know Merion got a contour map and it is difficult to believe they kept it from CBM.”
We do know MCC got a contour map at least by early 1911. The first evidence of that is in a letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley on Feb 1, 1911 in which he mentions he is enclosing the topo contour map of the property for the US Dept of Agriculture to analyze for agronomic reasons. It may be difficult for Moriarty to believe they kept it from CBM or did not show it to him but the fact is it has never been mentioned anywhere at any time that MCC showed CBM any survey contour map or plan of the property or “plans” they had done until April 6, 1911.
“- We know that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for help and that M&W met with them for two days.”
We do know that and it was recorded twice (both times seemingly by Wilson himself) specifically what they did both days while at NGLA and there is no mention whatsoever that a MCC survey contour map or any plan for the Ardmore property was produced or discussed at NGLA. Wilson’s report is specific on what they did during those two days at NGLA----eg they studied Macdonald’s drawings and plans done of holes abroad in preparation for NGLA and the next day was spent on the golf course (NGLA) studying it with Macdonald and Whigam.
That is what was recorded and the rest is just speculation.
-
"Has anybody looked into the records to see where the members of the Construction Committee were on April 6, 1911, or are we sure that they were all there?"
Shivas:
No, in both cases. This meeting thing analysis of yours is hilarious and highly entertaining, by the way, even if there is nothing from the record that talks about any of this.
I've taken the minutes for my green committee for years and this has inspired me to do them quite differently from now on. If some issue comes up about which I must speak up to make the point it is entirely the wrong thing to do and the wrong way to go about it I might even be able to fit in some reference in the minutes in that vein about David Moriarty.
-
Since there's been a lot of long posts and thinking out loud, I'm hoping more of the same won't hurt all that much. So, for what it's worth, here goes my view/recap of this:
Years later, Hugh Wilson is still publicly thanking CBM for his teaching and guidance. ("Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings.") I imagine most of that teaching happened during those amazing two days the Committee spent with Macdonald at NGLA, walking the course and looking at/discussing his sketches of the great British golf holes.
Some months after the NGLA visit, Macdonald came to Merion. The Wilson Committee had in the meantime put to great use all they had learned and developed 5 different plans for the course; I imagine that means 5 different routings (which seems to me the product of much hard work and effort, i.e. to get five different routings out of that smallish Merion site.) Regarding this visit by CBM, the Committee later reports that Macdonald "advised us on OUR plans", helping them chose the best one. (That makes sense: I don’t believe that CBM routed the course, but even if I did believe it I’d find it hard to understand why he'd route it FIVE different ways].
Next, the Wilson Committee lays and builds the course according to their routing, and Wilson then goes to the UK to see and study things for himself, to prepare himself to turn this one routing into the best golf course he can. When he returns, there is work to be done – in his opening line, Findlay tells us that he has to defer his judgement of the course’s quality until a later date because it’s not quite ready/finished yet. Wilson agrees with Findlay that what he thought was going to be a fine Alps template hole isn’t yet up to par (with the original), but Findlay suggests that the other template holes that Macdonald had discussed with and explained to Wilson (and with everyone else in the golfing world) –- and that had been made manifest in the best of the five Committee plans/routings –- had the potential to be really great…if/when Wilson could do all the work and fine tuning over the several months before the opening to make those golf holes and all the others work in inland America like they did in the UK. This Wilson did the best he could, and then turned his attention to another key issue - agronomy (and in that context he may be the true unsung hero of American golf).
Wilson seems to have been a stand-up guy. That's the crux of it for me. He praises CBM for his teaching, he thanks him for his advice, he shares with everyone (including Findlay) that Macdonald had helped him to understand the concepts behind the great holes of British golf. What he doesn't do is suggest anywhere, at any time, that CBM routed the golf course. I think that if Macdonald HAD done so, there wouldn’t be any question at all about it in the history books; it would’ve been stated clearly – Wilson would’ve made sure of it.
Macdonald provided wonderful and valuable advice.
Peter
-
Peter,
It really is that simple.
Thanks for the refreshing breath of cool fresh air in this hot, smoke-filled room.
-
HenryE:
Except they are all nothing more than David Moriarty’s speculations!
True, but you are also speculating. Also, you have had access to far more documentation and in my opinion have failed to provide evidence that definitively refutes David's speculations.
-
I'll throw this out there for comment:
If April 6, 1911 didn't generate a committee meeting, with at least a quorum of the Construction Committee members present, then considering who these guys were, barring most of them having massively important (and historically documentable, BTW, hint, hint...) prior engagements, the fact that they did NOT have a meeting would lead to certain conclusions:
1. CMB coming down for the day wasn't that big of a deal because his role was minor.
I don't suppose you are joking again, are you? Didn't think so. You need to get out more, you've got boardroom on the brain.
First, I think you may not yet be fully comprehending what is going on here. My understanding is that Wilson's Construction Committee was an ad hoc, temporary committee that did not necessarily stick with the formalities one might expect from the board. How would we know if they had a meeting or not? I don't have the documents, but from what has been leaked, I am unaware of any minutes from their ad hoc Committee meetings, or even any formal reports. TEPaul suggests that Wilson wrote a report and that this report was presented to the board by Leslie. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is speculation on their part, and they have no such report and/or cannot say for certain whether Wilson drafted any such written report.
Second, even ignoring this, I think your analysis is seriously flawed. Your basis seems to be "who these men were . . . .;" and that seems to be a bit of a sub-theme around here; who these men were. In a recent thread TEPaul referred to those who appointed Wilson as "those men of Merion who were essentially the Kings of the Universe." This seems a bit of a stretch to me, but I doubt anyone is surprised that he found the Kings of the Universe around Philadelphia. In fairness to TEPaul, not doubt these were very important men, especially those on Merion's Board. As for the Construction Committee they were also impressive, and some were very important and came from very important families and they were distinguished in their own arenas. That being said I am not sure I would put the Construction Committee as a whole on a much higher pedestal than Macdonald and Whigham.
In fact, if you throw in Macdonald's and Whigham's reputations as golfers and golf course experts, then the opposite argument makes much more sense than yours. Given who Macdonald and Whigham were, the two of them would necessarily have been calling the shots when it came to the final hole concepts and routing at Merion, and Merion's Construction Committee would have been thrilled to have them and would have hung on every word.
Not that this is necessarily what happened, but if you want to throw around speculation based on "who these men were" then let's look at the other side of the coin, as well.
But more seriously, "who these men were" does give us a few things to consider:
- If M&W were not at Ardmore to finalize the lay out plan, then why did Merion bring them all the way down there?
- And if they were not there to finalize the lay out plan, why would M&W bothered to make the trip, which at the time wasn't all that simple?
- And if M&W were not there calling the shots and finalizing the routing, then why would Lesley have given them such a prominent role in his report to the Board? (Or at least in what we have been told about it?)
- And if W&W did nothing but rubber stamp plans created wholly independently of them, then why did H.J. Whigham write that CBM planned the course?
_______________________
What the record shows and is not speculation is that after visiting Ardmore in June 1910 Macdonald wrote MCC a letter dated June 29, 1910 about his visit with Whigam to Ardmore. We have that letter, it was found this year by Wayne at MCC and made available on here. Other than that letter I don’t know of any communication with Macdonald and MCC until early March, 1911 when Wilson and apparently his committee went to NGLA for a two day visit.
. . .
We do know MCC got a contour map at least by early 1911. The first evidence of that is in a letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley on Feb 1, 1911 in which he mentions he is enclosing the topo contour map of the property for the US Dept of Agriculture to analyze for agronomic reasons. It may be difficult for Moriarty to believe they kept it from CBM or did not show it to him but the fact is it has never been mentioned anywhere at any time that MCC showed CBM any survey contour map or plan of the property or “plans” they had done until April 6, 1911.
TEPaul,
So by your reasoning, if the meeting minutes do not document it, then it did not happen? Were all of the day-to-day activities of the Construction Committee recorded in the minutes? How about each letter between Wilson and the turf guys? Surely you wouldn't expect the Board meetings to cover this kind of minutiae, would you? Surely those "King's of the Universe" were not concerning themselves with Hugh Wilson's preparations for the golf course, were they?
By the way, Tom, you suggest that the Francis Land Swap occurred just prior to Macdonald's visit. What do the minutes say about the Land Swap?
We do know that and it was recorded twice (both times seemingly by Wilson himself) specifically what they did both days while at NGLA and there is no mention whatsoever that a MCC survey contour map or any plan for the Ardmore property was produced or discussed at NGLA. Wilson’s report is specific on what they did during those two days at NGLA----eg they studied Macdonald’s drawings and plans done of holes abroad in preparation for NGLA and the next day was spent on the golf course (NGLA) studying it with Macdonald and Whigam.
Really? I mean rrreally? Are you really suggesting that while Wilson and his Committee were busy trying to plan the course they traveled all the way to NGLA so they could meet with M&W for two days and see his course and his drawings from Scotland? Really? And they didn't bother to discuss what they should do at Merion? Oh, realllly? And Wilson did not bring even a contour map? Really? No contour? None? Reeeally? That's really what happened? And really, let me guess; they left their preliminary plans at home as well?? Rrreally? Really really? Really really really? I mean, come on, REALLY?!?
More seriously, you mention Wilson's report. Are you referring to the chapter published in the P&O Turf book? What do the meeting minutes say about the NGLA meeting?
____________________________________________________
Peter.
- "Some months" did not pass between the NGLA meeting and M&W's course visit. It was around three weeks.
- Your description of what happened at NGLA is inaccurate and incomplete. Hugh Wilson and common sense tell us so. Given that they met with CBM for two days and that he had already seen the site, do you really think they never bothered to discuss what he thought would the best plan for Merion?
- I wouldn't assume that the course was routed 5 completely different ways. I've seen no evidence of this, at least. More likely the plans shared much in common, and they were drafting potential solutions to resolve one or a few unresolved issues.
- Maybe Wilson did tell us, and we just have to read it carefully.
-
David
I think I have lost track of things. Please, tell us the critical factors, which we KNOW to be true, that prove CBM routed Merion and was in the main responsible for the design of Merion.
Ciao
-
DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer? Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?
(Let me try again - what was their motivation?)
-
David,
Despite your incredulity, the Merion minutes re: the NGLA visit state precisely what was stated; the first evening was spent reviewing Mac's sketches of great holes and the next day was spent touring NGLA.
There is no mention of the Merion property or course plans.
I'm not sure why you find that so surprising? Don't you think a discussion and drawings illustrating the principles of the great holes abroad would be broad enough topic to last an evening/ don't you also think a tour of NGLA discussing those principles would have taken the next day, with a proud CB Mac showing off his new baby?
Besides, Hugh Wilson already told you what they talked about in his 1916 recap. I think you just read way too much into it.
-
DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer? Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?
(Let me try again - what was their motivation?)
Dan,
Why to you presume that it was a conscious effort ?
Do you believe, in 1911, that those involved knew exactly what would transpire, and therefore constructed a precise record of every activity ?
Or, is it more likely that the process was amorphous, flowing as it evolved.
Not everything that happens during the creation of a golf course is documented, leaving a clear paper trail.
It's difficult to impossible to determine motives when you're 10 to 100 years removed.
-
Patrick,
Then why did everyone in those days credit Hugh Wilson and not Macdonald, and through both their lives and beyond.
Yoir answer is evasive and denies the realities of what transpired.
Its not just that they didn't credit Macdonald...they credited Wilson instead.
That's the crux of Dan's repeated question.
-
"True, but you are also speculating. Also, you have had access to far more documentation and in my opinion have failed to provide evidence that definitively refutes David's speculations."
HenryE:
Perhaps you and others think so but what I've tried to do here is provide the weight of evidence that surrounded Merion at that time that indicates in writing that Wilson's committee routed and designed "numerous different courses and plans" throughout the winter and spring of 1911. That was recorded in writing by MCC. Others in various reports, letters, events, dinner, newspapers and magazines tend to confirm that. A paper plan was selected and sent to the board in April 1911 approved and the course was apparently built to it. Nothing we've seen indicates otherwise.
Macdonald and Whigam did advise Wilson's committee over paper plans or a plan on April 5, 1911 and that too was recorded as well as a brief description of what their take was on one of the plan which was the one selected (equal to the best last seven holes on any inland course in the world).
All that was recorded and Merion went with that and still does as the written indication that Wilson and Committee routed and designed Merion East with advise and help from Macdonald and Whigam.
You can call that speculation if you want to but as we have always said on here the specific details of who did what and when at that time on the various holes of the course design-wise were never recorded (they never are on any project I'm aware of). Two people on here first asked for those details years ago and we told them then we don't know the answers to those things and that noone does or can or will because they were never recorded. What we and Merion have always gone with is essentially a term of "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses." For that he got and continues to get design attribution for Merion. We've never seen anything to seriously refute that and either has Merion, not in the past and not now. Certainly MacWood and Moriarty's speculative torturing of events and reports etc have not come close to seriously refuting that in our opinion and Merion, and I doubt it ever will no matter how long they go on unless some new and truly revelatory comes along which is hard to imagine at this point.
Then a long litany of threads and such began first from MacWood and then Moriarty on speculation that Macdonald/Whigam must have routed and designed the course essentially because at that time Wilson and his committee weren't capable of doing that. That was their assumption alone, noone else's, and it seems few believe or accept that logic given who Wilson was and what he did.
That was an assumption Moriarty produced and attempted to turn it into a conclusion. No one around here accepted that kind of reasoning and they still don't. We feel Moriarty is simply engaging in an excercise asking us and Merion to disprove something of a speculative negative---eg that since Wilson and Committee weren't capable of routing and designing Merion East in 1911, Macdonald and Whigam must have done it.
But there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere from any time that ever happened or that he was even asked by MCC to do something like that not to mention he didn't even have the opportunity or time to do something like that given the recorded timeline of events.
Moriarty and you or anyone else can continue to engage in that type of excercise on here if you want to and as long as you want to but we and Merion feel the weight of evidence, for what it is and what we have explained it is, is now and always has been very heavily weighted on the side of Wilson and his committee doing what they have always been given credit for doing.
I have always said on these threads that I support and Merion supports the very words of Alan Wilson on what happened back then. It is contained in one of the posts on this thread so there is no reason to repeat it. Nothing that we or Merion have ever seen to date credibly refutes his words and description that Wilson's committee to a man informed him "Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the architecture of Merion East and West courses."
Or to put all these Merion/Macdonald threads with Moriarty another way, HenryE, his entire excercise here is built on the premise questions; "Well is it possible?" or even "Prove to me how and why it isn't IMpossible?"
That to me and to Merion is merely an excercise constructed not to find the truth of who designed Merion but only to promote and continue argument for argument's sake alone. Unless and until something is found that is of real consequence to consider it will probably continue this way, but nothing of that consequential nature seems to be on our horizon with Merion's architectural history! Essentially it's just a massive waste of time and effort. I'm pretty sure he knows that too but apparently he just likes his moment in the sun too much to admit it.
BTW, in my opinion, Pat Mucci is basically the same way; he just likes to argue for argument's sake no matter how innane and inconsequential the issue may be. I think most all of us can see that with both of them from our experiences on here.
-
Shouldn't it also be very obvious at this point that the reason they created so many different plans over a number of months is precisely because they were in fact doing this for their first time, and trying like heck to get it right?
-
Not really. Some architects, no matter how experienced they are, sometimes create numerous routing plans for all kinds of reasons. I know, I've seen them.
-
DMoriarty,
Why do you think Merion would obfsucate the identity of their course's designer? Surely CBM would have provided more 'clout' and even marketing power back in the day, no?
(Let me try again - what was their motivation?)
Dan, this is the third time you have asked me this exact same question in the past few days. Is there something about my previous two answers that you did not understand? Is that why you keep asking?
______________________
David
I think I have lost track of things. Please, tell us the critical factors, which we KNOW to be true, that prove CBM routed Merion and was in the main responsible for the design of Merion.
That which we KNOW to be true? That is a little difficult given that we still don't KNOW what the MCC documents say and don't say. Or what other documents in the MCC files exist and what they say. And even the meaning of that which we have been told is shifting before our eyes.
-
.......but we and Merion feel the weight of evidence, for what it is and what we have explained it is, is now and always has been very heavily weighted on the side of Wilson and his committee doing what they have always been given credit for doing.
Fair enough.
I'm sure this has come up before, but I'm wondering if there is any documentation at Merion, which speaks to the discussion that must have taken place about how to go about developing the new golf course. It seems to me that they put Hugh Wilson in charge, but what did they expect of him? Did they expect him, as a relative novice, to design and build them a golf course based on his yet to be proved talents, or did they expect him to go out and hire the best he could possibly find to undertake this task?
-
In fact, I'd be curious if there are any examples out there from roughly this timeframe of a course that was routed by one guy, A, but built and finished by another, B (without very much help at all from A) where A got public credit for routing the course at the time!
I doubt that course exists. There may be courses where this happened, and there may even be courses where there are payments made or other records that prove up the scenario, but I'll bet in every case, at the time, B got the credit for the course.
Shivas, I agree. And there are examples of a guy getting briefly mentioned in the press for planning the course (sometimes not even by name, but as a Scottish professional or a golf expert) and then disappearing from all consideration. In comparison M&W got much more credit than these guys!
____________________
Henry. I disagree with TEPaul about the weight of the evidence. Here is something to think about. H.J. Whigham, a highly respected journalist who was there, credits CBM for planning the golf course. I am unaware of anyone else with first-hand knowledge of what happened who ever wrote or said anything that necessarily contradicts this.
-
HJ Whigham, grieving the death of his father in law, wrote that in a string of other courses Macdonald was involved with 25 years after the event, mentioning it for the first time in his life, after the death of everyone else.
I'm sure he remembered Macdonald being involved with Merion's beginnings in some fashion, but this late-game testimony at that time with Wilson deceased is hardly compelling.
No one ever corroborated Whigham's single statement, not even Macdonald himself while alive, and Whigham never spoke to correct scores of other accounts giving Hugh Wilson credit, including Tillinghast's.
-
If you think about it, if someone asked you tomorrow to build a course for a club, what would be your first concern as a novice?
It would be things like drainage, agronomy, construction, grasses and turf, ongoing maintenance, and all the little technical details none of us outside the industry know real well.
Yes, you would need a course in strategic principles, especially if the year was 1911 and these theories were new on these shores, but exactly how long would it take for someone to explain the principles of a redan, or an Alps, or a biarritz, or any of the other "ideal holes" before you would understand them conceptually? I'm thinking in a couple of days you could get a pretty fair working grasp, especially with visual aids in the form of sketches and drawings.
On the other hand, it would certainly take a whole lot of time and study to grasp the other technical stuff. Today, people go to school for years to become a superintendent, much less an architect or landscape engineer.
David expressed incredulity earlier when told there is no record of discussion of the proposed golf course at Merion during the Committe's visit to NGLA, only that they went over sketches of great holes abroad the first night and toured NGLA the second night.
Yet, that is exactly what the MCC minutes express and it's also what Wilson expressed later in 1916.
Keep that in mind and read again what Hugh Wilson wrote about what his group went to NGLA to do and learn. It's very much common-sense.
[T]he experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.
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 correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.
May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as NGLA and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.
. . . Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings.
-
HJ Whigham, grieving the death of his father in law, wrote that in a string of other courses Macdonald was involved with 25 years after the event, mentioning it for the first time in his life, after the death of everyone else.
I'm sure he remembered Macdonald being involved with Merion's beginnings in some fashion, but this late-game testimony at that time with Wilson deceased is hardly compelling.
No one ever corroborated Whigham's single statement, not even Macdonald himself while alive, and Whigham never spoke to correct scores of other accounts giving Hugh Wilson credit, including Tillinghast's.
The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt. These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version. H.J. Whigham was a well-respected journalist, a war correspondent, an accomplished editor, a champion golfer, and was one of this nation's foremost authors and experts on golf courses in America. Most importantly, HE WAS THERE. He knew exactly what role CBM played at Merion. Yet Mike completely discounts and dismisses his account because it came after his father-in-law died? And because time had passed?
Compare Mike's take on H.J. Whigham with Mike's treatment of then Alan Wilson letter, not written until many years after Merion was planned, after AW's younger brother Hugh had prematurely passed away. Yet Mike and others nearly went apoplectic at the mere hint (real or imagined) that Hugh's untimely death might have influenced his older brother Alan's description of Hugh's involvement at Merion. [Don't get me wrong, I mean no disrespect to Alan Wilson or his letter. To the contrary it is one of the most important documents we have, and while much of it is not a first hand account of what happened, I did rely on it my essay and continue to do so today. I just don't think it means what they think it means. That I feel compelled to repeatedly include these little disclaimers to avoid another blowup says something about their approach to the material.]
The point isn't to rehash these issues, but rather to remind you all that there is a double standard at work here and there always has been. Whatever is put in front of them, these guys only see what they want to see. Why would it be different with the MCC records?
_______________________________
If you think about it, if someone asked you tomorrow to build a course for a club, what would be your first concern as a novice?
Would Merion have trusted a novice to make it up as he went along? Or would Merion and its appointee have sought and followed expert advice on every aspect of the creation of the course from questions from whether the land was suitable for golf, to whether they needed to add the three acres behind the clubhouse, to agronomy issues, to planning the course, to building and seeding it?
David expressed incredulity earlier when told there is no record of discussion of the proposed golf course at Merion during the Committee's visit to NGLA, only that they went over sketches of great holes abroad the first night and toured NGLA the second night.
Yet, that is exactly what the MCC minutes express and it's also what Wilson expressed later in 1916.
That was mock incredulity in homage to a SNL Weekend Update bit. But it is pretty incredible that you guys realllly want us to believe that they didn't discuss the routing or even bring a contour. I mean - Come on - Really!
As for your interpretation of what Wilson's 1916 Chapter means, I disagree. It does not say that they that all they did was look at CBM's sketches from his overseas trip (really?) one day then look at his course the next, and that this was all that happened.
__________________________
TomPaul and Mike: WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA VISIT?
-
These gentlemen should have been more careful with the words they used when they wrote those letters/ minutes so many years ago. If they had been more clear and considerate we wouldn't be having these discussions today. Didn't they realize that "layout" was a loaded term subject to all sorts of interpretations?
What I find fascinating is that each side in this argument just happens to find their interpretation fits their view.
It would be more valuable if the burden of proof were increased so that it takes more than someone's tortured reading of a text to make a case.
-
The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt. These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version.
David,
I would voice the exact same criticism of you.
It's clear we're never to agree on this and I don't have the time or inclination to argue further.
Take care.
-
ike Cirba,
Are you suggesting .......... arbitration ? ;D
It's clear that the Dan Aykroyd - Jane Curtin imitation needs a moderator, arbitrator, umpire to call the balls, strikes, fair and foul plays.
While some may dislike these threads, they seem highly informative.
I would doubt that anyone has put as much research efforts into these topics/subjects as those participating in these threads on GCA.com
-
The above is yet another example of why we should take everything thing these guys tell us about the MCC documents or any of the other source material with a huge grain of salt. These guys repeatedly dismiss, discount, and ignore any information that hurts their story, while also over-blowing and exaggerating the significance of every source they think might help their version.
David,
I would voice the exact same criticism of you.
It's clear we're never to agree on this and I don't have the time or inclination to argue further.
Take care.
The main difference is that I am not asking anyone to take my word for anything. I reference what I am relying on on and people are free to see it differently if they like. In contrast, you guys insist that we simply trust you and take your word for the critical documents mean, without documentation. I am not asking anyone to trust me. They can verify. You guys want our trust without allowing us to verify, and not even Ronald Reagan would fall for that one!
One current example: Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course. If this is true, so be it, but let's see it. What did the documents say? You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.
___________________________________________________
TEPAUL and MIKE: WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?
__________________________________________________________
Dave Schmidt,
I think Mike and I are very far apart. There is an elemental difference between our two approaches.
My approach is to take all the first-hand accounts seriously and at their word, and to come up with an understanding which is consistent with what each and every one of them said. I don't throw out reputable first-hand accounts just because I might disagree with them. In fact I have taken all those statements very seriously; and almost all of what I have figured out so far is based primarily on Hugh Wilson's 1916 Chapter. Until I figured it out by really trying to take Wilson at his word, this first-hand account had been misunderstood for years, not only on these boards, but also in every account of early Merion that I have ever read.
Mike's approach is different. To Mike, Whigham's unambiguous, first-hand, statement must be considered false unless independently proven true. Given that Whigham was the only one there who spoke directly and ambiguosly to the issue one way or another this is absolutely illogical. We cannot summarily throw out our best evidence, a direct and unambiguous first-hand statement just because Mike and others don't want to believe it is accurate! Mike has even dismissed and discounted portions of Hugh Wilson's own writing!
This is a fundamentally flawed approach to historical research and analysis.
Don't get me wrong. It would be different if the first hand accounts necessarily conflicted with Whigham's; for example if Hugh Wilson had written that he and his committee came up with the hole concepts and locations. BUT WILSON NEVER MADE THIS CLAIM. And no one else who was there did either. And, while they do not specifically address whether he planned the holes and their locations, all those who were there acknowledge that CBM was involved, and nothing they wrote must be read to contradict what Whigham wrote.
Imagine if Mike could go back in time and talk to Whigham . . .
MC: "So you say you know what happened . . .?"
HJW: "Yes, I was right there the entire time and I saw the whole thing. What happened is that CBM . . . ."
MC: "Stop right there, buster. Don't say another word. I don't believe you. CBM didn't do a thing. Word on the street has always been that HW and the other King's of the Universe at Merion did it all."
HJW: "Really? Did HW really claim that they planned the course themselves? And that CBM had nothing to do with it?"
MC: "Well . . . No. Not exactly. HW did go on about how CBM taught him to fit the correct principles of the great holes onto Merion's site. But he didn't mean it. He was just being humble and polite. I figure all they did was sit through a boring slide show of drawings CBM's trip, then listen to him drone on about about his course."
HJW: "But HW was telling the same thing I am telling you- "
MC: "Hah. I don't need your mumbo-jumbo. I don't care if you were there, what you are saying is FALSE. Unless someone else there said exactly the same thing in clear and unambiguous language, then your statement is FALSE.
HJW: But HW wrote . . .
MC: Not the way I read it.
HJW: How about what AF wrote after talking to HW?
MC: I read it differently. Besides, neither HW or AF couldv't have meant that because it didn't happen that way.
HJW: But I was there. It did happen that way.
MC: (With hands over ears) Blahblahblah.Im.not.listening.blah.blah.blah. . . "
_______________________________
Patrick,
I was thinking of Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers, but it is sort of a contemporary take on the old Dan and Jane bit.
-
David,
This is funny, you have to admit. ;)
You're now creating imagined dialogue between me and a long-dead H. J. Whigham. ;D
Seriously...let's both give this a rest. I'm quite sure it will improve both of our demeanors.
Believe what you will, you've presented your case. I've said all I can from my perspective.
Hope to see you on a less contentious issue on another day.
Take care,
Mike
-
Mike,
I think the dialogue between you and long dead HJW is pretty funny, if only because of its absurdity. Imagine you telling one of the great figures of early American golf that his eye witness recollection of the planning of Merion is completely worthless! On second thought it is too absurd to be funny.
I've said all I can from my perspective.
Really? Because neither you nor TEPaul has let us in on what the MCC documents tell us about what happened at NGLA. Why is that? My guess is either the records tell us little or nothing or the records tell us something you guys do not want us to know. Either way you guys haven't given us the full story.
As for your suggested break, I've taken a break, and my demeanor is great. You should go for it, as you are certainly overdue. But before you go, how about you come clean about NGLA?
-
David,
Nice try goading me. ;)
Seriously, I do not have a copy of the MCC minutes. Some time ago I told you that I had read them, and saw pertinent parts again recently, and I will tell you that from my perspective, everything relevant to this discussion has been fully and honestly portrayed here.
I've read the section prior about NGLA. It truly only says that they spent the first night discussing the great holes abroad and going over Mac's sketches and spent the second day going over the golf course.
As I mentioned to you a few weeks or months back, continuing this discussion with you was going to be difficult because I had seen those minutes and you haven't and probably trust between some of us has gone out the window over time.
The bottom line to me though, David, is that it didn't have to be this way and I wish it wasn't. However, I am not a member at either club, I do not have any transcribed records I could quote to you verbatim, nor do I wish to continue arguing with you while we're at this unfortunate juncture. I consider myself extremely privileged to have viewed these private club records and I'm not mincing words, I'm not twisting facts, I've been telling you exactly what those minutes say.
I'm also respectful enough of history that I wouldn't hide anything relevant, but I know you won't believe that statement so once again, there is no point continuing. In many respects, I do wish they went into much more detail, but minutes from that time period seem to be very much written for the "insider" audience.
I found much the same thing looking at the GAP Minutes when we were researching Cobb's Creek. It had just enough info to validate some of what we were hoping for, such as George Crump's direct involvement, yet frustratingly included no discussion of who did what, much less offer anything in matters of routing, layout, hole drawings, etc.....I guess those things weren't considered important enough to be raised at the upper board levels, unfortunately.
I really do hope that we can find more productive and cooperative things to discuss soon, because I always believe things can improve, and despite our throwing bombs at each other over this issue, I do respect you and wish you well.
p.s. The imaginary dialogue between me and Whigham is historically inaccurate, as well as hypothetically inaccurate. I scanned the complete conversation and did not find the word "toady" in there one time! Please at least give me credit for more consistency than that.. ;D
-
David,
Perhaps the best way to end this thread is to just post a picture of a hole that was the thrust of much of the Findlay article, and which is taken from the thread Bradley Anderson just started about the present 10th at Merion.
Although his article was from 1925, and talked about the new 10th hole created by Wilson and Flynn, what's interesting is that the original "Alps" 10th hole is still visible as it played for the first 12 years of the brand new course.
Alex Findlay expressed clear doubts originally, and Hugh WIlson agreed that "it would take a lot of making" to equal the original at Prestwick, and yet somehow Findlay's opening day article stated that the approach to the 10th was just like the original. (Was Street Crack available then? ;))
What is visible in the picture is the huge mound built behind the green, and one can see pretty well that the approach was not blind. Anyone here who's ever played Prestwick, or the wonderful 3rd at NGLA have minimally got to say to themselves....WHAT?!?, per haps more accurately...WTF?!?!?! :o ::)
As much as I think Hugh Wilson was a wonderfully gifted natural architect, it seems from articles and pictures that every one of his attempts at creating something more contrived and based on other models came off very poorly.
It also seems to me that he learned the error of his ways very quickly...
Everyone of course can form their own opinions on this short-lived "Alps" hole and both its credibility as a replica as well as it's value as a golf hole.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3469215183_89b07d5e9b_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
That's a great photo.
I've always wondered about the treatment of Ardmore Ave in terms of seperation from the golf course.
I don't believe concrete curbing was en vogue at the time, hence, it would make sense that a feature was used to seperate the road from the golf course. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a berm on the tee side of the hole may have created a sufficient visual barrier such that the putting surface could not be viewed from the DZ.
Originally, I disagreed with David Moriarty on this subject, but, as more has been revealed, I tend to agree with him, that # 10 was indeed intended to be an "Alps" hole.
Someone posted additional photos of # 10 and I recall that either an earthen berm or bunkering fronted the area between the green and DZ, creating that blindness, though nowhere near to the degree as found at # 17 at Prestwick or # 3 at NGLA.
If someone could retrieve those photos it would be helpful.
-
For comparison purposes, here's a photo taken by AW Tillinghast when the course opened in 1912, showing the original Merion 10th "Alps".
Remember, the large mound protrusion in the background is "behind" the green, and largely meant to protect golfers from hooked drives on the original dogleg left 1st hole, which curled around the old 10th green.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3469255895_69e733a0d4_o.jpg)
-
Here's a view from the opposite angle just before the course opening.
The photo was taken from the 14th fairway, looking towards the 18th green and clubhouse, but the back side of the protective mound of the old Alps 10th green is visible.
The original 1st hole started just behind the clubhouse in this picture, and then doglegged left around that protective mound to close to the site of today's green.
This is truly an awesome picture once one considers the amazing history that has taken place across just these few pictured acres over the past century.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3469272051_5b150704dd_o.jpg)
-
Mike Cirba,
In all fairness, that's your conclusion with respect to the huge mound behind the 10th green.
Or, are you stating that Wilson routed the course so poorly that he created a safety hazard on the first tee and had to compensate and ameliorate the problem by creating a huge mound behind the 10th green, one that would probably have an adverse impact on drainage on # 1 and # 10 ? ;D
-
Mike Cirba,
In all fairness, that's your conclusion with respect to the huge mound behind the 10th green.
Or, are you stating that Wilson routed the course so poorly that he created a safety hazard on the first tee and had to compensate and ameliorate the problem by creating a huge mound behind the 10th green, one that would probably have an adverse impact on drainage on # 1 and # 10 ? ;D
Patrick,
That's exactly what I'm saying. The guy was learning on the job, and wasn't anywhere near perfect out of the box.
Unlike some of you, I don't idolize my heroes as flawless and magical, able to route the perfect course in a day! ;D
But Wilson learned pretty darn quickly, or probably more appropriately, he was the personification of Calvin Coolidge's definition of persistence, which is likely why he was picked to do this job by major captains of industry in the first place..
-
Mike,
Didn't Wilson or Merion name # 10 an "Alps" ?
Or was it AWT or others who named it an "Alps"
If one examines the 3rd at NGLA or the 17th at Prestwick, it's clear that the back of the green is a critical element in the design of the hole.
Since Wilson had been to NGLA and seen the 3rd hole, I"m sure he was aware of the need for a "backstop" on his "Alps"
-
Mike,
Didn't Wilson or Merion name # 10 an "Alps" ?
Or was it AWT or others who named it an "Alps"
If one examines the 3rd at NGLA or the 17th at Prestwick, it's clear that the back of the green is a critical element in the design of the hole.
Since Wilson had been to NGLA and seen the 3rd hole, I"m sure he was aware of the need for a "backstop" on his "Alps"
Jeez Patrick,
Either Wilson and Findlay smoked a crack pipe or did 'shrooms together, or somebody was blowing smoke up someone's butt.
C'mon...let's get real here.
THE FEATURE of an ALPS HOLE is the HUGE, FRONTING, DAUNTING, INTIMIDATING, BLIND FREAKING MOUNTAIN that intercedes between the golfer and his TARGET.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000570.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/NGLA%203rd%20Green%20Left.jpg)
Please don't make me find a picture of the 17th at Prestwick. :-\ ::)
-
Mike,
We both know that no such "huge, monstrous" hill intercedes at # 17 at Prestwick, the original "Alps" for CBM.
To diminish the structure at the back of # 17 at Prestwick, the model for # 3 at NGLA is wrong.
While NGLA's "Alps" is probably the best there is, you can't fixate on the enormous scale of that hill to the exclusion of the other features, including the back of the greens.
However, I'm glad to see that you too seem to acknowledge that # 3 at NGLA is the premier "alps" of all alps. ;D
Any you guys said it was easy to create template holes.
It just goes to show you what a genius CBM was. ;D
-
There is so much factually incorrect and/or misleading information in your past few posts that I do not even know where to begin.
1. While the photos do show at least part of the mound behind the green, there may be mounds in front of the green as well. I cannot make out for sure one way or another, and neither can you. For example, look a the photo of Tillinghast. There is something that appears to be a lighter colored mound in front of the backing mound. For another example the first photo also shows what may be very large fronting mounds.
2. You write that the first photo shows the old Alps "still visible as it played for the first 12 years." If true, then there must be one heck of a huge mound in front of the green, because we cannot even see the bunker well up the mound behind the green! Either the hole had been changed or there is large mounding is in front. Either way your description is wrong.
3. You claim these photos show the hole was not blind? Really? Where are the bunkers on the side of the green. The one in back? The bunkers in front? If this was not blind, we would see them, so where are they? The green was set substantially below these front bunkers, and if we cannot even see the bunkers, how can you say the hole was not blind?
4. You write that Hugh Wilson quickly learned the error of his ways ? Then why did they play the hole as an Alps for a dozen years! And why was the hole commonly praised? What makes you think they changed it because he had learned the error of his ways? There is no proof of that. None whatsoever.
5. The mound was for protection from the 1st hole?? Not built as an integral part of the Alps?? You may want to tell this to Robert Lesley! At this point, Mike, statements like this is absolutely absurd. The sources describe the mound as at the back of the 10th green, describe it as PART OF THE ALPS, and even describe the role it played in concept of the hole! Yet you are sure it was built to protect golfers from the 1st hole?? WHAT IS THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS CLAIM? WHAT DOCUMENTS SUPPORT IT?
6. The colorized picture is the same one as in my essay (mine is a black and white copy.) You claim that it was taken just before the opening. Then how was it on a dinner program from 1911? Was the real date inconvenient to your claim that features hadn't really been built yet?
7. Your entire point of these pictures is to demonstrate that this really was not an Alps Hole, even if Wilson, Findlay, Lesley, and others all described it that way. If they thought it was an Alps, then they must be on crack. Once again, you put your own story ahead of the facts. You KNOW, and if the so-called facts contradict what you know, then the facts are wrong. If the facts contradict you. Just ignore them or dismiss them.
8. You tell people they can come to their own conclusions, but you have given them false information about the hole in every post! How can they draw any sort of conclusion when you misrepresent what they are seeing.
Yet you have the nerve to write that you respect history? What a joke.
-
Interesting stuff on the original 10th (Alps).
The problem with analyzing that hole is there are no drawings of it (I've ever seen) and the photographic evidence of it (at any particular time) is somewhat confusing.
We certainly do know there was a very large constructed mound behind the green (maybe 12+ feet high) because we have multiple photographs of it from behind the green and also photos of it right at the green.
What we don't have is particularly reliable photos from somewhere in front of the green and from somewhere near the old approach shot area. All we have from in front of that green is that Tillie photo from the tee in 1912 making it around 300 yards away).
It is also interesting to recall that the colorized photo was from 1911 (so that at least dates the first evidence of the mound behind the green). I'd sort of forgotten that photo was from a dinner program. Merion's archives include numerous dinner and menu items because primary Merion historian Capers likes that stuff a whole lot too.
I would throw in this idea at the moment. Findlay mentions in his June 1912 article that at that point Wilson felt to make this hole any good it would still take "some making." Does that mean, at that point (June 1912) there was no "alps" mound somewhere in front of the green? It probably does. I'd also included that Findlay's article was also some months before the course formally opened for play----but Tillie's photo was a few months after the course opened for play (plenty of time to be able to add a prominent mound in front (between June 1912 and the Fall of 1912).
The next problem is to figure out if the prominent mound we can see in the 1912 photo (Tillinghast's) is the same mound behind the green or another mound that Wilson and Merion had constructed somewhere in front of the green between June 1912 and the date that Tillinghast photo was taken (the Fall of 1912).
It probably was and that would be why the green was blind and considered so when the hole opened for play. I say that because if one stands on the land at this time (or even before any construction or after the hole was changed there is really nothing landform-wise between the tee shot LZ and where that old green once was that would make visibility to that old green area blind.
It's just so hard to see where that mound is that we can see on that Tillinghast photo. Is it on the tee side of Ardmore Ave, on the other side of Ardmore Ave somewhere in front of the green making the hole one that had a prominent mound both in front somewhere and behind? Or is it the mound behind the green that we've always known existed?
The problem is there is no clear photographic evidence of a really prominent fronting mound I've ever seen. If the mound we see in the Tillinghast photo is somewhere in front of the green (either on the tee side OR green side of Ardmore Ave, it must have been right in line with the mound behind the green (or we could probaby see that mound behind the gree too in that Tillie photo).
Honestly, the top of the mound behind the green looks quite a bit flatter to me (in the earlier colorized photo from behind the green than the sort of convex top of the mound we can see in the Tillinghast photo of the hole from the tee.
I would have to think if that original hole in play really was a blind approach to that original green there must have been a prominent mound somewhere between the approach area and the green too because I do know from real familiarity with that land that if there wasn't another prominent mound in there somewhere that approach shot to that original green just wouldn't been that blind at all (it's pretty flat from the 10th fairway LZ all the way across the street to the present first fairway where the original 10th green used to be).
This doesn't have much of anything to do with who routed and designed Merion East in 1911 though, except I suppose one could assume if Macdonald had actually routed AND DESIGNED the features on that original hole or routed and DESIGNED the features of any other hole at Merion East in 1911, then one certainly would wonder why Wilson was still struggling at the time of that Findlay article to come up with what had to be "made" to make the hole any good! If Macdonald had routed and DESIGNED the course and certainly that hole why then hadn't he just shown Wilson and his Committee what to do ON APRIL 6, 1911, the one and only AND LAST day he was at Merion for the purpose of "helping and advising them" with a paper plan in hand, as to the "making" of the hole? ??? ;)
After all, according to Moriarty, all Wilson and his committee were in the creation of Merion were a group of guys who were just responsible for "building" the course according to a set plan from someone else (Macdonald/Whigam or perhaps H.H. Barker?). ;)
On that note, and once again, if Moriarty's definition of what "laying out" meant is even semi-correct----eg "laying out" only meant "building" to a drawn paper plan from someone else and not routing and designing a course on a paper plan THEMSELVES----then how could they have said they "laid out numerous different courses and plans" in the winter of 1911 A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE ANYTHING was BUILD AT ARDMORE and A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE the club even APPROVED of ANYTHING to get built?? ;)
That wouldn't make any sense at all, would it? Of course not. Therefore, Wilson and his committee were doing exactly what we've said they were doing, and they said they were doing----eg creating numerous different routings and design plans on paper (their topo survey maps we know they had as early as the beginning of Feb 1, 1911) in the winter of 1911, a number of months before anything was approved and certainly a number of months BEFORE ANYTHING WAS BUILT!! ;)
-
MikeC:
I don't have the time right now to check the dates of those photos you posted from the 10th from the tee. The first one would be something like a dozen years after the one Tillinghast took, right?
-
Tom,
Yes, that top pick is from 1925.
I'd also mention that the 1916 drawings show no such fronting mound...just fronting bunker complex stretching across. Neither does the hole description in that newspaper talk about a blind shot.
There was also that picture floating around with people laying on the bank of the fronting bunker watching play during the 1916 Am.
It wasn't a mound in front at that date, unless somehow there was a mound short of the bunkers, but I've seen no evidence at all of that in either descriptions or pictures.
-
Mike,
We both know that no such "huge, monstrous" hill intercedes at # 17 at Prestwick, the original "Alps" for CBM.
Patrick,
I don't have time to find a picture this morning, but you're kidding us, yes??
Prestwick was home to the very first Open in 1860 and since then the sand, heather, seaside bent, cavernous bunkers, sloping fairways, the menacing Pow Burn, fast true and undulating greens, and the wind have tormented many Open Champions. At the 17th club selection on your second shot is the key to this hole, with a blind second shot over the 'Alps' dune to a green guarded by the Sahara bunker.
-
More pics of the 10th to follow this weekend...
I'll trust everyone to use their own eyes and judgement instead of telling them what they see.
In the meantime, if anyone has a pic of the original Alps at Prestwick taken from the area where second shots are normally struck I think it would be instructive...thanks
-
Mike Cirba,
My first encounter with # 17 at Prestwick was in 1952.
I returned again in 1992.
In neither visit did the fronting dune come close to matching the massive hill that exists at NGLA.
The fronting hill at Prestwick seems to serve a singular, primary purpose, the obstruction of the green.
The second purpose is to dictate ball flight to the green.
NGLA's massive hill serves more functions, including the impeding the drive.
The two have some common functions but can't be compared in size, scope, versatility, height and interfacing with the golfer from tee to green.
P.S. I wasn't kidding. ;D
-
"One current example: Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course. If this is true, so be it, but let's see it. What did the documents say? You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.
___________________________________________________
TEPAUL and MIKE: WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?"
David Moriarty:
Why don't you get in touch with MCC and ask them yourself, as we did?
You should've done this a few years ago BEFORE you began to research and write about what you THINK happened at Merion and NOT AFTERWARDS!
-
"Tom, that's a heck of a good and logical question and I'd love to hear DaveM's response to it..."
Shivas:
So would I. I have no doubt he'll probably just continue to slough it off somehow or come up with more completely tortured logic and responses as he's been doing for a couple of years now.
-
Let's start with these;
The original 10th green from up high sometime shortly after abandonment. There used to be a a long bunker in the face of the large mound, which I'll dig up pics of this weekend..
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3471373510_ca84898387_o.jpg)
Next, the original 10th green after the 1924 changes with the back bunker no longer kept up and overgrown;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3471373540_8f0daec8c4_o.jpg)
Next, zooming back, the original 335 yard first hole is seen coming from the clubhouse, turning left past the back of the 10th green. The first tee is just right of the clubhouse building.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3470579907_9e171f6452_b.jpg)
-
From the drive landing area, here is the blind approach over the dune of the original Alps at Prestwick.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3471472612_de4159085f_o.jpg)
-
On that note, and once again, if Moriarty's definition of what "laying out" meant is even semi-correct----eg "laying out" only meant "building" to a drawn paper plan from someone else and not routing and designing a course on a paper plan THEMSELVES----then how could they have said they "laid out numerous different courses and plans" in the winter of 1911 A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE ANYTHING was BUILD AT ARDMORE and A NUMBER OF MONTHS BEFORE the club even APPROVED of ANYTHING to get built?? ;)
That wouldn't make any sense at all, would it?
Tom, that's a heck of a good and logical question and I'd love to hear DaveM's response to it...
Dave, the problem with the question is the usual one. It misstates my position. I've explained my understanding of how "laid out" was used many times, yet TEPaul gets it wrong repeatedly. After a while I think we should ask ourselves why TEPaul has to misstate my position in order to argue against it. Here is what I recently explained to Mike about my understanding of how "laid out" was used. (I know TEPaul saw the post because he threw a little fit about another portion of it.)
Despite the tone, sarcasm, and absolutely absurd depiction of my position, there may be a legitimate question in here somewhere and I will attempt to answer it without rehashing too much.
We've covered this before at length but the phrase "to lay out" is very problematic for all sides because it is used different ways in different circumstances by different people, and not at all consistently. I've looked at the accounts of the creation of many dozens of courses and will continue to do so, , but at this time I believe that my understanding as set out in the essay is generally accurate. However, if one looks hard enough one can find the phrase applying to almost anything (except for maybe trip itineraries.) There is enough variance of use that I will probably take another shot at this section in my essay to clarify, that is if I am ever given a chance to update the essay with more current and accurate information.
That being said, while routing and conceiving of the holes was sometimes included in the meaning of "to lay out," it was often not included. And many of the other aspects of creating a golf course were often included, with or without the sometimes independent act of planning. For example, sometimes the phrase meant to stake out on the ground, sometimes it meant to construct, sometimes it meant to set out the hazards. Sometimes it is some or all of the above. Occasionally, it apparently meant plan, and little else.
So how do I know what they meant in the case of Merion? I look at how and when the term is used, and by whom, and I try to figure out what makes the most sense, realizing that I may have to modify my understanding as I learn more. I also try to imagine what the articles would say if Wilson (and Committee) routed the course and planned the hole concepts (as compared to other articles about other designers and courses. But mostly I try to figure out what makes sense in the context, and what the phrase might mean versus what it cannot mean, versus what it necessarily means given that context . . .
With that in mind, I don't think the "laid out numerous different courses and plans"snippet is inconsistent with my take on what happened or with my understanding of how the phrase was used.
A few things I do find interesting about the snippet . . .
- Lesley reported that they laid out numerous different courses and plans, almost as if there were two things ongoing. I am not entirely clear what they were doing; staking out courses on the land? drawing them up on paper? both? Do we know for certain that they did written plans at this point, or could they have been simply walking around with flags or stakes trying different things to make it work?
- The snippet gives us no indication of the basis (if any) for their efforts. For example, we know that Barker already had done a rough layout plan. Had they looked at it? It seems impossible to think that they hadn't. But we cannot tell from the single snippet whether or not they were building on and/or refining Barker's rough plan, (although given how little they knew it seems unlikely they would ignore it.) Likewise, M&W were already involved in the project and had toured the property. While the single letter we have doesnt provide much specific guidance (except to add the land by the clubhouse) other communications may have been more specific. We also do not know that M&W had told them while they were inspecting the site or after.
- If I understand correctly from the various leaks, this snippet refers to the committee's actions before the NGLA trip, and that with the NGLA trip, these plans were scrapped and replaced with the five drafts that M&W then reviewed to choose the best. (Again, who really knows without seeing the source material.) Yet we are to believe that the NGLA trip had nothing to do with planning the course?? Hmmm . . .
- As I note above, we have to look at how they use the phrase in the context, so we'd have to see the MCC minutes and the rest of the record to try and figure it out. But TEPaul won't give us the context; he would rather we trust him to tell us what it all means.
_______________________
"One current example: Both you and TEPaul have largely glossed over what the MCC minutes say about of what happened at the NGLA meetings, simply suggesting that they support your conclusion that all they did was look at Macdonald's old drawings and tour his course. If this is true, so be it, but let's see it. What did the documents say? You guys have been quoting passages for a year now, so surely you can tell us what they say on this point.
___________________________________________________
TEPAUL and MIKE: WHAT DO THE MCC DOCUMENTS SAY ABOUT THE NGLA TRIP?"
David Moriarty:
Why don't you get in touch with MCC and ask them yourself, as we did?
You should've done this a few years ago BEFORE you began to research and write about what you THINK happened at Merion and NOT AFTERWARDS!
- I figured out what MCC had and tried to get it from them before I wrote my essay. But alas I am not a member and therefore was denied access. So I figured it out myself.
- But you guys have no such excuse Tom. You and Wayne are the self-ordained experts, and have been talking and writing about early Merion for years. You guys told us you have been researching early Merion for almost a decade, and you have all the access and information right there. Yet neither of you ever bothered to go to MCC and look at their records?? You never even knew they had them?? You didn't even look at the Sayre's scrapbooks?? You didn't even look at Haverford Library?? Had it not been for my essay, you'd probably never have found and looked at any of this stuff. I had to send you guys documents from Los Angeles even though they were right under your noses! Sad.
But let's move on.
You asked for problems with the logic of the time line.
One problem is that you do not adequately account for what happened at NGLA. That you won't when asked in another problem altogether.
__________________________________
Shivas, aren't you curious why Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA? Why do you suppose TEPaul won't tell us?
-
"- I figured out what MCC had and tried to get it from them before I wrote my essay. But alas I am not a member and therefore was denied access. So I figured it out myself.
- But you guys have no such excuse Tom. You and Wayne are the self-ordained experts, and have been talking and writing about early Merion for years. You guys told us you have been researching early Merion for almost a decade, and you have all the access and information right there. Yet neither of you ever bothered to go to MCC and look at their records?? You never even knew they had them?? You didn't even look at the Sayre's scrapbooks?? You didn't even look at Haverford Library?? Had it not been for my essay, you'd probably never have found and looked at any of this stuff. I had to send you guys documents from Los Angeles even though they were right under your noses! Sad."
Sure, right, you figured it out yourself. ;) What you figured out about Macdonald's involvement or what you wrote about it is a joke. The truth on Macdonald/Whigam's involvement with Merion wasn't anything more than Merion always said, but I think we all realize, at this point, you can't admit that and you never will, so I guess I don't blame you for trying whatever you can now to pat yourself on the back.
Apparently you've forgotten or never knew it but our research was on William Flynn, and not Merion before he ever got there. But I'm glad Wayne and a couple of member from Merion Golf and MCC did find those minutes as they just confirm what Merion East and West's history always said. Other than the 1912 trip abroad there was nothing new revealed.
"One problem is that you do not adequately account for what happened at NGLA. That you won't when asked in another problem altogether.
Shivas, aren't you curious why Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA? Why do you suppose TEPaul won't tell us?"
What's in the Wilson's report to the Golf Committee that was given to the board isn't any different than what Wilson said 1916 and no different from what Mike Cirba already told you and I've already told you----eg the first day they went over Macdonald's plans and surveys FOR NGLA from abroad and the next day they spent studying the course itself---ie NGLA. That's it, that's all the report says, there is no more.
There's nothing at all reported about any plans or surveys of Merion or any discussion about them while Wilson and his committee were at NGLA those two days, not by Wilson and his committee or anyone else, but if you find that impossible to believe, then fine, just find it impossible to believe, who cares? If you want to just make that up that they discussed Merion's plans at NGLA then fine, you're pretty good with making stuff up about what happened with the routing and design and creation of Merion East, that's for sure.
"But let's move on.
You asked for problems with the logic of the time line."
I'd be happy to move on but it wasn't any of us who the time-line created problems for----the time-line created a number of problems for you and your essay. Time-lines that are well developed and properly understood are beautiful things.
-
Here's a picture of Merion's 10th green in 1916, taken from a perched position (probably from a tree, actually) left and short of the green.
Seen in the pic is the rear mound (this time, WITH bunker), the fronting bunker (it actually looks like some spectators are reclining on the front wall), and the fact that Ardmore Avenue looks to be at the time a bit recessed from the surrounding terrain.
Please compare this to the approach at Prestwick and NGLA.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3471852212_fb531444d4_o.jpg)
This picture is from just short-right of the green, showing some of the features in a bit more detail.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3471852236_c1f475d884_o.jpg)
I hope this is historically accurate enough.
-
As far as your version of what "laying out" referred to when used by Wilson and Merion here it is from your own essay:
"Note that Wilson did not even bother to mention the Committee’s lack of experience designing courses, but instead only described their lack of qualification for course construction and green keeping. It was not that he was an expert in design. Rather, his concern was only with building the course and growing grass on it.
Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.” In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design. To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground. According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.” This was precisely how Wilson used the phrase. “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.' The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan, and Macdonald and Whigham gave them a good start in understanding how to do so.
Wilson’s entire discussion of his role focuses not on the planning, but on the building."
Again, Wilson and his committee's report in April 1911 to Golf Committee chairman Robert Lesley to be given to the board mentions that he and his committee had "LAID OUT numerous different courses and plans throughout the winter of 1911 months BEFORE ANY BUILDING began and months BEFORE the Board of Directors even APPROVED of ANYTHING TO BE DONE! You can mince words and rationalize what you said or what you mean all you want to but you'll never get around that fact!
-
This picture was taken from down in the valley of the 9th green, from the adjoining right hillside, looking back up 10.
You can tell the fairway from the men holding the gallery ropes.
Even from this very lowpoint, you can see clearly the back mound of the 10th green with the bunker embedded in it. Heck...you can even see the very BOTTOM lip of the back bunker, clear and unobstructed. :o
You can also get a little flash of sand from the front bunker, again even though the pic is from way down in the hollow and not way up on the hill where a approach to the 10th would be struck.
Ahh...can't you almost smell the auld sod as you prepare to strike your approach over a vast dune fearfully nicknamed the Alps? ;) Close those peepers and you can almost smell the haggis boiling! ;D
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3471882204_e948917ec3_o.jpg)
-
MikeC:
If there ever was a prominent Alps mound in front of that original 10th green it would've had to be on the tee side of Ardmore Ave. Those couple of photos show there just wasn't enough room for it on the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave, plus it even looks like a couple of steps right up from the road itself in one of those photos and you sure can see there wasn't any big prominent mound in front of the green on the clubhouse side. Also a bunker or some bunkering over an Alps mound and between the green is a traditional feature of Alps holes too.
-
MikeC:
If there ever was a prominent Alps mound in front of that original 10th green it would've had to be on the tee side of Ardmore Ave. Those couple of photos show there just wasn't enough room for it on the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave, plus it even looks like a couple of steps right up from the road itself in one of those photos and you sure can see there wasn't any big prominent mound in front of the green on the clubhouse side. Also a bunker or some bunkering over an Alps mound and between the green is a traditional feature of Alps holes too.
Tom,
Please see my last post and picture.
I argued this point with David some time back. When Robert Lesley was talking about this hole as an Alps type, he was talking about the fronting cross bunker, not any other blind features and it's now very clear for everyone to finally SEE for themselves.
"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." - Robert Lesley 1914
It certainly isn't like anything CB Macdonald ever built as an Alps, much less Prestwick, as some have fallaciously argued.
I certainly wouldn't want to disrespect history (or my own eyes) by arguing that it was even a kissing cousin!
-
"A few things I do find interesting about the snippet . . .
- Lesley reported that they laid out numerous different courses and plans, almost as if there were two things ongoing. I am not entirely clear what they were doing; staking out courses on the land? drawing them up on paper? both? Do we know for certain that they did written plans at this point, or could they have been simply walking around with flags or stakes trying different things to make it work?"
Well, David Moriarty, let's see if it's possible for you do get your mind around this because the rest of us here haven't had much trouble figuring out the meaning of it. Did they do paper plans or just stake stuff out on the ground including five different plans on the ground for Macdonald and Whigam to look at on April 6, 1911? ??? ::)
The report given by Lesley to the board that includes the report from the Wilson Committee mentions they developed ("LAID OUT") five different plans following the visit to NGLA and one of them was selected to be approved by the board and Lesley reported that PLAN was ATTACHED HERETO. Maybe you think they might've ATTACHED a bunch of stakes to Lesley's report but I and others here tend to think they attached a paper plan to that report! And that PLAN that they LAID OUT was APPROVED and built in the weeks and months following that. But seeing as how you think they were all such a bunch of NOVICES maybe all they showed the Board was a bunch or stakes with numbers on them or some such novice-like shit! ;)
I don't know how many times I need to tell you that H.H. Barker's "rough sketch" that wasn't even given to Merion by Barker but to Connell, the real estate developer in the middle of June 1910 was never again mentioned by anyone involved with Merion that I've ever heard about after July 1, 1910, but again, if you want to believe that's what Wilson and his committee relied on for a number of months in the winter of 1911 when they said THEY "Laid Out numerous courses and plans", then go for it.
-
MikeC:
I don't really see why we're continuing to discuss the original 10th at Merion anymore. What's the point? I think we can all pretty much see what it was. This whole 10th hole thing was just some pointless strawman anyway that Moriarty threw in here a few years ago apparently to show he'd figured something out about Merion's history that they never knew. It's as pointless today as it was back then, in my opinion.
-
Apparently you've forgotten or never knew it but our research was on William Flynn, and not Merion before he ever got there. But I'm glad Wayne and a couple of member from Merion Golf and MCC did find those minutes as they just confirm what Merion East and West's history always said. Other than the 1912 trip abroad there was nothing new revealed.
I know that this became your mantra after my essay, but before then you guys sang a different song. Why don't you post your GAP article on Merion and show us how you guys have always known all this. Surely gathered all your information before you had them publish it? And how about the extensive essay Wayne did on early Merion, obstensibly for the USGA?
What's in the Wilson's report to the Golf Committee that was given to the board isn't any different than what Wilson said 1916 and no different from what Mike Cirba already told you and I've already told you----eg the first day they went over Macdonald's plans and surveys FOR NGLA from abroad and the next day they spent studying the course itself---ie NGLA. That's it, that's all the report says, there is no more.
Problem is that is not what the 1916 article said. You are both incorrect and incomplete. Are the MCC minutes the same? Why not just tell us what they say. If it is the same, then what could it hurt?
Don't get me wrong. My guess is they don't say much of anything one way or another. But this isn't really what you guys have indicated, is it?
-
"I know that this became your mantra after my essay, but before then you guys sang a different song. Why don't you post your GAP article on Merion and show us how you guys have always known all this. Surely gathered all your information before you had them publish it? And how about the extensive essay Wayne did on early Merion, obstensibly for the USGA?"
The GAP article was on the Philadelphia School of Architecture and concentrated more on Pine Valley than Merion and the USGA 2005 US Amateur Program article was on Merion but both were only about five pages and there were other more important things to mention than this issue of Macdonald/Whigam advising and helping Merion for a grand total of about four days that ended before the course was even built. Maybe if my articles in those magazines had been about 100-200 pages I would've mentioned that.
"Don't get me wrong. My guess is they don't say much of anything one way or another. But this isn't really what you guys have indicated, is it?"
You can "guess" whatever you want to David Moriarty---God knows you're definitely into GUESSING and endlessly speculating about the history of Merion! I've told you about a dozen times on these threads why those MCC meeting minutes aren't going to be transcribed on here so why bother asking again and why should I bother telling you again? If you want them then pick up the phone or go over there and speak with them about it as Wayne and two members from Merion Golf and MCC did about a year ago.
And you certainly never gave me anything on Merion and the few times I offered to help you on your understanding of Macdonald you refused so why in the world would I do a damn thing for you, at this point, when all you've ever done on here and continue to do on here is just cast aspersions on and question anything and everything I say? If you don't want to take my word for any of this than don't, I couldn't care less at this point.
-
Tom,
I thought it was somewhat relevant given the prominence of the 10th hole in the Findlay article that is the topic of this thread.
There has just been so much hyperbole and verbiage flowing that I thought it was only fair that people here get to see and decide for themselves.
-
MikeC:
I guess the original 10th is sort of relevent to that Findlay article since it was the only hole mentioned on the course. I thought it was interesting that Findlay mentioned that a year plus after construction began Wilson was still saying the hole was still going to take some making somehow to be good and such and at least one on here is trying to say that Macdonald and Whigam routed and designed the course!?!? Well, the Alps hole was one of Macdonald'd templates and if he designed Merion East why was Wilson so concerned the 10th was going to need some Making somehow a year plus later in 1912? Why didn't the Uber-novice ;) Wilson just BUILD it to Macdonald's plan in 1911? ??? ::)
-
Tom,
Don't you get it??
Its because he was such a dolt of a novice that he couldn't even "lay out" Macdonald's plans right!
He clearly got the mound on Mac's "one day" plan bassackwards, building it behind the green instead of in front!
;)
-
The GAP article was on the Philadelphia School of Architecture and concentrated more on Pine Valley than Merion and the USGA 2005 US Amateur Program article was on Merion but both were only about five pages and there were other more important things to mention than this issue of Macdonald/Whigam advising and helping Merion for a grand total of about four days that ended before the course was even built. Maybe if my articles in those magazines had been about 100-200 pages I would've mentioned that.
TEPaul, you don't owe me any explanation. You guys already knew what you wanted to know, and so it must never have occurred to you guys that the Sayre's Scrapbooks, MCC, Pennsylvania's historical repository, or many of the local libraries might might contain some valuable historical information. After all, even now you claim you knew it all anyway, right?
You can "guess" whatever you want to David Moriarty---God knows you're definitely into GUESSING and endlessly speculating about the history of Merion! I've told you about a dozen times on these threads why those MCC meeting minutes aren't going to be transcribed on here so why bother asking again and why should I bother telling you again?
Just to be more accurate, don't you mean that you will gladly cherry-pick and transcribe any selected portions to help make your case? Obviously, the bit about NGLA does NOT help make your case.
And you certainly never gave me anything on Merion and the few times I offered to help you on your understanding of Macdonald you refused so why in the world would I do a damn thing for you, at this point, when all you've ever done on here and continue to do on here is just cast aspersions on and question anything and everything I say? If you don't want to take my word for any of this than don't, I couldn't care less at this point.
That's up to you. But then you are leaving a huge hole in your timeline right around the second half of March 1910. Here is part of a timeline for you that makes quite a bit more sense than yours. . .
- Before NGLA, a bunch of novices trying to make a golf course come up with some plans.
- At NGLA, those old plans are all thrown out the window, and M&W teaches them what they should be doing.
- After NGLA, those guys take what M&W told them and tried to fit it on the ground, coming up with 5 variations.
- A few weeks later, M&W come down to make sure they are doing it right. They maybe make some changes, and then choose and finalize the routing.
- M&W go home and those guys take the plan to the board then try to build the golf course.
Based on what I know, this seems the most likely scenario. Nothing you have told us indicates otherwise.
_____________________
Mike, nice contrast between your post on hyperbole and verbiage and your next one.
-
Oh David, please...
Don't you think this deserves at least a little humor?
I poked fun at about everything in this thread, including myself, including Hugh Wilson and some of his first attempts at creating template holes, and including all of us taking this whole subject as life and death.
I guess humor sometimes comes across as pretty flat on a computer screen.
I almost threw in another line about Pickering being pickled and getting Macdonald's plans backwards being responsible.
Perhaps I'm just tired of arguing and would much rather we all move onto something more productive and probably more worthy of our time and troubles at this point.
And...I also tried to be completely honest with you through this entire thread. I felt you were at a disadvantage without having seen the Merion minutes and I have told you honestly what I know. I don't want to argue with you, David...at least not over this again.
I'm trying to be civil and I'm trying to bring a little levity at this point...that's all.
-
Believe me Mike, I find many of your posts hilarious. Just not for the reasons you might hope.
Meanwhile . . .
- Before NGLA, a bunch of novices trying to make a golf course come up with some plans.
- At NGLA, those old plans are all thrown out the window, and M&W teaches them what they should be doing.
- After NGLA, those guys take what M&W told them and tried to fit it on the ground, coming up with 5 variations.
- A few weeks later, M&W come down to make sure they are doing it right. They maybe make some changes, and then choose and finalize the routing.
- M&W go home and those guys take the plan to the board then try to build the golf course.
Based on what I know, this seems the most likely scenario. Nothing you have told us indicates otherwise.
-
"TEPaul, you don't owe me any explanation. You guys already knew what you wanted to know, and so it must never have occurred to you guys that the Sayre's Scrapbooks, MCC, Pennsylvania's historical repository, or many of the local libraries might might contain some valuable historical information. After all, even now you claim you knew it all anyway, right?"
David Moriarty:
Not at all. What I've tried to explain to you, seemingly about a dozen times on these Merion threads, is our interest (that is Wayne Morrison's and mine) was to research everywhere and anywhere we could find ON THE SUBJECT OF WILLIAM FLYNN!!!
Obviously the subject of William Flynn has a lot to do with Merion, and particularly an era of Merion that began somewhat later than 1910 and 1911 when MCC was in the process of moving their course from Haverford to Ardmore that initially created the East course---the course you seem to be so interested in the early architectural history of because of this on-going illogical, fact and timeline-skewing, history-revising jag you have been on for about five years on the subject of C.B. Macdonald and Merion East.
You just don't seem to understand that we didn't have the time or the interest at that time to do this kind of research on the minute details of the move from Haverford to Ardmore in 1910-1911 by MCC that did not have to do with William Flynn.
But we certainly have known about Sayer's Scrapebook, The Pennsylvania Historical Society, The USGA Museum Library, The Franklin Library, Merion's Archives, numerous club histories, newspaper and magazine accounts etc and have reviewed all of them but apparently for another purpose and subject than the one you seem to have such a burning interest in.
The MCC archives are newish to me and to Wayne as well and there's a good reason for that you probably still don't understand or appreciate.
But all this recent research on that 1910-1911 era of MCC and Merion, including the relatively recent find of additional MCC meeting minutes material is nonetheless very interesting to me now for a lot of reasons not only to do with Merion's early architecture or even golf course architecture. And in fairness to you I doubt we would have done any of that to this extent had it not been for that really inaccurate essay of yours on Merion's 1910-1911 era and your contention of Macdonald's additional and more significant part in it.
-
"Just to be more accurate, don't you mean that you will gladly cherry-pick and transcribe any selected portions to help make your case? Obviously, the bit about NGLA does NOT help make your case."
David Moriaty:
The only case I've been trying to make on this website is the factual and accurate case of what actually happened and by whom at MCC in their move from Haverford to Ardmore and the creation of the East and West course by Wilson and his committee. The collected history of Merion has explained that accurately with a notable exception to date which on over-all reflection and consideration and with additional research just does not indicate what you seemed to assume it did and apparently wanted to make it look like it did.
All I'm doing is pointing out what was recorded by MCC. I'm not indulging in "pie-in-the-sky" speculation about what it means due to what that record DOESN'T SAY, as you've been doing with Merion for a number of years including in that essay of yours.
-
"That's up to you. But then you are leaving a huge hole in your timeline right around the second half of March 1910."
David Moriarty:
How is that? What huge hole is that around the second half of March 1910?
Or do you mean March, 1911?
It wouldn't surprise me if you do as you have never had the vaguest idea about what the hell was going on with MCC from one year to the next anyway. ;) If you'd like a couple of really good examples of what I mean by that I'd be more than happy to supply them for both you and the participants on this website.
-
Mike,
No way that mound behind ten was built to protect golfers from errant first tee shots...
...that is unless golfers of that era could hit a snap hook about 290 yards and 80 yards offline!
-
Mike,
No way that mound behind ten was built to protect golfers from errant first tee shots...
...that is unless golfers of that era could hit a snap hook about 290 yards and 80 yards offline!
Kyle,
How about errant second shots?
Have you considered that most golfers at the club likely dribbled their tee shots, or popped them up 150 yards, or squirrled them off the heel for about 200 way left?
I'll post a drawing sometime soon that talks about the "mound" coming into play on #1.
-
"That's up to you. But then you are leaving a huge hole in your timeline right around the second half of March 1910."
David Moriarty:
How is that? What huge hole is that around the second half of March 1910?
Or do you mean March, 1911?
I meant March 1911. But you knew that.
Your time line asks us to believe that M&W were not responsible for the routing or hole concepts because they were only on site in June 1910 then again in April 1911. Among the many problems with your time line is that it completely ignores the fact that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for two days in March 1911 for help. You've tried to brush this meeting aside but your explanation defies common sense. We aren't required to suspend common sense because you tell us to, are we?
Based on what we know, here is likely what happened arund the time of the NGLA meeting . . .
- Before NGLA, a bunch of novices trying to make a golf course come up with some plans.
- At NGLA, those old plans are all thrown out the window, and M&W teaches them what they should be doing.
- After NGLA, those guys take what M&W told them and tried to fit it on the ground, coming up with 5 variations.
- A few weeks later, M&W come down to make sure they are doing it right. They maybe make some changes, and then choose and finalize the routing.
- M&W go home and those guys take the plan to the board then try to build the golf course.
-
Mike C--
Thank you for posting the pictures of #10 during the '16 Amateur. It leads me to a question for all....Looking at that picture and of other pictures taken even closer to the opening of the course in 1912, stylistically what do those holes look like? I'm asking in regards to bunker style as much as anything.
If Joe Bausch is reading this, have you come across any articles in your research about the opening of other MacDonald courses?
-
Adam
Interesting question, but I should perhaps clarify that I have no reason to believe that cbm was directly involved in aesthetic concerns like bunker style. He may have given him general advice and maybe sent them Pickering, but beyond that I wouldn't read too much into bunker look . Merion is different than cbm's other courses in that cbm and/or raynor did not build it. This I think is at the root of much of the confusion over the years.
That being said I will post some early photos of cbm's early work later. You might be surprised.
-
"Merion is different than cbm's other courses in that cbm and/or raynor did not build it. This I think is at the root of much of the confusion over the years."
Adam:
Merion certainly is different than other cbm's and/or raynor courses because cbm and/or raynor not only didn't build it they didn't route or design it either!
I wouldn't be at all surprised by early cbm bunkers, particularly at NGLA, because I've seen all the photos of them in the photo albums in the big room at NGLA and they don't look much like the way they did eventually under Macdonald which is very important to know and understand because there is no question whatsoever that Macdonald continued to work on NGLA for almost thirty years.
-
I keep hearing the term "bunch of novices" which certainly is meant to create a mental impression yet to me only conveys the hidden contempt for 1ilson and Co. Obviously held by the author.
Of course, this terminlology is only accurate in the sense of construction and agronomy, but so what...so basically was everyone else in the country including Macdonald, who at the time was suffering vast problems growing grass which delayed the opening of NGLA by at least a year if not more.
It also ignores that the Merion team were all versed in all things golf for the previous 15 years, were all well-travelled, and that Wilson was a scratch golfer at Princeton over a decade earlier, had played virtually every course of note in the US in college and amateur play, and was on the green committee of Princeton in 1902 building and opening Willie Dunn's design that year.
It also ignores the reality that both sets of novices...Macdonald's committee at NGLA and Wilson's committee at Merion, employed the VERY experienced services of one Mr. Fred Pickering, who at that time has already constructed and grown in literally hundreds of courses and news accounts claimed that Piclering's work at Merion was the best of his career by far.
-
The funny part is that all Wilson ever admitted that the committee were novice at was construction and agronomy...the very things that David argues were their sole assignment! ;)
-
TEPaul,
Not a CBM course? I am afraid we disagree again. Even by your attenuated reading of the facts, it is looking more and more like a CBM course. You claim they spent their time with CBM going over sketches and drawings CBM had used for NGLA, and the next day going over the course itself. (You want us to believe that doing so had nothing to do with planning Merion, and that they did not even bother to bring their preliminary plans or a contour map, but that is ludicrous.)
But let's assume for argument that this is all they did; looked at sketches CBM had used for NGLA, and examined the course itself. This still begs a crucial question. Why?
Why travel to NGLA at all? Why learn how CBM understood the underlying principles of the great holes and how he incorporated these principles into the golf holes at NGLA? Why have M&W travel all the way to Ardmore to check on the progress? Why give him final say on the routing? Why try to build a Redan like Macdonald had built? Why try to built an Alps like Macdonald had built? Why try to build a replica of the Eden green? Why include a number of other features and principles straight out of the CBM handbook. Why build a course where most of the holes were reportedly based on the great holes abroad (that Wilson had not yet seen?)
Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be.
___________________________________
Mike,
Once again you substitute your untenable theories for the words of those who were there. Show some respect for these men, will you? Wilson and a Committee were admittedly in way over their heads. Fortunately they had the good sense to go to the experts; Piper and Oakley for turf, Pickering for Construction, and Macdonald and Whigham for picking the first two, as well as for the routing and hole concepts. I'd have expected no less from these great men of Merion.
-
Mike Cirba,
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3471373510_ca84898387_o.jpg)
If, as you claim, Wilson's sole purpose for creating the large mound behind the 10th green, was to protect golfers from ball hit off the 1st tee, why did he wrap the large mound so far around the green ?
There is NO way a ball, hit from the 1st tee could approach that green from it's right flank, especially from the angle that protects the right rear and right mid-section of the green.
The wrap around nature of the large mound precludes the mound from being constructed solely for the purpose of protecting golfers on the 10th green, from tee shots from the 1st tee.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3565/3470579907_9e171f6452_b.jpg)
In addition, the fronting bunker IS an important feature in an "Alps" hole, especially the one found at NGLA, which Wilson was familiar with.
Initially, I doubted David's theory.
But, after further consideration and analysis, I don't think there's any doubt that this was Wilson's attempt to create his own "Alps" hole.
-
Mike,
The pictures you supplied would seem to confirm my premise, that there was an elevation differential that would cause golfers in the DZ to be unable to see the putting surface, the critical feature of an "Alps" hole.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3471852212_fb531444d4_o.jpg)
Notice the steps leading UP from Ardmore Ave to the fairway.
That elevation differential would prevent golfers in the DZ from viewing the putting surface.
In addition, the photo below seems to indicate that the gallery in front, (upper right) is at an elevation higher than those on the putting green. You can see them reclining and watching the golfers below them.
-
Mike & Dave, et. al,
Read the passage below, then interpolate it in the context of the photos of # 10
It seems obvious that Wilson's "Alps" was saddly lacking in comparison to the 3rd at NGLA and the 17th at Prestwick, and that Wilson was advised to STUDY the 17th at Prestwick since he was laboring under the impression that he had built a good "Alps".
"The writer spent a pleasant hour last Wednesday afternoon with Hugh I. Wilson, wandering over the new Merion golf course, which he has spent so much of his time on. His main object is to make this the king-pin course of Pennsylvania. I am not yet prepared to talk about the possibilities of this new place because it is really just growing, and Fred Pickering, the coursemaker, will give it the finishing touches in the late fall.
It will then be time to reveal to the world its features, etc. Wilson has just returned from a trip abroad. He visited all the leading courses, gathering what data he could anent the making of good golf holes. I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot.
But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great. Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, Hoylake, Sandwich, Deal and Princes, but was sadly disappointed in St. Andrew, which, in reality, is a myth.
-
David Moriarty:
Your post #412 just may be worth a thread, even if the specific subject just may be a bit up in the air at the moment!
-
Patrick,
In the picture below look at how many rows of spectators there are to the left of the green, and how they are much higher than the putting surface. One of the Flynn drawings indicates that this was also a bank with the green below.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3471852236_c1f475d884_o.jpg)
Mike speculates that the photo from left of the green was artificially elevated, probably from a tree(!) I doubt it. It seems just as likely that the photo was off of one of the mounds that no longer exist. In all of these photos it looks as if there may have been mounding left of the green.
As for the Findlay passage you quote, I think you have it just about correct. Wilson imagined he had already built an Alps hole at Merion. Findlay disagreed and told him to study Prestwick's Alps. This convinced Wilson that Merion's Alps needed a lot of work. But many of the others [holes at Merion] are really great. Oh yeah, it was cbm who laid out the others.
Wilson must have gotten to work, perhaps adding the front bunkers or building up the mounding in front. Whatever he did, by the time the course was ready to open three month's later Findlay was equating the second shot on Merion's hole Alps with that of Prestwick's.
-
Kyle Harris,
I'm inclined to think that the mound in back of old #10 served a dual purpose.
First, Patrick is correct re: the importance of a "backstop" mound on the Alps at Prestwick and, later, (and especially) at NGLA.
However, don't underestimate the distance on the ground that a hooked tee shot with the 1.62" ball could travel in those pre-watering system days - especially since the prevailing breeze at Merion would be right-to-left off the old first tee box. A big sweeping hook off #1 might not be going very fast when it got to the original 10th green, but I'll wager that many an errant drive of that description ended up on the back of that berm from 1912 to whenever they removed it after 1923.
-
David and Patrick,
With all due respect, I'm not sure which of your posts and theories are more certifiably insane.
Keep up the competition...I've had enough chuckles tonight to make my weekend! ;D
You guys don't have any UFO theories you'd like to share, do you? ;)
-
I have had a hard time following the exact trail of these threads - including this one.
However, if we could change the topic to discuss the precise minute details of the demise of Catherine the Great, I would be much more motivated to keep re-reading every last sentence until I thoroughly understood all the finer points of the dialogue.
Any interest?
-
Is it at all possible that everyone up to this point has TOTALLY misunderstood what was meant in describing the 10th as an "Alps" hole? Is it possible that the hole was designed with a Mid-Surrey Alpinization scheme, similar to what Tilly did at Shawnee?
I ask this because in the photo above in Pat Mucci's post #414 it is quite obvious that there are a number of small mounds in the left rough between the front of the photo and where the spectators line up.
In line with this, Tilly would write just a year after Merion opened that HE had introduced the "Mid-Surrey" style of Alpinization (areas in rough that contained numbers of small mounds) to America at Shawnee. Could it be then, that the "Alps" that Wilson had initially tried to imitate was this style? He most certainly would have been over to see Shawnee and spoken to Tilly about what he was doing with his first course design.
Interestingly, several photographs (admittedly not very clear) found on the Royal prestwick site of the 17th green from 100 years ago, seem to show small moundings left of it. I may be seeing it wrong in these and am quite curious now about that aspect of its potential design.
It would certainly explain a great deal...
-
"Your time line asks us to believe that M&W were not responsible for the routing or hole concepts because they were only on site in June 1910 then again in April 1911. Among the many problems with your time line is that it completely ignores the fact that Wilson and his Committee went to NGLA for two days in March 1911 for help. You've tried to brush this meeting aside but your explanation defies common sense. We aren't required to suspend common sense because you tell us to, are we?
Based on what we know, here is likely what happened arund the time of the NGLA meeting . . ."
David Moriarty:
I've explained precisely what Wilson and his committee REPORTED they did while at NGLA. I'll leave it to you to speculate on things Wilson and his committee did at NGLA that were not mentioned in their report.
-
"But let's assume for argument that this is all they did; looked at sketches CBM had used for NGLA, and examined the course itself. This still begs a crucial question. Why?
Why travel to NGLA at all? Why learn how CBM understood the underlying principles of the great holes and how he incorporated these principles into the golf holes at NGLA? Why have M&W travel all the way to Ardmore to check on the progress? Why give him final say on the routing? Why try to build a Redan like Macdonald had built? Why try to built an Alps like Macdonald had built? Why try to build a replica of the Eden green? Why include a number of other features and principles straight out of the CBM handbook. Why build a course where most of the holes were reportedly based on the great holes abroad (that Wilson had not yet seen?)
Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."
David Moriarty:
Let's assume for the sake of argument??
I don't see why we need to assume anything as the Wilson Committee report was specific in reporting what they did at NGLA and why and I certainly don't see why we need to assume something for the sake of argument about what they did there and why that was not reported by the Wilson Committee unless arguing and argument is all your interested in with these many Merion threads which your content indicates is all you are interested in.
None of this is about what really happened at MCC anyway; it's now merely about you continuing to just argue. Unfortunately you're continuing to argue a contention that has now been debunked.
There isn't even a thing in the year long MCC and committee reports that even hints that Merion even asked Macdonald/Whigam to route and design a golf course for them. That was what the Wilson committee was created to do, and charged by their club with doing.
You've speculated and rationalized that all Merion asked Wilson and his committee to do was BUILD the course to someone else's plan. It's really hard to believe that you're even incapable of understanding and accepting that men like Wilson, Lloyd, Griscom, Toulmin and Francis weren't the kind of men who BUILD golf courses themselves. That's what they hired the Johnson Co. and Pickering to do for them. If they weren't actually building a golf course and they hadn't routed and designed a golf course what do you think they actually were doing----just standing around watching people they hired BUILD a golf course to a plan they did not create?? Obviously to anyone with a shred of understanding about golf course architecture that makes no sense at all, David Moriarty. Therefore, your illogical years long contention that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East makes no sense whatsoever, as it would have Wilson and his committee basically doing nothing themselves. This alone is some basic stuff and it alone shows why your theory is entirely wanting and fallacious.
Did Macdonald/Whigam make some suggestions during that single day in April which was the only time available to them with plans of the course in front of them? They most certainly may've done that but nothing was ever specifically recorded in that vein about the architecture. But it most certainly would've been a complete impossibility for Macdonald/Whigam to just route and design the holes of Merion East in that single day and had they done something like that and a plan like that was sent to the board for approval I have no doubt at all the MCC meeting minutes would have clearly reflected such a thing. And I have no doubt at all such a thing would've been reflected in Alan Wilson's report to William Philler, a report I consider perhaps the best example of what really did happen at MCC in the beginning and who was in the main responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses.
But they don't reflect what you contend at all, and the reason why is pretty obvious. The only way you can possibly contend that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were even the driving force behind it is to continue to contend that all those men back then who were part of all these things were somehow mistaken or telling some fabrication, and I really don't believe anyone on this website or anywhere else for that matter if they honestly consider this would agree with such a notion or even continue to pursue a discussion of it.
-
I don't think it makes a hill of a beans of difference, but deciding if the 10th was blind or not probably depends on if one believes seeing the pin constitutes a blind shot or not. Given the uphill nature of the approach, not that much uphill for sure, but with a fronting bunking and what seems to me a bit of a sunken - bowl like green, I find it entirely plausible that only the pin was visible from the approach area. One could have used the back bunker to gauge where on the green the pin was. IMO, seeing the pin is not a blind shot.
As for the mounding creating the bowl like effect, I have to believe this is an integral pat of the Alps design as it was interpreted by Wilson. Perhaps it also served as a safety buffer from the 1st, but I think this would be very much a secondary consideration. Furthermore, the bank also houses the rear bunker which I also think is an integral part of the Alps design as interpreted by Wilson to help mitigate the blindness without making at least a significant portion of the green visible from the approach area.
Ciao
-
Phil:
You're probably right in that back then there seems to have been a number of terms that may've been used interchangeably and by various people to indicate just about the same thing----ie "Alps", "Himalayas," "Mid-Surrey mounds," "dolomites" etc, etc, etc.
It really doesn't do us much good today to argue endlessly about the meaning of those words to some of those men back then who used them and it certainly does us no good today to listen to someone call Robert Lesley an idiot for using the term "Alps" for Merion's original tenth hole as Patrick Mucci once did on a thread on here. ;)
-
Fellows,
Robert Lesley tells us exactly what the hole was designed to be.
It was not built to be an Alps in the way we think and as Macdonald built; it was designed to be "in principle" an Alps hole and then goes on to describe exactly what they thought that meant.
Blindness was not a part of it.
-
I should slightly qualify that statement...it would be blind if the drive didn't make it to the crest of the hill, but then so is today's 10th blind if one fails to drive it about 180 yards.
However, I aint never heard nobody calling today:a 10th at Merion no Alps.
-
MikeC:
You are right to remind the participants on this site what Robert Lesley actually did say and mean when he described Merion's #10 back then.
The reason I say that is because if you or someone doesn't constantly remind the participants on this site of that they tend to just skew out in semi-meaningless directions to try to make some other point which is essentially irrelevent to what Merion's original Alps hole once was.
I think Moriarty did this on here initially as one of a number of ways to open the door to insert this preconceived notion of his that Macdonald's part in Merion had been minimized somehow and that Wilson's had been inaccurately glorified somehow.
And of course, Patrick Mucci said on one of these threads that Lesley was an idiot to desrcribe the original 10th at Merion as an Alps the way he did. ;) I'm quite sure Robert Lesley, the Golf Chairman of Merion, neither knew nor would've given one Good God-damn what Patrick Mucci's definition of an Alps hole at Merion or anywhere else was! I'm also quite sure Lesley's opinion of Mucci would've been about the same thing as Mucci's opinion of Lesley!
And I'm also quite sure, at this point, that Lesley's opinion of Moriarty would've been about the same thing as the opinions are of Moriarty of Lesley's present counterparts at Merion! ;)
-
Fellows,
Robert Lesley tells us exactly what the hole was designed to be.
It was not built to be an Alps in the way we think and as Macdonald built; it was designed to be "in principle" an Alps hole and then goes on to describe exactly what they thought that meant.
Blindness was not a part of it.
Mike
Do we know how Leslie defined blindness? I know many on this site consider a shot blind if the surface of the green, but the pin can be seen. I disagree, but it drives home the point of having to know what people mean when they use certain words. Often times we make assumptions based on our own use of words. For instance, if someone states that the hole is an Alps to me, I assume blindness is a key aspect of the design. I would also assume that one must carry a rather high obstacle which would make a ground game approach impossible. In other words, the approach is all carry and there is no other option. So to me, Leslie was mistaken in his use of the term "Alps" and this in and of itself throws doubt into what existed and what the intent of the design was.
Ciao
-
Sean Arble:
If you really want to know what Lesley meant by blindness or the degree of it in what he said about the original 10th, the Alps hole at Merion there is a very easy way to know what he meant and some of us who've been around Merion for years are able to understand exactly what he meant. In other words, despite what some on here say or have said about this and the realities of it those same people are just not as familiar as some of us are in comparing photographs of that hole with the land it was on. They can tell anyone otherwise but those things and one's own eyes right there on the ground analyzing these thing just don't lie.
But on the other hand, others on here can just continue to argue over the definition of his remark in a vacuum of not understanding that actual landform and those early photographs compared with it.
They can even try to use GOOGLE Earth and it's measuring or topographical tool but that will never be anywhere near as effective and accurate as being right there on that landform looking at it with those old photographs in hand! ;)
-
Adam Messix asked:
"It leads me to a question for all....Looking at that picture and of other pictures taken even closer to the opening of the course in 1912, stylistically what do those holes look like? I'm asking in regards to bunker style as much as anything."
Adam:
This of course is a really great question and a pretty fundamental one for some of us who've been around Merion and studying its architecture for years.
It is made more pertinent, at least to me, in that for a number of years Ron Prichard has maintained that he believes the prototypic bunker style that became basically the generic American bunker type and style came out of Merion East.
Personally, I think this is true but the best or perhaps only way to even recognize this fact and to test it is to determine both if and to what degree that Merion East bunker type and style was different from anything that came before it on inland courses anywhere in the world, or even perhaps any other course anywhere in the world.
I think it was unique when first done at Merion but of course the process of trying to find something somewhere that preceded it that was done artificially is still an on-going process and search.
There actually are some bunker photos of NGLA very early on that do look a good deal like what Wilson and committee would use at Merion and seemingly make famous ("The White Faces of Merion). But I think the point is those bunkers and certainly the look and style of them in those early photos of NGLA (there are many of those photos contained in some photo albums at NGLA) would not remain that way or look that way at NGLA for long. Macdonald definitely evolved them and changed them and their look over time and seemingly very much on purpose.
But the point is, what did Wilson and committee see and study when they were at NGLA back then in that two day visit to NGLA in MARCH 1911?!? That was still very early for NGLA itself and before its own opening!
They saw some bunkers that show up in those early NGLA photos that were remarkably similar to what would become famous at Merion East and would in fact not last at NGLA in that look and style!
Matter of fact, there are a few photos of the 2nd hole at NGLA that clearly show exactly how Macdonald did change and evolve their style and look from what it once was shortly after construction and perhaps BEFORE he evolved them into what he wanted them to be and to look like ideally.
-
TEPaul,
You haven't told me PRECISELY what Wilson and his Committee reported. [I wasn't aware they reported anything. Wasn't it Lesley who reported to the Board?]
What you have told me is what you think Lesley's report to the board meant, and then used that to conclude that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense, given all else we know.
You still have not answered the crucial questions. Why?
- Why travel to NGLA at all?
- Why learn how CBM understood the underlying principles of the great holes and how he incorporated these principles into the golf holes at NGLA?
- Why have M&W travel all the way to Ardmore to check on the progress?
- Why give him final say on the routing?
- Why try to build a Redan like Macdonald had built?
- Why try to build an Alps like Macdonald had built?
- Why try to build a replica of the Eden green?
- Why include a number of other features and principles straight out of the CBM handbook?
- Why build a course where almost all of the holes were reportedly based on great holes abroad when Wilson had not even seen them?
Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be.
____________________
Mike,
Your rehash of the blindness debate is a waste of time. Lesley's essay does not support your conclusion. Others directly contradict it.
________________________________
Phillip,
If Wilson was going for Alpinization like AWT's, it seems more likely to me that that this would have occurred after he returned from Europe in May 1912, and would have been an addition to his attempt at a CBM type Alps hole, perhaps to add to the blindness of the second shot. I think Far and Sure (?) reported that after his trip he did add some nice mounding to the course, so perhaps this is to what he was referring.
Even if we allow for some debate on what Findlay meant in his June 1912 article, I think you had it right when you noted that Findlay ties Macdonald's influence to that particular hole.
____________________________
One thing that may be misleading about all these photos; the original line of play looks to have been to the left of the current line of play, approximately over the left fairway bunker or perhaps even left of this. Flynn drew the original hole as playing as a slight dogleg right. This would have brought the hill to the left of the green (and the mounds Phillip noticed) more into the direct line of play and would have increased dthe blindness.
-
"TEPaul,
You haven't told me PRECISELY what Wilson and his Committee reported. [I wasn't aware they reported anything. Wasn't it Lesley who reported to the Board?]
What you have told me is what you think Lesley's report to the board meant, and then used that to conclude that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense, given all else we know."
David Moriarty:
That's right, and for about the thirteenth time I'm not going to transcribe the MCC meeting minutes or the Wilson Committee report that was given by Lesley to the board to you or on here. I've told you that about a dozen times already but apparently you seem to understand exactly what that means about as well and you understand the architectural history of Merion.
And I also realize you weren't aware they reported anything. That's just another good reason why you shouldn't have even attempted to write the essay you did about Merion's history when you did it with wholly incomplete material and research. I've also told you that about a dozen times but you don't seem to understand that either any better than you do Merion's history.
I also never concluded that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. The only person who thinks I concluded that is you. What I said was the Wilson Committee report given to Lesley to present to the board mentions nothing at all about Wilson and his committee discussing Merion's layout while at NGLA. But the report does mention what they DID discuss with Macdonald and Whigam during that visit to NGLA. I already told you about a dozen times that it says they discussed Macdonald's plans and drawings from abroard FOR NGLA the first night and they went out on NGLA the next day and analyzed THAT course and discussed the golf course NGLA and apparently the principles behind ITS design.
That's also what I've said to you about a dozen times already but you seem to understand that about as well as you understand the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all after all this time.
I wonder why that is? ;)
-
"Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."
Absolutely. I don't think anyone that knows anything about Merion has ever denied that, particularly as the basic idea was to study and analyze THE PRINCIPLES of well respected holes abroad and put those principles into effect over here.
You definitely didn't think that one up for Merion, that's for sure. Herbert Warren Wind explained how Wilson had copied European architectural principles at Merion East but a whole lot more subtely than Macdonald did at NGLA, but MacWood and apparently you discounted or ignored that too. That's pretty amazing that MacWood or you would so blithely discount or disagree with a golf writer of the stature of HWW just because it doesn't agree with your fanciful notions.
But using some well respected architectural principles from abroad over here as Wilson and Merion did is a long, long way from assuming or concluding that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were the driving force behind it.
But maybe you've never understood that either any better than you understand the history of Merion.
Frankly, when it came to analyzing the principles of well respected architecture abroad and putting it into effect over here Macdonald wasn't even the first over here to think of that or do it; it's just that he was the most public and vocal about it and what he did very publicly IDENTIFIED which holes and hole principles were being used over here.
We know Herbert Leeds did the same thing with Myopia but about half a decade at least BEFORE Macdonald did NGLA. Leeds doesn't get much attention on here for it though since he was so much quieter about what he was doing and had done with Myopia and he didn't try to actually name what he learned over there with the same names of some of those holes over there.
I don't think you understand any of this any better than you do the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all.
-
David.
The shot was not blind.
At all.
Neither was the green sunken.
At all.
Look at the green surface in comparison to the surrounding land...if anything it's slightly elevated.
The large, 15 foot tall backing mound with the bunker embedded in it is vastly unlike any Mac Alps holes.
The cross bunker in front did have some earthen mounding built within it. But nothing tall enough to blind Mickey Rooney.
You say it must be the angle, yet you must not know the course very well because the photo taken from down in the valley by the 9th green is the EXACT angle one would approach the 10th green from if indeed it played as a slight dogleg right per Flynns drawing.
Yet that picture, taken from way below, clearly shows the BOTTOM of the rear bunker, which we know from the closeup photo is just above waisthigh of the average golfer standing on that green.
There were no blinding mounds front, left, or right, and you're contention that the photo taken from left of the green MUST have been taken by someone standing atop a giant mound has to take the cake as the most unintentionally humorous contention I've ever read on.GCA.
I do give you credit for attempting any angle possible to convince those who haven't been there or others with mere passing interest.
-
Two things that are true is that the hole was designed to capture "the principle" of an Alps which Lesley states requires a carry over a large cross bunker on the approach.
Also, the large mound behind the green served dual purposes, three if you want to count just looking ghastly and unnatural.
-
That's right, and for about the thirteenth time I'm not going to transcribe the MCC meeting minutes or the Wilson Committee report that was given by Lesley to the board to you or on here. I've told you that about a dozen times already but apparently you seem to understand exactly what that means about as well and you understand the architectural history of Merion.
And I also realize you weren't aware they reported anything. That's just another good reason why you shouldn't have even attempted to write the essay you did about Merion's history when you did it with wholly incomplete material and research. I've also told you that about a dozen times but you don't seem to understand that either any better than you do Merion's history.
I also never concluded that Merion's layout was never discussed at NGLA. The only person who thinks I concluded that is you. What I said was the Wilson Committee report given to Lesley to present to the board mentions nothing at all about Wilson and his committee discussing Merion's layout while at NGLA. But the report does mention what they DID discuss with Macdonald and Whigam during that visit to NGLA. I already told you about a dozen times that it says they discussed Macdonald's plans and drawings from abroard FOR NGLA the first night and they went out on NGLA the next day and analyzed THAT course and discussed the golf course NGLA and apparently the principles behind ITS design.
That's also what I've said to you about a dozen times already but you seem to understand that about as well as you understand the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all after all this time.
1. You will transcribe the minutes if you think it helps you, yet not this portion. I wonder why that is?
2. Scolding me for not obtaining information that you are hiding from me is a bit silly, even for you.
3. Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley? If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?
"Even by your understanding (with which I disagree), it is becoming apparent they were trying to build a course based on CBM's understandings of what a golf course should be."
Absolutely. I don't think anyone that knows anything about Merion has ever denied that, particularly as the basic idea was to study and analyze THE PRINCIPLES of well respected holes abroad and put those principles into effect over here.
You definitely didn't think that one up for Merion, that's for sure. Herbert Warren Wind explained how Wilson had copied European architectural principles at Merion East but a whole lot more subtely than Macdonald did at NGLA, but MacWood and apparently you discounted or ignored that too. That's pretty amazing that MacWood or you would so blithely discount or disagree with a golf writer of the stature of HWW just because it doesn't agree with your fanciful notions.
But using some well respected architectural principles from abroad over here as Wilson and Merion did is a long, long way from assuming or concluding that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East or were the driving force behind it.
But maybe you've never understood that either any better than you understand the history of Merion.
Frankly, when it came to analyzing the principles of well respected architecture abroad and putting it into effect over here Macdonald wasn't even the first over here to think of that or do it; it's just that he was the most public and vocal about it and what he did very publicly IDENTIFIED which holes and hole principles were being used over here.
We know Herbert Leeds did the same thing with Myopia but about half a decade at least BEFORE Macdonald did NGLA. Leeds doesn't get much attention on here for it though since he was so much quieter about what he was doing and had done with Myopia and he didn't try to actually name what he learned over there with the same names of some of those holes over there.
I don't think you understand any of this any better than you do the history of Merion which isn't much understanding at all.
I'm glad you finally agree that Merion was a cbm course, in the sense that it was based on CBM'S UNDERSTANDING of the principles of the great holes, and how they should be applied at Merion.
But all this you write about the great holes abroad is misleading. The great holes abroad were not even a direct source of information. It was CBM's understanding and application.
As for Mr. Wind's observations, I addressed them in my paper. While a brilliant writer, Mr. Wind made the same mistake you, Wayne, Merion and everyone else made for years. He didn't understand that CBM was the driving force behind the hole concepts (and their placement at Merion.) The hole concepts were directly from CBM, not from Wilson's experiences abroad.
________________________________
Mike,
Once again you ignore and misread the source material when it is inconvenient for you. I'll stick with those who were there.
-
David.
The shot was not blind.
At all.
Neither was the green sunken.
At all.
Look at the green surface in comparison to the surrounding land...if anything it's slightly elevated.
The large, 15 foot tall backing mound with the bunker embedded in it is vastly unlike any Mac Alps holes.
The cross bunker in front did have some earthen mounding built within it. But nothing tall enough to blind Mickey Rooney.
You say it must be the angle, yet you must not know the course very well because the photo taken from down in the valley by the 9th green is the EXACT angle one would approach the 10th green from if indeed it played as a slight dogleg right per Flynns drawing.
Yet that picture, taken from way below, clearly shows the BOTTOM of the rear bunker, which we know from the closeup photo is just above waisthigh of the average golfer standing on that green.
There were no blinding mounds front, left, or right, and you're contention that the photo taken from left of the green MUST have been taken by someone standing atop a giant mound has to take the cake as the most unintentionally humorous contention I've ever read on.GCA.
I do give you credit for attempting any angle possible to convince those who haven't been there or others with mere passing interest.
Mike
I don't know how you can say with absolute confidence that the approach to #10 wasn't blind - at the least for some of the hole locations. I certainly don't know, but I think it entirely possible. Look at the people in the pic below and tell me that green doesn't drop. I can readily accept that the back raised part of the green was likely visible. You haven't shown or said anything to prove your point.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3471852236_c1f475d884_o.jpg)
Ciao
-
If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design.
-
If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design.
I don't know what the intention was, but one thing is for sure, no matter what Lesley or CBM stated, an Alps that isn't blind isn't an Alps. Its just a meaningless name for a hole. Its preposterous to think that one of the key elements of a hole could be left out yet folks could think that the they have a good template of that original. Besides, what does the road have to do with whether or not the blind shot is good or not? Has anybody said traffic on the road couldn't be seen?
Ciao
-
" If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design."
Mayday:
The entire green-end and flag of the original #10 hole couldn't possibly have been blind like most other template Alps holes from Macdonald's pallette. I don't care how endlessly some on here try to rationalize the point that it was really blind all one has to do is go out there on that landform and it is immediately obvious from all that ground out there on both sides of the road that that green-end was never blind like most all Alps holes.
-
Sean,
That photo is take from just rightfront adjacent to the green and those people you see standing are on the rear mound, which also came around the left and right back edges slightly.
Check out this picture from short left of the same green. Look at the people left of the green, and then look at the land behind them in your foreground. The green is at the same level.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3471852212_fb531444d4_o.jpg)
Follow that land of the green out to the road. The green is actually elevated, before dropping a couple of steps to the road.
Check out the bottom line of the back bunker and it's relation to the players in both photos. Now see it again from well down in the valley across from the 9th green.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3471882204_e948917ec3_o.jpg)
The fairway is going up from the bottom right of the photo, between the gallery ropes.
You can clearly see the bottom line of the back bunker, all the way from down in the valley.
It was not a blind hole, at all.
-
Mike,
Your thought that, "If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design..." certainly makes a GREAT deal of sense today, but from before the teens and into the twenties it not only worked, but it happened more often than many realize.
For example, in the early 1920's Tilly designed a golf course on the private estate of movie mogul Adolph Zukor. The 1st hole is a long par-4 whose 2nd shot is played to a very blind green green that sits atop a hillside some 40-50 feet above the fairway. The road that the shot MUST be played over was almost solely used by Zukor at that time and rarely by any in the village. Today, this is a VERY active road that STILL must be played over, not once, but twice, as the 17th hole is downhill par-4. The local rule at the Dellwood CC, a private club that enjoys the use of the course, forbids anyone from hitting either driver or any other club that might possibly allow the ball to reach the road. Only a carefully watched second shot may be played over it.
Remember, in the 30 years of golf course growth from the early 1890's to the early 1920's, public and private roads impacted MANY golf course designs with shots being played over them considered a normal aspect of design. If you have any doubts simply go to the AAU site and peruse through early issues of GOLF & The American Golfer and you will see many examples of course designs with roads in them...
-
Both Mike Cirba and TEPaul used to agree that the hole was blind. Why the change of heart? The source material has not changed. In fact we now have more information indicating that the green was sunken and that the hole played almost identically to the second shot at Prestwick (Findlay's later article.)
Why is it suddenly so important to claim that the hole could not have been blind??
As for me, it doesn't matter. Those that were there thought it was an Alps hole. Those there thought it was a sunken green. At least some of those who were there thought it was blind. Far be it for me to tell them they were wrong. I wasn't there.
But for fun, here is a guess of what is going on. Not really a guess, because TEPaul outlined this a week or two ago. As it becomes more and more apparent that CBM was responsible for the hole concepts and placement at Merion, they will retreat and retrench once again, this time claiming that CBM was only responsible for things they do not like at Merion (namely this hole and the road crossings) yet they will try to deny his involvement in anything else. Don't believe me? Just watch, it has already started.
-
Mike,
No way that mound behind ten was built to protect golfers from errant first tee shots...
...that is unless golfers of that era could hit a snap hook about 290 yards and 80 yards offline!
Kyle,
Please see the following from the 1916 US Amateur program.
I believe it was also David who claimed that I was doing a disservice to history by suggesting that it was not only a backdrop to the 10th green but also probably more functionally a containment mound protecting the 10th green.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3553/3478178220_9452651b71_b.jpg)
EDIT*** David, just saw you post.
Please don't think I'll claim that any of the less than good holes of Merion's first iteration are anyone's responsibility but Hugh Wilson and committee.
I already said that they seemed to have some "oops" moments, especially on those holes where they tried too hard to copy some great hole somewhere else.
For instance, NOBODY liked the 15th green, or the original 8th.
We can see for ourselves that the 10th is sort of less than a great hole, under any honest assessment, and although the 3rd is a superb par three, it doesn't play at all like a redan.
Nevertheless, it was Wilson who was responsible for their creation, and he gets the credit where due as well as the blame where appropriate.
-
"1. You will transcribe the minutes if you think it helps you, yet not this portion. I wonder why that is?"
David Moriarty:
Help me? What does that mean? All I've ever been after is the truth of Merion's history as reflected by their records and their recorded and reported history continues to prove to be the truth after much additional research on our part. I tend not to discount and rationalize away the things the MCC board, the MCC minutes, the men of Merion, the committees, Hugh Wilson, and certainly including Alan Wilson's report says. That we all leave to people like you and it's pretty disappointing to say the least.
"2. Scolding me for not obtaining information that you are hiding from me is a bit silly, even for you."
We didn't even know MCC had these meeting minutes until after your essay came out. You know you should've researched all Merion's history, including these MCC meeting minutes if you were going to write an essay that said the things you did in it, and you know you should've done that BEFORE you put out that essay, not afterwards. I don't think you are a dumb guy, David Moriarty, more like an extremely clever one who probably felt you could actually convince people who knew something about Merion's history that something else actually happened. The real reasons you tried to do that in the first place is definitely not lost on us here and has been very obvious for a very long time.
To me you are nothing more than someone like a clever student in law school more interested in the techniques of arguing than in the actual factual history of Merion and who in the main did what and when. You can probably half fool some on here who don't know much about the details of Merion's history of that time and probably don't want to take the time to know it all in detail but you can certainly can never fool us or those at Merion who really do understand the details of Merion's history. And the latter are the ones you're up against here, not these people on this website who don't really know the details of the entire history or how to analyze it. You are up against some people who really know the details of the history, and the timeline of it and up against them you and your essay have failed miserably and will continue to fail miserably unless or until you finally admit to the obvious of the numerous things about that history that we've been trying to explain to you (and MacWood) for years now!
"3. Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley? If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?"
Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:
Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....
This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.
Since the wording of the report said 'your committee' and then said 'they' I just assumed that since Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee that the report was written by Wilson's committee who were the only ones with first hand knowledge of what they'd been doing through the winter and spring of 1911 and at NGLA (again Lesley was not part of Wilson's committee and apparently did not go with them to NGLA in early April 1911) and since Wilson was the chairman of the Wilson committee and chairman generally write reports for the committees they chair, I have assumed that Wilson probably wrote the report that was delivered to the board by Lesley, the chairman of the Golf Committee that the Wilson committee apparently worked and operated under. But I don't know that for sure and I admit that another member of the Wilson committee may've actually written the Wilson Committee report although I can't exactly imagine why another would have rather than Wilson himself.
If you haven't figured this out for yourself at this point, Hugh Wilson was clearly a very efficient and organized man in these kinds of things and his app. 1000 agronomy letters makes that very loud and clear!
Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?
No, I didn't think so! :'( ;)
-
Philip,
I'm aware of shots over public roads. A blind approach intended as the play for most golfers would be a weakness ,imo, even then. To make it the critical component of its "aplsness" is a bad idea.
-
David,
I did think that perhaps the hole was blind, especially for a drive not reaching the crest of the hill.
Then, when I saw the top photo I just posted and really studied it, I saw that the surface of the green was actually a bit raised from the land in the foreground of the picture...the natural surrounds. It only appears sunken because of the huge mound behind, which extends on each side to encircle the rear sides of the green as well. There is also mounding behind the bunker on the right.
THEN, when I saw the picture taken from the 9th green area, with the bottom of the back bunker very clearly evident, I realized that it was impossible for the approach to have been blind.
I was wrong prior, but will at least admit what my eyes plainly see.
-
MikeC:
I've been in that area a thousand times over the years (how many times have you been there David Moriarty? Once at most? ) and believe me there is no way an approach after a decent drive up the hill could be totally blind to a green on the other side of the road if some fairly immense mound was not created in front of that green which it clearly never was. By the way, the photograph from around the 9th green looking up at the original 10th hole was not taken from the ninth green but from the hillside to the right of the creek around the 9th green and somewhat above the 9th green.
-
"Both Mike Cirba and TEPaul used to agree that the hole was blind. Why the change of heart? The source material has not changed. In fact we now have more information indicating that the green was sunken and that the hole played almost identically to the second shot at Prestwick (Findlay's later article.)"
David Moriarty:
Not a single time---not EVER have I said, claimed or implied, not on any of these Merion threads going back some years now, that the original 10th green could have been totally blind---most certainly not from up the hill on the tenth fairway to a green across the street where that green was which never had a manufactured mound in front of it which it clearly never did.
I know that because I've probably been on that ground a thousand times and I know it like the back of my hand and you've been on it how many times----once?? ;)
Moriarty, I am really sick and tired of you saying things constantly on these Merion threads and now more than ever that people said on here that they never said at all just to continue to make some bullshit irrelevent and argumentative point of yours.
I hereby call you out on this to show this thread and this website WHERE I EVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING THAT IMPLIED IT (that you just claimed above that I did. Maybe Mike Cirba did at some point but I never did)!!
You better find where I said something like that (which of course you are never going to be able to do) and show it on this thread or just admit to me and the participants of this thread and site that I never said such a thing, because if you don't I can't possible see why I don't have every good right and reason to tell you that you are either a pretty stupid fellow or just a preconceived liar!!
If you try to skate around this one and just avoid it and try to pretend there is nothing much to what you said above in this vein, as you have been doing so often in the past, I guarantee you I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR on this website and again for every good and right reason to do so!
-
Fellows,
Robert Lesley tells us exactly what the hole was designed to be.
It was not built to be an Alps in the way we think, and as MacDonald built.
Mike, Why do you presume to know what we think and why do you presume that our thoughts can be collectivized into one single thought in harmony with all of the individual thoughts ?
You presume conclusions that are false, and then base your premise on those false conclusions.
NOONE, I repeat NOONE on this site has EVER suggested that the 10th at Merion was intended to be a replica of # 3 at NGLA.
For you to allege that it was, is disengenuous AND false.
it was designed to be "in principle" an Alps hole and then goes on to describe exactly what they thought that meant.
We KNOW that.
Why did it take you so long to realize that ?
Blindness was not a part of it.
I disagree with that.
The photos YOU presented refute your own position.
-
If the original #10 was intended to be blind it would certainly have been a silly hole. Forcing a blind uphill shot over a public road is lousy design.
Obviously, you've never played the 8th and 11th holes at NGLA.
-
Pat,
Are those NGLA blind shots up hill?
-
MikeC:
I've been in that area a thousand times over the years (how many times have you been there David Moriarty? Once at most? ) and believe me there is no way an approach after a decent drive up the hill could be totally blind to a green on the other side of the road if some fairly immense mound was not created in front of that green which it clearly never was. By the way, the photograph from around the 9th green looking up at the original 10th hole was not taken from the ninth green but from the hillside to the right of the creek around the 9th green and somewhat above the 9th green.
Tom,
I stated the first time I posted that picture that it was taken from somewhere on the hillside to the right of the 9th green.
In the very beginning, several years ago, when I was less familiar with that specific part of the property, I believe I stated that the approach may have been blind, particularly thinking golfers in 1912 might not be able to carry up to the top of the hill (of course, if you can't make that carry, today's 10th green would be blind as well).
Since then, we've obviously all studied that area a lot, and other pictures from that time period have surfaced, which make clear that the hole was not blind, nor was the green sunken....in fact, the green was raised up significantly beyond the road and bunker. It just appears to be in a depression because the earthworks around the back and sides are so abrupt.
Patrick,
Are you still trying to tell us the approach was blind?
Perhaps only to men who will not see. ;) ;D
Please do explain, because I have no idea how you can say that. :o
-
I'm not sure how a "sunken green" rises 8 feet from the front bunker and presumably the road, not to mention "Level from 250 yards from the tee to the green".
Someone will undoubtedly argue that the earthwork mounding in the fronting bunker somehow made the shot blind, but that's impossible as we can clearly see the bottom-line of the rear bunker on the photo taken from down in the valley on the hillside opposite the 9th green.
If those mounds were in any way obtrusive to the approach, at least some of that bottom-line would have been obstructed in the photo. NONE of it is.
By the way, the drawings in question are by one William Flynn.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3477747531_10c26ee865_o.jpg)
-
Something pretty wild just occurred to me.
We now have pictures of what that hole and approach looked like in Sept/Oct 1912, a full EIGHTEEN MONTHS after Macdonald made his last visit to Merion.
Please remember that the huge mound in question is behind the green, and it's obvious there are no bunkers behind embedded in that mound, although it's difficult to see if anything lies in front of the green. In any case, there are no blinding features short of the green.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3537/3469255895_69e733a0d4_o.jpg)
Next, we have a photo of the same hole from down on the hillside to the left and below the 10th tee. Despite not having the same visual advantage as someone standing on the 10th tee, we can see the huge mound behind the green, with a bunker embedded in the face, and we can also see some sand flashing of a fronting bunker, as drawn on the William Flynn sketch.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3471882204_e948917ec3_o.jpg)
Finally, it's 1925, and the original Alps hole has been abandoned, with a new green in it's place. Per Bradley Anderson's thread, we can however still very clearly see the HUGE mound behind the green, now with he embedded bunker overgrown, and we can also see, much like the earlier aerial I posted, that the front bunker is no longer visible, as well, as grass has overtaken the sand.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3469215183_89b07d5e9b_o.jpg)
Aerial from 1924
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3471373510_ca84898387_o.jpg)
Aerial from 1925 (note the grass overtaking the front bunker)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3471373540_8f0daec8c4_o.jpg)
Finally, here's a 1924 aerial that provides a very telling view of exactly how much in-play the 10th green would have been for the 335 yard first hole.
In this photo one can also see the original 12th greensite across the road, as well as how tightly all these holes had to be packed together on the 120 acres of L-shaped, clay-based, public-road-intersected property that was recommended as the site of a first class, 6000 yards maximum course by Macdonald, Whigham, and Barker.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3477947035_4e581fae58_o.jpg)
-
"Something pretty wild just occurred to me.
We now have pictures of what that hole and approach looked like in Sept/Oct 1912, a full EIGHTEEN MONTHS after Macdonald made his last visit to Merion.
Please remember that the huge mound in question is behind the green, and it's obvious there are no bunkers behind embedded in that mound, although it's difficult to see if anything lies in front of the green. In any case, there are no blinding features short of the green."
Michael:
There never were any totally blinding features in front of that green. Don't you realize the collective wealth of the photographic evidence shows that loud and clear for those who understand how to analyze it??? Just focus on that alone and not any of this argumentative garbage the likes of Moriarty foists on these threads.
-
We didn't even know MCC had these meeting minutes until after your essay came out. You know you should've researched all Merion's history, including these MCC meeting minutes if you were going to write an essay that said the things you did in it, and you know you should've done that BEFORE you put out that essay, not afterwards. I don't think you are a dumb guy, David Moriarty, more like an extremely clever one who probably felt you could actually convince people who knew something about Merion's history that something else actually happened. The real reasons you tried to do that in the first place is definitely not lost on us here and has been very obvious for a very long time.
We've covered this Tom.
- Unlike you guys, I knew that MCC had the minutes long before my essay came out.
- Unlike you guys, I tried to get a look at them.
- Unlike you guys, I don't have the right passwords or bloodlines to be allowed the privilege.
- I've been very clear from the beginning that one of my goals in with this essay was to force the issue and to bring out the source material that I could not access. That's why I am so glad that Joe Bausch is around. The more information the better. But if you guys really wanted the full truth out we'd have seen those documents long ago.
"3. Do you have a copy of the report that you say Wilson wrote for Lesley? If so, on what basis do you claim the report was written by Wilson?"
Good question indeed. I do have the report and it does not say it was written by Wilson and it is not signed by Wilson. It merely says:
Golf Committee through Mr Lesley, report (sic) as follows on the new Golf Grounds.
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the ground they went down to the National.....
This is all contained within the April 19, 1911 MCC board meeting minutes.
So you don't know for certain whether Wilson wrote the report, yet you claimed you had a Wilson report anyway, based on a bunch of assumptions? Typical. Assumptions are fine, but you've got to provide their basis, and that is what you guys have repeatedly failed to do.
By the way, if one had to surmise from what you transcribed above, one would have to surmise that they went down to NGLA for help planning the layout. But this is pretty obvious.
Have you ever even belonged to a golf club, David Moriarty, and do you even have a modicum of personal experience in things like this with these kinds of private clubs, how they work, how their committees work and function and report and so forth and so on?
No, I didn't think so! :'( ;)
You got me there Tom. My family didn't provide me with a handful of private golf club memberships for me to fritter away, and I haven't tried to join any. When it comes to silver spoons and privileges, you've got me beat. Fortunately for me, my lack of club status has probably helped more than it has hurt. As for your inherited memberships, too bad for you that they did not come with a modicum of manners.
-
"Both Mike Cirba and TEPaul used to agree that the hole was blind. Why the change of heart? The source material has not changed. In fact we now have more information indicating that the green was sunken and that the hole played almost identically to the second shot at Prestwick (Findlay's later article.)"
David Moriarty:
Not a single time---not EVER have I said, claimed or implied, not on any of these Merion threads going back some years now, that the original 10th green could have been totally blind---most certainly not from up the hill on the tenth fairway to a green across the street where that green was which never had a manufactured mound in front of it which it clearly never did.
I know that because I've probably been on that ground a thousand times and I know it like the back of my hand and you've been on it how many times----once?? ;)
Moriarty, I am really sick and tired of you saying things constantly on these Merion threads and now more than ever that people said on here that they never said at all just to continue to make some bullshit irrelevent and argumentative point of yours.
I hereby call you out on this to show this thread and this website WHERE I EVER SAID THAT OR ANYTHING THAT IMPLIED IT (that you just claimed above that I did. Maybe Mike Cirba did at some point but I never did)!!
You better find where I said something like that (which of course you are never going to be able to do) and show it on this thread or just admit to me and the participants of this thread and site that I never said such a thing, because if you don't I can't possible see why I don't have every good right and reason to tell you that you are either a pretty stupid fellow or just a preconceived liar!!
If you try to skate around this one and just avoid it and try to pretend there is nothing much to what you said above in this vein, as you have been doing so often in the past, I guarantee you I WILL CALL YOU A LIAR on this website and again for every good and right reason to do so!
Liar? Stupid? You need to grow up Tom. You are starting to sound like your friend Wayne.
Here is your quote. You need to start acting like a gentleman. You are embarrassing us all.
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.
-
Mike,
Reread the quote from the 1916 program on the 10th hole. The ground sloped down to the green, not up. Same as to the left and behind. Wayne made the same mistake, which I tried to explain to him, but to no avail.
Also, the 1916 Program doesn't say what you say it says with regard to whether or not the berm was built to protect golfers.
-
Mike,
Reread the quote from the 1916 program on the 10th hole. The ground sloped down to the green, not up. Same as to the left and behind. Wayne made the same mistake, which I tried to explain to him, but to no avail.
Also, the 1916 Program doesn't say what you say it says with regard to whether or not the berm was built to protect golfers.
David
By looking at the people along the side of the photo of #10 it is very clear to me that the green slopes down from the bunker (which fits the text description despite Mike C's claims) then rises gradually back up. Again, I can't say for certain (and I don't now how Mike or Tom can either), but I think the front of the green may have offered the golfer only a view of the pin if it was a tall one and the back of the green was probably much more visible. As stated before, the key to the discussion is how people define blind.
This discussion is indicative of how the entire Merion theads have been going. Neither side willing to bend when it is very obvious that there are many unanswered questions. I happen to believe the overall story that Wilson was the man, but its entrenched attitudes which make the learning process in this case so much slower than it need be.
Ciao
Ciao
-
Mike,
Reread the quote from the 1916 program on the 10th hole. The ground sloped down to the green, not up. Same as to the left and behind. Wayne made the same mistake, which I tried to explain to him, but to no avail.
Also, the 1916 Program doesn't say what you say it says with regard to whether or not the berm was built to protect golfers.
David
By looking at the people along the side of the photo of #10 it is very clear to me that the green slopes down from the bunker (which fits the text description despite Mike C's claims) then rises gradually back up. Again, I can't say for certain (and I don't now how Mike or Tom can either), but I think the front of the green may have offered the golfer only a view of the pin if it was a tall one and the back of the green was probably much more visible. As stated before, the key to the discussion is how people define blind.
This discussion is indicative of how the entire Merion theads have been going. Neither side willing to bend when it is very obvious that there are many unanswered questions. I happen to believe the overall story that Wilson was the man, but its entrenched attitudes which make the learning process in this case so much slower than it need be.
Ciao
Ciao
Sean, It is impossible for me to say whether the shot was entirely blind or not, and I don't think it matters one bit. But I just cannot play along with substituting our interpretations for theirs, and that is what is going on here. It is just like our discussions with the supposed redan hole. It doesnt matter what you or I think. Likewise, so far as I can tell this was considered an Alps hole, and was apparently considered to be a good one by some at least.
The reason these things go so slow is every single chip in the old legend has been fought and fought and fought, no matter how much support is offered, and these guys are beyond reasonable conversation on this stuff. I mean come on! I just got called "stupid" and a "liar" because I correctly recalled something TEPaul said a few years ago. Earlier today I got called "dickhead" out of the blue on a thread that had nothing to do Merion. This kind of garbage is the problem with these threads, and the problem with this site.
-
Ohhhhhhhhh...now I get it!
The green DROPPED EIGHT FEET from the fronting bunker!!!
I should have realized it being a Macdonald hole and all that he was going for the combo Alps-Biarritz here!
Why,,,,down, down, down in that deep dank pit eight feet under, its a wonder you can even see those golfers in the photo!!
What a stupid I am!
Also should have realized that a master of deception like Macdonald could have created a magical fronting mound that was daunting to the golfer yet somehow like a vampire was invisible in photographs!!!
I wonder if it required maintenance or if it magically mowed itself??
Sean,
The front wall of the front bunker appears to have a raised upslope a few feet. I would imagine to a very front hole location the bottom of the flagstick might not be completely visible but we also know that front portion couldn't be very high, much less eight feet, as it doesn't even obscure the bottom line of the back bunker in a photo taken from well below.
-
David Moriarty:
Re: the statement I made that you quoted, I think you pretty much need to understand the ground at Merion better as we do or you need to start reading posts on here better so you don't continuously misunderstand and miscontrue what people say on here. For starters from my quote above it looks like you either need to get out to Merion's old tenth area and look it over carefully as we have or else begin to understand the vast difference between a blind putting surface to an approach shot and an entirely blind green as is the case with most all Alps holes done over here by the likes of Leeds and Macdonald but which was definitely not the case with Merion's old tenth if it did not have some massive mound in front of it which it never did have.
Failing that, and given the things you state people say on here is going to make you look like a liar. In this case you probably aren't but it's pretty clear you aren't capable of reading very well and understanding what people write on here. I guess the reason why is pretty clear too with what I say since you've mentioned a number of times you don't even read my posts. No wonder you continuously misconstrue what I say. ;)
-
"By the way, if one had to surmise from what you transcribed above, one would have to surmise that they went down to NGLA for help planning the layout. But this is pretty obvious."
David Moriarty:
Yes, one can SURMISE just about anything, and you have certainly shown you're very good at that with your essay and your preconceived agenda to prove Macdonald routed and designed Merion East which he very clearly never did do because the massive wealth of evidence available has always indicated Wilson and his committee did that and even numerous times in the winter and spring of 1911.
I have always contended all these years on these Merion threads that the best available information of what happened back then at Merion is contained in Alan Wilson's report in which he stated that to a man Wilson's own committee stated that Hugh Wilson in the main was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses.
You can continue to discount, ignore or rationalize that away but we don't do that and either does Merion; we and they never have because there is no reason to. So you can continue to over-argue basically irrelevent points here and there but you will never get around the fact of and truth of Alan Wilson's report. And that's just for starters, as it has always been on these Merion threads with you. Wilson's report was not just some incidental musings on his part either. His report was a request from the man writing the history of MCC; a man who had for years been MCC's treasurer and secretary.
You may still think those things are inaccurate but we don't and either does Merion. To us this is essentially the crux of this entire matter, always has been, and to date you have provided absolutely nothing at all that calls into question the credibility of important material of just this kind. If you don't or can't provide something or anything in this vein, these Merion threads will just continue to be the useless discussion and argument they have always been.
-
I still just don't understand why all this discussion and argument of the degree of blindness of the old tenth hole at Merion continues to go on. What is the point of any of it? I don't get it. Does anyone on here think that says a single thing about who was responsible for routing and designing that golf hole or Merion East? And if someone on here still thinks that would they mind explaining to me how the degree of blindness of that hole can say anything at all or even imply who routed and designed the hole or the course?
Thanks
-
"We've covered this Tom.
- Unlike you guys, I knew that MCC had the minutes long before my essay came out."
David Moriarty:
Did you indeed?!?
Would you mind explaining to us how you knew that over a year ago before your essay came out since I'm not aware that even Merion G.C. knew those meeting minutes, correspondences and report from Wilson's committee were even still over at MCC? This sounds to me like your pack of lies and blatant distortions are just continuing to grow in this mind-bending campaign of yours to prove something that never happened.
-
HINT:
"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course."
Richard Francis, Merion member, Wilson Committee member (their professional engineer/surveyor).
Do you think instead of going on page after page arguing over fairly irrelevent issues like the degree of blindness of #10 or even what "others" meant in Findlay's largely unclear article, that perhaps you all should focus on this!? This man was not some occasional and indirect reporter as Findlay was. This guy was there on and with the committee throughout the entire thing in 1911. Dismiss or ignore this or rationalize it away somehow as Moriarty has done and you run the risk of just not understanding the details of what the Wilson Committee did and when.
"Except for MANY HOURS OVER A DRAWING BOARD, RUNNING INSTRUMENTS IN THE FIELD AND JUST PLAIN TALKING....."
Hmmm!
Sounds pretty indicative to me about what was happening with the Wilson Committee at Ardmore in the beginning of 1911. Where was Macdonald/Whigam during this time? ;)
This is some of the valuable first-hand material detail that Merion East's architectural history is from and it just can't be ignored or discounted or rationalized away anymore. What has Moriarty's response been to this and what will he say when he sees it on here again? Probably what he always says; "We've been over this before."
We have and because it doesn't fit into his tortured logic and conclusion, he just continues to claim that Francis must have been wrong somehow as he also claimed that Alan Wilson must have been wrong somehow in his report to the long-term secretary/treasurer of MCC who was attempting to write MCC's first history. He even claimed that a surveyor's map of the property by a professional surveyor that was given to MCC's membership was wrong when a part of it didn't conform to the tortured time-line logic he tried to foist on this entire subject.
That just doesn't work for us and it sure doesn't work for Merion. This material has got to be considered just as it was written----the facts from a man who was right there with them on the ground throughout.
He thinks we've been through all this? Not at all, and not well enough apparently.
If anyone really wants to know the true history of a golf club's architecture they just don't dismiss stuff like this as David Moriarty has done in his essay and continues to do on here.
-
Mike Cirba,
Your hyperbolic indignation to the contrary, the article just doesn't say that the ground rises 8 feet to the green. You and Wayne just pretend it does because you want it to.
It says that the ground slopes eight feet from the bunkers to the green, and that this is the same slope as in front and back. One can see in the photos that the green is sunken and that the ground slopes down the green on at least three sides. Is it eight vertical feet in front? It does not look it in the photos, but then we cannot see the entire front bunker complex so who knows? Between the rise up from the road (we can see 5 steps, and we cannot even see if their are more steps lower) and any mounding in the bunkers, it could be eight feet, or close to it. But whether it is or not, I have no idea. And don't really care.
I don't understand why you think this is so important. It has been talked to death. As I have said, I don't think it matters one bit.
_______________________
TEPaul,
Once again, you are out of control. If you want to discuss this stuff with me, then you need grow up. A lot. If you cannot have a conversation without temper tantrums, name calling, and extremely boorish behavior, you need to find a new hobby.
Why Ran and Ben allow you to continue to embarrass yourself and all of us on their website is really beyond me. This is how you behave as their guest?? Pathetic.
-
David Morarty,
If you can swing it, I'd really suggest you try to visit during the Walker Cup this summer. I may be naive, but I think a personal visit might have you thinking that there's really not much (if any) CBM out there.
http://www.2009walkercup.org/cms/
-
"David Moriarty, it will do you no good at all on these threads to continue to deflect the focus away from your tortured logic and distorted assumptions and conclusions on this entire issue of Merion, Wilson and Macdonald, by trying to constantly shift the focus onto me or blame me for the reaction to the things you have written and said about Merion. What you need to do is learn how to take responsibility yourself for the things you have said and written on here on that subject.
We are going to go back through all this, point by timeline point, but this time with some others on here who are now apparently willing to engage and both understand and appreciate not just what has happened here but also why.
I will be civil throughout and when all is said and done I feel this website will be treated to a very fine example of how not to broach, and research and write about an important architectural subject such as Merion and its architect and architectural history.
-
Interesting stuff.
Mr Findlay wrote "there are a few nice water hazards, and a few nice sand ones, but the mental hazards will have to wait to the spring"...paraphrasing.
What do you think he was referring to as the "mental hazards".
-
Pat,
Are those NGLA blind shots up hill?
If you played there you would know the answer.
On # 11, the approach to the green, I've had uphill, blind shots over the public road more times than I can count.
Mike Cirba,
I've explained the topography, features and interrelationship between those features to you, thanks to the photographic evidence which you yourself supplied.
At this point you're asking us, "who are you going to believe, your eyes, or Mike Cirba's interpretation, which is at odds with the visible evidence ?"
-
Has anyone considered, just for a second, that the huge earthen berm behind the 10th green JUST MIGHT have been created from excavating the putting surface for the 10th green ?
Wouldn't that make economic sense to those constructing that huge earthen works ?
Why import fill when you can excavate it from the land in front of the green ?
As to the disappearance of the fill when the mound was removed, wouldn't it make sense to return it to its original resting place ?
If the dirt used for the back berm was excavated from in front of the huge berm, that would place the putting surface below the natural grade, thus making the putting surface blind from the DZ.
-
Pat:
It would make sense if the green was below the natural grade in that area but it's not hard to tell it wasn't. If you want to see the most obvious place they made the cut to create the fill for that berm behind that green just check out that massive "thing" (cut) on the left of the tenth fairway! It looks to me like the size of it just about balances the fill for that big berm. ;)
-
Interesting stuff.
Mr Findlay wrote "there are a few nice water hazards, and a few nice sand ones, but the mental hazards will have to wait to the spring"...paraphrasing.
What do you think he was referring to as the "mental hazards".
On of the best is the famous quarry that comes into play on 16 - 18.
The green surfaces are also full of subtleties that can drive you nuts.
Of course, the tee shot on #1 is probably the toughest mental shot in golf, due to the built-in gallery watching your shot from the adjacent outdoor dining area.
-
David Morarty,
If you can swing it, I'd really suggest you try to visit during the Walker Cup this summer. I may be naive, but I think a personal visit might have you thinking that there's really not much (if any) CBM out there.
http://www.2009walkercup.org/cms/
Dan
Great suggestion. I'd rather attend a Walker Cup than any other USGA event, and would love to see Merion again; I need to if I am ever going to write Part II of my Essay. Surely buying a ticket to such an event will be the only way I ever set foot on the place again. [Both Wayne and Tom owe me a round there, but I won't hold my breath in either case.] All that being said, I have many other obligations, and don't know if I'd be able to make that trip happen. Plus, my family would be very disappointed if I ended up murdered and buried in a bunker like TomPaul and his self-proclaimed "posse" have threatened in the past; in jest probably yet as unstable as these guys are, who really knows?
But keep in mind Dan that I have seen the course. I've played it only once but if did make quite an impression, and I am much better at understanding and remembering great golf courses than I am at playing them. (If Wayne Morrison is to believed (and he is not) then I play at a sloth's pace and would have had plenty of time to see every detail of Merion in my one play.) Also, I did live right down the road for spell and was pretty infatuated with the place, and managed to get a peak at it more than once. Don't get me wrong, when it comes to understanding Merion, I am a complete novice, which is one reason I have avoided getting to too much discussion about the modern details of the course. It is also why I have not yet posted a Part II to my Essay. All that being said, and keeping in mind my minimal experience on both NGLA and Merion . . .
I played Merion a few days after playing NGLA (also with hickories) and I saw CBM all over Merion. Likewise, in most of the depictions of the course as it was then, there was plenty of CBM there.
Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about aesthetics. While there was more aesthetic connection then, they are obviously quite different now. And I am certainly not talking about today's maintenance or tree growth or rough height or fairway lines. I suspect that one who knew the course better could make a strong argument that the current maintenance and set-up masks Merion's architectural greatness rather than enhancing it. What I am talking about are the fundamental principles of great strategic golf holes, as cbm understood them. They were everywhere, along with many of his more idiosyncratic features. The large mound backing the attempted Alps, for example; CBM viewed such mounds as a fundamental component of how an Alps hole should play.
In short, those who present early Merion East as an extension of the dark ages are flat out wrong. So are those who view Merion as a departure from the Macdonald school (building extremely strategic golf courses by applying the principles that underpin the great golf holes.) They have missed or forgotten something extremely fundamental about the course. Far from a departure from NGLA, Merion was a direct application of CBM's approach. At its core, Merion is not primarily about shot testing or specifying certain requirements to achieve success. It is a strategic masterpiece full of subtle options and subtle consequences not only for proper or improper execution, but also for good or poor decision-making. At least in my uninformed opinion that is what it is.
Look, this would obviously be a more interesting conversation and is really at the core of all of my work about Merion thus far, but we are not ready for this conversation yet. We first need to come to an accurate understanding of how the course came about and what those who were there were trying to accomplish. There has been such resistance to honestly and critically examining even these basic questions, that it makes no sense to move on. Everyone there (or at least those representing those who are there) have their minds made up about the place and they aren't going to listen to the facts. It has been this way since the beginning.
But make no mistake, this is just the beginning from my perspective. All I have been doing is trying to lay the groundwork for the real conversation. Yet we are still miles away. Almost three years have passed since I first posted a section of an article describing Merion's 10th in similar terms to how cbm described NGLA's Alps hole. I was called "stupid" and a liar in that thread as well, and worse. Three years later, and these guys are still carrying on the exact same conversation, and hurling the exact same insults. No progress has been made (when progress is made TEPaul and Wayne quickly backtrack and retrench, claiming he knew it all along anyways.) We are still having the same discussion.
________________
JWL,
Bunker placement was often referred to as creating mental hazards or creating the problems or creating the mental problems.
My understanding is that Wilson waited to add some of the man-made features like fairway bunkers and some greenside bunkers until after the course opened.. This too is consistent with CBM's approach. CMB wrote that one should wait observe play in order to best understand where to place fairway bunkers.
Dan,
While a few of the low lying greens had to be rebuilt/replaced because of drainage issues, I believe that all the greens were built in 1911. So I doubt that these were the mental hazards to which he refers.
-
A MENTAL VISUALIZATION EXERCISE:
Dan, You belong to a Hanse course don't you? And I assume you have played NGLA? If so, perhaps you could humor me with a hypotehtical visualization exercise? (Others not familiar with Hanse can substitute who you want, but Hanse is perfect because to me his style is Philadelpiaey.)
Imagine that Gil Hanse had a rough plan done by cbm on a challenging but interesting piece of land somewhere around Philadelphia. The plan isn't necessarily a blueprint of a course or even a drawing, but it does indicate the general locations and hole concepts identifying the underlying fundamental principles of the golf holes. Now imagine that Hanse decides to build this course and that, even though the plan may not fit perfectly and Gil is left to come up with many of the details himself, he does the best he can to stay true to the underlying principles of the golf holes. hile Gil pays close attention to the principles, he does not make any attempt to emulate CBM's or Raynor's aesthetic stylings, new or old. He also sticks to his general approach of not moving dirt when it is not necessary-- The general plan is based on the landforms, so Gil simply uses what is there.
What would this course look like when it was finished? Would it be readily identifiable as a CBM course? Would it even be a CBM course in your minds?
I submit that the course would not be easily identifiable as CBM course. It would look like a Gil Hanse course, and given that Gil's original work is firmly based in thorough understanding of the great holes, it would likely play like a Hanse course as well. I also submit that it might come out looking a bit like early Merion, minus some of the the more blatant unnatural touches that existed at early Merion.
(I was going to say that I can't quite picture Gill building the back of the Alps hole like that, but come to think of it I have seen Gil and Jim build a mound close to that size in front of a green in order to create a blind shot and a sunken, semi punchbowl green behind. In fact the green was a bit of the opposite of Merion 10-- the big mound was in front and small mounds were behind. The looks great even though it was built on what was a flat, boring greensite. So in the hypo Gil could do the mound, but would probably have tried to make it fit better with the surrounds.)
_____________
For those of you who don't like hypothetical questions, how about Old Macdonald? We all know of CBM's influence there, but I doubt we will see much of Raynor's industrial aesthetic there. If we didn't know better, would we automatically think CBM, or just another great course at Bandon (assuming it is great?) I recently played C&C's Kapalua Plantation. While I'd played and enjoyed the choices presented on the 15th multiple times gbefore, I did not noticed that No. 15 was basically a bottle hole until Tommy N mentioned it.
-
"David Moriarty, it will do you no good at all on these threads to continue to deflect the focus away from your tortured logic and distorted assumptions and conclusions on this entire issue of Merion, Wilson and Macdonald, by trying to constantly shift the focus onto me or blame me for the reaction to the things you have written and said about Merion. What you need to do is learn how to take responsibility yourself for the things you have said and written on here on that subject.
We are going to go back through all this, point by timeline point, but this time with some others on here who are now apparently willing to engage and both understand and appreciate not just what has happened here but also why.
I will be civil throughout and when all is said and done I feel this website will be treated to a very fine example of how not to broach, and research and write about an important architectural subject such as Merion and its architect and architectural history.
Tom, I am tired of your rudeness, name-calling, false accusations, and your frequent temper tantrums. I am also tired of the games you guys are still playing with the source material. I am also tired of your short-lived attempts at feigned civility. In short, I have no interest in going through any of this with you. It is bad for the site, counter-productive, and in my opinion you have have far too little to offer and way too much to say.
Over a year ago, you promised that you and Wayne would write a In My Opinion piece to counter my essay and set the record straight. You also promised something at the USGA. I'd be glad to review it address it if you do it, but you haven't. Why haven't you done this? Writer's block?
Put it in writing, back it up, and will be glad to read it and critique it. Until then, I really do not care to have anything to do with you, at least unless and until you can grow up.
-
David,
Sorry to say, but I've never even seen NGLA in person. However, I have played Gil's other private club here, Applebrook. To me, you could tell that they were both Gil's, even though they're on quite different topography. And they're quite different golf courses.
(And, of course, Gil is influenced by Merion because Mr. Bill Kittleman, Design Partner, Hanse Golf Course Design, was the head golf professional at Merion Golf Club for 27 years. Our par-3 5th hole, with its pocket quarry, is a mini-homage to Meron #16)
-
duplicate removed
-
David,
Sorry to say, but I've never even seen NGLA in person.
Dan,
Never even seen NGLA? Then how can you conclude that "there is not really much (if any) CBM" at Merion??
However, I have played Gil's other private club here, Applebrook. To me, you could tell that they were both Gil's, even though they're on quite different topography. And they're quite different golf courses.
(And, of course, Gil is influenced by Merion because Mr. Bill Kittleman, Design Partner, Hanse Golf Course Design, was the head golf professional at Merion Golf Club for 27 years. Our par-3 5th hole, with its pocket quarry, is a mini-homage to Meron #16)
Merion's influence on Gil is why I picked him. But on our hypothetical course, would you identify the hole concepts and hole placement as CBM's work?
See NGLA, look past the aesthetics, and you might agree that there is a whole lot of CBM at Merion.
-
Pat:
It would make sense if the green was below the natural grade in that area but it's not hard to tell it wasn't. If you want to see the most obvious place they made the cut to create the fill for that berm behind that green just check out that massive "thing" (cut) on the left of the tenth fairway! It looks to me like the size of it just about balances the fill for that big berm. ;)
TEPaul,
The photo Mike Cirba posted seems to indicate rather clearly that the spectators reclining at the bunker complex area forward of the green are looking down on the golfers on the putting surface
If the green is "at grade" then the fronting bunker complex would have to be "above grade" thus obscuring the putting surface from golfers in the fairway.
Does that make sense to you ?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3471852212_fb531444d4_o.jpg)
-
For what it is worth, those pictures make me think virtually none of the green surface would have been visible from the area of a drive...the few feet of rise at the front edge of the green, coupled with the knowledge that the fairway is not raised make the case.
-
David,
Nope, I wouldn't say the hypothetical course was in any way the work of CBM. I apologize if I'm missing your point, but wouldn't that be like claiming Tom Doak's work is Pete Dye's because Tom used to work for Pete.
-
;D
-
I don't recall right now....were there any accounts anywhere that described the approach as blind?
I'd still love to hear someone explain why the bottom of the back bunker is visible in that picture from the hillside just above the valley of the 9th green, which is quite a bit lower than the 10th green. :-\ ???
-
"If the green is "at grade" then the fronting bunker complex would have to be "above grade" thus obscuring the putting surface from golfers in the fairway.
Does that make sense to you ?"
Patrick:
Complete sense. That's what we've been saying for some years now. They didn't core down into natural grade where that old green used to sit----you can see that in all the old photos. Doing something like that in that area would've made just about no sense at all for reasons I know at least you can understand-----ie what did they think that would or could do other than basically make a sort of bathtub with basically flat grade all around it?! Would even "That bunch of guys" as Moriarty disrespectfully refers to Wilson and his committee as well as insinuating they were such novices they were incapable of routing and designing a course, make a dumb drainage mistake like that?
I don't think so but they certainly did build up some above natural grade in that area with the huge berm in the rear and some mounding around bunkers etc in the front of the green up off natural grade.
Ardmore Ave, by the way, is now and obviously was back then somewhat sunken below the ground on either side of the course and obvioiusly that too is for drainage reasons. That's why you see those few steps up from the road to where that old green once was.
-
Dan Hermann:
I would caution you to watch your step in getting involved in a discussion with David Moriarty off those last two posts he made. Even I'm sort of concerned about him now. Is he in some other universe on GCA than the rest of us? Those two posts make just about no sense at all. Maybe he's thinking of something other than Merion.
And he even mentioned he's thinking of doing a PART II on Merion?? My Lord, God help us all. If that's true and Ran Morrissett puts it on here I really will be shocked unless it's titled "Cleaning Up All the Totally Illogical Shit I Spewed in Part 1 of The Missing Faces of Merion" by David Moriarty.
If that is his intention I can guarantee there are some of us here in Philadelphia who would be delighted to work with him on it this time and help him with it in any possible way we can. I wish he'd thought of that and asked us the first time around. When it comes to Merion, we are always here to help anyone understand it and its history better---I guarantee it.
-
David,
Nope, I wouldn't say the hypothetical course was in any way the work of CBM. I apologize if I'm missing your point, but wouldn't that be like claiming Tom Doak's work is Pete Dye's because Tom used to work for Pete.
I wasn't really asking for design attribution, but rather whether we'd recognize CBM's golf holes if they were built with a different aesthetic sensibility by someone other than the usual suspects. Would you see any CBM in Gil's course, or just Gil?
Turning to your answer, which I find fascinating. In my hypothetical, Gil built a course following CBM's rough plan as to the hole concepts and placement, yet you don't think it is any way a CBM course? What about the hole concepts and placement?
Your example is Tom Doak's experience with Pete Dye. My understanding is that Tom Doak worked for Pete Dye at PGA West Stadium, and may have been the lead associate largely responsible for creating the golf holes. I don't know for sure that he was, but if he was then I am sure that Tom had plenty of creative input and was intergral part of the creative process, but I don't know anyone who would view that course as anything but a Pete Dye course, or the holes as anything but Pete Dye holes. This is especially true if we are focusing solely on the hole concepts or even the course concept!
I don't get this at all. Could you explain?
_____________________
Mike Cirba,
The photo is from well above the 9th, and is not the proper angle to judge much of anything. Plus it looks to me in that photo like there was mounding front and left!
As for your first question, I opened the infamous Another Piece of the Puzzle Thread with the following post, describing how the golfer could not be sure of his result until he had scaled the last rampart, or some such thing. I believe other such examples might have been offered as well.
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 . . .
_______________________
This 2 1/2 year old thread is a fascinating study in how some views have changed and how little distance we have come on these issues. Like on the current thread, I was called a liar and stupid (and much worse) on that one as well. While everything I said was questioned challenged and criticized, I believe my three major crimes were.
1. Suggesting that the 10th was meant to be an Alps hole. (It was.)
2. Suggesting the new 10th was much shorter than was commonly believed. (It was.)
3. Even considering the possibility that CBM had an influence on what happened at NGLA. (He did.)
So 50 pages of bickering, name-calling, personal attacks and rudeness, all because I dared ask questions about TomPaul and Wayne's version of what happened Merion's beginnings. As explained below, TEPaul and Wayne deleted a huge number of their offensive posts from this thread. Here is a link:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,26752.msg502244.html#msg502244
FAIR WARNING TO THOSE WHO READ THE THREAD: When the website used to allow for it, TEPaul and Wayne would try to manipulate the record on here by deleting their past offensive, mistaken, and rude posts, in order to allow them to pretend they never said such things. This was especially when others called attention to their boorish behavior, and this is exactly what happened after they harrassed Tom MacWood right off these boards. In this thread alone TEPaul and Wayne deleted hundreds of such posts-- over 500 if memory serves-- so you have to read between the lines for the thread to make sense. If there is something missing, just fill in your own insult or false statement. The amazing thing is that they kept the posts weren't offensive, misleading, or wrong, so they had posted hundreds of posts in one thread they even they knew were over the line!
That alone should provide insight into how these things have gone for those of us willing to challenge these guys about their sacred Merion!
-
David,
Could you point me to any sources back then who said the approach was blind?
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.
As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.
How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?
Thanks
-
David,
Our posts crossed...pls disregard my first question and thanks for that article.
-
I don't recall right now....were there any accounts anywhere that described the approach as blind?
So what, the history or architecture at Merion isn't based on your recall of alleged or non-existant accounts.
I'd still love to hear someone explain why the bottom of the back bunker is visible in that picture from the hillside just above the valley of the 9th green, which is quite a bit lower than the 10th green. :-\ ???
Perhaps because the bunker was elevated well above the putting surface, which can clearly be seen in the this photo, a photo YOU originally posted
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3471852212_fb531444d4_o.jpg)
Or, I could ask, "Bottom of WHAT back bunker ?"
Here's another photo YOU posted.
Where's the back bunker ?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3471373510_ca84898387_o.jpg)
Where's the back bunker ?
Mike, Your question is irrelevant.
You'll notice in another photo that you posted, that the same bunker you reference ISN'T visible from the 10th tee.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3569/3469215183_89b07d5e9b_o.jpg)
The ONLY important view, the only view that is significant is the view from the DZ in the 10th fairway to the green.
If you carefully examine the schematic shown below, and the photos that have been presented to date, it's clear that the fronting bunker complex and its footpad obscured the view of the putting surface from the DZ in the 10th fairway, thus including all of the basic elements that comprise an "Alps" hole.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3477747531_10c26ee865_o.jpg)
Why is there NO BACK BUNKER in that schematic ? ? ?
Flynn was known for his detail, yet, he drew the 10th WITHOUT a back bunker.
In addition, a drive of 250 yards, circa 1911, from an elevated tee, considering the uphill topography in the DZ and the trajectory of the tee shot, seems excessive, meaning that most drives would be shorter, which means that the uphill nature of the topography would serve to impede, if not obscure, some views.
The article that accompanies the schematic references the uphill slope, which it claims LEVELED out at the 250 yard mark, meaning that drives of less than 250 yards would be at a lower elevation. Thus, the hillside itself, the topography of the hole and the slope of the hill would introduce the element of blindness.
It's clear, from the photos YOU PRODUCED, that a fronting bunker complex sits above the green, thus obstructing the view of the putting surface from the DZ in the 10th fairway.
It's also clear that the DZ, from less than 250 yards from the tee, falls off to lower elevations, thus introducing ANOTHER element of blindness in addition to the fronting bunker complex.
When you analyze ALL of the photos, written accounts, topography and schematics, it's clear that the hole contains the elements that typically comprise an "Alps" hole.
You'll continue to deny this, just as you did the proof that Wilson didn't visit the UK prior to 1912, but, in the end, if you adhere to Shakespeare's words in Hamlet, I, iii, you'll come around in time ;D
-
Pat:
As to your last post and particularly the parts you mentioned about the back bunker on that berm----welcome to Moriarty's club. I'm afraid the details of the everlastingly important TIMELINE is going to get you on this one just like it got Moriarty's incomplete research and tortured logic in his essay.
This is all just another great example of people who try to claim they know what they're talking about with far less than complete material from the archives of Merion itself. Have you ever even looked in Merion's archives Pat? Has Moriarty? I don't think so and it sure does show.
They say you can't f... with Mother Nature and you just can't f... with THE TIMELINE either. But you will be unless or until you know it and understand it thoroughly which apparently you don't and Moriarty didn't when he wrote and published on here his wholly inaccurate essay. ;)
-
Pat:
As to your last post and particularly the parts you mentioned about the back bunker on that berm----welcome to Moriarty's club. I'm afraid the details of the everlastingly important TIMELINE is going to get you on this one just like it got Moriarty's incomplete research and tortured logic in his essay.
I have NO IDEA as to what you're talking about with respect to the above paragraph.
The physical evidence, photographic, written and illustrated confirms the configuration of the 10th hole and the element of blindness.
As to the exhibits I presented to support my position, they were exhibits presented by Mike Cirba.
You can't accept them in his posts and reject them in my posts.
This is all just another great example of people who try to claim they know what they're talking about with far less than complete material from the archives of Merion itself. Have you ever even looked in Merion's archives Pat? Has Moriarty? I don't think so and it sure does show.
On the issue of looking in Merion's archives, does the evidence differ from the photos Mike Cirba produced.
Were Cirba's photos doctored ?
Are they not of the 10th hole at Merion ?
Is Flynn's schematic a forgery ?
Is the accompanying article fabricated ?
How much evidence do you need before you admit that the 10th hole was Wilson's version of an "Alps" hole ?
They say you can't f... with Mother Nature and you just can't f... with THE TIMELINE either. But you will be unless or until you know it and understand it thoroughly which apparently you don't and Moriarty didn't when he wrote and published on here his wholly inaccurate essay. ;)
ESSAY ?
My challenge to Mike Cirba has NOTHING to do with an essay.
It's about the 10th hole at Merion being classified as an "Alps", even though it was a poor one at that.
-
"How much evidence do you need before you admit that the 10th hole was Wilson's version of an "Alps" hole ?"
Pat:
I've never denied that. Not on this website, not ever. While I have never had any detailed information of whose specific concept or whose specific idea or whose specfic creation the original 10th hole at Merion was, or any other particular hole at Merion (with the possible exception of Francis's story) I have always just maintained that what Alan Wilson wrote; "Each of the committee members who worked on the Wilson committee have told me that in the main, Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses," is the truth and fact of Merion and it does not need to be questioned more, not the least reason being those specific details were just never recorded.
And so, I see no point at all in these endless discussions and arguments that have been going on about the original 10th hole for at least three years on here and that were probably begun by the thread that Moriarty started in 2006 and which he hypelinked again above. I see no point in that discussion and I have no idea what Mike Cirba said to you that you disagree with now and are mentioning to me.
I think it is all pretty meaningless when it comes to the subject of what the Wilson committee did and what Macdonald/Whigam did.
On the other hand, if you want to know why something like that bunker on the rear berm appeared in some photos and not in others or not in Flynn's drawing but in the 1916 Amateur then you need to be really familiar with the TIMELINE of architectural changes on that golf course and not just get into some irrelevent argument about what Mike Cirba meant in some post. Obviously, you aren't aware of THE TIMELINE of some of those specific changes on that course. And I am also aware that just like Moriarty you will probably try to deny that somehow or slough it off or just divert the subject. If so, I will tell you right now, I won't be interested in even discussing it with you, and I certainly won't be interested in arguing with you over total trivialities and irrelevent issues about it.
But as you said, if you have an open mind and you want to learn something here you can certainly always ask some of us who know this course and the history of it a whole lot better than you do.
You don't have a problem with that do you, but if so, why would that be? You mentioned some "party line" at Merion. What is that Patrick? Can you explain that? If you are talking about the way Merion presents its history now, particularly with not just Wilson but now with Flynn, I think I can guarantee you that IS the accurate architectural history of Merion! ;)
-
David,
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.
As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.
How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?
Thanks
Sorry Mike, but I am not at all interested in getting into this with you. I am sure that our discussing the holes would be entirely pointless. Hell, you've been discussing Merion's Alps hole for three years now and have plenty of documentation, but I doubt you are even willing to acknowledge that this was Wilson's attempt to build a CBM-type Alps hole.
And you suggest we set aside Merion's attempt at a Redan? Why would you want to set aside a hole with obvious CBM influences in a discussion about CBM influence? If you cannot get your head around these two holes, then you are surely not ready to reasonably discuss the rest.
-
David,
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.
As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.
How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?
Thanks
Sorry Mike, but I am not at all interested in getting into this with you. I am sure that our discussing the holes would be entirely pointless. Hell, you've been discussing Merion's Alps hole for three years now and have plenty of documentation, but I doubt you are even willing to acknowledge that this was Wilson's attempt to build a CBM-type Alps hole.
And you suggest we set aside Merion's attempt at a Redan? Why would you want to set aside a hole with obvious CBM influences in a discussion about CBM influence? If you cannot get your head around these two holes, then you are surely not ready to reasonably discuss the rest.
Hmm...I thought so... ::)
I was waiting to see how you would answer a direct question after making the ludicrous general statement that you saw Macdonald ALL OVER THE PROPERTY during your single visit to the course some years ago, even though over half the holes on said course have markedly or wholly changed since it was originally designed, including a large piece of the original routing.
I wasn't asking for me so much...I just wanted to have others see just how deep you were willing to publicly dig into the compost heap to pull some other highly speculative and historically inaccurate theory of how some other hole at Merion somehow exemplifies Macdonald's principles. That the only difference between Merion and courses Macdonald actually designed was a simple case of mistaken aethethics. ::) ::) ::) ;)
Of course, you can't and won't answer the question, because no such evidence exists besides the fact that they are golf holes, and Macdonald did some of those.
As to your contention about the original Alps 10th and/or the redan 3rd, of course they're supposed to be attempts to model after great holes, an idea that Macdonald wholly promoted. They just aren't anything like any of the Alps or redan holes that Macdonald himself designed, either aesthecially or completely functionally.
Dan Hermann,
Perhaps you should ask him the question?
-
Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?
David,
I think that's an accurate reading because there is certainly not an eight foot vertical rise or fall from that front bunker.
-
Another question:
Mike Cirba: in your very first response to the "Another Piece" thread, before all the silliness started and you were thinking logically ;) , you said that you were pretty well convinced that the second shot to the original #10 was blind.
Serious question - So why are you fighting it now?
David,
That was asked and answered earlier, but the bottom line is that I've studied/seen Merion more since that time and also found additional photos.
I believe there may have been partial blindness of the front of the green or the lower part of the flagstick if it was placed just behind the bunker, but nothing at all like the blindness or daunting challenge of what one thinks in terms of an Alps like NGLA or Prestwick.
-
Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?
David,
I think that's an accurate reading because there is certainly not an eight foot vertical rise or fall from that front bunker.
Then why on earth did you claim that there was an 8 foot rise? Other than that Wayne told you that there was one?
While you are being reasonable, how about you acknowledge that you were exaggerating when you claimed that the 1916 program stated that the mound was built to protect golfer from players on the first hole? You can speculate based on the location of the mound, but do not pretend the Program says something it does not. I know this is another pet claim of Wayne's and since he is obviosly who gave you those pages from the program, he probably told you that the documents supported his protect the golfers theory as well.
Word of advice with Wayne's theories. Check the supporting documents or you will likely end up making foolish and unsupportable claims, these two are perfect examples. Unless you'd have us believe you came up with the ridiculous 8 ft rise reading all by yourself?
-
MikeC:
I'm sorry to bother you again on this but would you mind telling me one more time what in the world is going on here now with this continued argument about what that old original 10th hole looked like?
All anyone has to do to tell what it looked like is to take the photographs of it that are part of the club's archives and just go out on that ground and look at it. That's all one needs to do and we've done that, a long time ago. Is someone on here who has not done that still trying to tell us we are wrong about somehow and if so why in the world is that?
Seems to me this entire topic was begun on here and continues on here because some on here who've never done this are still trying to maintain that we are wrong somehow about this. And why did they do that in the first place and continue to do it now? If you ask me the sole purpose is to try to establish on this website that we or the club were wrong somehow or made some mistakes in interpretation of this hole somehow or something to do with the club's architectural history and once they think they've established tht in the minds of some on here who don't know most of the other details of Merion's creation, that it is just another example of how to open the door to the real mission and goal of these people----to try to convince someone that Macdonald therefore must have been the router and designer of the East and the club has had their Wilson and committee attribution wrong all along.
If we have found any new information at all on Merion it is these long unseen MCC meeting minutes and Wilson report to them giving far more evidence that Wilson and committee really did route and design the course and many times before finally settling on one of their plans that was given to the board and approved.
That all just more strongly CONFIRMED the very thing that Merion as always said. I wonder why some people on here aren't understanding that and continue to argue over something truly irrelevent like just how blind the original 10th green once was. What is the point of continuing that argument now?
Sorry to have to ask again, but I just don't get this continuation about the old tenth hole.
-
Pat:
...But as you said, if you have an open mind and you want to learn something here you can certainly always ask some of us who know this course and the history of it a whole lot better than you do....
Tom, I'm wondering if there is any info in the minutes of the original club about making the move to the new course, which specifically talks to the forming of the various committees and their duties. We are told there was a golf committee (the club was also a cricket club at the time) and a golf construction/design committee. I would assume the golf committee oversaw everything to do with golf and the other committee was formed for the specific task of creating and managing the development of the new course. In the early documents/minutes (prior to the formation of the construction committee) was there anything about how the club should go about planning and building the new course? Perhaps, all they did was form the construction committee, but I'm wondering if there was anything more?
I ask, because we have been told that the club had many prominent members and a number of them were well schooled and traveled with regards to golf courses. Would these members not want to hire the best golf minds/designers to plan and build their new course? Did they ever explore hiring the likes of Colt, Park, Travis, Braid or even MacDonald. Perhaps, they felt Wilson would be their man, but it strikes me as a bit of a gamble for some fairly knowledgeable members.
-
"I ask, because we have been told that the club had many prominent members and a number of them were well schooled and traveled with regards to golf courses. Would these members not want to hire the best golf minds/designers to plan and build their new course? Did they ever explore hiring the likes of Colt, Park, Travis, Braid or even MacDonald. Perhaps, they felt Wilson would be their man, but it strikes me as a bit of a gamble for some fairly knowledgeable members."
henryE:
I'm glad you asked that. I've mentioned all that on these threads over the years a number of times but never in response to someone's question like yours above.
MCC (Merion) did not EVER hire anyone to produce routing and design work for them---not ever!
Of course one wonders why that was if they could just go out and hire the likes of Colt, Park, Ross, or perhaps even Findlay or Barker who were all paid golf course architects at that time.
At that time Travis was not paid for archiectural design work and either were Macdonald or Whigam. The reason is obvious and completely historically provable----eg they were all well recognized AMATEUR golfers and getting paid for anything they did in architecture at that time would've risked lossing their amateur playing status and they did not want to do that. That Rule would change and be relaxed for any architect around 1920 but in 1910 and 1911 it was becoming or had become a real risk.
So, the question is why did MCC form a group of five club members (the Wilson Committee) to do the routing and design work on their own with some help and advice from their friends and fellow "amateur/sportsmen" architects such as Macdonald/Whigam?
There is no question that all these men or certainly a significant some of them all knew each other anyway (and I can prove where and when and why that was) and since they could see, since they already knew him well enough, what Charlie was doing at NGLA with at first a committee of "amateur" designers (Whigam, Travis and then Emmet), and most all of them knew Herbert Leeds of Myopia and the Fownses of Oakmont, all "amateur" designers and architects they just felt like they could do the same thing themselves, and they did, without paying a single cent for design services.
Of course they all paid other people to actually do and oversee the MANUAL building to the routings and design plans THEY had done and they paid others to do the agronomic maintenance work but this was not the case at all on the routing and design side with those kinds of men back then who did some of those famous courses. That is what made that limited timespan era so truly fascinating, in my book.
I think there are a few other very documentable reasons some decided to go that route back then and I think there are also some other very documentable reasons why that kind of modus operandi amongst THOSE KINDS of men came to and end when it did.
There is another thing you should know about this interesting time and modus operandi of those famous so-called "amateur/sportsman" designers or architects and that is that almost without exception they were ALL very good golfers and recognized as such. Some clubs even referred to them as "the experts" and if you consider the way that early time was in England and America etc it is not hard to see why people called them that and thought of them that way----eg if they knew how to play golf that well, as well as some of them being the best experts in such things as The Rules of Golf, it seemed pretty logical that they would be the best choices to design golf courses too.
Good question HenryE and thank you for asking it.
-
Shiv,
Yes, in entirety on a previous thread and with some very minor editing of irrelevant bits by me on this thread.
I'm on blackberry and can't find at present but it was likely somewhere around post 100.
-
So, the question is why did MCC form a group of five club members (the Wilson Committee) to do the routing and design work on their own with some help and advice from their friends and fellow "amateur/sportsmen" architects such as Macdonald/Whigam?
Thanks Tom, but my question was a bit different. I was wondering if there was any actual information in the Merion documents which spoke to this issue, particularly when they might have had a debate about what course of action to take - professional Vs. amateur designer.
-
These cities also competed against each other regularly; I have to believe some friendly rivalry played into this on some level.
-
"Thanks Tom, but my question was a bit different. I was wondering if there was any actual information in the Merion documents which spoke to this issue, particularly when they might have had a debate about what course of action to take - professional Vs. amateur designer."
henryE:
Not that I'm aware of. If they ever had that discussion or debate they never recorded it that I'm aware of. It looks to me pretty much like they were headed down the "amateur" designer route all along which would mean they never intended to pay anyone for routing and design (architecture) advice or input.
H.H. Barker was involved very early on (June 1910) before the club (Lloyd actually) purchased the land but MCC did record that he was hired "not on their account" but on the account of developer Connell who was not a member or part of MCC.
-
As relates to the friendly competitive rivalries between the cities at that time, I find the following article fascinating;
It's an account of a 1903 match, which pitted the very best players in Philadelphia against the very best from New York City.
It clearly shows that Hugh Wilson, AW Tillinghast, and Howard Perrin all knew and competed against CB Macdonald, Dev Emmett, and other top names in the game a full seven years before Macdonald came to Merion to check on the new property they were considering.
These matches between Philly and NYC were apparently held twice a year, which would have likely cemented both friendships as well as rivalries among the participants.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3483603689_af0819ebf1_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3484418646_665ae69ea2_o.jpg)
Also, per Shivas's request, the Alan Wilson letter, in entirety (emphasized caps courtesy of an original Tom Paul post ;));
Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.
Dear Mr. Philler:-
You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.
With regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Alan D. Wilson
Merion’s East and West Golf Courses
There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. 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”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. 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 ground 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 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 Committee, 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 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 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 the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.
The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.
-
Has anybody considered the possibility that "Beyond the bunker, the ground slopes 8 feet to the green" was an awkward horizontal (not vertical) reference, i.e., "there is 8 feet of sloped ground between the bunker and the front of the green"?
Shivas, I thought I posted an answer to this, but apparently I deleted it instead. I want to post because it provides another striking example of what is wrong with this process
To answer; Yes, I had considered this and think you may have it right, which is why I haven't embraced the conclusion that Mike mistakenly attributes to me, that there was an 8 foot vertical drop. The pictures don't show any such drop, although I guess it is possible that they could have measured from the front part of the bunker complex, which is out of view in the photos of the green. Whether there was an 8 foot drop or not, the description leaves is no doubt that the ground sloped down from the front bunkers to the green. It is the same slope extends left of the green and behind the green, where the ground slopes down to the green. This green was sunken below the surrounding land on at least three sides.
I have no idea how anyone could reasonably dispute this, and it is worth taking a moment to consider why Wayne (and then Mike) claim otherwise. Wayne has long insisted that the ground rose 8 feet from the bunkers to the green. While Wayne insisted that he had proof, he thought he controlled the source material and refused to back up his conclusion with the supporting document. (I laughed out loud when I heard his conclusion, because I had the likely source, which Wayne refused to confirm.)
My point? Either these guys are very bad at interpreting source material, or they have been intentionally misrepresenting it, or some combination of both. But whether the incorrect interpretations result from innocent inability or intentional imposition, one thing is certain; When it comes to understanding and explaining the source material, they very seldom get it right. We cannot trust them to accurately interpret it for us. We need to see it for ourselves.
________________________________________
As for your question about Mike's change of heart, I am not sure I understand his answer, given that most of what we have learned since the last go-round confirms that the hole was meant to be a CBM-type Alps hole. A crucial part of Mike's new analysis on this issue is that he now believes that everyone who described it as an Alps was smoking crack. But as usual he hasn't offered any support for this conclusion. And how could seeing the site have changed his mind when the green site is no longer there?
But a more interesting question is Why did TEPaul change his mind?. [Careful if you ask him, though. When I did he flew into a hissy-fit, calling me a liar, stupid, stupid liar, whatever. He even called me a "dickhead" on another thread, but they may have been as a result of an entirely different temper-tantrum. Hard to keep track.]
Anyway, a few years ago, TEPaul KNEW that the green was blind from the landing area. Above, I quote him trying to convince Wayne of this. But TEPaul not only knew it was blind, he was actually was a bit perturbed that we were even talking about whether the hole was blind, as if the issue shouldn't even be in dispute.
From TEPaul in the same thread:
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?
Why, indeed?
- And why is TEPaul now telling us that he knows for certain and has known for a long time that the hole was not blind?
- And why is he again insisting that he knows better than us, and that we MUST take his word for it because he has been there more?
- And why does he again launch into his usual personal attacks about my motivations and my research? As if I was taking an absurd and untenable position?? The same position he himself took last time this came up??
Something has certainly made him change his mind, but it is nothing in the source material and nothing to do with any unique perspective he has gained from loitering his days away at Merion. My guess is that his old understanding has become rhetorically inconvenient, so he threw it out, and now demands we do the same.
-
David,
Other pictures have surfaced since that discussion as well as other descriptive material.
I wasn't there in 1912...were you?
So therefore we make the best judgements we can based on what we know and see at the time.
We are also entitled to use our eyes.
This is what I wrote to you back on post 448...obviously you've chosen to ignore it to try and make a useless, irrelevant political point;
David,
I did think that perhaps the hole was blind, especially for a drive not reaching the crest of the hill.
Then, when I saw the top photo I just posted and really studied it, I saw that the surface of the green was actually a bit raised from the land in the foreground of the picture...the natural surrounds. It only appears sunken because of the huge mound behind, which extends on each side to encircle the rear sides of the green as well. There is also mounding behind the bunker on the right.
THEN, when I saw the picture taken from the 9th green area, with the bottom of the back bunker very clearly evident, I realized that it was impossible for the approach to have been blind.
I was wrong prior, but will at least admit what my eyes plainly see.
So David, now I will ask you...again...
Why is the bottom line of the back bunker visible in the photo taken from the hillside down by the ninth green, which is well below the surface of the old 10th green?
If there was a fronting obstruction, this should NOT be the case, and you know it.
The rest is just a red herring, and has ZERO to do with who designed Merion.
There were "Alps" holes in the US back to the 1800s. There were holes in the US called "redan" prior to NGLA.
It's existence is meaningless, either way.
Let's move on, besides perhaps answering my bolded question as to why you continue to argue at odds with what your own eyes can plainly see.
Let's move on and ask the question that's much more fundamental and meaningful to this discussion;
David,
Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.
As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.
How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?
Thanks
Please, David...I want to learn how the Quarry Hole, or the 5th, or any of them are just like Macdonald holes somewhere else.
I can't wait for your answer.
-
Remedial question: is the Alan Wilson report reproduced anywhere, either on this site
or elsewhere?
Glad you asked, because the snippet that TEPaul quotes is incredibly misleading: "Each of the committee members who worked on the Wilson committee have told me that in the main, Hugh Wilson was the architect of the East and West courses." This is all TEPaul needs. It says it all. Moreover, he again insists that we take his word for it, and just drop our inquiries. The above statement "is the truth and fact of Merion and it does not need to be questioned more, not the least reason being those specific details were just never recorded."
Anyone else notice a trend here? Again and again his reasoning is "Because I said so, and I don't want to hear another word about it. Anyone who says differently is a liar and an idiot and should be run off the site." (That last part is implied from experience.)
Anyway, TEPaul conveniently ignored the context of this quote, and the context makes the meaning quite a bit more ambiguous that TEPaul insists:
1. Alan Wilson not only acknowledged M&W's involvement, he praised them for their contributions.
2. Alan Wilson only credited the Committee for that which M&W were not responsible. After praising M&W for their contribution, AW wrote: "Except for this, the entire responsibility for the design and construction of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee . . ."
3. From the context we can tell AW is comparing Hugh's contribution to the other committee members, not to M&W. The complete sentence. "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 the West Course."
4. The quoted passage refers to work done by Hugh and the Committee after Hugh Wilson Scotland trip, which did not occur until long after M&W's involvement the planning.
"The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the 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 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 the West Course."
I don't want to say anything about Alan Wilson's time-line. These guys are pretty sensitive about Alan Wilson's description, and I am not in the mood for yet another temper-tantrum.
_______________
Mike,
I have never seen the original Alan Wilson letter, but I really doubt he typed certain words in ALL-CAPS for emphasis.
-
David,
Don't you find it weird that Alan Wilson clearly stated that Macdonald and Whigham "DESIGNED" NGLA, yet does not use anything even remotely like that nomenclature in describing their role at Merion?
The rest of your post is more hot air, misleading verbiage, and obfuscation.
p.s. I made clear that Tom Paul was responsible for the CAPS.
-
Isn't the 16th, the Quarry hole, really the Alps also ? Don't you climb the hill waiting to see your approach shot.
I thought so. It looks that way on TV. Devilishy clever of them to hide this from these crack GCA guys for so long.
Anyway, all jokes aside, by an outsider's reading of the various arguments, it would seem there is no way to take the existing documents and say anything other than something, probably outlandish to even the Philly crowd, like the ' M&W fellows helped the Merion boys', and leave it at that based on newspaper accounts and Merion records.
M&W didn't route the course, didn't design a golf hole, etc. They helped and deserve such, a mention that they helped, visited Merion, and had the Merion commitee visit the young and yet to be opened, NGLA. Doesn't everything in writing support that conclusion.
Where is the explicit language supporting more credit to M&W ?
Giving more credit to M&W does require some reasoning that since it was not written otherwise, it could be so.
So my question is, exploring from another angle previously discussed but now I have forgotten, did Macdonald or Whigham ever take credit for anything at Merion ? Did they (M or W) ever say the Merion lads built a great Alps hole, or the Merion lads used our routing, or the Merion boys should have used our routing, or anything ?
Would have to believe that Macdonald, being such a headstrong individual, would have taken credit if he really thought that he deserved credit. By the time he wrote 'Scotland's Gift - Golf' published in 1928, wasn't it true that Wilson was credited with the architecture of Merion East ?
I just want to see the explicit writing or statements that M&W did more, or deserve more credit. I don't want to read something, and since it might not say M&W did nothing, try to interpret that M&W could have done more.
Anyway, David Moriarty could pull it out, in theory, if the Philly boy forgets to sign his card. Would love to jump in and help the underdog David, but it just isn't there. David is only working with a dozen lines (counting newspaper articles) about M&W, and then it only mentions their visits to help or some such.
David only has some chance when all the newspapers convert fiche and microfilm archives to digital.
Someone, anyone,
Please list every line, every sentence where M&W are mentioned with respect to Merion East.
-
In fact, the beauty and value of the Alan Wilson letter is that he truly does know what the terms "design" and "architecture" mean and uses them again and again, and very precisely tells us repeatedly who designed Merion. He only once uses the disputed term "laid out", but even there the meaning is crystalline.
Witness;
"There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”... and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect."
"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 the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912."
"The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other."
"The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor."
"We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten."
What does he tell us that M&W provided?
"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 ground and later to consider and advise about our plans (bold mine). They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions(bold mine) 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 Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman."
So Macdonald and Whigham provided "Advice and suggestions" on mattters architectural AND construction, and we know they advised about "our plans" (almost certainly referring to the "five different plans" created by the Merion committee) and we know he suggested they talk to Baltusrol about inland soil and suggested they talk to Piper & Oakley about grasses, and also showed them sketches of famous holes abroad and toured NGLA.
Extremely valuable, certainly. Of the highest value, indeed.
None of this is anywhere near as unclear or ambiguous as David would like us to believe.
Just trust your own eyes and not the smoke he tries to cloud them with.
-
Please nobody hate me for what I am going to write. In return I promise to hold back on some of my wilder theories :)
Here is again Findlay's controversial passage:
I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.
I note that he doesn't speak of an "Alps hole" in the sense of a certain type of hole or template. He uses "Alps Hole" as a proper name, the name that a very specific hole at Prestwick has. I submit that Findlay wouldn't assume his readers know what an "Alps template" or "Redan type of hole" is. Most of them would never have seen NGLA at that time. I am not aware of any early publication by CBM, where he explained his theory of template design. He certainly talked about it to anyone, who would listen - but one has to wonder how common such knowledge could have been among the general audience for which Findlay was writing.
So my reading of Findlay's statement is: "Watch the 17th at Prestwick (called the Alps hole). You can't replicate it on your property. But many of the others, as laid out by CBM, are really great."
In that sense Findlay can't mean "other Alps holes". Findlay is not referring to the Alps template, of which many incarnations may exist. He is referring to one very specific hole called "Alps hole" and that is the 17th at Prestwick and none other. Findlay can't even mean other template holes (such as the Redan), because he is not talking about templates at all and CBM's template design theory can't have been common knowledge. Although it might have been common knowledge that holes in Britain were way better and that some had suggested to replicate them in order to raise the standard in the US. But it is a far cry from that general thinking to the naming of actual templates. Findlay refers to the 17th hole at Prestwick and not to an Alps hole.
However, in my eyes the reading that "others" refers to other holes at Merion does not make sense either. Findlay is not talking about the holes at Merion, he says previously that it is much too early to talk about them. To me it appears that he simply wants to jump on the bus by describing his personal contribution to the design of a course likely to be great.
"Others" also can't refer to other courses that CBM recommended Wilson should visit. The reason for that is the "but". The passage would read like this: "Wilson (upon my suggestion) came to the conclusion that the Alps hole stinks, but some of the others that CBM laid out for his itinerary were really great - Wilson became quite fond of Prestwick, Troon, Formby, ..." First of all it is slightly illogical to compare a single hole to complete courses (the hole stank, but the other courses were great). But even if we accept this, then it doesn't make sense at all that Prestwick - the course with the stinking Alps hole - is mentioned as the first example for the courses that were great. Prestwick can't be "the good" and "the bad" at the same time.
So what does Findlay mean? Well, that will have to wait until I see the minutes... ok, bad joke, I take that back :)
Findlay continues:
Wilson had no end of a good time, and is sorry at not having gone over years ago. It certainly broadens one's ideas.
I believe Findlay is again trying to board the bus here. How can Wilson dare to even start thinking about a new course before he has been over and got his ideas broadened? The job should have gone to an expert, whose fame spreads across two continents to begin with :)
Ulrich
-
If David Moriarity can interpret Alan Wilson's letter as crediting more of the design of Merion to CBM then to Hugh Wilson then I believe you guys should just stop responding to him until he brings more facts to the table.
His proving that Wilson went overseas later would be an example of some fine work. But, that still doesn't eliminate the Alan Wilson letter as definitive on the design credit for Merion.
Alan Wilson's attribution of CBM's part in the creation of the course is specific and gracious.
The letter makes me want to play Merion again and maybe even enjoy it!
-
Mike Malone,
Yes, once again I believe David is left with once again trying to discredit an eye-witness....or perhaps like he did with another eyewitness, A.W. Tillinghast, he'll just put his hands over his ears, shut his eyes tight, purse his lips, and ignore it.
Patrick,
Interesting in all of the pictures of mine you copied you ignored these two;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3471882204_e948917ec3_o.jpg)
This of course shows the bottom line of the back bunker clearly visible from well BELOW the approach area.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3471852236_c1f475d884_o.jpg)
This picture shows that the bottom line of that bunker behind the green is about at the level of the crouching putting golfer's waistline...and about thigh high on the standing golfer in white on the left.
If this approach was completely blind, as in Macdonald's Alps holes, how can we see the bottom line of the back bunker in a photo from well below the area of the approach shot.
Very, very convenient omissions, on your part, Patrick. ;)
-
Shivas, Take a look at my post above about the problems with TEPaul's use of the Alan Wilson documents. Sometimes important information gets lost in Cirba hyperbola.
_________________________
Ulrich,
Interesting reading. I agree with much of it, especially the part about the possibility Findlay puffing a bit. There is the reference to his man Pickering, which is sort of beside the point of the article. I think that Findlay often worked with Pickering, so praising Pickering played into Findlay's self-interest. As for him implying they should have gotten a professional; I don't disagree but read it a bit more narrowly; he may have been subtly trying to one-up both Wilson and the great Amateur CBM. Wilson had attempted a CBM-type Alps hole, and according to Findlay he thought he had one worthy of comparison to Prestwick. Findlay brags that he set Wilson straight, and by implication he set CBM straight as well. That is, if it was a CBM hole. Findlay drives the point home by contrasting the 10th with many of the others, which were really great.
As you might expect, I do disagree with one portion of your understanding of the article.
You wrote:
However, in my eyes the reading that "others" refers to other holes at Merion does not make sense either. Findlay is not talking about the holes at Merion, he says previously that it is much too early to talk about them. To me it appears that he simply wants to jump on the bus by describing his personal contribution to the design of a course likely to be great.
Findlay wrote he was not going to get into the golf holes, but nonetheless, he was discussing Merion's 10th.
Wilson really imagined that Merion's 10th was really an Alps hole. Findlay apparently disagreed with Wilson about Merion's 10th, so he told him to check out Prestwick's Alps. After seeing Prestwick, Wilson was convinced that it would take a lot to make Merion's 10th equal to that old spot.
The entire passage you quote is about whether Merion's 10th. More specifically, it is Findlay bragging about how he convinced Wilson that, if Wilson wanted Merion's 10th to compare favorably to Prestwick's Alps, then Merion's 10th needed a lot of work.
It boils down to:
Merion's 10th hole needs a lot of work, but many of the others are really great.
And he throws that the holes were laid out by CBM to get the dig in there.
-
DSchmidt,
Here's the article and schematic that Flynn drew.
Please read the article as it describes the topography of the hole, something Mike and others want to dismiss.
It is the topography of the hole combined with the fronting bunker complex that sat above the putting surface that made the putting surface blind from the DZ.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3576/3477747531_10c26ee865_o.jpg)
-
Shivas, Take a look at my post above about the problems with TEPaul's use of the Alan Wilson documents. Sometimes important information gets lost in Cirba hyperbola.
_________________________
Smoke and mirrors, David, smoke and mirrors...
Obfuscate, confuse, deflect, mislead, refuse to answer direct questions and then do it again and again and the circus wheel keeps spinning....
All I provided were direct quotes that are irrefutable.
All I asked of you are direct questions that you avoid.
This is a joke.
-
Findlay wrote he was not going to get into the golf holes, but nonetheless, he was discussing Merion's 10th.
David, I believe he wasn't discussing Merion's 10th. He was trying to jump on the Merion bus or, as you suggested, trying to one-up Wilson and perhaps even CBM. So he depicts himself as someone, who knew better all along. He demonstrates his superiority by saying that Wilson came around to his point of view after he saw Prestwick's 17th and had to admit that it was WAY DIFFERENT from his own version, which he basically designed on the basis of hear-say. Findlay stresses this point again later, where he says that Wilson wishes he had been over earlier (like he, Findlay, undoubtedly has, being an expert whose fame spreads across two continents).
If Findlay truly had been interested to discuss the 10th hole at Merion and perhaps boast that it was made better through his suggestion to go see Prestwick's 17th, then he, Findlay, would have specifically identified the 10th hole as the one that he contributed to. Or, in your interpretation, if he were interested to trash the 10th hole to make Wilson look bad, he would certainly have identified it.
As it is Findlay just says that Wilson "imagined it exists on his course". If Findlay really were interested to discuss the merits of the hole, he would have identified it, so that his readers could validate his appraisal.
Another indicator is that in the later Findlay article about the opening of the course, where he is actually prepared and willing to talk about the holes, he specifically describes the 10th as having an "Alps like approach shot", but doesn't criticize the hole in the least. This suggests that he didn't actually hate the hole, but simply used its being (unbeknownst to Wilson) WAY DIFFERENT from the 17th at Prestwick to demonstrate his superior knowledge.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
I'm not sure I understand your reading of the article, although it's clearly a fresh perspective.
What "others" as laid out by Macdonald are "really great", in your opinion?
-
Mike.
I am not going to share all my theories about CBM's influence with you. Your wish is not my command. Given your righteous indignation about me and my theories throughout, you've some nerve demanding I share my conclusions with you. Don't worry, you will likely find out at some point, maybe in Part II.
As for your other questions, I've answered them. You just don't like my answers.
Mike Malone,
Yes, once again I believe David is left with once again trying to discredit an eye-witness....or perhaps like he did with another eyewitness, A.W. Tillinghast, he'll just put his hands over his ears, shut his eyes tight, purse his lips, and ignore it.
Mike, do you have any idea what "eye-witness" even means? Could you please explain why you call Tillinghast or Alan Wilson an eye-witness? What exactly did they witness? Were they on site with M&W in June 1910? How about with Barker? Did they travel to NGLA in March 1911? Were they there when M&W returned to Merion to choose the final routing?
You call them eye-witnesses. Of what, exactly?
You are positive that "Far and Sure" was Tillinghast, right? When did "Far and Sure" first see Merion East?
__________________________________________
Uhrlich,
I don't necessarily disagree with your theory on the subtext or on Findlay's implicit message in the article. In fact, I don't think my reading and your reading necessarily contradict each other. I think that while you are figuring out Findlay's subtextual message, I am focusing on the text. Whatever subtextual message Findlay is sending, he does it through a discussion of Merion's 10th. But in the actual text was discussing Merion's 10th, even if he was only doing so to make some larger point or send some implicit message.
I hope you don't mind but I've gone Mucci on you and added references to where I think Findlay is referring to Merion's 10th into your post.
David, I believe he wasn't discussing Merion's 10th. He was trying to jump on the Merion bus or, as you suggested, trying to one-up Wilson and perhaps even CBM. So he depicts himself as someone, who knew better all along. He demonstrates his superiority by saying that Wilson came around to his point of view about Merion's 10th after he saw Prestwick's 17th and had to admit that it was WAY DIFFERENT from Merion's 10th . . .
Isn't this an accurate depiction of what the text says? Aren't they talking about Merion's 10th?
Whatever the subtext, it seems clear that on the surface he was discussing Merion's 10th. Wilson thought Merion's 10th was already an Alps hole. Findlay didnt think Merion's 10th was an Alps. By sending Wilson to see the Alps at Prestwick, Findlay convinced Wilson that Merion's 10th needed a lot of work to match Prestwick's Alps. Wilson improved Merion's 10th and by the opening Findlay thought it worthy of comparison to Prestwick's Alps.
If Findlay truly had been interested to discuss the 10th hole at Merion and perhaps boast that it was made better through his suggestion to go see Prestwick's 17th, then he, Findlay, would have specifically identified the 10th hole as the one that he contributed to. Or, in your interpretation, if he were interested to trash the 10th hole to make Wilson look bad, he would certainly have identified it.
Aha! Maybe this is where we have our signals crossed. Findlay does identify the hole; it was Wilson's attempt at an Alps hole at Merion, the Alps "which [Wilson] really imagined existed on his new course." Remember, Wilson had already built the course and seeded the fairways and greens at this point. Moreover, he had built some of the features, including the giant berm behind the 10th which was a key component of a CBM-style Alps hole. He doesn't provide the hole number (given Merion's back and forth with the hole numbers early on it may not have been assigned a number yet) but he was referring to Wilson's attempt at a CBM Alps hole, and that was Merion's 10th.
Maybe I am misunderstanding? What do you mean he never identified the hole?
As it is Findlay just says that Wilson "imagined it exists on his course". If Findlay really were interested to discuss the merits of the hole, he would have identified it, so that his readers could validate his appraisal.
It did exist. By this time, Wilson built a real golf hole and he apparently thought he had built a CBM-type Alps hole. According to Findlay, Wilson thought that he had already built an Alps hole equal to Prestwick's, but Findlay disagreed, which is why Findlay wrote that Wilson "really imagined" already had an Alps.
Also, I don't think we should read too much into the fact that Findlay did not get into a specific description of the hole. He said that he did not intend to. Also, given that Wilson went to work on the hole, it wouldn't have made much sense, would it? And it would have made less sense to have readers validate his appraisal, when the hole would be changed before the course opened.
Another indicator is that in the later Findlay article about the opening of the course, where he is actually prepared and willing to talk about the holes, he specifically describes the 10th as having an "Alps like approach shot", but doesn't criticize the hole in the least. This suggests that he didn't actually hate the hole, but simply used its being (unbeknownst to Wilson) WAY DIFFERENT from the 17th at Prestwick to demonstrate his superior knowledge.
I think the later praise of the hole was probably Findlay's way of saying I convinced him it needed work, he listened and fixed it, now look at how great the hole is. Man, I am great.
-
Patrick,
Interesting in all of the pictures of mine you copied you ignored these two;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3471882204_e948917ec3_o.jpg)
This of course shows the bottom line of the back bunker clearly visible from well BELOW the approach area.
That's pure nonsense.
The photo is taken from a VERY HIGH ELEVATION, well above the the elevation of the putting surface, fairway and galleryites.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3382/3471852236_c1f475d884_o.jpg)
This picture shows that the bottom line of that bunker behind the green is about at the level of the crouching putting golfer's waistline...and about thigh high on the standing golfer in white on the left.
More nonsense.
Anyone can see that the back of the green slopes upward to form the base of the berm that houses the bunker.
The putting surface is WELL below the bunker.
But, we both know that the view depicted in the above photo isn't from the golfer's eye as he plays the hole. It conveniently omits the elevated fronting bunker complex that obscures the putting surface from the view from the DZ.
In addition, the article you posted, along with Flynn's schematic, clearly states that the fairway sloped up from beneath the tee to a point 250 yards distant, where it leveled off.
Drives of 200-225 yards would be totally blind without a fronting bunker complex.
Drives of 250 or more would also be unable to see the putting surface due to the intervening elevated bunker complex, the one you posted a photo of, that shows spectators reclining and looking DOWN on the golfers on the putting surface.
For you to deny the physical evidence, evidence you presented, indicates that you're incapable of seeing the facts and accepting the truth.
If this approach was completely blind, as in Macdonald's Alps holes, how can we see the bottom line of the back bunker in a photo from well below the area of the approach shot.
Mike, you should be embarrased to ask that question since you KNOW that the bunker was elevated WELL ABOVE the putting surface.
Secondly, you know that the first photo you posted above was taken from a highly elevated point, one that's well above everything below it.
Lastly, you completely ignore the elevated fronting bunker complex AND the upsloping topography cited in the article you posted.
I have to tell you that your adherence to the "party line" is disturbing and calls into question your ability to be objective. It also undermines your credibility.
How can you deny that the bunker complex in the photo YOU posted sits above the putting surface ?
Especially when spectators are reclining in that bunker and looking DOWN on the golfers on the putting surface.
Very, very convenient omissions, on your part, Patrick. ;)
Mike, I addressed those photos and offered my analysis.
Those photos only confirm that the putting surface sat below the fronting bunker complex, that the rear bunker was elevated well above the green, and that the view of the putting surface from the DZ was obscured by the fronting bunker complex.
Your failure to admit that the configuration of the features obscured the putting surface erodes your credibility, which I assume you'd like to preserve.
If so, rigid denial of the facts and logic won't cut it.
-
John Stiles,
Sorry I missed your post, it got temporarily lost in the shuffle.
Not sure what arguments or documents you are relying on to reach your conclusions, so I will just let them be and focus on your questions.
So my question is, exploring from another angle previously discussed but now I have forgotten, did Macdonald or Whigham ever take credit for anything at Merion ?
After Macdonald passed away in 1939, H. J. Whigham (his son-in-law) authored an obituary for Country Life Magazine, in which he discussed NGLA in detail then listed some other of the best-known courses designed by one or both of Macdonald and Raynor. Here is the passage, with my bolds added:
"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 Saint Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at the expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."
H.J. Whigham was the 1896 United States Amateur Champion Golfer and one of the foremost authors and experts on golf courses in America and abroad. He helped Macdonald route NGLA and was involved in its creation. The two of them co-authored the 1914 series on ideal golf holes (including the Alps and the Redan) for Golf Illustrated. Outside of golf, he was an expert, author, and commentator on foreign affairs, a reporter, a war correspondent, an author on architecture, editor of Metropolitan Magazine and Town and Country, and golf editor of Country Life. I am sure there is more, but I don't know it offhand.
More importantly, H.J. Whigham was there.
- He was there with June 1910 when Merion brought H.J. Whigham and C.B. Macdonald in to inspect the potential golf site.
- He was there at NGLA in March 1911, when Wilson and his Committee traveled to NGLA so that CBM and HJW could teach them about the underlying fundamental principles of the great golf holes, and how these kinds of holes fit onto the natural features in at Ardmore.
- He was there in April 1911 when Merion brought CBM and HJW back to Ardmore to review the land again and to choose the final routing.
Bottom line is that H.J. Whigham knew first-hand who came up with the hole concepts and placement for Merion East. He knew first-hand that CB Macdonald was the creative driving force behind the routing and hole concepts. We have no reason to doubt him.
- So far as I know, Hugh Wilson never claimed to have come up with the hole concepts or the routing.
- So far as I know, Hugh Wilson never wrote anything that contradicts Whigham on this issue. In fact, while Hugh Wilson's 1916 work doesnt ever directly address the issue of who was primarily responsible for the routing and hole concepts, his account is entirely consistent with Whigham's.
- No one who was there contradicts Whigham wrote anything necessarily contradicting Whigham.
Some dismiss Whigham's word as the emotional blubbering of a grief-stricken son-in-law [Ironically, these same people hold up the Alan Wilson letter, written after his younger brother's untimely death, as a holy grail.] They obviously haven't considered the man or his life experiences. Whigham didn't just sob out his father-in-law's eulogy, he authored important obituaries for such notable men as President Theodore Roosevelt.
So yes, there is written proof that Merion East is a CBM course. H.J. Whigham, tell us so. He was not only there, he was knew what was going on, and he knew how to accurately describe it. Discarding his word is a sham.
Did they (M or W) ever say the Merion lads built a great Alps hole, or the Merion lads used our routing, or the Merion boys should have used our routing, or anything ?
In Macdonald's and Whigham's article on NGLA's Redan in Golf Illustrated, they list Merion's "reverse redan" along with the Redan at Piping Rock and the Redan at Sleepy Hollow (both CBM courses.) The only other American course they mention was a short hole at the unfinished Pine Valley, which utilized the Redan principle. I don't know whether CBM or Whigham had even seen Merion's finished Redan hole when they wrote this. [An aside. Whigham's treatment of Pine Valley is an interesting contrast to his treatment of Merion. If I recall correctly, Whigham noted that CBM had visited Pine Valley's site and made a number of recommendations, but that only a few of them had been followed, and that Pine Valley was primarily a Crump course, and that CBM felt that it was NGLA's main competitor for best course in the country. Whigham knew that a site visit and recommendations did not make it CBM's course, even if a few were followed. Query whether the "redan principle" green was one of CBM's suggestions that Pine Valley followed.]
CBM and HJW's article on the Alps does not mention Merion's Alps, but I don't think it mentions any Alps except the ones at NGLA and Prestwick.
Would have to believe that Macdonald, being such a headstrong individual, would have taken credit if he really thought that he deserved credit. By the time he wrote 'Scotland's Gift - Golf' published in 1928, wasn't it true that Wilson was credited with the architecture of Merion East ?
I don't think your assumptions are supported by the facts.
I have no reason to believe that CBM would have taken credit or sought credit. Contrary to the caricature that Wayne and TEPaul and others have created, I don't think he was only in it for his own aggrandizement. Don't get me wrong, he was headstrong, opinionated, and had an ego, but he also cared about Golf in America, and seems to have tried to act in its best interests. Remember, he was an amateur, so whatever he did for Merion or any other club, it he did it for some other reason than compensation.
I have a few reasons to think that he would NOT have sought credit in the manner you suggest. First, I believe I have read that he designed or helped design other courses, but I don't think he ever sought or took credit for a course that he and Raynor did not build. He didn't build Merion. Second, in Scotland's Gift, Macdonald does NOT discuss all of his courses, nor does he provide any lists of his courses or his designs. So I wouldn't have expected him to Mention Merion.
David is only working with a dozen lines (counting newspaper articles) about M&W, and then it only mentions their visits to help or some such.
I am definitely at a disadvantage with the documents, especially because many of the most important documents are being concealed from me by Wayne and TEPaul. But I am at a big advantage in that my concern is getting at the truth, no matter what it is, so in the long run I am already dormy. I feel very good about what I know and what I don't know.
There is plenty of information out there, and it is just a matter of putting the pieces together. Even the fact that Tom and Wayne are trying to hide certain things helps me more than they realize.
Anyway, thanks for the questions. I hadn't thought about H.J. Whigham in a while, and he was one hell of an impressive person, so it is always fun to share what little I have read or heard about him.
I hope my answers have helped.
DM
-
What "others" as laid out by Macdonald are "really great", in your opinion?
Mike, I have no satisfactory explanation at this point and thus would have to propose that Findlay was either drunk or the article heavily edited :)
What do you mean he never identified the hole?
He never told his readers which of the (presumably) 18 holes that Wilson built was supposed to be modelled after Prestwick's 17th. He did not give the hole number, neither did he identify the hole by its location on the site or by its features. It is clear to us - and any template design experts at the time - that only the 10th hole could have been meant. But Findlay's readers, a general audience of sports enthusiasts, could not have had any idea what an "Alps hole" actually is.
Therefore, if Findlay wanted to discuss the merits of Wilson's design (with the subtext of presenting himself as a better architect), then he would have described the hole in a way so that his readers could go to Merion, identify the hole and verify Findlay's assessment.
My reading, however, is that Findlay wasn't prepared to discuss the merits of Wilson's design, because after the course tour he already sensed it might become a great course. He certainly didn't want to go on record as a nay-sayer, when everyone else would likely agree on Merion's greatness. So instead of discussing the merits of the design, he focused on an area, where he felt he was safe from criticism: foreign experience. He tried to present himself as something of a mentor to young and inexperienced Hugh Wilson. He was trying to elevate himself, so praising someone else's holes at Merion would not be compatible with this intention.
Wilson improved Merion's 10th and by the opening Findlay thought it worthy of comparison to Prestwick's Alps.
If that were true, then I would give your interpretation (Findlay hated the 10th and convinced Wilson to make it more like the original, so that it would be of the same standard as the other CBM holes on the course) some credibility. Is there is any evidence that Wilson came back from Prestwick and immediately set out to work on the 10th?
Ulrich
-
Patrick,
There is NO spot on the hillside above the right side of the 9th green that is as high an elevation point as the landing area for #10.
None.
Here we see the full picture this snippet is taken from, down just overlooking the valley of the 9th green. Anyone familiar with the golf course should know better than to have made such a statement, Patrick.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3394688607_e75d040f32_o.jpg)(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3395498474_0eb690fef7_o.jpg)
Your credibility is tainted with your blind adulation of CB Macdonald. For ten years here I think about 90% of your threads have been about NGLA. You also love bantering with Tom Paul.
It's no wonder you're trying to side with David here but you're on a sinking ship....again. ;)
David,
You keep talking about "CBM-Style Alps" hole, yet no one else ever mentioned that term...they talk about Prestwick's Alps hole.
By your own argument Macdonald only had built one at NGLA by that time and it's very clear that the 10th hole at Merion and the 3rd at NGLA are as common as pickles and bowling balls.
Your diarreahic blizzard of words fails to answer a single direct question and it's rhetorical masturbation.
John Stiles,
H.J. Whigham was either a liar, or mis-spoke, or his memory was beginning to fade when he made that single statement for the first time in his life 28 years after the fact and after everyone else was long since dead.
I suspect the former, but perhaps he can be forgiven for the latter.
Why?
Because his statement is not only historically incorrect, and wholly unsubstantiated, but it's also demonstrably untrue.
At the time Whigham made that statement, Merion was a world-class course that had hosted 2 US Amateurs, 1 US Open (where Tillinghast made the statement that it was sad so few new that Hugh Wilson was the architect of Merion), and a host of other events. It was also nothing remotely like the course that was built in 1912.
Although we don't know ALL of the details, we know the original Merion course opened with very few bunkers. If you think of the Macdonald template holes, almost every one is defined by a rote, pre-defined bunkering pattern.
We don't know exactly which holes had which bunkers in 1912, except for a few cases. We also know that the course that hosted the US Amateur in 1916 had NO OTHER MACDONALD ROTE BUNKER Patterns for holes, despite David's avoiding this entire line of questioning.
What we do know is that of the course that opened in 1912 at Merion, holes 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17 were either wholly or substantially different by 1939, the majority of them having been fundamentally changed by 1924, fifteen years before Whigham made his outlandish statement. We also know that many other holes had entire bunkering strategies created, revised, and recreated over the next 22 years by first Wilson, then Wilson/Flynn, and then William Flynn. We also know that much of the routing was fundamentally changed.
What's more, if Whigham had even a tangential relationship to the game for the previous 22 years when he made that statement, he would have known all of that. His statement is either a lie, as mistatement, or, he was beginning to fade softly in that good night memory-wise himself.
For Whigham in 1939 to call Merion a Macdonald/Raynor course is a worse sin than if Tommy Fazio in 20 years called Stonewall a "Tom Fazio" course.
It's more like me in 20 years calling Rustic Canyon a Tom Paul course because he had more experience than Geoff Shackelford and visited for a day and offered some advice and suggestions! ;D
Heyyy....wait a sec..... :o ;)
-
"Your diarreahic blizzard of words......."
Good Lord Mr. Cirba YOU really ARE a writer, aren't you? Good stuff there; Oscar Wilde might even have cozied up to you had he actually heard you say that!! ;)
-
Patrick,
There is NO spot on the hillside above the right side of the 9th green that is as high an elevation point as the landing area for #10.
None.
Mike, I'm afraid you're confused.
The 10th fairway starts low and rises until it reaches a point 250 yards distant from the tee, whereupon it levels out.
In 1911 I don't believe I'd describe a distance 250 yards removed from the tee as the landing zone.
That's pure BS. No one was carrying the ball 250 yards, even with an elevated tee. The landing zone was far to the right of the 250 mark.
Evidently you didn't LOOK carefully at the picture or you would have noticed the mounds in the left side photo, which appear to rise above the fairway.
That you would make the quantum leap that the hole wasn't blind, based on a photo taken from an angle completely foreign to the golfer's eye reflects on the lengths you and Wayno will go to deny the obvious.
How do you reconcile that you previously admitted that the hole was blind ?
In addition, the photo on the right is higher than the photo on the left.
Just look at the corner of the rightside fairway bunker and you'll see that they don't match, the right side photo needs to be adjusted downward in order to match the features in the left side photo
Here we see the full picture this snippet is taken from, down just overlooking the valley of the 9th green. Anyone familiar with the golf course should know better than to have made such a statement, Patrick.
Not only am I familiar with the golf course, but, the gentleman who wrote the article that accompanied the Flynn schematic YOU POSTED was familiar with the golf course. He stated that the fairway sloped up until it reached the 250 yard mark, where it leveled out.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3394688607_e75d040f32_o.jpg)(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3395498474_0eb690fef7_o.jpg)
Your credibility is tainted with your blind adulation of CB Macdonald.
Evidently the folks at Merion had that same blind adulation.
They invited him down to help them design their golf course and
they visited him and studied his masterpiece at NGLA.
For ten years here I think about 90% of your threads have been about NGLA.
Mike, if you really believe that, then I've lost all respect for your intellectual honesty.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
You also love bantering with Tom Paul.
Why wouldn't I ?
He provides me with my daily form of entertainment, and, he does so at NO COST to me.
You'd have to pay a lot of money to get into a comedy club that measures up to his performances.
It's no wonder you're trying to side with David here but you're on a sinking ship....again. ;)
Speaking of sinking ships, wasn't it you who vehemently denied David's claim that Wilson NEVER sailed to the UK prior to 1912 ? How did that position work out for you ? ;D
You keep talking about "CBM-Style Alps" hole, yet no one else ever mentioned that term...they talk about Prestwick's Alps hole.
Would you cite for me where I used the term "CBM-Style Alps" and the context in which I used it ?
By your own argument Macdonald only had built one at NGLA by that time and it's very clear that the 10th hole at Merion and the 3rd at NGLA are as common as pickles and bowling balls.
That's because Wilson was inept at recreating an "Alps" on that land.
One only has to read Findlay's comments to understand that Wilson's "Alps" was sorely lacking.
Your diarreahic blizzard of words fails to answer a single direct question and it's rhetorical masturbation.
I've addressed and answered every question in great detail.
It is you who have failed to answer the questions I posed.
John Stiles,
H.J. Whigham was either a liar, or mis-spoke, or his memory was beginning to fade when he made that single statement for the first time in his life 28 years after the fact and after everyone else was long since dead.
Mike, why is it that when anyone is directly cited, and that citation disagrees with your stated position, that you label them a liar or that they mis-spoke ? How can you casually and selectively dismiss words written by someone who was intimately involved in the project ?
-
“Mike, why is it that when anyone is directly cited, and that citation disagrees with your stated position, that you label them a liar or that they mis-spoke ? How can you casually and selectively dismiss words written by someone who was intimately involved in the project ?”
"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 Saint Louis, two beautiful courses at White Sulphur, the Lido (literally poured out of the lagoon), and that equally amazing Yale course at New Haven, which was hewn out of rock and forest at the expense of some seven hundred thousand dollars."
Patrick:
Look, I would never think of calling Whigam a liar----eg the guy was obviously a very fine, honest and upstanding man but with his mention of Merion Cricket Club at Philadelphia he mentioned in that eulogisitic article in 1939 almost thirty years after the fact that it was a Macdonald-Raynor design, for starters. So far as I’m aware noone but nobody EVER put Raynor on site at Ardmore in 1910 or 1911 or even at NGLA in 1911 with he and Macdonald and the Merion Wilson Committee so what the hell is that about but perhaps a pretty faulty memory over a long period of time or just an inaccurate misstatement?
Furthermore, he has Yale costing $700,000, a full $250,000 MORE than Macdonald himself said it cost all-in. What’s going on there Patrick if not a pretty glaring misstatement on someone’s part?
-
Shivas,
The committee led by Hugh Wilson, right?
-
"If anything, the piece indicates to me that the credit for the original routing and design of Merion should be "Done by committee" and leave it at that."
Shivas:
That's true but you have to read the rest as well and what it all means. He did say the committee LAID OUT the two courses and since we now know from the MCC minutes that LAID OUT the way MCC and the Wilson Committee used the term had to be routing and hole designing on the ground and on paper because they reported that BEFORE, and considerable so, any construction or BUILDING took place, at least on the East Course.
So it certainly was a committee effort but we can't ignore that Alan Wilson also said that the rest of the Wilson Committee TOLD HIM in the MAIN Hugh Wilson was reponsible for the ARCHITECTURE of the East and West courses. Do you really think THEY ALL (the rest of the Wilson Committee) who had been there with him throughout were mistaken somehow? They were all there, noone is denying that so THEY better than anyone should've know who did what, don't you think? I mean they were there right at Merion in the timespan of this entire process for about two and a half years compared to Whigam who was there for a grand total of two days max. Who do you suppose might know what really happened the best? ;)
If you've never realized it before routing and hole designing BEFORE construction begins is certainly part of ARCHITECTURE!
We also can't really discount Alan Wilson himself. Even though he wasn't on his brother's committee he was one of the founders of "The MCC Golf Association" and don't forget he worked with his brother everyday in their insurance business. For that reason alone there's no conceivable way he could've missed what Hugh was doing at Merion or talked about it all the time throughout those years.
-
This Alan Wilson report unfortunately loses some credibility due to its fabrication of a timeline that happens to promote a "hero story" about the author's brother.
This is really unfortunate, because otherwise the report is pretty clear about the roles of Wilson, committee and CBM / Whigam. As it is, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
Ulrich
-
Shivas:
Mike Cirba cut the picture in half???
Good lord, what the hell are you talking about now? Why don't you come over here for about five years, get familiar with everything about Merion on the ground etc and then come back and start questioning this? I would recommend the same thing for that other guy too. Throw Patrick in there too. ;)
-
Shivas,
The committee was concerned with the original building of the golf course(s), the same study as David's essay.
They dissolved afterwards, and were not involved in subsequent changes to the course up to and including Alan Wilson's 1926 letter.
Also,
I had posted that picture prior. It's on a 2-page spread of Golf Illustrated, and I had to copy each page into a separate image and then try to post them together here.
I'm no photoshop expert, that's for sure.
Sorry if you think I was doing something dubious...
-
Ulrich:
I hate to say it at this point because I really don't think it's very important due to all the rest of the material we've found fairly recently about what the Wilson Committee did in the beginning of 1911 but there isn't exactly any thing dispositive (as these lawyers on here like to say) that proves Hugh Wilson was not abroad at some point towards the end of 1910 and despite what it says in that vein in Findlay's article.
I think the essayist in question believes that because neither he nor anyone else has found some ship passenger manifest for Wilson earlier than 1912 that that proves he was never abroad earlier. For a guy like that there were definitely ways of getting over there that may not show up NOW on some ship passenger manifest that is findable.
We definitely aren't claiming that but who is really to say it isn't possible, particularly when you have a man in the wings like Clement Griscom who was the chairman of the famous "Shipping Trust" and there were a couple of MCC members and friends who had transatlantic private yachts the size of small commercial ocean liners? ;)
-
Obviously we can never know for sure, it is next to mathematically impossible to prove that something didn't happen. All we can do is point to the existing evidence and go with probabilities. Even if we found a statement by CBM that gave all credit for the routing to Wilson, it might still be wrong. But scientifically we would accept it as "the best currently available knowledge". Unless CBM was proved to be a liar in other regards, then his testimony's relevance would decrease.
Ulrich
-
As a newcomer, can I call a time out for a minute and ask a serious question because try as I might I am having trouble understanding and following all this.
Are the main contributors to this thread carrying on a rhetorical conversation that is full of inside humour, jests and long-standing good natured barbs, or is this a real discussion? ???
If the former then maybe I will keep paying attention and try to understand the comedy. If the latter then I urge all to move on. Surely the, not inconsiderable, brain power needed to come up with more and more ways of saying the same thing over and over and over could be put to better use.
This I say with all due respect to my esteemed senior contributors. ;)
-
Dale Jackson, You may have it about right. But unfortunately we are not all here with the same purposes. Some of us would like to move on, but with this crowd it is very much two steps forward and three or four steps back.
So what is one to do if one actually wants to have some novel discussions about Merion? It takes two to tango, and around here anyone can cut in at any time.
_____________________________
Shivas.
YES!
I am not sure where you are going and chances are I will vehemently disagree with your conclusion, but THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for taking Hugh Wilson's words seriously and at least trying to figure out what exactly happened at NGLA!! Obviously it is one of the most crucial events of this entire story.
I take back about 20% of the bad things I have said about you!
I don't want to break your train of thought, so I'll leave you be.
-
Here's the picture thankfully (thanks Joe Bausch) pasted together electronically;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3486007451_47f9d50c98_o.jpg)
-
Dave, I really don't have a train of thought. I just went back to the passage and that sentence in particular and started asking myself "what modifies what here?" and that's what I came up with. So I thought I'd share it. No axe to grind, and I'm fully prepared to be reminded that I'm endlessly parsing grammar like Mrs. Havisham the English teacher or the uber-lawyer that I am certainly not ... ;)
No train of thought? No agenda? No axe to grind? Then you are obviosly on the wrong thread. I rescind two-thirds of the 20% I took back of the bad things I previously said about you behind your back, but because of the suprising novelty of your open-mind approach here, I also take another 15% of the bad things I previously said about you behind your back back, notwithstanding and not including the two-thirds of the the 20% of the things I had said behind your back and then rescinded taking back. Back. Plus I just said a couple bad things about you because of your bizzare infatuation with sentence structure. I still think you come out ahead, but am not sure. Could you diagram it and get back to me?
A few things you may want to consider:
1. When TEPaul calls you to scold you for snooping around what really happened at NGLA, say 'hey' for me. Also, please try to find out whether the MCC minutes actually say whether or not the Committee was examining old, pre-drawn sketches from Scotland, NGLA, or anywhere else?
2. Along those same lines, is there anything in Wilson's passage above necessarily indicating that the sketches preexisted the NGLA meetings? The explanations were obviously live, real time, contemporaneous, happening then and there. So why not the sketches? Could some person or persons have been sketching and explaining on the spot?
3. As for what exactly they were explaining and perhaps even sketching, you may want to take another look at what Wilson said they learned.
DM
-
For us innocent bystanders, much of this whole Merion stuff does show a lot of wit.. as obviously contentious as it all is also.
And to that end, fair is fair. Outstanding wit must be noted.
THis had me absolutely rolling....
No train of thought? No agenda? No axe to grind? Then you are obviosly on the wrong thread. I rescind two-thirds of the 20% I took back of the bad things I previously said about you behind your back, but because of the suprising novelty of your open-mind approach here, I also take another 15% of the bad things I previously said about you behind your back back, notwithstanding and not including the two-thirds of the the 20% of the things I had said behind your back and then rescinded taking back. Back. Plus I just said a couple bad things about you because of your bizzare infatuation with sentence structure. I still think you come out ahead, but am not sure. Could you diagram it and get back to me?
Well done, David. ;D ;D ;D
Now back to the peanut gallery.
-
In the hand drawn sketch of #10 posted a couple time earlier in this thread it looks like a pretty significant turn to the right, any explanations as to why, or how? It doesn't seem to jive with any of the pictures or the orientation of the road (being perpendicular to the line of play).
-
Shiv,
I think it might make more sense if you look at the sentence this way:
Through [sketches] and [explanations of the right principles] of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.
There are two distinct items that refer to "the holes that formed the famous courses abroad..."
Each are separate and distinct and shown in that they can be used to form an independent sentence with the phrase. These two sentences would be:
Through [sketches] of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad...
and
Through [explanations of the right principles] of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad..."
It is therefor apparent that he showed them actual sketches of the great holes they were speaking about...
-
This is taken from the Merion website:
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.
Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?
Ulrich
-
My .2 cents
Macdonald was famous and highly regarded for two things, and justly so -- his promotion in America of the great British golf holes (and the underlying principles of same), and his design and creation of NGLA, the ideal golf course based on those holes and principles. It makes sense, then, that a Committee comprised of respectful men would spend part of their time looking at and discussing Macdonald’s sketches of the great British holes and/or of his American homage to those holes, and the next day walking NGLA to see what Macdonald's hand had wrought.
David M – in several posts recently you’ve been linking together hole concepts and hole placements, as if to suggest that if Macdonald had a hand in one he must’ve had a hand in the other; but that seems to me a tenuous link (of course, I guess that’s what all the disagreements are actually about, so never mind…)
Peter
-
"Either that, or (2) he really, really needed Pickering to put the bottle down and get focused..."
My Dear Mr. Schmidt:
Get FOCUSED?? Apparently you're not aware what really good "Flask architects" and really good "Flask" architecture" is all about. Focused?? Oh My God, it's like being focused normally but at a factor of about 77 or 78!!
Pickering was some kind of focused alright via his usual "Flask Architecture". That wasn't his problem at all, matter of fact when he was really into his "Flask Architecture" and truly focused Wilson reported through his secretary Fred Kortebein that Pickering was so damned focused he almost 'blew up' and they had to let him go for awhile for his own health and welfare.
-
I'm aware what he said they learned. I made a conscious decision not to recite that, and stick to my narrow topic.
While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that he says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been. (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).
He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."
1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. 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, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here? Honestly.
How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??
How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back", "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??
How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?
It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.
Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??
Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??
Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??
Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?
If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??
-
Hey Cirba, would you and Bausch quit dicking around electronically with some of our best old photographic evidence?! That solid vertical white line running through #9 and right up through the 10th fairway and into the sky that shows up in the photo on your post #531 was done on the suggestion of Macdonald!! He thought that was one of the best suggestions he made to MCC on April 6, 1911. Didn't you realize that you dickheads?! He was still sort of into some ultra engineered looking stuff in his architectural principles in 1911. That thing had to be damn hard to conceive of and design; and that's one of the very reasons Macdonald was such a friggin' genius. It was a massive clear tube filled with sand that was around fifty feet high. It was considered to be one of the most innovative and novel strategic hazards the history of golf course architecture ever heard of.
Trouble was, unfortunately the power hitting Merion and US Amateur champ, Max Marston hit it with a smokin' stinger drive one time and snapped it in two. Greenkeeper Flynn said he never saw an instant fairway and green topdressing quite like that one in his career.
-
Which greensites were a given at Merion which predetermined the routing? Regardless of who was involved it seems certain green sites were inevitable. Could this have emboldened the amateurs to go it alone? I assume the extra land they purchased created even more determinism.
My amateur take is that #3, #4, (possibly #5) ,#7, #9, #11, #15, #16 pretty much were obvious greensites and that the remainder of the course was fleshed out after that. Interestingly, this means none of the changed greensites were essential to the routing including #10.
BTW, I apologize for asking an architecture question ::)
-
AKA Mayday:
Those "bunch of guys" as the essayist calls them were such a bunch of novices they put the 11th green on property they didn't even own, that's why Lloyd who was a bit perturbed about it had to eventually cough up some more green.
Lloyd:
"Hey Hugh, the property I bought for you wet-ears ended about a 100 yards short of where you put that 11th green."
Wilson:
"I'm sorry Hor, it just looked like a really jake green-site to us and we knew you'd probably buy it for us eventually if we didn't own it. Please, please buy it for us Mr. Lloyd, you old Big Daddy Captain of the Universe, you."
Lloyd:
"OK, kid, but cut out this kind of KaKa from here on out; I've had about enough of your committee member bike rides waking me up in the middle of the night and putting greens on someone else's property I have to buy for an inflated price."
-
Tom,
That is a true definition of "genius"
-
I don't think terrain had much to do with the placement of the following greens---#1, #2,#6,#14, #18 (if that greensite is artificial). They just link the other holes in the routing.
-
Dale Jackson:
You said above you're having a hard time following all this and you asked what's going on. I think the answer is this subject is the essayist's "day-in-the-sun and he refuses to let it end by continuously denying the obvious. He actually thinks there is something to get onto here---like "the real purpose." He even wants to write Part II of his essay on Merion's architectural history. What a hoot that will be don't you think? I think "the real purpose" is about not much more than the fact he likes to argue with people constantly. That's probably why Patrick is still sort of supporting him. Patrick likes to argue all the time; Pat LIVES to argue! Patrick LOVES to argue! ;)
If you really want to see what SHOULD HAVE happened on this subject just go to Eric Smith's post #17 on the "Why so much talk on Merion" thread and click on the red hyperlink in that post. That was a thread made by Tom MacWood back in 2003, and when it comes to HIS QUESTION on the subject of Merion's architectural history and Macdonald and Wilson and who specifically did what on what hole and such----well what we told him in a page or two was the truth of it all and this entire subject should've ended RIGHT THERE over six years ago.
There was and is no more to it than basically that but we unfortunately had a couple of guys who wanted to make mountains out of very small molehills and not to find the truth about the architecture or architects of Merion but clearly for other reasons that didn't have much to do with that. What they are still doing six years later doesn't have anything to do with that either.
It's about that simple, Dale.
-
What makes this question so controversial anyway that otherwise quite intelligent folks are trashing each other over it?
Is it just about the extent of CBM and HJW's involvement in the routing and design of Merion East? I don't think anyone denies they were involved in some capacity. I don't think anyone disputes that CBM mentored Hugh Wilson and basically got him started in golf architecture.
The only contentious issue seems to be the extent of their involvement. Is it enough to get a "co-design credit" or is it just some "Sunday afternoon advising" as done by many of the leading figures at that time?
Frankly, if that is all there is to this discussion, then why is the whole thing totally blown out of any proportion? Even if one of the two sides were found out to be entirely wrong, what would that really change? It would certainly not change our general understanding of how the Merion course came to be.
I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.
Ulrich
-
Ulrich,
Please stop making sense and being so perceptive. ;)
-
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3343/3471852212_fb531444d4_o.jpg)
This photo, which Mike Cirba posted, taken close to the 10th green, clearly shows the fronting bunker complex, elevated well above the putting surface.
Does anyone refute that point ?
When an elevated feature lies between two points, B and A, with B being the green and A being the DZ, the closer the feature lies to B, the more it will obscure Point B from point A.
Does anyone refute that point ?
The physical evidence presented by the above photo is irrefutable as is the following conclusion.
The elevated bunker complex obscures the view of the green below it from the DZ.
Does anyone think that any of the spectators are standing at an elevation equal to that of the golfers on the green ?
-
Patrick,
The back edge of that front bunker is raised up a foot or two.
That might make some very front hole locations blind in the sense that the bottom of the flagstick might not be visible.
On the other hand, what do you have to say about this?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3486007451_47f9d50c98_o.jpg)
The bottom line of the back bunker is completely visible from WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (in Matt Wardspeak ;)) below the either the landing zone of the 10th hole or the green surface itself, and it's also clear that you can see that from about anywhere on planet earth, so where my friend is the NGLA, "CBM Alps-Like Hole" in all of that?
The unintentially funny thing is that you just criticized Hugh Wilson for not building a Alps hole as good as Macdonald yet still cling to that cold, frozen, stiff, and bloated piece of driftwood as you float aloft in MacdonaldDesignedMerion Neverland. ;D
Hop in the life raft...there's still room.
Trust your eyes and your brain and get over your provincialistic prejudices. ;)
-
[While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that he says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been. (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).
He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."
1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. 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, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here? Honestly.
How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??
How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back", "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??
How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?
It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.
Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??
Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??
Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??
Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?
If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??
Must be an out-of-town lawyer's convention leading to a delay in your normally scheduled programming... ;D
-
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in CONSTRUCTION and GREENKEEPING was only that of the average club member. "
While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that Hugh Wilson says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been. (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).
He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."
1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, looking for advice on soils, grasses, insects, fungus, bacteria, practices, forces of natures, etc....I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. 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, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here? Honestly.
How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??
How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back", "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??
How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?
It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.
Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??
Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??
Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??
Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?
If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??
-
"The members of the committee had played golf for many years but their experience in CONSTRUCTION and GREENKEEPING was only that of the average club member. "
While you guys are parsing words you'll notice that Hugh Wilson says they knew little about agronomy (greenkeeping) and construction, comparing it to an average club member, hyperbolic as it may have been. (Wilson had been on the green committee at Princeton while it was being constructed and opened and Toulmin was one of the 3 men who laid out Belmont and Francis was a surveyor and engineer).
He goes on to say, based on their lack of agronomy and construction experience, "Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half of the things we did not know."
1000 or so letters to Piper and Oakley later, looking for advice on soils, grasses, insects, fungus, bacteria, practices, forces of natures, etc....I'm betting for certain he felt that way honestly.
"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. 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, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here? Honestly.
How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??
How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back", "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??
How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?
It was likely late in the day in early March when they arrived so it was too dark by dinner to go out to the course...that they did the next day.
Wouldn't Macdonald have not only shown them, via sketches, the great holes abroad, but also how he had implemented those principles with corresponding sketches of NGLA??
Wouldn't just that discussion alone have lasted into the wee hours, likely with some liquid refreshments??
Wouldn't Macdonald have been justly proud to show these guys his course which had only just had a soft opening with a tournament in July 1910, and was still growing and being finalized in spots and wouldn't officially open to members til later that year??
Why would they have to go all the way out there to NGLA to have him do a routing if that was the intent?
If he did a routing with a topographic map, why not just send him the map and have him do a Rossian "paper job" and send it back to them, getting them started??
You need to give it a rest Mike. There is nothing in here we haven't covered repeatedly, and I am not going to cover it again, as I have lost all confidence in your ability to carry on any sort of reasonable conversation. I am not going to keep spinning my wheels with you.
-
I disagree, David.
You've made great hay in seeking to portray Hugh Wilson and his Committee as "a bunch of novices" by his simple omission that they, much like every other club in America at that time, were confronted with the challenges of how to grow healthy and consistent golf course turf on inland clay-based soils.
In fact, you've tried to turn this simple, humble admission into something almost infantile on their parts...that men who had played at the highest competitive levels and had seen any golf course of worth in America during the previous FIFTEEN YEARS, were somehow now like two year-olds in their understanding of what made a golf hole strategically or tactically interesting.
Instead, as a true reading of Hugh Wilson's words finally make clear once and for all, they were talking strictly about construction techniques and agronomic practices...not about whether a redan had a fronting bunker at the low end or an Biarrtiz had a deep dip in the middle, or the Eden green slope and bunkering scheme, or whether the strategic challenge of a hole had most and foremost to do with having to challenge a hazard for advantage...things that a 5-year old could learn in a couple of hours of deep study.
YOU were right all along, David.
These men went to NGLA to learn how to build and grass their golf course.
Not how to design or route it.
Every single word in Hugh Wilson's account in 1916 rings true to that reading and now, once the truth is obvious, suddenly you ask for a truce...for me to "give it a rest".
Convenient of you, isn't it?
Some weeks ago, and then again recently I told you I was tired of arguing these points, and that I felt it unfair of me to have this discussion with you while I had read the MCC minutes and you didn't have that opportunity, but when I've tried to just "give it a rest" you took that as some type of strategic advantage and went on a flurry of propaganda that I just couldn't ignore.
I agree that it's time we give it a rest.
However, it's also time we let Hugh Wilson deservedly have the last word.
The man clearly earned it by all accounts of those who knew him, and I'm pretty certain he's tired or your abuse and disrespect.
-
Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before.
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings? If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip? From the construction of NGLA? From something else?
-
Answering some posts I missed . . ..
If David Moriarity can interpret Alan Wilson's letter as crediting more of the design of Merion to CBM then to Hugh Wilson then I believe you guys should just stop responding to him until he brings more facts to the table.
Fascinating approach and obviously from the TEPaul school of debate; pronounce the final answer based on a quick read and incomplete knowledge of the surrounding facts, then insist that the conversation is over.
His proving that Wilson went overseas later would be an example of some fine work. But, that still doesn't eliminate the Alan Wilson letter as definitive on the design credit for Merion.
But if the letter is indeed definitive, then I am wrong on this issue as well.
__________________________________
Wilson improved Merion's 10th and by the opening Findlay thought it worthy of comparison to Prestwick's Alps.
If that were true, then I would give your interpretation (Findlay hated the 10th and convinced Wilson to make it more like the original, so that it would be of the same standard as the other CBM holes on the course) some credibility. Is there is any evidence that Wilson came back from Prestwick and immediately set out to work on the 10th?
Ulrich,
As to your last paragraph, a number of courses reported that Wilson continued to work on the course up to the opening (and after.) Far and Sure reported that he added featuers such as bunkers, mounds, and grass, between his trip and the opening.
But the best source is Findlay, In June he didn't think Merion's Alps was comparable to Prestwick's. In September he did. Something changed.
As to the rest, whatever his real purpose, I think Findlay wrote that CBM "laid out" Merion, as he uses the term.
______________________________________________
In the hand drawn sketch of #10 posted a couple time earlier in this thread it looks like a pretty significant turn to the right, any explanations as to why, or how? It doesn't seem to jive with any of the pictures or the orientation of the road (being perpendicular to the line of play).
I've tried to figure this out as well by using the buildings in some of the photos as reference, and while I am not certain I think that the line of play may have been angled to the right of the current line of play, so that the centerline would have just left of or bisecting the left bunker. Note that in one of the photos post changes there is a bunker left of the hole and it looks to be out in the middle of nowhere. It seems well left, but I wonder if it was in play??
Remember that this was supposed to be a 380+ yard hole (it wasn't) and putting it at a slight angle so the approach would be over the left corner of the green would have bought them a few yards.
_______________________________
This is taken from the Merion website:
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.
Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?
Ulrich
If it means what it seems to mean, then it has been disproven.
_____________________________________________________
This Alan Wilson report unfortunately loses some credibility due to its fabrication of a timeline that happens to promote a "hero story" about the author's brother.
This is really unfortunate, because otherwise the report is pretty clear about the roles of Wilson, committee and CBM / Whigam. As it is, it must be taken with a grain of salt.
Ulrich
While the letter is interesting and I don't really doubt much in it, there are some other issues as well. I've never read anything indicating that Alan Wilson was involved in the initial design or construction, so there is at least an issue of the basis for his knowledge. The timing issue you point out raises further questions. Plus, regarding the creation of Merion East, some of the information was no doubt second-hand-- A. Wilson said it was. And the rest of the rest of the factual information could be. In As far as factual information, I don't think there is anything new in the letter. Most or all the factual information could be found by quickly perusing Merion's records.
TEPaul's claim that we do not know for certain whether Wilson had previously gone over to study is factually incorrect.
Wilson himself notes that he went abroad to study "after" the NGLA trip.
Findlay confirms that in June 1912 Wilson wished he and gone over earlier.
Timelining Wilson's whereabouts makes a 1910 trip virtually impossible.
Ulrich, this is the answer to your question as to why these things are so contentious and drawn out. No matter how many times a point is proven, it is never conceded.
_______________________________________
My .2 cents
Macdonald was famous and highly regarded for two things, and justly so -- his promotion in America of the great British golf holes (and the underlying principles of same), and his design and creation of NGLA, the ideal golf course based on those holes and principles. It makes sense, then, that a Committee comprised of respectful men would spend part of their time looking at and discussing Macdonald’s sketches of the great British holes and/or of his American homage to those holes, and the next day walking NGLA to see what Macdonald's hand had wrought.
David M – in several posts recently you’ve been linking together hole concepts and hole placements, as if to suggest that if Macdonald had a hand in one he must’ve had a hand in the other; but that seems to me a tenuous link (of course, I guess that’s what all the disagreements are actually about, so never mind…)
Peter,
Your first paragraph ignores both the text and the context of the meeting.
I guess that one could split hole concepts and placements, but I don't think that is what happened or how CBM worked. CBM had seen the site and Merion had a contour map. You don't think he'd have offered his opinion on where to put a Redan? You don' t think they'd want to know where to put it? Why do you suppose they discarded their preliminary plans when they went to NGLA?
That being said, I am glad you accept that the holes at Merion were CBM's concepts, but many do not.
________________________________________________
What makes this question so controversial anyway that otherwise quite intelligent folks are trashing each other over it?
Is it just about the extent of CBM and HJW's involvement in the routing and design of Merion East? I don't think anyone denies they were involved in some capacity. I don't think anyone disputes that CBM mentored Hugh Wilson and basically got him started in golf architecture.
The only contentious issue seems to be the extent of their involvement. Is it enough to get a "co-design credit" or is it just some "Sunday afternoon advising" as done by many of the leading figures at that time?
Frankly, if that is all there is to this discussion, then why is the whole thing totally blown out of any proportion? Even if one of the two sides were found out to be entirely wrong, what would that really change? It would certainly not change our general understanding of how the Merion course came to be.
I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.
Ulrich
There is absolutely no good reason it should be contentious at all. But it has been this way around here for years. There is a strong pull to stick with the Merion legend and every step away from the legend, no matter how small, has been fought and resisted to the extreme. For example even what you put forth as being beyond dispute was hotly disputed, and not that long ago.
You mention design credit, but for me at least, my goal is just to figure out what happened.
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
Ulrich:
I hate to say it at this point because I really don't think it's very important due to all the rest of the material we've found fairly recently about what the Wilson Committee did in the beginning of 1911 but there isn't exactly any thing dispositive (as these lawyers on here like to say) that proves Hugh Wilson was not abroad at some point towards the end of 1910 and despite what it says in that vein in Findlay's article.
I think the essayist in question believes that because neither he nor anyone else has found some ship passenger manifest for Wilson earlier than 1912 that that proves he was never abroad earlier. For a guy like that there were definitely ways of getting over there that may not show up NOW on some ship passenger manifest that is findable.
We definitely aren't claiming that but who is really to say it isn't possible, particularly when you have a man in the wings like Clement Griscom who was the chairman of the famous "Shipping Trust" and there were a couple of MCC members and friends who had transatlantic private yachts the size of small commercial ocean liners? ;)
This is just flat out false for reasons that have been discussed many times before.
-
Mike Cirba said above:
“How do we know we're not talking strictly about construction & agronomy here? Honestly.
How do we know that as David has continually argued, "laying out" this time means constructing them on the ground as referenced by Wilson above??
How do we know that the right "principles of construction" aren't "don't put a green down in a hole where it can't drain", "don't put so much tilt in a green a ball won't stay there", "don't build too many greens front to back", "don't mix seed with manure", etc..??
How do we know that the sketches were not Macdonald's plans for NGLA, with things like irrigation, drainage, contouring, shaping, grassing methods entailed?”
Mike Cirba:
If you or anyone wants to apply some of your questions to the various Wilson and Merion records here’s how I’d suggest doing it via a Timeline of event records:
First:
“"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindnesses of Messrs. C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam. 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, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."
That passage was written by Wilson in 1915 or 1916, 4-5 years AFTER Merion East went into construction. So in that case it is more than possible that he also meant building the course when he used the term “laid out” or “laying out.”
HOWEVER, when the Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911 used the term “we laid out numerous different courses on the new ground” in the winter of 1911 BEFORE visiting NGLA and Macdonald that could mean they staked out holes on the property AND/OR they submitted those staked out “courses” on the ground to a paper topographical contour survey “plan” of the property (courses drawn on those paper plans). I know they had topographical contour survey maps of the property that was now in the possession of Lloyd because Wilson mentioned the plan and enclosed it to Russell Oakley in Washington D.C. in his first correspondence on Feb. 1, 1911.
In that case we KNOW that when they used the term “laid out” to describe what they HAD BEEN DOING in the PREVIOUS months in that report (winter months of 1911 and before visiting NGLA) there is no way at all they could’ve meant they were BUILDING or actually CONSTRUCTING a golf course on the ground because WE KNOW from the Merion TIMELINE that was an event (the actual BUILDING of a course) that would NOT TAKE PLACE for a number of months HENCE!
In that Wilson Committee report to the MCC Board Meeting on April 19, 1911, it also said they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans” FOLLOWING their visit to NGLA in the second week of March, 1911. One can certainly logically assume that by “laid out” at that point they meant submitting a routings and perhaps designs to their paper topographical contour survey plans which Macdonald and Whigam would review on April 6, 1911, help them select one to be submitted to the MCC Board of Directors meeting on April 19, 1911, and which “plan” was reported to have been ATTACHED to the Wilson Report and which was reported to have been approved and which would be built in the coming months.
The “Missing Faces Of Merion” essayist then asked you the following question in the next post:
“Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before.
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings? If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip? From the construction of NGLA? From something else?”
Do you know the specific answer to that question Mike? Because if you don’t I believe I will put it on here from Wilson’s report and get AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all. What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear and it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA. I have explained what it said on here many times and so have you but apparently this essayist is not willing to believe it and just continues to argue against our point!
Matter of fact, I don’t know that NGLA even used comprehensive topographical contour survey map plans for the construction of NGLA. If they did they’ve been lost over time. George Bahto informed me some time ago that the only contour plans of NGLA that survived were only a few contour line drawings of some holes apparently for the purpose of some localized earth-movement or adjustment as needed.
-
Mike Cirba:
You've mentioned a few times that you believe it very logical that some of what was spoken about and done between Macdonald/Whigam and the Wilson Committee during that two day visit to NGLA involved discussions on golf agronomy and not just architecture. This is the case indeed.
To Wit:
"March 13, 1911
Dear Mr. Oakley:
I have just returned from a couple of days with Mr. Macdonald at the National course. I certainly enjoyed have an opportunity of going over the course and seeing his experiments with different grasses. He is coming over in a couple of weeks to help us with his good advice.....
.......Mr Macdonald showed me several pamphlets in regard to grasses and fertilizers.....
Very Truly,
Hugh I. Wilson"
So, I think we can see from that letter from Wilson to Russell Oakley referencing the NGLA visit that there certainly was more talked about during that two day NGLA visit in the second week of March 1911 than just golf course architecture or their principles or how to design or build a golf course. I've said for years now that perhaps 50% or more of the advice Wilson and his Committee got from Macdonald/Whigam in their only two visits together (NGLA and April 6, 1911 at Ardmore) or even that MCC got from Macdonald/Whigam in June 1910 was about agronomy and how to grow grass, particularly on an INLAND site. Macdonald's own letter to MCC (Lloyd) that is recorded at Merion shows the same thing if one bothers to read the whole thing.
I realize that startling fact ;) probably doesn't interest most on this site including the essayist on here because it's not about golf course architecture but nevertheless it certainly was of interest to those men back then for fairly elementary and obvious reasons and the records from them show it loud and clear!
That probably also means that perhaps 50% or more of the the time and the advice and help Macdonald/Whigam offered to Merion on their single day and final visit to Ardmore (April 6, 1911) was about agronomy and how to grow good golf turf on an inland site and not about golf course architecture. That would therefore certainly shorten the time and opportunity available IN A SINGLE DAY for Macdonald/Whigam to actually execute this insane notion at least one on here has that they could've or even would've actually routed a golf course and "designed up" its holes in a single day, assuming MCC even ASKED them to do something like that which not a scintilla of evidence anywhere has ever suggested they did.
I feel that MCC most likely would've felt even ASKING them to do something like that would have been a bit PRESUMPTOUS (certainly considering they weren't paying them for their time and help and Macdonald/Whigam weren't asking them to do that), and certainly considering the Wilson Committee had been doing that very thing themselves WITHOUT Macdonald/Whigam for the previous three months!
-
"This is taken from the Merion website:
Quote
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.
Hasn't this been more or less disproven now that Findlay reports Wilson himself said to never have visited the Old Country before that 1912 trip? Or is this statement an indication that the club minutes contain a passage where this decision to send Wilson abroad is detailed?"
Ulrich:
The Merion history and apparently website does say that Wilson went abroad in 1910 and for six to seven months and came home with sketches and drawings from holes abroad.
But that story apparently did not crop up until at least a half century AFTER Merion East was done and Hugh Wilson had been long dead. Do you understand what that means?
And it was not the Findlay article that potentially put the Kibosh on that story that Wilson went abroad or when that story occured. We figured that out over a year ago.
I would fully expect that the Merion history will be altered shortly to reflect that misinterpretation that cropped up about half a century AFTER the events we are discussing here.
-
Ulrich:
My answer to you that was quoted in the last portion of Post #577 is just not flatout false no matter how much or how often the essayist says it's been discussed on here.
-
Patrick,
The back edge of that front bunker is raised up a foot or two.
It's more than that.
And, Wayne Morrison has stated that the green was elevated 8 feet above grade.
That would put the bottom line of the bunker a good 10+ feet above grade making it highly visible.
However, the most glaring error in your premise is that fact that you totally ignore the angle from which the picture is taken. An angle that places the fronting bunker complext to the right flank of the green in the photo, NOT in front of the green as it is when the golfer views it from the DZ.
You continue to cling to a photo, taken from a height above the golfer in the DZ, at an angle about 45+ degrees left of where the golfer would be in the DZ.
You continue to FAIL to address the questions I posed along with the photo you initially posted.
WHY is that.
I answer every question you ask, yet, you continue to avoid the questions I pose to you.
There can be but one conclusion drawn from your failure to answer.
You KNOW that the putting surface was blind.
In FACT, you previously admitted that.
That might make some very front hole locations blind in the sense that the bottom of the flagstick might not be visible.
From where, from a photo taken at a very high elevation, from an angle that places the fronting bunker complex to the flank instead of in the front of the green.
Mike, give it up, you're wrong on this one.
On the other hand, what do you have to say about this?
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3486007451_47f9d50c98_o.jpg)
The bottom line of the back bunker is completely visible from WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY (in Matt Wardspeak ;)) below the either the landing zone of the 10th hole or the green surface itself, and it's also clear that you can see that from about anywhere on planet earth, so where my friend is the NGLA, "CBM Alps-Like Hole" in all of that?
First of all, the visibility you allege is based on a photo taken from a high elevation FAR REMOVED from the DZ.
It's your demented interpretation of the photo that's the basis of your premise.
Secondly, I NEVER stated that the 10th at Merion was a "CBM Alps-like hole".
Let me again state my position so you can't twist it to your liking:
"Wilson designed what he thought was an Alps hole. He built his Alps hole at # 10.
While he built one, it lacked the dramatic flair or extreme features contained in Alps holes.
His version was inept, despite the fact that it had a putting surface that was blind from the DZ, a rear berm and a fronting bunker complex. Findlay and others recognized that Wilson's version was a poor excuse for an Alps hole.
Wilson eventually recognized that his Alps hole was a poor excuse for an Alps and the hole was later abandoned.
The unintentially funny thing is that you just criticized Hugh Wilson for not building a Alps hole as good as Macdonald yet still cling to that cold, frozen, stiff, and bloated piece of driftwood as you float aloft in MacdonaldDesignedMerion Neverland. ;D
Perhaps these concepts are too nuanced for you to understand.
Your fears are clearly evidenced in the above paragraph.
I now see why you've clung to the unreasonable defense that # 10 couldn't have been an Alps, for if it was an Alps, in your mind, it gives CBM a greater foothold in his involvement or influence at Merion, and that's your greatest fear. You HAVE to disavow # 10 being an Alps because if it's an Alps, it might strengthen Moriarty's premise/s.
But, the physical evidence, the contemporary discriptions all lead to but one conclusion.
# 10 was Wilson's attempt to create an Alps hole.
Hop in the life raft...there's still room.
Trust your eyes and your brain and get over your provincialistic prejudices. ;)
I'm trying to ascertain if you have Alpsaphobia or Macdonaldaphobia.
I think it may be both. ;D
P.S. Mike, would you answer the three questions I posed in reply # 570.
Thanks
-
Ulrich, you said:
“I am new to this discussion, but I can't help imagining some hidden agendas behind the fight over a few historical details that aren't overly important in the grand scheme of things.”
Ulrich:
I don’t know that it’s worthwhile to get into some long and contentious discussion on here about some hidden agendas by some on here but I think it’s pretty safe to say that we here in Philadelphia have felt for years now that there were some hidden agendas to do with these Merion/Macdonald threads that have been going on for over six years now. And of course we do recognize that at least two people on this website have accused us and probably Merion too, and for years now, of some hidden agenda to protect and preserve the legend of Hugh Wilson which may not be based on fact and truth.
We believe that agenda from those two people on here began with Tom MacWood on his thread from 2003 that has recently been linked on post #17 by Eric Smith on the “Why so much talk about Merion” thread.
I feel Tom MacWood’s agenda was not hidden at all though because if you read that thread he started back in 2003 (“Macdonald and Merion”) he is merely asking what more Macdonald might have done at Merion compared to what the club has always reported in its history? Tom MacWood mentioned in that thread that he had found two old articles that mentioned Macdonald/Whigam had helped and advised MCC and the Wilson Committee back in 1910 and 1911. He mentioned he was not aware of that and he wanted to know what it meant in detail and perhaps to do with the specifics of who was basically responsible for most all the architectural concepts and details of Merion’s holes.
Apparently MacWood felt he might have found something about Merion East that Merion G.C. never knew. I guess that was understandable from Tom MacWood’s perspective at that time because he’s never been to Merion and was obviously unaware of the details of its history. But we weren’t and Merion G.C. wasn’t.
But those articles he found have always been in Merion’s archives and the source material those articles came from have always been contained in Merion’s administrative records and we all here have been aware of them and they’ve always been reflected in Merion’s recorded history.
We’ve been aware of them for years and what they all say Macdonald/Whigam did for MCC back then. We told him all that in that 2003 thread and we told him that the details of who did what on each and every hole was never recorded but that it was recorded by the club, and we told him how, that the committee reported that the creation of Merion East was a committee effort of five members who received some gracious help and advice from Macdonald/Whigam (probably split between advice on architecture and its principles and advice on how to best grow grass on their inland site) on three separate occasions spanning ten months and which amounted to perhaps four days in total but that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the architecture of the East and West courses.
None of this has ever been questioned or contested by anyone at any time that I’m aware of until this subject began on here back in 2003. So my point is, there never was and never has been much of anything to question or contest on the subject of who designed Merion East and we feel today we have proven that and reconfirmed it more strongly than ever before.
In my opinion, it probably should’ve ended there but following that David Moriarty entered the picture and eventually attempted to create a scenario of much greater and more significance from Macdonald/Whigam such as they actually routed and designed Merion East or was what he calls the driving force behind it.
We do not think that is even close to the truth and we feel we’ve virtually proven it with the weight of recorded evidence FROM Merion’s records of who actually did it. To assume those records are wrong we feel is to actually make the assumption and conclusion that what all those men running Merion back then were recording about what they were in the process of doing was a lie or some massive mistake in facts. We feel that is what this essayist on here has done and is continuing to do and to suggest and attempt to defend.
None of us here have EVER denied that Macdonald/Whigam helped and advised MCC, and either has Merion and its history---not EVER, and we think we now know both how and how much but to even assume, much less conclude or contend that he and Whigam actually routed and designed the holes of Merion OR were the driving force behind the East course, as this essayist has done and continues to do, is not only pretty insane but also virtually impossible because Macdonald/Whigam simply never put in the time (just four days total compared to the Wilson committees many months to that point) and consequently did not have the opportunity to do something like that even assuming they were asked to do that which not a scintilla of evidence anywhere or at any time, even from the essayist, suggests they were!
On another post Ulrich, I will try to give you a few fairly straight-forward EXAMPLES of how the essayist attempted to do this and just WHY what he tried to do and did with his essay is such a series of distortions of the records, timeline, and events of what happened back then.
-
"Synopsis. While Hugh I. Wilson is credited with designing the great Merion East course that opened in 1912, he did not plan the original layout or conceive of the holes. H.H. Barker first sketched out a routing the summer of 1910, but shortly thereafter Barker’s plans were largely modified or perhaps even completely replaced by the advice provided by the famous amateur golfers, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham who provided their written opinion of what could be done with the land. Richard Francis and H.G. Lloyd of Merion also contributed to the routing plan. After the course was planned and land finally purchased, Merion appointed Hugh Wilson and his “Construction Committee” to build the golf course."
Ulrich:
Above is about the first half of the synopsis of the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."
Having read the essay many times and very carefully and then having gone over the administrative records of MCC and the events and the timeline and all the supplemental material therewith, I will show you both how and why a number of the statements contained in even the first half of that synopsis are completely wrong----they pretty much have to be when you begin to see the details of the events of that timeline.
Personally, I think the essay's synopsis is a pretty darn good one of what the essay is and says and the essay itself shows that it is just as wrong as its synopsis is.
If you are really interested in this subject, Ulrich, I suggest you read that essay very carefully and familiarize yourself with just how the essayist tries to establish a point or points into an assumption, premise or conclusion and uses that hopefully accepted premise to actually go on and to establish the next one and so on and so on. In fact the reliability or factual accuracy of each premise must hold or the final "a priori" established conclusions and contentions will fall apart as does a toppling house of cards!
The real problem here, for us at least, is we know all the details and recorded events by MCC's administrative records that establish the over all timeline of 1910 and 1911, but we recognize that very few others on this website do and that therefore makes this kind of distorted logic of this essay somewhat believable or interesting AT FIRST!
This is what some call "a priori" reasoning but in this case we will show just how many of those premises which necessarily must support one another are not only not true but virtually can't be because of the inevitable facts of the over-all timeline and how some events cannot possibly be put before or even put after some other events in the manner in which they occured or for the very reasons they occured. This is what the essayist attempted to do and it just doesn't work logically or factually or any other way! ;)
But unfortunately when we have pointed all this out to the essayist using the written material and and even in one case survey map material and what it pretty clearly shows and means from the men of Merion and others around them and helping them at that time, the essayist continues to dismiss, discount, or rationalize away what it all clearly says and means.
At this point, we feel all that is left to him is to just constantly argue and not for facts or the truth of the architectural history of Merion but simply for argument's sake alone. Apparently he does this because argument for argument's sake is his real interest on here or else for whatever his reasons he simply cannot admit that he was wrong and is wrong and how he is and was wrong.
Occasionally, when faced with the fact that some of the things he has said or maintained really are illogical even apparently to him, rather than admitting that on here and particularly to us, he will revert to the last ditch defense question type of; "Well isn't it at least possible?" OR "Can you prove to me how it's IMPOSSIBLE or even isn't IMPOSSIBLE?"
You know, Ulrich, we here aren't really interested in discussions like that and certainly not over Merion's history. They are basically futile and pointless discussions and we feel we have better things to spend our time on that stuff like that! ;)
-
The “Missing Faces Of Merion” essayist then asked you the following question in the next post:
“Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before.
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings? If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip? From the construction of NGLA? From something else?”
Do you know the specific answer to that question Mike? Because if you don’t I believe I will put it on here from Wilson’s report and get AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all. What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear and it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA. I have explained what it said on here many times and so have you but apparently this essayist is not willing to believe it and just continues to argue against our point!
Matter of fact, I don’t know that NGLA even used comprehensive topographical contour survey map plans for the construction of NGLA. If they did they’ve been lost over time. George Bahto informed me some time ago that the only contour plans of NGLA that survived were only a few contour line drawings of some holes apparently for the purpose of some localized earth-movement or adjustment as needed.
Tom,
No, I only read that section once and it was a few months back.
Your clarification from the minutes on that question would be very helpful.
Thanks!
-
The “Missing Faces Of Merion” essayist then asked you the following question in the next post:
“Mike, I disagree with your reading for a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed before.
A factual question:
Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings? If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip? From the construction of NGLA? From something else?”
Do you know the specific answer to that question Mike? Because if you don’t I believe I will put it on here from Wilson’s report and get AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all. What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear and it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA. I have explained what it said on here many times and so have you but apparently this essayist is not willing to believe it and just continues to argue against our point!
Tom,
I appreciate your attempt to address "AT LEAST all this argument and disagreement ABOUT WHAT SKETCHES AND DRAWINGS they SAID they were looking at and studying while at NGLA over with once and for all."
I asked Do the MCC minutes specifically refer to sketches and/or drawings? If so, are they identified as the sketches/drawings for CBM's overseas trip? From the construction of NGLA? From something else?”
You answer, in relevant part:
- "What the report says in that vein is not in the slightest unclear . . . ."
- ". . . it definitely does not refer to any plans for Merion . . ."
- ". . . or even some NGLA plans of what had already been built at NGLA."
Great. I didn't figure they were NGLA plans. I thought either you or Mike might have implied this, but I may not be remembering correctly. As for them not being identified as "plans for Merion, you have said this in the past, but thanks clarifying. And for clarifying that they were not NGLA plans.
Unfortunately, while your answer is helpful and appreciated, the issue is still far from clear, and your answer did not address the bulk of my questions. Perhaps my questions lacked clarity, so let me try again.
-In the context of the NGLA meetings, do the MCC documents specifically mention anything about sketches and/or drawings? (may seem a silly question but I do want to clear all this up.)
-If so, do the MCC documents specifically identify these as sketches and drawings from CBM's previous overseas trip(s)?
-Do the MCC documents specifically state that these were sketches/drawings of great golf holes abroad and/or specific features of the great golf holes abroad?
-Do the MCC documents specifically identify the subject matter of what was sketched and/or drawn? By whom? When? (In other words, what was sketched or drawn, by whom, and when?)
Thanks.
-
"It simply makes no sense, other than to show me that you're highly prone to seeing what you want to see in this stuff, depending on what you want to see at the time..."
Shivas:
I'm not certain how or when M. Cirba is assuming the meaning and interpretation of "laying out" when he mentioned it somewhere above but it actually is very possible to determine what they meant if you use particular events in a timeline analysis.
In other words, if men are referring to "laying out" a course or plan to describe the event they are describing many months before they actually build a golf course, then obviously they can't be using the term "laying out" to mean the actual building of the golf course.
I hope you can at least admit to and understand that. ;)
On the other hand, if they are using the term "laying out" to describe something they are doing during the building of a course or have done before the building of a course then of course it's very possible and very likely they're describing the routing and designing phase BEFORE the building of the course OR they could be describing the building of the course.
This isn't much more than understanding that TIME as we know it, Shivas, doesn't exactly run backwards, it only runs forward! ;) If it ran backwards and forwards too then looking at these kinds of events back then could never be determinative.
I'm saying all this all the time understanding that I shouldn't call some of you guys and your posts on here stupid----and I'm not---not technically anyway. ;) :-*
-
"Tom,
No, I only read that section once and it was a few months back.
Your clarification from the minutes on that question would be very helpful.
Thanks!"
No problem, it may be taking a risk with my understanding with Wayne and MCC but I'm willing to take that risk on that at this point if it will AT LEAST help to put a stop to the constant ongoing argument and bickering and mindbendly boring and irrelevent PARSING of words and their meaning on here as to WHAT drawings and sketches the Wilson Committee were referring to during their two day visit to NGLA:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......
That's all that's mentioned about plans and data (the words sketches and drawings are not used) and I think it's pretty clear that probably means Macdonald's plans and such from abroad even though one could conclude the first part could mean his plans of NGLA itself also, BUT it could not possibly mean Merion's plans or drawings. I hope you all notice the word "his" (so I didn't highlight or capitalize it ;) ) and I hope no one on here will try to contend Merion's plans were HIS (Macdonald's, even though at this point I wouldn't put anything past the essayist)! ;)
I hope that helps and I sure do hope this will put a stop to this irrelevent and frankly ridiculous discussion of what plans they may've been referring to while at NGLA.
If somebody still tries to parse it as Merion's plans, well, then I guess I'll pretty much just give up on trying to help people understand the history of Merion East. ::)
-
No problem, it may be taking a risk with my understanding with Wayne and MCC but I'm willing to take a risk on that at this point if it will AT LEAST help to put a stop to the constant ongoing argument on here as to WHAT drawings and sketches the Wilson Committee were referring to during their two day visit to NGLA:
Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......
Thanks Tom,
But what does it say after studying . . . ?
.
-
It says they went out on the ground the next day and studied NGLA but we've told you that for years now, haven't we and so did Wilson's later report, right? I also mentioned today that Wilson reported in another piece of source material (the agronomy letters) that they also discussed grasses, fertiliser etc while at NGLA those two days.
So much to do and so little time to do it in, right? ;)
So was it impossible for Macdonald to have whipped off a routing and hole design paper plan on Merion East for those bunch of novices while at NGLA when he was like taking a leak break during all this other recorded stuff, even considering that Macdonald was never even known to draw a course routing or hole design plans at any time even for his own courses (that's pretty much what Raynor always did FOR him)?
No, I guess one could not say that was IMPOSSIBLE but I think any reasonable and logical mind would say it was highly unlikely.
And now we only have a single day left as much of a possibility, don't we---April 6, 1911? :P
-
"Thanks Tom,"
David:
You are very, very, VERY welcome. I truly hope this helps you finally understand that what we have been saying about the Wilson Committee's report to the board indicates Wilson's Committee were "laying out" their own courses and plans throughout the winter and spring of 1911.
-
"Tom, of course "laying out" prior to construction can only refer to written plans."
No, Shiv, you haven't gotten it right quite yet but you're getting there, I guess. "Laying out" prior to construction can certainly refer to WRITTEN plans but it can also refer to "courses" staked out on the ground. I've seen that too but if someone calls that "written" it's definitely the biggest damn WRITING I ever saw. ;)
Shivas, what are you doing this for anyway? You'll get there someday I'm sure if you listen very carefully to us here who've been through these details for years but along the way you're just bound to confuse more people on here than you'll edify with posts like yours just above. :'(
On the other hand, I would like to nominate you at this time as the chairman of the new "Golf Course Architecture History Grammatical Sentence Structure, Meaning and Word Parsing Society."
-
Woohoo, my first thread to reach the Top 10 in replies overall at GCA.com. ;) ;D
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
-
A bit off topic, but I'm curious - what were the condition of the grounds of Merion East before 1910? I know a lot of it was farmland, but what shape was the quarry in? Was Cobb's Creek then as it is today, or was any rerouting requird? Was much shaping for fairways required?
-
"Yes, you're right. Before people start to think about construction, laying out could also refer to staking. I omitted that due to the context of this discussion, which was plans vs. construction.
I guess laying out could also refer to sunbathing, but the thought of Wilson, Pickering et al. hanging out on beach chairs with CBM and Wigham - half naked and slathered up with oil - is too much for my Midwestern sensibilities...."
Shivas:
Don't you think you're being too kind to those bunch of Novices from Merion? I mean don't you think it's possible or at least not impossible, at least in a grammatical sentence structure, meaning and word parsing sense, that they could've been hanging out on beach chairs half naked and slathered up with oil in the middle of the winter in the ice and snow in Philamadephiaey?!?
These guys were real NOVICES man! Even a midwesterner should understand that. They didn't know shit from dirt, at that point. I think it's possible that Wilson even though he was considered a very good golfer may not have even known what end of the golf club to hold at that point. I heard the reason he was always so sick is while at Princeton he ate a bunch of golf balls thinking they were marshmellows that were perhaps just a tad old.
Don't forget, guys like Lloyd and Griscom were a couple of Captains of the Universe. They were some damn smart cats. I bet they heard that old saw that if you wanted a really natural and random golf course the thing to do was just go get the town idiot and let him go out there and make a mess of stuff in the dirt. I think that's probably why they picked Hugh I. Wilson----eg it's possible or at least not IMPOSSIBLE that he was the biggest idiot in MCC at that time, and by a mile.
-
Dan:
Interesting question. It sort of looks to us like they might have rerouted the creek a bit after they bought that acreage later that is the green-end of #11 and the first part of #12. At least as to where it used to bend and cross what is now the 12th.
Do you think we should have a 30 page discussion on here to see if we can prove that at this point? And if we can prove it we might be able to exhume their asses and turn them over to the EPA for prosecution and a fine? If they can't pay it because they've all been dead for 50-85 years maybe we could sue Horatio Gates Lloyd's heirs and make them pay for the damages those bunch of no-nothing novice idiots did back then.
-
Tom,
Nah - I think we should let them RIP :)
-
I did read the essay and the old threads, so I am gradually coming around to understand how this unfortunate situation developed. There is an intermingling of personal sensibilities with factual discussion. And it is on both sides. I guess if I continue to write here, it will only be a matter of time until I come to some erroneous conclusion or propose an untenable theory and then I'll have to defend my reputation as well.
So I should be extra careful or maybe take Yoda's advice: "Up the shut fuck, you must" ;-)
Ulrich
-
"-In the context of the NGLA meetings, do the MCC documents specifically mention anything about sketches and/or drawings? (may seem a silly question but I do want to clear all this up.)"
No
"-If so, do the MCC documents specifically identify these as sketches and drawings from CBM's previous overseas trip(s)?"
No, they call them his plans and other various data from his overseas trips. I guess what they call 'his plans' could be NGLA or all of it is from overseas courses. You probably need to submit this to Chicago's Dave Schmidt to be grammatically certain what it means.
"-Do the MCC documents specifically state that these were sketches/drawings of great golf holes abroad and/or specific features of the great golf holes abroad?"
They don't call them sketches and drawings (see above). No specific features or specific great holes abroad are mentioned.
"-Do the MCC documents specifically identify the subject matter of what was sketched and/or drawn? By whom? When? (In other words, what was sketched or drawn, by whom, and when?)"
No
PS:
However, there is a brief paragraph explaining that Hugh told Macdonald that Tommy Birdsong's (the only Timucuan Indian golf course architect, by the way) Fernandina Beach Municipal G.C. had some great holes and great architectural principles that they would like to use at Merion East as templates (I think this explains the confusion on this board over exactly what the 10th (Alps) hole was or was supposed to be and the intended degree of blindness on the putting surface or otherwise. Personally, I think it was a 1906 flat Florida version of Leeds' Myopia Alps). Obviously the grammatically-challenged Findlay didn't understand that in June 1912 and Hugh didn't feel like taking the time to explain it to him since Findlay's ability to understand people wasn't much better than his ability to write clearly). Apparently Charlie disagreed with that, thought it might be provably IMPOSSIBLE (depending on the grammatical sentence structure used and the level of intelligence of the parser a century from then) and it seems like they might have gotten into a brief but vicious argument until Horatio Lloyd stepped in and told Charlie Blair MacD that if he didn't shut his arrogant curmudgeonly YAP at that very moment he would personally see to it that his friend J.P. Morgan ruined Macdonald's business career and sent him out of the stock brokerage business on a water torture board.
It sounds like they all had a fine time at NGLA those two days, don't you think, David? If you'd like to know what Charlie was drinking and how much I think I'll have to get permission from MCC first to find out if I can tell you that.
-
"So I should be extra careful or maybe take Yoda's advice: "Up the shut fuck, you must" ;-)"
Ulrich:
Would you mind submitting that to Dave Schmidt for a complete and through grammatical sentence structure analysis and meaning and word parsing check?
You very well may be pleasantly surprised to find out what it really means compared to what you thought Yoda meant.
Do you think Yoda deserves any design credit for Merion East, Ulrich? Come on, don't be shy; you're amongst friends here.
-
I am not sure I totally get this conversation about "laying out" or why this is the phrase we are currently parsing, but my brain is a bit fuzzy right now, probably because I am in shock with TEPaul's revelation from the MCC Minutes. I won't get into it at this point except to say that I can certainly see why they refused to give us the text for so long.
But to the latest discussion of "to lay out."
First, let me say again that I want to clarify that portion of my essay, and will if I ever get the chance to update it with accurate and confirmable information. Generally I think my understanding was correct, but it is certainly is susceptible to misunderstanding and that is my error. The meaning of "lay out" and "to lay out" were not definite terms and were used quite differently by different people in different circumstances, and one must look at the circumstances to figure it out. Also, some what we know about the circumstances surrounding Merion's creation has slightly changed and that may (or may not) alter what I think it means in the context of Merion. That being said . . .
"Laying out" was used very similarly to "staking out" a course, or otherwise marking it out on the ground. My understanding is that "to lay out" usually (but not always) described some interaction with the actual land, as opposed to solely on paper.
- Sometimes a designer would plan a course by "laying it out, "staking it out," or otherwise marking out a course on the land. In other words the designer would go on site, look around and decide where the green, tee, feature locations, etc. were to be located, and actually mark them out on the ground then and there. Later (or at the same time, I suppose) the designer might transcribe the create a written plan.
- But "laying out" and even "staking out" did not necessarilyinvolve planning where the holes and features would go. "Laying out," "staking out," or otherwise marking out a course on the ground could be done pursuant to a seperate plan. For example, Barker drew up a rough plan for a proposed lay out. Had Merion taken his plan and then laid out the course on the ground without his further involvement, then Merion at the time it would have made sense to write that Merion"laid out the course" on the ground, even if it was done pursuant to Barker's plan.
- Now we oftentimes refer to the written plan as the "lay out" especially if it is the final plan. While I don't think this was the norm then, there are probably instances (can't think of any offhand) when the written plan would be referred to as the "lay out." But I submit that it would have been more accurate to call it a "plan," a "lay out plan" a "planned lay out," "a plan of the layout," maybe a "proposed lay out," or something else along these lines, because the plan was on paper not on the ground. For example, the written Barker plan was a "planned lay out" or "lay out plan" (I don't remember the terminology he used) but drawing it out on paper was not the same as laying out the course.
Think of how one might pack for a vacation (which I could use.)
- One might go to the closest and dresser and physically "lay out" cloths on the bed in in the bag order to see what is needed and to consider if it is too much or too little for the bag and trip. This is analagous to planning while "staking out" or "laying out" a course.
- Someone (like my wife) knows what she has, and will first make a detailed list of items to be packed. One may then then "lay out" the cloths from the list, maybe making a few adjustments in the process. This would be the equivalent of first planning a course paper and then "laying it out" "staking it out" or otherwise marking it out on the ground.
Hopefully this helps clear this up.
-
JEEEESUS CHIIIRST ALMIGHTY----I thought I had pretty much seen it all on these Merion threads and now that last post!!! I guess I never will see it all.
THAT POST is UNFRIGGININININCREDIBLE!!! I think I might be going into MIND LOCKDOWN with THAT ONE!
Ran Morrissett, I know we'll be seeing each other at the Homestead in about a month and by that time if you do not take down David Moriarty's In My Opinion piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" and swear to God and Charles Blair Macdonald that you will never, EVER, EVER, NEVER let this maniac post another IN MY OPINION piece on Merion or hopefully anything else----all I can says is you are NUTS! NUTSO!! NUTSOPHILIACISH!!!! JUST NUTSO, NUTSO, NUTSO!!!!!!!
Even in my wildest nightmares did I ever think all this Merion/Macdonald garbage could ever come to a post like that one!
WOOF! :o ::) :-[ :-\ :'(
-
JEEEESUS CHIIIRST ALMIGHTY----I thought I had pretty much seen it all on these Merion threads and now that last post!!! I guess I never will see it all.
THAT POST is UNFRIGGININININCREDIBLE!!! I think I might be going into MIND LOCKDOWN with THAT ONE!
Ran Morrissett, I know we'll be seeing each other at the Homestead in about a month and by that time if you do not take down David Moriarty's In My Opinion piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" and swear to God and Charles Blair Macdonald that you will never, EVER, EVER, NEVER let this maniac post another IN MY OPINION piece on Merion or hopefully anything else----all I can says is you are NUTS! NUTSO!! NUTSOPHILIACISH!!!! JUST NUTSO, NUTSO, NUTSO!!!!!!!
Even in my wildest nightmares did I ever think all this Merion/Macdonald garbage could ever come to a post like that one!
WOOF! :o ::) :-[ :-\ :'(
I am afraid I don't understand, Tom. Your post, while colorful, is entirely devoid of substance, so I have no idea why you are so upset.
My previous post provided my understanding of what "laying out"a golf course meant back then. I offered it because you and Shivas were discussing how the phrase was used. Since I have researched how it was used, I thought my perspective might help. The meaning is evasive and I could be wrong, so if you have also researched the issue and have a different understanding, then I'd love to hear your thoughts. Provided they are factually based.
_____________________________
In the meantime, hopefully you will clarify a few things about the portion of the MCC minutes you transcribed earlier today. You may find my questions to be pickayune, and I apologize for that. I only ask to better understand what happened, and am not trying to cast aspersions or offer any sort of alternative opinion. Just trying to get the facts straight before I come to any unsupportable conclusions.
You transcribed the pasage as follows:
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different golf course on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......"
1. I assume that the text actually reads "laying out many different golf courses"as opposed to "laying out many many different golf course"
2. Along the same lines, in the past you have written that the MCC minutes referred to the "numerous plans" that existed before the NGLA meeting. Do the minutes also refer to "numerous plans" (or a similar description), or is this the only mention of committee's lay out related activities that occurred before the NGLA meeting.
3. Your answer here may also answer the question immediately above. You have written that these early plans and/or layouts were discarded after the NGLA meeting. What specifically did the minutes say about this? Where in the passage does it fit with what else you have transcribed and told us?
4. While I appreciate you again telling me happened the second day, it would be very helpful to have the actual words, if only to help me better grasp what came before.
Thanks in advance.
-
TEPaul,
Another factual inquiry, trying to tie up loose ends.
If I recall correctly, you have concluded based on the MCC minutes that the Francis Land Swap occurred sometime shortly before M&W's April 6, 1911 site visit.
- What do the records say about this swap and when it occurred?
- Is there anything in the records indicating whether the swap occurred before the NGLA trip?
Thanks again.
-
"I am afraid I don't understand, Tom. Your post, while colorful, is entirely devoid of substance, so I have no idea why you are so upset.
My previous post provided my understanding of what "laying out"a golf course meant back then. I offered it because you and Shivas were discussing how the phrase was used. Since I have researched how it was used, I thought my perspective might help. The meaning is evasive and I could be wrong, so if you have also researched the issue and have a different understanding, then I'd love to hear your thoughts. Provided they are factually based."
David:
Please believe me, I'm not upset in the slightest by your post #604. I'm more like totally blown away by it. I've got to read it a bunch more times because it is just soooooo something---hard to explain really----maybe ultra colorful imagination-wise or whacked out or just plain insane. It is so confoluted it tried to grab my nose and I almost lost my nose reading it on the computer.
Again, I've got to read it a bunch more times because somehow I just know I'm going to enjoy it anyway, at the very least for the extreme labyrinth like resaoning you slide or fall into.
And the part that makes the analogy for what-all laying out could mean in architecture to how you or your wife lay out clothes or whatever for a vacation, that one just really got me going---I think I was on the other side of the room on the floor in a writhing fit of laughter.
I like eccentrics David; Didn't you at least know that by now? Hell, I'm one myself, and I just might find out yet that's what you really are. Who knows maybe we will end up best friends somehow even though I wouldn't recommend you go out and bet too much money on that yet and I won't either but one never knows how things turn out in life.
PS:
I would have to think if you tried to conduct an argument like that one in a court of law----you are a lawyer, aren't you?----the judge just might subject you to an immediate breathalizer or drug test right there in the courtroom on the spot or tell you to get the hell outta his courtroom while he took the time to unscramble his mind trying to figure out what you're talking about.
Anyway, Ciao Picito! ;)
-
"I am afraid I don't understand, Tom. Your post, while colorful, is entirely devoid of substance, so I have no idea why you are so upset.
My previous post provided my understanding of what "laying out"a golf course meant back then. I offered it because you and Shivas were discussing how the phrase was used. Since I have researched how it was used, I thought my perspective might help. The meaning is evasive and I could be wrong, so if you have also researched the issue and have a different understanding, then I'd love to hear your thoughts. Provided they are factually based."
David:
Please believe me, I'm not upset in the slightest by your post #604. I'm more like totally blown away by it. I've got to read it a bunch more times because it is just soooooo something---hard to explain really----maybe ultra colorful imagination-wise or whacked out or just plain insane. It is so confoluted it tried to grab my nose and I almost lost my nose reading it on the computer.
Again, I've got to read it a bunch more times because somehow I just know I'm going to enjoy it anyway, at the very least for the extreme labyrinth like resaoning you slide or fall into.
And the part that makes the analogy for what-all laying out could mean in architecture to how you or your wife lay out clothes or whatever for a vacation, that one just really got me going---I think I was on the other side of the room on the floor in a writhing fit of laughter.
I like eccentrics David; Didn't you at least know that by now? Hell, I'm one myself, and I just might find out yet that's what you really are. Who knows maybe we will end up best friends somehow even though I wouldn't recommend you go out and bet too much money on that yet and I won't either but one never knows how things turn out in life.
PS:
I would have to think if you tried to conduct an argument like that one in a court of law----you are a lawyer, aren't you?----the judge just might subject you to an immediate breathalizer or drug test right there in the courtroom on the spot or tell you to get the hell outta his courtroom while he took the time to unscramble his mind trying to figure out what you're talking about.
Anyway, Ciao Picito! ;)
So at least I now know that you don't agree with me about how they used the term laid out. But aside from that, this second post contains no substance either. As I said, I'd be glad to consider any other understanding so long as fact based. I'd even consider other examples like Dan's 'laying out in the sun' example, where again, one must actually be doing the do-- laying out in the sun-- for the usage to make sense. Planning to lay out in the sun is not the same as doing it.
As for the rest . . .
I've don't think myself an eccentric as you do yourself, but really I leave such things to the consideration of others.
I havent been an actively practicing lawyer for many years. I've mentioned that many times on here but then decided to give up with it and let you guys have your fun.
But as for what sells and doesn's sell in court, you'd likely be surprised. Some judges are smarter than what you are giving them credit for.
-
David:
I apologize, I thought I checked spelling and such but I said----many different golf course----eg doesn't make a lot of sense does it? I meant to say many different courses on the new ground (not golf courses just courses). That's more better. ;)
When they returned from NGLA they said they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.
Do you think there is any possiblity they also meant they rearranged Hugh Wilson's head when they returned from NGLA because they noticed it was screwed on backwards for some reason? Spending a couple of days with Charlie in Southampton was known to do that to some people you know? Charlie was known for some pretty high times out there and his "hen house" with the revolving show girls was right on his property. God only knows what it may've done to those novice committee guys and particularly Hugh who never had all that much physical stamina anyway. We may never really know the extent of the education they got out there that time during those two days.
-
David:
I apologize, I thought I checked spelling and such but I said----many different golf course----eg doesn't make a lot of sense does it? I meant to say many different courses on the new ground (not golf courses just courses). That's more better. ;)
"Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new ground, they went down to the National course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening going over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day we spent on the ground studying......"
Thanks.
When they returned from NGLA they said they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.
Sorry, but I don't understand. Is this an answer to one of my questions, or is it a new snippet?
Did they rearrange the course or courses?
And what of the "numerous plans?"
What about the part about them discarding their previous plans?
This seems to be getting more confusing. What am I missing here?
-
"So at least I now know that you don't agree with me about how they used the term laid out."
David:
It's hard for me to answer that because I'm never too sure what you mean at any particular time by "laying out."
But I can certainly tell you this with complete assurance----if you mean by "laying out" what you said in your essay you think it means and means in this case of Merion East----eg actually ONLY BUILDING or CONSTRUCTING architecture on the ground to a plan (you suggested in Merion East's case to Macdonald's or even Barker's plan, then no, I don't agree with you.
You'll remember you even cited the Oxford English dictionary definition of "laying out" as some reason for your belief that "laying out" means ONLY building to a plan (which plan (routing and/or design) you assumed in your essay was not from the Wilson committee).
These fellows used the term "Laying out" in their report in the winter of 1911 many months BEFORE any building or constructing of architecture was done and BEFORE the club had even approved a plan to BUILD or CONSTRUCT on the ground so how in the world could they be using your definition for "laying out" at that point? The building and construction would not come for a number of months.
I certainly hope you don't think that putting stakes in the ground constitutes the same thing as building golf course architecture on and with the earth because I surely don't. But if you do happen to think that or mean that then I really can't see how you can also think Macdonald had anything to do with it since that was before they went to NGLA (if staking the ground was what they were doing at that point) and they hadn't even seen Macdonald in about 7-9 months and they certainly hadn't yet got any education from him yet they said they got while at NGLA for two days.
-
"This seems to be getting more confusing. What am I missing here?"
You sure got me and I've definitely never understood where in the world you think you are going with all this.
How about this:
1. BEFORE NGLA.
They said---after laying out many different courses on the new ground..they went to NGLA
2. AFTER NGLA
They said they---rearranged the course and laid out five different plans
You think you've got it now? ???
And I never said they discarded plans at any time. You've been saying you think I said that but I never did. You're going to need to read what I say very carefully, I guess, which you've said on here a number of times you don't do, and not just assume I said something or meant something I never wrote, never said and never meant.
-
David Moriarty:
Now that it seems we have gotten somewhere today with what the Wilson Committee was really referring to when they used the term "laying out" in their report to the board to describe what they had been doing on site throughout the winter months of 1911 and a number of months BEFORE actual building or construction of the course begun, it's probably the time now to go back and completely reanalyze a far more important premise or two or three in your essay than what the term "laying out" meant (another premise in your essay) to those men who used it at Merion.
A new thread should probably be started because this one doesn't pertain to it at all and it will take us through the important events at Ardmore and THEIR REAL timeline with which I strongly believe we can show the differences from your timeline of the same events in your essay, and what that all means ultimately.
This seems to be what Pat and a few others on here recently suggested and I think it's a good idea. Let me know when you're ready and we might be able to wind this this long-running Merion/Macdonald subject up soon.
-
I am not sure I totally get this conversation about "laying out" or why this is the phrase we are currently parsing, but my brain is a bit fuzzy right now, probably because I am in shock with TEPaul's revelation from the MCC Minutes. I won't get into it at this point except to say that I can certainly see why they refused to give us the text for so long.
But to the latest discussion of "to lay out."
First, let me say again that I want to clarify that portion of my essay, and will if I ever get the chance to update it with accurate and confirmable information. Generally I think my understanding was correct, but it is certainly is susceptible to misunderstanding and that is my error. The meaning of "lay out" and "to lay out" were not definite terms and were used quite differently by different people in different circumstances, and one must look at the circumstances to figure it out. Also, some what we know about the circumstances surrounding Merion's creation has slightly changed and that may (or may not) alter what I think it means in the context of Merion. That being said . . .
"Laying out" was used very similarly to "staking out" a course, or otherwise marking it out on the ground. My understanding is that "to lay out" usually (but not always) described some interaction with the actual land, as opposed to solely on paper.
- Sometimes a designer would plan a course by "laying it out, "staking it out," or otherwise marking out a course on the land. In other words the designer would go on site, look around and decide where the green, tee, feature locations, etc. were to be located, and actually mark them out on the ground then and there. Later (or at the same time, I suppose) the designer might transcribe the create a written plan.
- But "laying out" and even "staking out" did not necessarilyinvolve planning where the holes and features would go. "Laying out," "staking out," or otherwise marking out a course on the ground could be done pursuant to a seperate plan. For example, Barker drew up a rough plan for a proposed lay out. Had Merion taken his plan and then laid out the course on the ground without his further involvement, then Merion at the time it would have made sense to write that Merion"laid out the course" on the ground, even if it was done pursuant to Barker's plan.
- Now we oftentimes refer to the written plan as the "lay out" especially if it is the final plan. While I don't think this was the norm then, there are probably instances (can't think of any offhand) when the written plan would be referred to as the "lay out." But I submit that it would have been more accurate to call it a "plan," a "lay out plan" a "planned lay out," "a plan of the layout," maybe a "proposed lay out," or something else along these lines, because the plan was on paper not on the ground. For example, the written Barker plan was a "planned lay out" or "lay out plan" (I don't remember the terminology he used) but drawing it out on paper was not the same as laying out the course.
Think of how one might pack for a vacation (which I could use.)
- One might go to the closest and dresser and physically "lay out" cloths on the bed in in the bag order to see what is needed and to consider if it is too much or too little for the bag and trip. This is analagous to planning while "staking out" or "laying out" a course.
- Someone (like my wife) knows what she has, and will first make a detailed list of items to be packed. One may then then "lay out" the cloths from the list, maybe making a few adjustments in the process. This would be the equivalent of first planning a course paper and then "laying it out" "staking it out" or otherwise marking it out on the ground.
Hopefully this helps clear this up.
David,
It is my impression that Bendelow was the only architect whose method of planning, staking, or laying out a layout leaves much, and not much at that, to modern interpretation. This was because Bendelow prefered to work alone on his projects. He did a lot of adapting and he had many ways of getting the deal done.
-
David,
These are just a few samples of how the words "layout" and one of how "laid out" where used. There is remarkable clarity here.
JOSHUA CRANE 1926
In analyzing the layout of a hole, the obvious elements are, in their natural order, though not in the order of importance: teeing grounds, rough, fairway, traps and greens. Of these, the fairway and the green are certainly the most important, the traps, rough and teeing grounds following in value; so each of these obvious elements is assigned a certain value. These elements apply to both the main divisions; that is, layout and upkeep. There are also elements which are not as physically obvious, and not in most cases as important, yet have a vital bearing on the result. These are (under layout), visibility, parallel holes and distance from each green to following teeing ground and (under condition), parallel holes, caddies and surroundings. Other elements, which, though they might be placed under the two main divisions, are more wisely grouped together, as will be shown, and applied to the course as a whole, in the final summary are length of course, exposure to winds, order of holes (and this includes the classes of holes, such as one-shot, two-shot and three-shot holes), and difficult walking. It is plain that in a perfect golf course, that is a course for the best test of skill as well as pleasure, these have a certain value which must be considered.
PIPER 1926
The best possible layout of a golf course is highly important. An individual hole can be modified at relatively small expense, but to change the layout is a formidable task, and one that is rarely undertaken. The highest service that a golf architect can render to a club is a really good layout, a task that requires considerable time and study. One of the best amateur architects in America has spent a whole year in determining the best possible layout for a course on a complex rolling terrain.
RAY PEBBLES 1924
The new section of the course, laid out by Charley Hymers, pro at the Kahkwa Club, and Jimmy Gay, greenskeeper at the same club, is an ideal layout and the Erie Club is expected to develop into one of the best public courses in this section of the country.
-
TEPaul,
You asked where I am going with this? I am just trying to understand what the documents actually say.
I thought that either you or Mike said or implied that they discarded the pre-NGLA plans, but it is possible that I assumed it from something else. But I don't think it matters and will take your word for it that this is not in there.
As for your second post, I think you might be getting ahead of yourself. Before I reconsider my essay or start a new thread, I first need to understand these documents, which is why I have been asking questions. As you know, I haven't been afforded the opportunity to see the actual docs, and this puts me in a very difficult spot, but I am nonetheless trying figure out enough to come to some sort of tentative understanding, but it has to be my understanding, and based on what the docs actually say.
The portion you provided this morning definitely addresses some of my questions, but not all. And frankly they creates some questions as well. Honestly, I don't understand at this point why, with as much as is out there, can I not read what these documents say, especially about NGLA. To come to my own understanding I need the same level of specificity and detail as the document itself, and short of providing direct quotes, your descriptions do not necessarily provide all the information in which I am interested.
- For example, according to you, the minutes say that on the second day they studied NGLA. But of the second day do the minutes ONLY say: "The next day we spent on the ground studying NGLA" and nothing more about the second day? Nothing else? Not what holes? Not why? Not what they were learning? Not what they thought?
- You wrote that after returning from NGLA they “rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.” In the past you have quoted the MCC minutes as saying this, so I take this as a direct quote. Is it? Anything about why the did this? Or their conclusions about the NGLA visit?
- You have not answered my question about your past indications that the MCC docs said that there were "numerous plans" before NGLA. I take it that you were referring to the part about them laying out a number of courses? Is this a correct reading? Are there any such references, or not?
- You have indicated that the documents say happened the first day and the second day. Other than what you have said, do the documents say anything else about the NGLA meetings? For example (and without limitation) do the documents say anything why they went? What they learned? Why the rearranged the course when they got back?
- Do the documents make any mention of M&W other than what we have discussed? And not just for regarding the NGLA meeting, but any mention?
On a related topic, I think you must have missed my question regarding the Francis land swap. I understand one might come to the conclusion that the swap must have occurred shortly before April 6, 1912, but is there anything about the land swap in the records?
Thanks.
-
David,
These are just a few samples of how the words "layout" and one of how "laid out" where used. There is remarkable clarity here.
Bradley
Thanks for the quotes. I agree that all three are clear. All three refer to what was on the ground, as opposed to merely a plan or idea.
I should note though that all three come about a decade or more past the time on which I am focusing, and things were changing pretty fast back then.
Is there something about my understanding of the term that does not ring true to you? If so, I didn't make it out from your posts.
Likewise, I am not sure I understand what you are saying about Bendelow.
-
Off and saved
-
Off and saved
-
I've read your last few posts and understand some of the concerns mentioned, which is part of why I was trying to cooperate behind the scenes with Wayne regarding anything that he or Merion might have been sensitive. I don't think any of the public circus aspect of this was necessary, but once the back channel communication was cut off and the only explanation provided in a public post, this became the only forum. I don't think it productive to go into this now, especially in a public forum.
Have you had a chance to look at my questions listed above?
-
"Have you had a chance to look at my questions listed above."
David:
Yes, I have had a change to look at your questions listed above. But I feel that some things (see below) need to come before other things (see above).
"I don't think it productive to go into this now, especially in a public forum."
So, just let me know (and on here) what you'd like to do about it and then we can decide how to proceed on any front to do with Merion.
-
TEPaul,
I am not at all sure what you mean or what are asking me your last post. Could you clarify? Feel free to IM me if you'd like.
Thanks
DM
-
“TEPaul,
I am not at all sure what you mean or what are asking me your last post. Could you clarify? Feel free to IM me if you'd like.”
David:
Yes of course: I was referring in that last post you mentioned above to two posts this morning that began with the following from you which I was responding to in those two posts this morning:
“Honestly, I don't understand at this point why, with as much as is out there, can I not read what these documents say, especially about NGLA. To come to my own understanding I need the same level of specificity and detail as the document itself, and short of providing direct quotes, your descriptions do not necessarily provide all the information in which I am interested.”
Those two posts this morning explain what I meant. I’ve since removed them as I said I would when you confirmed you’d read them. If you didn’t understand them and didn’t copy them I’d be glad to send them to you. They contained what I think needs to be dealt with on here by both you and me and perhaps even others too if I’m going to continue to discuss Merion with you or anyone else on here or provide you with any of the answers to your questions to me either now or in the future.
-
Here is a neat article that I've had for awhile (perhaps I had posted it somewhere else, but I can't remember!) and it took some cleaning up to make mostly readable. It talks about changes that have been made for the upcoming 1924 US Am at Merion, and the role Hugh Wilson played (this from the Feb 24, 1924 edition of the Philadelphia Public Ledger).
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/02241924L/p1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/02241924L/p2.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/02241924L/p3.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/02241924L/p4.jpg)
-
Those two posts this morning explain what I meant. I’ve since removed them as I said I would when you confirmed you’d read them. If you didn’t understand them and didn’t copy them I’d be glad to send them to you. They contained what I think needs to be dealt with on here by both you and me and perhaps even others too if I’m going to continue to discuss Merion with you or anyone else on here or provide you with any of the answers to your questions to me either now or in the future.
Not exactly sure what you are driving at Tom. As I said above, I understand some of your concerns.
I have no quarrel with either Merion or MCC and never have. My understanding is that he documents in question belong to one or both of the clubs, and they can do with them as they see fit. Likewise, the clubs are free to limit and restrict access and use of the documents as they see fit, and anyone granted access should comply with the letter and spirit of those limitations, or decline to access the documents at all. I also understand that the practical limitations and challenges that accessing these documents creates, and the additional burdens and demands that might place on the clubs. Again, as with the issue of access itself, the clubs themselves decide how to manage these issues as they relate to research and access.
As you may or may not recall, my essay relied entirely on public domain material, so I had no obligation or limitation on its use. Nonetheless, my aim was to treat the subject matter and source material respectfully, and I believe I did. For example, I was respectful of the clubs' potential sensitivities about certain documents, contacted Wayne about the issue, and at his request I agreed not to post or publish them but to produce their contents in a manner acceptable to Merion. So far as I know I have consistently abided by any such representations I have made to Merion through Wayne or directly. Similarly, I have said repeatedly that if private clubs wish to limit or restrict access to or use of their document, then that is their choice, and I would abide by spirit and letter of any such limitations or restrictions, or I would decline their offer of access.
My frustration is simply that I have been shielded from reviewing the very documents being used to undermine my analysis, and this is unacceptable under any reasonable standard of discourse. In productive discourse, opinions must stand or fall based on their merits. So while clubs are free to allow their documents to be selectively used for rhetorical purposes if they so choose, I have no idea why they would, given that unvetted source material is of little or no probative value. Real discourse and understanding is not possible unless some reasonable vetting is allowed to take place.
Wayne and I generally agree on this, or at least we have in the past, such as when he wrote:
I would do your report a lot more justice in a peer review process if I had access to your primary materials in their complete form. I'm not out to embarrass you or to be confrontational. I want to get at the truth as well. I don't have an emotional investment in Hugh Wilson's role at Merion.
As I said, I don't think getting into this in too much detail would be productive at this time. I just want to be up front with my views on this issue.
-
Anyhows....
In trying to get this thread back to something historically valuable, I hope to pick up on Joe Bausch's lead and post two (fragmented) articles that describe changes to the course for the 1916 and 1924 (a more readable copy than the one Joe just posted) US Amateur championships. I do know we have another 1916 one laying around somewhere that I've posted before, but I can't find it at the moment. Joe..perhaps you are familiar with the one I mean and have it readily handy?
In any case, sorry for the overlap in the photos/scans, but they do provide some rich information and are certainly both worth a read;
p.s....
If anyone finds the picture of the original 13th green at Merion looking anything like a green at Cobb's Creek, please see me to collect your UCBP. (Useless Cirba Bonus points ;) )
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3399/3492398959_692a2587d7_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3381/3493218104_3485a3155f_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3339/3493218678_b4043f9b9c_b.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3380/3493230586_1df11f9600_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3412/3492418837_ac24d7e8ee_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3353/3493278302_78aca31c88_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3617/3493240036_25cff33129_o.jpg)
-
Here's a bit of a juicy article found by Joe Bausch from March 1910.
The article describes re-bunkering work being done by H.H. Barker at Atlantic City CC, which was the winter playground for Philadelphia golfers. Three months later we know one Mr. Connell who owned the land brought Barker into the mix, although there is no further word of any involvement on Barker's part with Merion.
At least we now can speculate better on where probably Connell found him, or was turned onto him.
More interesting to me, however, is the fact that the 11th hole at Atlantic City at that time was called "Alps". ;) It was a par three, but it's simply another example of these early guys doing holes that were based on something they had seen overseas or heard described by their friends, or by a homesick Scottish pro, perhaps.
It also seems pretty clear to me that what was important to these guys was not trying to copy the hole overseas...hell, the old 10th at Merion has as much in common with 17 at Prestwick as to be only a distant relative. No, what was important was "the principle", as Robert Lesley described, which to him meant a crossing bunker in front of the green that required a full carry, probably partially hidden. In fact, as I now think about it, today's 10th hole at Cobb's Creek was probably intended to be an Alps!
The earliest one I heard was built by Ardsley in 1897 on a Willie Dunn course.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3493200331_b696df324a_o.jpg)
-
The original 16th green at Cobb's Creek (today's 10th), which was a real "one-off", even in its day;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/3495562588_aec8b7117e_o.jpg)
Versus the original 10th at Merion;
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3471373510_ca84898387_o.jpg)
-
Mike I think I pointed out the similarity between the two when I first came back to the site, but I recall that there was quite a bit of mounding in the fairway. I don't see it in your photo. Did you crop in or is it a different photograph? I don't know the numbers, isn't this the short par 4 sort of in a corner that played straight uphill on the clubhouse side of road?
Haven't you and others been arguing that Merion's attempt at an Alps was an obvious mistake and was soon rectified? So why the second attempt? How long was this hole like this?
-
Mike I think I pointed out the similarity between the two when I first came back to the site, but I recall that there was quite a bit of mounding in the fairway. I don't see it in your photo. Did you crop in or is it a different photograph? I don't know the numbers, isn't this the short par 4 sort of in a corner that played straight uphill on the clubhouse side of road?
Haven't you and others been arguing that Merion's attempt at an Alps was an obvious mistake and was soon rectified? So why the second attempt? How long was this hole like this?
David,
Yes, that's a cropped, blown-up photo trying to get a better view of the particulars of the green surrounds.
The "mounds" you mentioned that populate the first portion of that hole are actually mostly pimply rock outcroppings. There is very little in the way of formal mounding up to the green, which is then quite contrived.
The hole is actually in a corner as you described but on the side of the course across the street from the clubhouse, running from a tee perched above Rte 1 (City Ave) along the northeast part of the property.
I have aerials until 1955 that show the green very much like this. Even Arnold Palmer and Billy Casper played to this odd green configuration.
Today's greensite still has the front and back bunkering, but the green has shrunk, their is no large back mound, the mounding on the right is gone, and the mounds on the left look to be a shadow of it's former self.
I don't think you've quite represented my position about the original 10th at Merion accurately. I don't think they changed it because it's sort of ugly and contrived, although it kind of was, even if charming in an old-school architecture way.
What I said is that much like Cobb's Creek, this type of green was very, very different from anything else created there either before or after, where almost all of the greensites on both courses are very lay of the land, low-profile minimalist.
Perhaps they were created simply for that very purpose? To create variety, or something a bit daringly different...who knows?
In either case, I do find both holes fascinating.
-
.
-
Perhaps the title of this thread could be changed to "AWT chats with CBM". :)
My cache of newspaper articles is rather large. Sometimes I go and gather up a writer's articles for a large period of time, but then reading all them in detail sometimes doesn't happen until days, weeks, or months later! Recently I decided to organize the Tilly articles from around April, 1911 until early 1912 in the Public Ledger that I gathered up months ago . In one of those large articles was this tidbit that might just jumpstart this thread (not like it needs much help normally). ;)
This from the May 14, 1911 edition of the Public Ledger:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Merion_East/May14_1911_Ledger.jpg)
-
Great find again, Joe!
Interestingly, the timeline of the article is right after he visited Merion on April 6th, 1911, and helped the Committee to pick out the best of the five plans they were considering that they had created after their return from NGLA.
Macdonald would have definitely known of the proposed holes at that time, so it's consistent with all the known timelines.
I also find it of great interest that Tillinghast had such close personal conversations with Macdonald about Merion's new course yet was also a strong and staunch advocate of giving Hugh WIlson full design credit for that course.
Thanks!
-
For your information there is also a letter from Russell Oakley to Hugh Wilson that mentions Macdonald had stopped in at the US Dept of Agriculture and also mentioned that he thought Merion East would be a fine course.
-
Thanks Joe.
Is this the 3rd or 4th publication in which AWT wrote about his conversation w/ CBM re Merion. I assume that they are all based on the same conversation, but haven't matched up the dates in a while.
If I recall the others correctly, this one is worth noting for a few related reasons:
1. Despite much speculation about AWT as an all-knowing insider at Merion, it seems his source of information about the course is not from Merion, but is CBM.
2. In fact it doesn't seem that as of the time he spoke to CBM, AWT had even been to the course to see the layout.
3. AWT writes that it would be only natural for CBM to be bragging about the course, given his level of involvement. It is almost as if he was talking about one of his own . . . . Nahhhhhh, I must be reading it wrong.
4. CBM has been "very active in working with the Committee." Let me me save us some time on this last one . . . .
. . . This cannot possibly mean anything more than that CBM is merely offered them passive advice, because we have know all along that this is all that happened, and it is outrageous that anyone would suggest otherwise, and if anyone did welll then they are a fool and a liar, and should be ignored, and if anyone won't ignore them well then they really don't understand much about a history of Merion that we know and have always known some of us ought to seriously consider whether they even belong on this website.
There, now can we skip the discussion and move on?
__________________
Mike,
If I recall correctly, I don't think you description of AWT's 1930's statement is accurate in words or context. Do you mind pulling it up so we can see what he said? I don't presently have access to my copy.
Thanks.
-
". . . This cannot possibly mean anything more than that CBM is merely offered them passive advice, because we have know all along that this is all that happened, and it is outrageous that anyone would suggest otherwise, and if anyone did welll then they are a fool and a liar, and should be ignored, and if anyone won't ignore them well then they really don't understand much about a history of Merion that we know and have always known some of us ought to seriously consider whether they even belong on this website."
That is just another pretty pathetic and close minded rant that gets this site and these Merion threads precisely nowhere!
I have just never been able to figure out WHY someone like you, David Moriarty, can't understand that IF C.B. Macdonald actually said something positive about someone else's or some club's golf architecture that does NOT necessarily mean that he designed it or was the "DRIVING FORCE BEHIND IT ::)----as you unfailingly imply and often contend on this website!
Why is that? What really is your deal or your philosophy in this particular vein??
I think as some have suggested to me and others, perhaps now we should turn to NGLA ITSELF and start investigating what the PROOF is that Macdonald ROUTED and designed all of it or WHO CAME UP WITH WHAT in detail on anything that was done on THAT golf course ORIGINALLY!! ;)
Are YOU ready for THAT!?
AGAIN, why do you suppose that is? ???
My bet is you wouldn't have the vaguest idea how to handle a subject like that one! ;)
-
Mike,
If I recall correctly, I don't think you description of AWT's 1930's statement is accurate in words or context. Do you mind pulling it up so we can see what he said? I don't presently have access to my copy.
Thanks.
David,
Here it is. I'd also use "Far and Sure"'s words, but Phil doesn't agree, but I think a look at the American Cricketer article is relevant, as well.
"There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth. Yet, with it all, there was 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 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 architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.” - A.W. Tillinghast, 1934
"...I wish to say that I believe Merion will have a real championship course, and Philadelphia has been crying for one for many years. The construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, has been thorough in its methods and deserves the congratulations of all golfers." - A.W. Tillinghast, "American Cricketer", Jan 1913.
There is no mention of Macdonald.
For anyone who still believes that Hugh Wilson was simply a "constructor" to Macdonald's plans, it does beg the question of why Tillinghast thinks "all golfers" owe him deserving congratulations!
It seems to me a relevant question after hearing about their in-person discussions would be why Tillinghast never credited Macdonald with the design, especially living in Philadelphia for the next few decades as all press accounts credited Wilson. Why do you think Tillinghast never set the record straight, even in his own ubiquitous writings?
Tillinghast also claimed in April 1911 to have "seen the plans". Why wouldn't he have credited Macdonald if he was indeed deserving?
Are there any other courses Macdonald designed that you know of where Tillinghast refused to give him proper credit?
-
What'd ya think? Did I get it about right, or what?
TEPaul,
If you dig through past threads, you'll see that I have long had a deep interest in NGLA, going well back before I started looking into Merion. I started many a thread on NGLA related topics, and some were quite long and more than a little controversial. But generally people are glad to openly discuss NGLA, and so there is no battle between those who think they already know and those who are trying to figure it out. That's what these Merion threads boil down to, isn't it? Those who think they already know everything trying to shut up those who are trying to figure it out for themselves?
Anyway I have looked into NGLA more than you realize, and will probably have more to say about it at some point, but I doubt it will be controversial to anyone but the usual suspects. Plus record there as I understand it is much less murky. My understanding is that Charles Blair Macwood and Henry James Whigham went out on horseback and found the Alps, then turned around and saw what they considered to be a perfect Redan, and things went from there.
Interesting the same two guys were wondering around Merion a few years later. I have often wondered what specifically they thought during their July 1910 inspection of Merion. And we we can't forget that Barker had already inspected the land and planned a rough lay out. What are the chances that CBM and HJW wouldn't have been given Barker's rough sketch. They were keen on the land behind the clubhouse, so it is easy to imagine that they found that terrific natural green site for the short hole. CBM and HJW mentioned using the quarry in their June letter, but I wonder what specifically they had in mind? Wouldn't you agree that the 17th and 18th must have jumped out at them, especially given the location of the clubhouse?
But I am getting ahead of myself. I sure hope we can get past this preliminary stuff soon so we can finally start in on the interesting stuff!
-
David,
Didn't Barker's routing only assess 100 acres? Are we even sure what 100 acres that Connell controlled at the time Barker was looking at? Why would Connell have provided Macdonald with a copy of the sketch if Connell was hoping to have Barker do the work?
Also, you don't have to speculate at all what Macdonald thought about after his June 1910 visit.
He spells it all out very clearly in his single page letter.
He goes on to tell them the land will maybe, probably accommodate a sporty, 6000 yard course, and even discusses rote hole lengths that will make up the distance, questions whether the 117 acres they are looking at at that point are large enough for even that, and recommends they buy an obvious additional 3 acres adjacent to the clubhouse and railroad tracks.
He also gives them some advice on who to ask about inland agronomy. Do I need to reproduce the letter here again?
The rest of your post is pure speculation unsupported by any facts or documentation.
In fact, it's worse than that because it flies in the face of his own exact words and impressions from that day.
-
"But generally people are glad to openly discuss NGLA, and so there is no battle between those who think they already know and those who are trying to figure it out. That's what these Merion threads boil down to, isn't it? Those who think they already know everything trying to shut up those who are trying to figure it out for themselves?"
No, David Moriarty, there is really no difference at all between those people who truly know most everything there is to know, at this point, about NGLA and Merion and those who don't. The only difference I've ever been able to see on this website is a few such as yourself have challenged those who know most of what can be known about Merion and noone, such as yourself, has challenged those who know most about NGLA?
That in and of itself is of course very interesting! ;)
You or anyone else on here should probably challenge those who know most everything there is to know about NGLA, at this point, and both you and everyone else might see there is no more to be known in detall about who did what specifically at NGLA as there is to be known about Merion East. We here in Philadelphia told that to Tom MacWood over six years ago on this website. Only if he would've accepted our expert opinion in that vein and with that question of his it may've spared this website about six years of unproductive argumentation with people such as yourself!
-
"My understanding is that Charles Blair Macwood and Henry James Whigham went out on horseback and found the Alps, then turned around and saw what they considered to be a perfect Redan, and things went from there."
Moriarty:
That is a slip between tongue and lip or motivation and mind or mind and expression that is both Truly revealing and Truly hilarious in about equal measure.
CHARLES BLAIR MACWOOD indeed you GCA challenged idiot!
Perhaps the best place for you to ply your uninformed albeit opinionated theories is on Tommy Naccarato's new website "salon". If ever there is a place that a bunch of no-count, back-stabbing, know-nothings hangout in a collective and on-going mental masturbation session, that one has got to be it.
Have FUN!
-
"My understanding is that Charles Blair Macwood and Henry James Whigham went out on horseback and found the Alps, then turned around and saw what they considered to be a perfect Redan, and things went from there."
Moriarty:
That is a slip between tongue and lip or motivation and mind or mind and expression that is both Truly revealing and Truly hilarious in about equal measure.
CHARLES BLAIR MACWOOD indeed you GCA challenged idiot!
Perhaps the best place for you to ply your uninformed albeit opinionated theories is on Tommy Naccarato's new website "salon". If ever there is a place that a bunch of no-count, back-stabbing, know-nothings hangout in a collective and on-going mental masturbation session, that one has got to be it.
Have FUN!
The Macdonald/MacWood slip is pretty funny. I must connect them in my mind because of the deplorable treatment both have received around here.
-
"The Macdonald/MacWood slip is pretty funny. I must connect them in my mind because of the deplorable treatment both have received around here."
MikeC:
Has Joe found any old newspaper articles that if parsed in a certain way imply Charles Blair MacWood routed Merion East or was the driving force behind it? If so I hope he coughs them up like yesterday as the last thing I want to see happen next is for us or Merion to minimize Charles Blair MacWood's contribution to the great Merion East.
-
MikeC:
Has Joe found any old newspaper articles that if parsed in a certain way imply Charles Blair MacWood routed Merion East or was the driving force behind it? If so I hope he coughs them up like yesterday as the last thing I want to see happen next is for us or Merion to minimize Charles Blair MacWood's contribution to the great Merion East.
Tom,
Yes, we have found some evidence of that, but it's a rather sad tale to be honest, probably not worth repeating.
You see, if I have the right guy in mind, this particular CBM was a bit slow on the uptake as regards his architectural understanding of Merion, and even by the 1970's was still struggling with the very basics of the club, incuding apparently the spelling. ;) ;D
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Gfqu_HqqeaU/Rlr3Juy72qI/AAAAAAAAAQ8/IzqtQsNgCS0/s320/CNR_meh.jpg)
-
"You see, if I have the right guy in mind, this particular CBM was a bit slow on the uptake as regards his architectural understanding of Merion, and even by the 1970's was still struggling with the very basics of the club, incuding apparently the spelling."
Michael Cirba, Expert GCA researcher/writer:
You know you are some expert on this stuff or else you're just danged lucky. That guy holding the MEH sign is actually about halfway home in discovering who REALLY designed Merion East.
Due to this issue of Merion's move and all this claptrap about Macdonald's far more significant part in it has got me and Wyno, I mean Wayno, researching as well the entire move and real estate development to the west and who all was responsible for the whole shebang. For this I have gone way, way back, before basically the PRR got into a sort of general master plan of creating the over all Main Line which was previous the 40,000-50,000 or so acres of the so-called Welsh tract (a bunch of Welsh immigrants prevailed upon William Penn to carve it out for them) back in 1685. But even before that and before Penn the land belonged to the Lenni-Lenape indian tribe and it was called Mehrion by them!!!!
So you are onto something there pal and I have also found that it looks like the first golf course on this site was designed by one Lancelot Lenni-Lenape, the ninteenth son of Chief Armaggedon "Big Gnads" Lenni-Lenape!!!
I believe Lancelot Lenni-Lenape might have been the first golf course architect in history and certainly with an inland golf course. I used to think Fernandina Beach Municipal's Timucuan indian architect, Tommy Birdsong, was the only American indian golf course architect but apparently Lancelot Lenni-Lenape was the first and had TommyB beat out by maybe 300-400 years.
I was just over at Merion and had I known this I would've told the president who I saw over there that Merion should now consider renaming the club Mehrion Golf Club to honor Lancelot Lenni-Lenape and instead of saying they are 113 years old they can now say their golf course is around 437 years old.
Matter of fact, Wayne and I were down in the quarry on #16 and we saw an old carving on one of the quarry walls of the former "Quarry Hole" at Merion obviously conceived of by Lancelot Lenni-Lenape and his tribe of amateur scout designers back around 1572. The green was in the same place it is today but you had to hit the approach shot over the top of the quarry wall that made the green totally blind. I guess Lancelot had some of his dad "Big Gnads" balls because obviously there was none of this "visibility" crap that some of these pale-faced pussys like Wilson and Francis et al got into about three plus centuries later when for some damned reason they felt it necessary to blow the top of the quarry wall off so golfers could see something of the green.
Matter of fact, the carving of the hole on the quarry wall was labeled "The Poconock hole" which was probably Lenni-Lenape for "Alps."
You're a genius Michael Cirba. You and your Uber-mole Bausch will go far in this business!
I also want you to know Mr. Cirba, and on another matter, that in the last 39 hours I have found a letter from one Walter Travis to one Purvis P. Pruffrock that is totally fascinating. It seems Purvis P. was the town of Southampton's most notorious drunk and over-all idiot but like people of that ilk are wont to do he had his ear to the ground out there better than anyone did (I suppose he was the best at having his ear to the ground out there because the truth of it is that most of the time his ear actually was on the ground!). Travis wanted to know what the word in the town was on himself amongst the Southampton towns-people because it seems Walter had been hammering a really hot little Shinnecock indian gal beginning about 1902 and damned if they didn't go out on that Sebonak property C.B. et al would end up buying a few years later to create the great NGLA. It seems from the letter Walter and his little sweetie had been out on that Sebonack property doing their thing perhaps hundreds of times and through all that wandering around and cavorting in the mulberry bushes and such with little Sallyo Shinnecock, Walter had routed and designed NGLA between otherwise utilized bursts of energy. It seems like Charlie Macdonald swiped Walter's routing and design plan for NGLA from him and attempted to make it look like he did it himself. Nothing of the kind! Walter Travis was the person who routed NGLA and when he told Macdonald he was going to go public with that information Charlie up and summarily fired his ass from the original NGLA committee that included Charlie and Whigam. I used to think that the tiff between Travis and Macdonald had something to do with a misunderstanding over the Schnectedy Putter issue but apparently not; the whole thing was over Charlie trying to take credit for Walter's NGLA routing and design plan. And all this doesn't even take into consideration that Walter probably knew those great holes abroad a ton better than the self-promoting C.B. ever did!
And Matter of fact, in that letter Walter mentioned to Purvis P that little Sallyo said that Walter should also claim he was the driving force behind that golf course because damned if she wasn't living proof and testimony to that fact on that thar land!