Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: TEPaul on April 20, 2009, 10:04:43 PM
-
You know, at this point, and due to the laughable confusion on the Findlay meets Wilson thread, I have just got to ask this question.
Who on this website, and particularly those participating on the "Findlay Meets Wilson" thread has EVER actually routed and designed a golf course on a plan or survey (topo contour map) for a particular site and actually presented it to a club or principles for their consideration in the creation of the course?
We have a number of architects on this website so obviously they have but who else on here has actually done what I just asked above.
I have the distinct feeling that almost complete silence and lack of response on this thread is going to completely make the point I've tried to make on that Findlay/Wilson thread but would like to make the same point via this particular thread's subject.
When it comes to Macdonald actually routing (and or designing) the holes of Merion you guys are about to see it would have been impossible for him to do that even if MCC asked him to which I have never seen a scintilla of evidence or even the implication of it anywhere that they ever did.
Why would it have been impossible for him to route and design Merion East?
Who wants to guess? The first correct answer gets a round at Merion arranged and paid for by me through the Pissboy! If the Pissboy doesn't want to do it I'll call up my neighbor across the fields and get him to do it! If he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up..... and if he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up.....and if he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up.........believe me this can go on for a long, long time! ;)
-
Did CBM not technically rout his own courses?
-
He always routed on his trusty horse, but didn't want to ship it from NY to Philly?
-
Who on this website, and particularly those participating on the "Findlay Meets Wilson" thread has EVER actually routed and designed a golf course on a plan or survey (topo contour map) for a particular site and actually presented it to a club or principles for their consideration in the creation of the course?
We have a number of architects on this website so obviously they have but who else on here has actually done what I just asked above.
Mr. AmenhoTEP,
This previous statement borders on being a tautology. If one has routed and designed a golf course and presented said course design for actual use, he is a defacto architect is he not?
-
It was the beginning of the prohibition
nobody can routed a golf course without any alcohol in their body ;D ;D
-
Why would it have been impossible for him to route and design Merion East?
Oh yes, and for the win...
The board was too intimidated by the man named Charles.
;)
-
"If one has routed and designed a golf course and presented said course design for actual use, he is a defacto architect is he not?"
CharlieG:
Do you think so, even if it was never built? ;)
-
Did Merion own all of the land that they used for the course at the time that CBM was actually on site?
-
"Did Merion own all of the land that they used for the course at the time that CBM was actually on site?"
Kirk:
Intesesting question and the answer is not exactly, depending on which of the two one day visits by Macdonald/Whigam you're talking about. When the first one occured (June 1910) they didn't own any of the land and when his second visit occured (April 1911) they owned all the land except for that three acre tract behind the clubhouse he recommended in 1910 they buy; the same small tract he recommended they buy again on April 6, 1911.
The Merion records say nothing I'm aware of whether or not they took him seriously the first time and routed holes in there before he came back.
That little tract is a most interesting one. The board approved the purchase of that land in the spring of 1911 and they even had a price for it but the club didn't actually buy it until a half century later. In my opinion, there's a very understandable reason for that. :)
-
"If one has routed and designed a golf course and presented said course design for actual use, he is a defacto architect is he not?"
CharlieG:
Do you think so, even if it was never built? ;)
I think so, because architecting's hard.
Most people don't land the first job they apply for. Was Bob Dylan not a songwriter until someone paid to listen to him sing one of his songs? Was Amenhotep not a ....well never mind! ;)
-
He was only on site for two days.
When do we play?
Wayne already owes me a round. Can we go 36?
You know, at this point, and due to the laughable confusion on the Findlay meets Wilson thread, I have just got to ask this question.
Who on this website, and particularly those participating on the "Findlay Meets Wilson" thread has EVER actually routed and designed a golf course on a plan or survey (topo contour map) for a particular site and actually presented it to a club or principles for their consideration in the creation of the course?
We have a number of architects on this website so obviously they have but who else on here has actually done what I just asked above.
I have the distinct feeling that almost complete silence and lack of response on this thread is going to completely make the point I've tried to make on that Findlay/Wilson thread but would like to make the same point via this particular thread's subject.
When it comes to Macdonald actually routing (and or designing) the holes of Merion you guys are about to see it would have been impossible for him to do that even if MCC asked him to which I have never seen a scintilla of evidence or even the implication of it anywhere that they ever did.
Why would it have been impossible for him to route and design Merion East?
Who wants to guess? The first correct answer gets a round at Merion arranged and paid for by me through the Pissboy! If the Pissboy doesn't want to do it I'll call up my neighbor across the fields and get him to do it! If he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up..... and if he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up.....and if he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up.........believe me this can go on for a long, long time! ;)
-
Who on this website, and particularly those participating on the "Findlay Meets Wilson" thread has EVER actually routed and designed a golf course on a plan or survey (topo contour map) for a particular site and actually presented it to a club or principles for their consideration in the creation of the course?
We have a number of architects on this website so obviously they have but who else on here has actually done what I just asked above.
Mr. AmenhoTEP,
This previous statement borders on being a tautology. If one has routed and designed a golf course and presented said course design for actual use, he is a defacto architect is he not?
No. He has only routed the golf course, that's the fun part. The hard work starts actually being there designing the features.
Although the routing is one of the most important parts of the puzzle it is nothing without great features being designed and built.
So my answer would be no he does not become an architect just because the routing was done by him.
-
Although the routing is one of the most important parts of the puzzle it is nothing without great features being designed and built.
So my answer would be no he does not become an architect just because the routing was done by him."
Brian:
You never saw the plan. Everything was in it---it was a routing (whatever that means to you) and total design plan, bunkers, green designs and all. I'm not much of an artist but the plan was complete, and I still have it. It was never built obviously but who's to know how good it was? Ask Bill Coore about it sometime---he looked at it all the way from Hidden Creek to the Philly airport.
In my opinion, it didn't even take much making, at least a fair portion of it, and that includes what would've been the 12th hole. It's still there and I could show anyone anytime what it could be or is. In my opinion, right out of the box with about two tablespoons moved that hole would've been one of the greatest in the world. It was definitely the biggest hole I've ever known---there would've been so many things to do and ways to go no matter where you were on it.
-
Brian,
I must disagree with your ascertion, "Although the routing is one of the most important parts of the puzzle it is nothing without great features being designed and built."
Think of it in terms of an office building. I have personally designed the entire electric packages, including lighting, for a number od multi-story buildings. Certainly this would be akin to the "great features" of which you speak on a golf course. Not a single time has anyone credited or accused me of being the architect of the building. That ALWAYS goes to the man who designed the structure upon which the "great features" would be placed.
It is the same with golf courses. The original architect/designer of any course is the person who routed the course. That is the "framework" or "building" upon which the "great features" could be placed. There are many examples of courses, even great ones, where clear credit is given for the design to one person and yet some of the "great features" that make them quite memorable were added later by others, in some cases by years.
The act of adding these "great features" certainly doesn't discredit the one(s) who did the design up to that point to the extent that a new "architect of record" must be refered to, does it?
-
Presumably there wasn't an accurate topo plan available ? OR perhaps the plan he had was completely wrong in its contours such that any routing he came up with on the plan would have been nonsense on the ground ?
If neither of the above are correct I'll go with Jeffs idea about the horse.
Niall
-
Brian, Tom, Phil, et al:
My own thought on who is a course architect is that it has more to do with the would-be architect's frame of mind. If that person thinks of himself as an architect, then he is one. In our armchair architecture contest we had 8 folks provide a fairly complete routing/design plan for a golf course on a real site. None of them identified themselves as an architect (except for my design associate Tom D. ;)). So even though some of the plans were incredibly detailed, most of them are not architects.
When it comes to whether feature design or on-site time or a completed course are a requirement of being an architect, I think they are or aren't depending on whether the designer and client believe they are a requirement.
-
To DMoriaty,
there are a lot of courses that have built routed and built with the ''Architect'' on site for only 2 days.
-
"Brian,
I must disagree with your ascertion, "Although the routing is one of the most important parts of the puzzle it is nothing without great features being designed and built."
Phil:
I agree with Brian Phillips but only in part. It's just not true to say that a routing is always "nothing" without great features being designed into it. Without the component features designed onto a paper routing, it is basically nothing much more than a plan of particular points, lines and directions, nothing much more.
I have a feeling that the vast majority of participants on this website don't understand that all that well because they have never done anything like creating a routing and presented it to a club or principles for their consideration to have it built.
A basic "stick routing" is nothing much more than a series of points and lines indicating the directions of holes and together a golf course in an overall sequence of distances and directions.
But what I consider to be the second phase of designing (what I've always called the "designing up" phase of a basic stick routing is adding in all the architectural features that will go on the ground such as bunkers and their hazard-like, tees and green-shapes and contours etc, etc.
Who on here other than the professional architects has ever actually designed the latter and had it put in front of a club or principles to have it considered for their approval to actually get build?
-
From the other thread, but probably even more pertinently here...sorry for the double post.
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 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.
-
Tom,
Why is drawing the bunkers on paper (regardless of the detail involved) really any more important than a "basic stick routing"?
-
To DMoriaty,
there are a lot of courses that have built routed and built with the ''Architect'' on site for only 2 days.
You don't say?
Seriously, I realize that. I just want to see Merion again, so I gave TEPaul the answer he was looking for. What do you suppose the chances are that he will honor his end of the bargain?
By the way, in this case it was not just the two days on site that matter. CBM was helping Merion between the two meetings. Merion had a contour map and it is hard to believe they would have kept it hidden from CBM. Also, Merion's Construction Committee spent two additional days with CBM at NGLA discussing the project.
So CBM had plenty of time and opportunity to plan the lay out.
-
Mr. Paul,
Is it because there are a number of out of bounds on the right side of the fairways?
-
I don't have a dog in this never-ending merion fight (though i would be a willing participant if ever invited to play ;)), but the thread does present an interesting question. what is the most important aspect of golf course design: routing or features? put another way, would you rather play a superbly routed golf course with limited design features or a poor routing with very interesting features? I, personally, always prefer a better routing if for no other reason that fixing features is a much easier task. A poor routing is hard to overcome...
-
A basic "stick routing" is nothing much more than a series of points and lines indicating the directions of holes and together a golf course in an overall sequence of distances and directions.
But what I consider to be the second phase of designing (what I've always called the "designing up" phase of a basic stick routing is adding in all the architectural features that will go on the ground such as bunkers and their hazard-like, tees and green-shapes and contours etc, etc.
Who on here other than the professional architects has ever actually designed the latter and had it put in front of a club or principles to have it considered for their approval to actually get build?
Tom,
I think the words in bold are the most pertinent as to whether one is an architect (in a golfing sense). If you've gone that far, you're an architect in my book. You might not be a good one, but you are one.
A set of verbal instructions and some stakes in the ground might be sufficient in some cases, while in other cases only a detailed set of plans and/or much on-site time will suffice. I don't think the method or materials or even whether the course gets built makes one an architect.
To be the architect of record is probably similar (i.e. if the client and the architect himself consider him to be the architect of record, then he is the architect of record, regardless of how many plans he made, or hours/days/weeks/months/years he spent on site).
-
Brian,
I must disagree with your assertion, "Although the routing is one of the most important parts of the puzzle it is nothing without great features being designed and built."
Think of it in terms of an office building. I have personally designed the entire electric packages, including lighting, for a number od multi-story buildings. Certainly this would be akin to the "great features" of which you speak on a golf course. Not a single time has anyone credited or accused me of being the architect of the building. That ALWAYS goes to the man who designed the structure upon which the "great features" would be placed.
It is the same with golf courses. The original architect/designer of any course is the person who routed the course. That is the "framework" or "building" upon which the "great features" could be placed. There are many examples of courses, even great ones, where clear credit is given for the design to one person and yet some of the "great features" that make them quite memorable were added later by others, in some cases by years.
The act of adding these "great features" certainly doesn't discredit the one(s) who did the design up to that point to the extent that a new "architect of record" must be refered to, does it?
The part you have designed for a building I would akin to that of irrigation in the ground. I do not class electric packages as great features.
They would be the style of the windows (bunkers), or foyers (greens) or whatever. But something like electric cables or lighting in a building I would definitely not class as great features no. ;) That is why you have never been accused of being the architect, same as a plumber or an air condition engineer.
Anyone can do a routing of a site and make it look good on paper (it may take more time than an architect and the routing might be crap). However, once construction starts you cannot hide and decisions then need to be made on the ground.
That's when a real architect starts to earn his or her money. Whether it be with detailed drawings or on site supervision that is a personal choice. Tom Doak, Bill Coore and myself use our own shapers so we don't have to draw much at all whereas some other fantastic architects use very detailed drawings. It is a choice each individual makes on each project.
This is where the next argument comes up, should Russell and Morcom be given more credit for Melbourne if not equal credit than Mackenzie etc.great routing, but is it the bunkering that really makes the course together with the green sites?
-
"Did Merion own all of the land that they used for the course at the time that CBM was actually on site?"
Kirk:
Intesesting question and the answer is not exactly, depending on which of the two one day visits by Macdonald/Whigam you're talking about. When the first one occured (June 1910) they didn't own any of the land and when his second visit occured (April 1911) they owned all the land except for that three acre tract behind the clubhouse he recommended in 1910 they buy; the same small tract he recommended they buy again on April 6, 1911.
Tom,
I asked this before and I think you told me that the bolded part above is something you merely inferred...not something that was actually written in the minutes. Is that correct?
-
A routing is only as good as what you make of it
I totally agree with Brian Phillips here
Proof:
Take the routing at Merion, which is really a great one, and then:
1) put symetrical mounds on both side of the fairway (especially to hide the houses and block the ball for going OB)
2) flatten out the sidehill fairway at 5, make an elevated 2-tier green and put a bunker between the green and the creek.
3) built round flat bunkers, put one left and one right of each fairway at 265 yards.
4) built all the greens with 3 flat tiers and steep banks in between
5) fill the quarry short of 16th green because it's an unfair hazard.
6) remove all the bushes and tall grass and mow everything the same height
7) Plant colorado spruces between the putting green and the 14th tee
you get the point...
what do you end up with: a terrible golf course where nobody cares about the routing
-
Although the routing is one of the most important parts of the puzzle it is nothing without great features being designed and built.
So my answer would be no he does not become an architect just because the routing was done by him."
Brian:
You never saw the plan. Everything was in it---it was a routing (whatever that means to you) and total design plan, bunkers, green designs and all. I'm not much of an artist but the plan was complete, and I still have it. It was never built obviously but who's to know how good it was? Ask Bill Coore about it sometime---he looked at it all the way from Hidden Creek to the Philly airport.
In my opinion, it didn't even take much making, at least a fair portion of it, and that includes what would've been the 12th hole. It's still there and I could show anyone anytime what it could be or is. In my opinion, right out of the box with about two tablespoons moved that hole would've been one of the greatest in the world. It was definitely the biggest hole I've ever known---there would've been so many things to do and ways to go no matter where you were on it.
Mr Paul...
Sorry but I must have missed something as I don't know what plan you are talking about sorry...my answer was just based on a general question. I did not realise it was based upon an actual routing you had...
;)
-
A routing is only as good as what you make of it
I totally agree with Brian Phillips here
Proof:
Take the routing at Merion, which is really a great one, and then:
1) put symetrical mounds on both side of the fairway (especially to hide the houses and block the ball for going OB)
2) flatten out the sidehill fairway at 5, make an elevated 2-tier green and put a bunker between the green and the creek.
3) built round flat bunkers, put one left and one right of each fairway at 265 yards.
4) built all the greens with 3 flat tiers and steep banks in between
5) fill the quarry short of 16th green because it's an unfair hazard.
6) remove all the bushes and tall grass and mow everything the same height
7) Plant colorado spruces between the putting green and the 14th tee
you get the point...
what do you end up with: a terrible golf course where nobody cares about the routing
I think you have just proven the opposite point. Merion's routing is brilliant because of how well the routing utilizes the natural features. The slant of the 5th fairway and green are a perfect example of this. Taking away the natural features ruins the routing and therefore ruins the course. One could make an argument that Merion would still be great even if many of the fairway bunkers had never been built.
[One exception, widening the fairways and cutting the rough would bring out the greatness of the routing, not diminish it.]
TomPaul,
Let's talk about this round you now owe me . . .
-
When it comes to Macdonald actually routing (and or designing) the holes of Merion you guys are about to see it would have been impossible for him to do that even if MCC asked him to which I have never seen a scintilla of evidence or even the implication of it anywhere that they ever did.
Why would it have been impossible for him to route and design Merion East?
Who wants to guess? The first correct answer gets a round at Merion arranged and paid for by me through the Pissboy! If the Pissboy doesn't want to do it I'll call up my neighbor across the fields and get him to do it! If he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up..... and if he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up.....and if he doesn't want to do it, I'll call up.........believe me this can go on for a long, long time! ;)
I will take a stab in dark (having read no more of these Merion history debate postings than I can count on my hands). Could Seth Raynor have been working on Sleepy Hollow when CBM visited the Merion site, and therefore since Seth Raynor was not there, no routing or design from CBM?
-
Bill S.'
Maybe you can join Tom and David on the latter's tab at Rustic Canyon! ;)
Nice one!!
-
Brian Phillips:
No problem.
Yep, I still have it, and looking back on it all now, particularly as it relates to some of the realities that apparently took place way back when at MCC and Merion Ardmore, just makes it and the whole experience that much more interesting and valuable. I never really tried to calculate it but I would estimate it took maybe 2-3 years and probably 500-700 hours on site (actually two sites but primarily one particular site) where it all eventually came down to that important meeting where the plan was laid out in front of all the people who were the decision-makers from my club and the incredible farm that was the subject and object of a move of my own golf club.
-
One could make an argument that Merion would still be great even if many of the fairway bunkers had never been built.
I disagree completely.
:)
-
Mr. Paul,
Is it because there are a number of out of bounds on the right side of the fairways?
Best answer yet to prove CBM's routing probably never occurred. Look at Chicago Golf.
-
Let's not forget we're discussing the original routing of Merion, with three holes in a row crossing Ardmore avenue, a dogleg left first hole, and different greensites for 2,8, and probably 14.
-
To DMoriaty,
It depends what your define as routing and what you define as design.
Routing to me is a stick routing, meaning a dot for the tee a dot for the green and a line in between.
Therefore, you can have the same stick routing but demolish the site.
Merion's routing uses the natural features greatly,
but if you bulldoze the natural features and do what I've said above: YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME ROUTING... but created a terrible course out of it.
-
Routed, designed, sold, built, still around. THEN GO DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Lester
-
To DMoriaty,
It depends what your define as routing and what you define as design.
Routing to me is a stick routing, meaning a dot for the tee a dot for the green and a line in between.
Therefore, you can have the same stick routing but demolish the site.
Merion's routing uses the natural features greatly,
but if you bulldoze the natural features and do what I've said above: YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME ROUTING... but created a terrible course out of it.
I don't think so Philippe. You might be right about the features, but if the stick routing was done on the topo map and you change the topo by bulldozing it, the routing is no longer on the correct topo map.
-
"TomPaul,
Let's talk about this round you now owe me . . ."
David Moriarty:
No problem; let's talk about it and let's hope it doesn't take you about five years this time to understand what's going on here.
The question was:
"Why would it have been impossible for Macdonald to route and design Merion East."
You're answer for which you seem to think you won the contest was:
"He was only on site for two days."
In my opinion, that's sort of correct or at least fairly warm anyway but only partially correct because in fact he was probably only on site for a single day with a topo survey map anywhere around him that anyone could draw anything on, so maybe you deserve nine holes or perhaps just six holes.
But the thing that interests me the most is if you believe that's the correct answer to why it was impossible for Macdonald to have routed and designed Merion because he was on site for only two days how can you keep maintaining that you think Macdonald routed and designed Merion East? ??? ;)
I suppose the answer to that one is you frequently say things and maintain things on here that you really don't mean and know to be not true, but I'm quite sure most people on here have figured that out about you long ago.
-
"there are a lot of courses that have built routed and built with the ''Architect'' on site for only 2 days."
Phillippe:
Sure there are. In the 19th and early 20th centuries there were numerous professional architects who routed courses in a single day (generally that's what was referred to back then as "Eighteen Stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" but that architect certainly could have done the designing of the man-made features and applied features such as bunkers and green designs and such in a single day.
Matter of fact, that was just about precisely what made Macdonald himself declare that the early architecture in American "Made the very soul of golf shriek" and according to him motivated him to go about GCA in about the polar opposite way which took a good deal of time, certainly a good deal more than a day or two.
So sure there were lots of courses that were routed in a single day (at best a stick routing) but none by Charles Blair Macdonald, that's for sure.
It's pretty important too when one considers why it was virtually impossible for Macdonald to route and design a golf course in a single day (all the time he had available to him at Merion East with a topo survey map around) even if they asked him to which of course there isn't a scintilla of evidence they ever did is the fact that Macdonald never did a routing and design drawing. Basically Raynor did that kind of thing for him.
Somehow when one considers that the Wilson Committee did numerous different courses and plans throughout the winter and spring of 1911, I really don't see him asking them to throw them all aside and follow him around in a single day while he routed and designed a whole knew plan for Merion East. Do you? ;)
I can just see Richard Francis, the Merion member and professional surveyor/engineer who probably did the drawings for the Wilson Committee rushing around behind Macdonald trying to draw it all on a survey map;
"Charlie, wait a minute I haven't finished drawing the 12th hole yet, which way does it go and what were the bunker arrangements and green design?"
And, Charlie yelling back at him: "Forget it Dick(head), we're on the 13th now and there isn't that much light left for me to get all the way to 18, much less tell you how to fix the problems with the land around 15 green and 16 tee so you can create that stupid story about your brain-fart idea requiring a late night bike ride over to the "Hor" Lloyd's house."
-
"One could make an argument that Merion would still be great even if many of the fairway bunkers had never been built."
David Moriarty:
Of course one could make an argument for that. One could make an argument for just about anything no matter how illogical or preposterous it is. Not a very good argument but an argument nonetheless! I think we've seen over-ample evidence on that from you on these Merion/Macdonald threads for about four years and including your essay "The Missing Faces of Merion."
-
TEPaul,
Leaving aside the originator of the question; do you think that Merion would be a great course even if none of the fairway bunkers (or any bunkers for that matter) had been built?
-
Charlie:
No I do not. It would definitely not be the great Merion East including the "White Faces of Merion" that American golf came to know and love.
-
Charlie:
Ron Prichard has stated on a few occasions that he believes the prototype for what became the essential generic "American" bunker type came from the minds of Merion, likely Wilson. I guess Moriarty will figure out some way of trying to conclude that Macdonald came up with that idea too.
I know what Ron means because we've questioned him hard about it.
Let me tell you something pretty ironic, CharlieG and more than a little maddening. In our Merion files we have a number of drafts of the app. ten page article that Wilson did for Piper and Oakley for their book on golf agronomy in the mid-teens. No one has ever seen much of anything from Hugh Wilson on his ideas on golf course architecture but in one of those drafts for Piper and Oakley's book which was just supposed to be on golf agronomy, for some reason in one paragraph Hugh Wilson suddenly lapsed into what it took to conceive of and make a really good natural looking bunker by going down to the Jersey shore and sitting amongst the duney blowout shapes down there and just getting the essence of it all.
But then he apparently realized the article was supposed to be just on golf agronomy and so he just lined out what he had just written on bunker architecture, but luckily you can still read it.
-
When it comes to Macdonald actually routing (and or designing) the holes of Merion you guys are about to see it would have been impossible for him to do that even if MCC asked him to which I have never seen a scintilla of evidence or even the implication of it anywhere that they ever did.
Why would it have been impossible for him to route and design Merion East?
It was impossible for CBM to have routed and designed Merion East because Hugh Wilson did it! ;D
No?
Bart
-
Charlie:
No I do not. It would definitely not be the great Merion East including the "White Faces of Merion" that American golf came to know and love.
Thanks for the reply Tom, I take your meaning to be that it would be a mere shadow of itself without them.
As to your other statement, It's a shame that Wilson did not put more of his thoughts on the subject in writing. It's funny how his nonchalance about recording his own design ideas is inversely proportional to the desire of contemporary design aficionados to read them.
My point all along regarding what makes an architect has been that there are many ways to do it, and do it well. Apropos this discussion, it seems that getting into all the minutia about who did what can never answer the question as well as the historical attribution can. When deciding who is the architect of record, it's most important that the architect and the club agree on who that person is. In this case both have traditionally designated that person as being Wilson.
Now the questions of who did what, when, where, and how are also interesting. Those questions (and their answers) tell a long and interesting story of how one of the great golf courses came into being. Macdonald could have been important or even integral to the creation of Merion without having designed the golf course. (That's just a hypothetical, I don't know whether he was or not.) Hell, he could have been absolutely necessary to the cause as, perhaps, an object of inspiration or of derision.
Best wishes,
Charlie
-
"As to your other statement, It's a shame that Wilson did not put more of his thoughts on the subject in writing. It's funny how his nonchalance about recording his own design ideas is inversely proportional to the desire of contemporary design aficionados to read them."
CharlieG:
I most certainly don't want to just assume Hugh Wilson did not put many of his thoughts on golf architecture in writing. It could be that we've just never found it. He did say a few times that he didn't really want to write articles and books on any subject because he felt he was a pretty bad writer (which I took to be more self-deprecating than anything else). It has always been totally amazing to Wayne Morrison and me that a man like that could write so many letters on the subject of golf course agronomy (we have hundreds and hundreds if not a thousand of them) for close to fifteen years and nothing commensurate on golf course architecture which he was also so involved in while also balancing a full time business as the president of his and his brother's insurance business.
It's funny how when you read so many letters from someone you feel you really know them and what they're like. It's that way with us with Wilson through those numerous letters we call the "agronomy letters."
To me Wilson was an immensely curious man about a whole lot of diverse things and he seemed to me to be a man who sort of wanted to get what he was doing done yesterday. From the extent of his agronomy letters it would not surprise me if he wrote 10-20 letters a day on all the things he was involved in and with the people he was involved with in his short life (he died at 45).
But I have the distinct sense that because he was the way he appears to us to have been he probably compartmentalized his life and the various things he was doing at any time pretty well and that would probably explain why he just crossed out that interesting paragraph on his thoughts on how to get the inspiration to make what he considered to be natural looking bunkers.
So maybe he did write as much about architecture in the form of letters and such as he did about agronomy and it's just lost now or we've just not found it yet. It is also not true to say that he never mentioned golf architecture in those numerous agronomy letters because he did but not in any philosophical way, pretty much only as it related to cost efficiency of architecture and how to make it less expensive over-all, and I definitely do mean over-all, as in nationally.
-
If I built a road in your backyard, whether it's 3 feet above or below the actual grade, the road is still in your backyard... ;)
-
Just how complicated does everyone think the routing for Merion really is?
Let's say it's a given that the first hole is on the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave. and you come across the road from there. From there you have to play a par-4 or a par-5 alongside the road or play backwards down #12 ... three options.
So you choose the par-5; from there you've got to play a par-3 across the valley or a longer hole into the far corner (which I think was Wilson's original third) or backwards down #5 with the drive falling into a stream (not a great choice).
Once you make the decision to cross over #6 tee to play #3 instead, you have fixed a green location for #5 also. And if you choose to place the green for #4 by the little creek, then the entire routing of the front nine has pretty much fallen into place.
The back nine has many similar constraints ... only the fact that they thought they could play across Ardmore Ave. on #10 and #12 gave them a different option which they used the first 13 years.
-
TomD:
You're right about that. For years those who consider the routing options of Merion East have recognized once you pick the start next to the clubhouse they planned to use anyway, and get across Ardmore Ave, the whole thing sort of flows by itself due to the narrowness. Richard Francis, the Wilson Committee's member surveyor/engineer and likely their plan drawer said as much in his 1950 story about the events of that time. He mentioned the bottom of the L was easy but things got complicated once they got back across the road into the top of the L. That was resolved by some pretty basic land-swapping on the north side with the proposed development to the west which Lloyd was completely prepared to affect and had put himself in the legal position to do just that on his own decision. That's what happened and the holes on the top of the L came into being basically providing the width on the left for holes #1, #14 and #15 specifically how they need that width up the corridor that would be Golf House Rd that was not even built or even particularly locked into place on the overall plan at that time.
-
I have never played Merion or even studied its routing or design so have absolutely nothing to add about who did what and when when it comes to the design.
However, being Scottish, and having an interest in early course designs I feel I should at least make some contribution to defending the much maligned Scottish pros and there "18 staked holes on a sunday afternoon".
I think I'm right in saying the Merion course was designed and built round about 1912. I think I'm also right in saying that in those days they didn't shift nearly as much muck in building a golf course as they do now, possibly only in building tees, greens and bunkers.
Assuming therefore that not much muck was shifted would it be fair to assume that the routing would have been more important then in taking advantage of natural features/contours and that these features might suggest/dictate the strategy for the hole or how the bunkering was placed ? Could you really divorce the routing process from the more detailed design ?
Niall
-
I have never played Merion or even studied its routing or design so have absolutely nothing to add about who did what and when when it comes to the design.
However, being Scottish, and having an interest in early course designs I feel I should at least make some contribution to defending the much maligned Scottish pros and there "18 staked holes on a sunday afternoon".
I think I'm right in saying the Merion course was designed and built round about 1912. I think I'm also right in saying that in those days they didn't shift nearly as much muck in building a golf course as they do now, possibly only in building tees, greens and bunkers.
Assuming therefore that not much muck was shifted would it be fair to assume that the routing would have been more important then in taking advantage of natural features/contours and that these features might suggest/dictate the strategy for the hole or how the bunkering was placed ? Could you really divorce the routing process from the more detailed design ?
Niall
Niall
To be honest, I would be very surprised if there are too many archies today who ignore topographical features (including green sites which I think are a very important aspect of the routing) when routing. I know Melvyn feels differently and I could be wrong, but I would have thought archies are nearly always on the lookout for a routing which takes advantage of at least some topographical features.
Ciao
-
I have never played Merion or even studied its routing or design so have absolutely nothing to add about who did what and when when it comes to the design.
However, being Scottish, and having an interest in early course designs I feel I should at least make some contribution to defending the much maligned Scottish pros and there "18 staked holes on a sunday afternoon".
I think I'm right in saying the Merion course was designed and built round about 1912. I think I'm also right in saying that in those days they didn't shift nearly as much muck in building a golf course as they do now, possibly only in building tees, greens and bunkers.
Assuming therefore that not much muck was shifted would it be fair to assume that the routing would have been more important then in taking advantage of natural features/contours and that these features might suggest/dictate the strategy for the hole or how the bunkering was placed ? Could you really divorce the routing process from the more detailed design ?
Niall
Niall
To be honest, I would be very surprised if there are too many archies today who ignore topographical features (including green sites which I think are a very important aspect of the routing) when routing. I know Melvyn feels differently and I could be wrong, but I would have thought archies are nearly always on the lookout for a routing which takes advantage of at least some topographical features.
Ciao
Sean,
I would certainly hope so and be very surprised if they didn't. My point was to try and give these early guys the credit which I think they are due and to promote the role of routing to more than what maybe some consider it to be. I believe it was common for the course to be largely layed out, and by that I mean largely built with greens and tees, and the bunkers to be added at a later date. However I can't help feeling that they must have had a very good idea as to where they were roughly going to put the bunkers once they had settled on the routing.
That last part is conjecture on my part however I would be interested to hear from modern architects if when they do a routing, that the routing of a particular hole suggests/dictates what the strategy for that hole will be. I would have thought that the land must have to be incredibly flat/bland for the routing not to have some bearing on the strategy for the hole.
Niall
-
Sean
Sorry Mate but I am a little confused or I have confused you. I though I said that the Routing was the actual design element for me and if so would take in the natural feature (which I am always in favour of). By Routing, I take it to mean including locating the Tees positions Fairways and Greens. Take in Natural or Man Made Hazards but the routing is the Design element for me – as I said all other features are additional and subject to site and clients brief/budget.
I am a keen supporter of natural and am nearly violently against sites like the Castle Course being made into a course.
The days seem to have gone when deep pockets and large budgets were available to build a course in locations Not Fit for Purpose. The old fashion ways seem to hold a clue to the direction we perhaps should be seeking.
Nevertheless, the Course Designer is the actual person who routed the course, he is not necessary the map/plan maker, the Professional or a Celebrity.
I hope this clears up my position.
Melvyn
-
Niall:
In nearly all cases, when I do a routing plan for a course I also draw golf holes complete with bunkers on the plan ... mostly to give it some life, because the people who will be looking at the plan are probably not adept at reading contour maps.
In general I would guess that something like 50% of the bunkers on those initial routing maps winds up in the same position on the finished course. We change the rest in the field because we have spent a lot more time on site and have refined our ideas more -- and also because there are more people involved in the process then and everyone wants to add their .02 cents.
-
Tom,
Is it fair for me to ask which part better represents the profession of golf course architecture...the drawing and planning (including preliminary routing(s), or the field work that develops the course?
-
Jim: Sure, it's fair to ask, although it may not be fair for me to answer, because I'm biased toward my own way of doing things. Actually, though, I think the correct answer is that BOTH parts are essential to creating a successful golf course.
In my own firm, I'm responsible for 90% of the routings we have done ... sometimes Don Placek in the office or the lead associate for the job helps work out part of the routing, but I'm always the main guy there. On most jobs, except for the big earthmoving jobs like Texas Tech, that's the bulk of the planning work, just as it was in the good old days ... grading plans don't matter because nearly all of the work falls under "shaping".
The field work during construction is the other 50% of the equation. This is when we do most of the "designing up" as Tom Paul refers to it, and in my company there is a very free flow on this part of the job ... all of the shapers and the lead associate are contributing their ideas on the ground, and I make my visits to give them directions and edit their work. I spend more time on-site on this half of the job than the first half [probably between 25 and 30 days on site during construction], but if you count the office days working on the routings it's probably about 50-50 as to my time. If we were busier, I would guess I'd do more of the routing than the on-site stuff, because I've got better backup for the latter -- and really our style of design relies quite a lot on getting the holes in the right places to minimize the need for on-site changes.
Different architects have different approaches. Some or most of the pros hand off the routing work to their associates, and spend all their time on site (however much it is) making design suggestions in the field, so clearly they think that is the more important part. I don't know of many who do it the other way around, although there are quite a few architects who draw up detailed plans and then rely on the construction company to build it, making relatively few changes on site.
-
Does anyone have any examples of courses that are either:
- wonderfully routed but sorely lacking on the detail side
or
- poorly routed but amazingly thoughtful on the detail work?
Seems almost impossible that a designer would do one without deep thinking about the other.
Just wonderin'...
-
I thought some of you might not have seen Charles Blair Macdonald's June 29, 1910 letter to Merion. (According to what Mike Cirba recently posted.)
_____________________________________________________________________
New York, June 29, 1910
Horatio G. Lloyd, Esq.
c/o Messrs. Drexel and Co.
Philadelphia, Pa
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Mr. Whigham and I discussed the various merits of the land you propose buying, and we think it has some very desirable features. The quarry and the brooks can be made much of. What it lacks in abrupt mounds can be largely rectified.
We both think that your soil will produce a firm and durable turf through the fair green quickly. The putting greens of course will need special treatment, as the grasses are much finer.
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 opinion 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 "
As regards drainage and treatment of soil, I think it would be wise for your Committee to confer with the Baltusrol Committee. They had a very difficult drainage problem. You have a very simple one. Their drainage opinions will be valuable to you. Further, I think their soil is very similar to yours, and it might be wise to learn from them the grasses that have proved most satisfactory though the fair green.
In the meantime, it will do no harm to cut a sod or two and send it to Washington for analysis of the natural grasses, those indigenous to the soil.
We enjoyed our trip to Philadelphia very much, and were very pleased to meet your Committee.
With kindest regards to you all, believe me,
Yours very truly,
(signed) Charles B. Macdonald
_______________________________________
When I read this, I cannot help but think that Macdonald and Whigham may already have had a pretty good idea of at least some of the golf holes they envisioned for the property, and they may have even had a rough routing in mind. As CBM wrote, while they could not be sure it would fit without a contour map, M&W thought that a first class 6000 yard course would fit on the property, provided Merion acquired a bit more land by the clubhouse (presumably the land behind the clubhouse used for part of the original 12th hole and the 12th and 13th greens.) How could they have written this if they didn't have at least some idea of the routing and golf holes?
But I am not a golf course designer, and I am curious, for those of you more familiar with the process, what do you think?
Thanks.
P.S. I should mention that another designer, H.H. Barker, had already gone over the property and come up with a rough plan for the lay out, but I do not think we know for certain whether or not CBM was given a copy of that plan.
-
David:
I've written letters like that without having done a complete routing, much less the final routing. The prescription for what lengths of holes to have is boilerplate stuff, not based on a routing plan.
-
David:
I've written letters like that without having done a complete routing, much less the final routing. The prescription for what lengths of holes to have is boilerplate stuff, not based on a routing plan.
Tom, Understood. Thanks for chiming in.
The part that struck me wasn't really the list of hole lengths, but rather that, although the development company controlled around 300 contiguous acres, CBM suggested that Merion try to purchase an additional small parcel not controlled by the development company. My thought was that he may have had something in mind when he suggested this addition.
-
I think M&W were most concerned that the total acreage they were considering was not large enough for the somewhat pre-fab (at least in terms of hole lengths) 6,000 yard course they originally recommended.
They also weren't considering the entire 300 acres, but 117 acres that were in an L-shape on both sides of Ardmore Avenue if my understanding is correct.
Purchasing the 3 acres in question would seem to make sense on a few levels;
It was adjacent to the clubhouse and would force a close boundary right next to the clubhouse if they weren't aquired.
Purchase of same would create wider "connective tissue" right where the two sides of the course connected at the road.
There was a lovely stream running through that part of the property.
It would allow the course to run to a more "natural" boundary, that of the rail tracks, which would also ease ingress egress to the clubhouse.
It would raise total acreage from 117 to 120, which is probably roughly what M&W thought was necessary for a 6000 yard course in general terms.
-
Niall:
In nearly all cases, when I do a routing plan for a course I also draw golf holes complete with bunkers on the plan ... mostly to give it some life, because the people who will be looking at the plan are probably not adept at reading contour maps.
In general I would guess that something like 50% of the bunkers on those initial routing maps winds up in the same position on the finished course. We change the rest in the field because we have spent a lot more time on site and have refined our ideas more -- and also because there are more people involved in the process then and everyone wants to add their .02 cents.
Thanks Tom,
On the basis that a lot of your intial routing bunkers actually got built, would it be fair to say that the routing had a bearing on the placement of these bunkers or am I reading to much into what you say. I'm thinking here of what I might think of as natural bunker sites eg bunkers built into a bank or rise, or located at dog-legs etc.
I'm not sure I can make any direct comparison as to how you work compared to how I think the old guys might have done it given the different design/construct methods but I am interested as to whether the basic routing suggests to you how the hole might look. I'm not saying that the routing dictates what you do but that just like there may be natural green sites, could there be natural bunker sites ?
Niall
-
I have a question:
In June 1910, what was the land that HG Lloyd proposed to buy?
Was it just the land upon which Merion now sits?
Or was it the entire property?
My instinct tells me it was the latter, not the former, but I just don't remember.
In Summer 1910 Merion was looking to buy the land for the golf course, not the entire 300+ acre tract controlled by the development company. Based on Macdonald's suggestion, Merion's Site Committee recommended that Merion purchase nearly 120 acres for their purposes, but the extra 3 acres behind the clubhouse was controlled by the Railroad, not the development company, and so the purchase was to be only for 117 acres.
According to Mike, Macdonald suggested the extra acres simply because he wanted to get the total up to around 120, which is roughly what he thought was necessary for a "somewhat pre-fab" 6000 yard golf course. (Give us a break with the loaded descriptions, Mike.)
But here is the rub. The development company controlled the land west of current course, and Golf House Rd. had not yet been built, so it was basically all just one big chunk of land. Had they simply needed acreage they could easily have gone west to total up to 120 acres! Also, the selection seems a bit odd because clubhouse separated some of the land Macdonald recommended from the rest of the land for the course. (According to old reports, golfers had to walk around or through the clubhouse (stopping for a drink on the way) to get from the 13th green to the 14th tee. )
So it seems like when Macdonald suggested that particular land, he must have had something else in mind than just adding acres. Whether he just liked the features or saw golf holes is debatable, but it is easy to imagine him noticing the greensite that became the green for the short 13th.
___________________________
I really do not want to debate Merion here again. But since this is a thread about what Macdonald could have done while on site, I am very curious as to why he might have suggested to Merion that they add the land (just short of 3 acres) behind the clubhouse. I well know what Mike and TEPaul think, but I was hoping to hear from a few others, preferably those who have done this sort of thing.
Tom D., any ideas what he might have been thinking when he suggested that particular land? Anyone else?
Thanks.
________________________________________
WARNING: The stuff below this line is pretty tangential to what this thread is about, but I thought Shivas might like some clarification on some of the messed up land transaction stuff. I wouldn't recommend continuing.
Dave, I noticed you asked what land Lloyd had proposed buying. I think at this point (and ultimately,) Merion was the potential buyer, not Lloyd. The transaction ended up being pretty complicated by the time it actually got done. I haven't gone back to look at my limited documents, but off the top of my head, Merion was to buy the land from the development company (via a corp set up for this purpose.) Lloyd and other members could buy newly issued stock in the development company, close to 1/2 the total equity. (I suspect the developers needed the $ to exercise options and develop the land.) There were reportedly some financial difficulties, and what ultimately happened was that the deed on some of the land controlled by the development company close to 1/2 I think) went to Lloyd. Then after some months the 117 acres of golf course land went to Merion (via the dummy corp.) for the golf course.
I know TEPaul has been fond of stating that Lloyd swooped in and bought everything, but I suspect that this is a bit misleading. Lloyd did end up holding the deed on a large chunk of the land for a matter of some months, but I suspect that he was essentially bridging the deal (maybe for both sides while the parties scrambled to raise money and/or exercise options) until everyone was ready to fulfill their various obligations to each other. If we ever see the documents I think we'll find that Lloyd was holding the deed as collateral or security or escrow, or some such term you transactional attorneys make up.
-
Shivas:
Lloyd's participation in all this is most interesting. I'll tell you more about it later. In the meantime, I'm going over to Merion for lunch with a young financial whizzz who just bought one of those big houses to the west and wants to know more about all this real estate history. What Lloyd did was done for a number of interconnecting reasons including the fact that at that time he was just beginning to establish his own enormous estate right in around there that would become the pretty famous 75 acre Allgate estate, famous in American Garden Club circles.
But basically Lloyd bought the 140 acre Johnson Farm of which Merion's initial 117 acres was a part. Lloyd's dealings and arrangement with the Haverford Development Co. and the remainder of their 338 acre tract in there is more complicated.
In my opinion, if it wasn't for Lloyd this entire thing probably wouldn't have happened the way it did and it may not have happened at all if not for Horatio Gates Lloyd.