David,
Thank you and Tom MacWood for sharing that great find! It is a beautiful historical document. ;D
I think your assessment of it is correct, although there is considerably more evidence of #5 than simply this remembrance.
We have the words of many others, as well as the MCC minutes that reflect that fact.
Mike,
If that is all you are referring to, then thanks for not retyping that information, as it shed's absolutely nothing new on the subject. I thought you were referring to something that directly referenced the creation of the initial routing.
Not only is there no mention of Barker or Macdonald, there is no mention of Flynn either, yet the article addresses the redesign and changes to 1, 2, 10-13, or the 14th green. So by your logic, we must assume that that Flynn was not the designer of these redesigns and changes. Perhaps the attribution should be changed to a Wilson, Jaques design.
If you want to talk about the origins of NGLA, that's great. It is an interesting topic, but please start another thread.
Has there been irrefuteable evidence that Hugh Wilson did not go to Great Britain in the summer / fall of 1910?
Has there been irrefuteable evidence that Hugh Wilson did not go to Great Britain in the summer / fall of 1910?
I know we saw a pile of passenger logs that suggested he went at a later date, but this alone does not prove he didn't go earlier...I also seem to remember a lack of discussion about two trips implying that the later trip was (must have been!) the only trip, to me this is also not comprehensive evidence.
David,
My mistake on the original course...I meant to type acres, not yards.
We can also add to our list of facts from Francis that Hugh Wilson, and not anyone else was responsible for today's 3rd hole being an attempt at a redan.
David,
I'm glad you mentioned that;I've been hoping to have a discussion with you on this subject for some time now.
I'm hopeful you can first answer a question. In your opinion, which holes on the original Merion course were modelled after famed holes abroad?
I'm thinking 3, mebbe 6, 10, 15 green...any others I'm missing?
Bradley,
If he did not go abroad until after he built the course, then his later experience abroad could not have shaped the initial design. To me that matters.
While he reportedly added some artificial features and pretty grasses and such after his trip, the course had been built and the fairways and greens seeded BEFORE THE TRIP.
So how on earth could it not have mattered?
That is a good analogy, Bradley. I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan." Hell, there are all sorts of modern architects who have done the same thing and nobody calls them to task for it, nor should they.
That is a good analogy, Bradley. I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan." Hell, there are all sorts of modern architects who have done the same thing and nobody calls them to task for it, nor should they.
Rich,
It's "Merion's" history and tradition that INSISTED that Wilson traveled abroad PRIOR to designing Merion.
It made sense to create that myth, intentionally or accidently, since it would inextricably link Merion to the great courses of the UK.
David Moriarty discovered that the legend was a myth
Mike Cirba and others insisted otherwise.
They fought tooth and nail to resist and refute the facts and the logic behind David's premise.
Much the same as they do with everything David presents.
The surrogate for the great courses/holes of the UK appears to be NGLA and CBM.
Francis tells us that HE alone was probably the only person who could read and make drawings, probably understand topos, run transits, etc, etc..
He appears to have been the club's/committee/s Raynor.
That is a good analogy, Bradley.
Rich,
I don't think it's a good analogy.
It's a predisposed hypothetical.
I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan."
Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?
Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication
Hell, there are all sorts of modern architects who have done the same thing and nobody calls them to task for it, nor should they.
Who are the "all sorts" and what tools and methodologies did they have at their disposal ?
How would you compare those tools and methodologies to the ones available to Wilson ?
I hope all is well with you and your family.
PS Done
PPS Because there was an ONGOING "fine tuning" of the golf course.
We've seen Pete Dye, Donald Ross, CBM and others do this for years, if not decades.
PPPS Agreed
Mike, you misunderstood my comment to Bradley Anderson.
Let me break it down for you.
1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.
It is a simple time line. He couldn't have based Merion on courses he had not yet seen, on a trip he had not yet taken. Simple as that.
As for whether or not his trip mattered. All the other accounts of Merion sure think it mattered, otherwise why do they say he based on the holes on courses overseas?
_________________________
As for your earlier post, you claim that "we can add to our list of facts from Francis that Hugh Wilson, and not anyone else was responsible for today's 3rd hole being an attempt at a redan."
But Francis is talking about how Merion benefited from Wilson's trip abroad. The trip did not occur until AFTER THE HOLE WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT. "One hole which benefited was the third. It was copied from the Redan at North Berwick."
So whatever it was that Wilson learned at North Berwick, it could not have been incorporated into the hole UNTIL AFTER WILSON'S TRIP. This was long after the hole was planned, laid out, built, and seeded.
So Francis' statement does NOT establish that Wilson and no one else was responsible for today's 3rd . . . "
_______________________________
Now in David's defense, it can be said that attributing the shaping of the route to Wilson's trip abroad was not accurate. But do we have intinsic copy of anyone back then making that claim?
In either case, there might have been planning associated with the route that was setting the stage for incorporating concepts from Europe. And why wouldn't there be? Certainly every club of merit was conscious of those concepts from abroad because they were talked about and written about, and told about by people who had experienced those concepts first hand.
Bradley,
See if you think I address this quandary in my post above.
I don't think the group was looking at anything more than maximizing the natural attributes of the property while doing the original routing. I don't think they were out on the property thinking, "now where can we find a road hole, or an eden green?" ;)
The purposeful additiona of "artificial hazards", "mental hazards", and strategies defined by the placement of artificial hazards which largely defined the famous template holes came later, after Wilson's trip abroad.
Are you suggesting that MacDonald was only involved in the routing and approving a layout based on the natural attributes of the property? I think there has been too much documentation uncovered that suggests otherwise.
Now in David's defense, it can be said that attributing the shaping of the route to Wilson's trip abroad was not accurate. But do we have intinsic copy of anyone back then making that claim?
In either case, there might have been planning associated with the route that was setting the stage for incorporating concepts from Europe. And why wouldn't there be? Certainly every club of merit was conscious of those concepts from abroad because they were talked about and written about, and told about by people who had experienced those concepts first hand.
Bradley,
See if you think I address this supposed quandary in my post above.
I don't think the group was looking at anything more than maximizing the natural attributes of the property and really just trying to fit 18 good length, naturally-sound holes onto the property while doing the original routing. I don't think they were out on the property thinking, "now where can we find a road hole, or an eden green?" as a priimary consideration, although in some cases natural features may have suggested some larger potential.
But by and large, the purposeful addition of "artificial hazards", "mental hazards", and principles and general strategies of famous template holes abroad, largely defined by the particular placement of artificial bunkering into natural landforms came later, after Wilson's trip abroad.
I don't think the group was looking at anything more than maximizing the natural attributes of the property and really just trying to fit 18 good length, naturally-sound holes onto the property while doing the original routing. I don't think they were out on the property thinking, "now where can we find a road hole, or an eden green?" as a priimary consideration, although in some cases natural features may have suggested some larger potential.
But by and large, the purposeful addition of "artificial hazards", "mental hazards", and principles and general strategies of famous template holes abroad, largely defined by the particular placement of artificial bunkering into natural landforms came later, after Wilson's trip abroad.
For instance, you interpret Findlay as saying that Wilson had an Alps hole before he went overseas.
He didn't.
Findlay said he "imagined" an Alps type hole on that spot, probably because of the uphil nature of the approach and probably also because of the large protection mound built behind the green, but he still had a "lot of making" to do to get it there, which included creating and adding the front bunkering, mounds, etc.
Since we're finally getting into this much needed and valuable discussion, are there any other holes or features you believe are clearly taken from models of great holes overseas? I'd like to address this issue comprehensively, if possible.
Mike, the course was reported to have been modeled after the great holes abroad, BEFORE WILSON EVEN RETURNED FROM HIS TRIP. It makes no difference if he was intending to put the finishing touches on later, the holes had already been planned and built based on the great holes abroad.
David,
I agree that discussion between us is pointless but that's the way it is with anyone and everyone who has disagreed with your theory for years now.
I'll look forward to seeing if the measurements shed any light.
out much of a difference, don't you think?"
David, I just don't see how all of this could have escaped the general knowledge of so many people? That is the question that I am most interested in. If that is what happened, then why wasn't it reported that way? And what motive would Wilson and Committee have in hiding this or in taking credit for someone else's work?
David, for me it all comes down to this: historical narrative, when told by more than one party, is always inconsistent with the facts. But that doesn't mean that the story is wrong. You can drive yourself mad trying to construct a theory based on how the various accounts don't match up with perfect consistency. So you just have to trust what the people who were closest to the events believed about what really happened.
Dave
I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion. Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.
How do we know Findlay didn't give Wilson the idea??
Dave
I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion. Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.
And, again, I agree with Bradley above.
Vis a vis Raynor, my question was to Pat who questioned whether or not it was possible to understand the Redan concept without visiting North Berwick. You seeem to agree with me that it was possible. Thanks.
Rich,
Here's your question and here's my response.
I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan."
Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?
Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication
By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.
How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?
Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.
Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.
No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.
Mike,
The facts to which I refer are the facts indicating that 1) Wilson built the hole to be an Alps hole, and 2) that mound behind the hole was part of the Alps hole that Wilson built.
As for the mound, see M&W's 1914 article on Alps holes and you will understand why an embankment in back of the green (whether or not artificially built) was a component of his Alps hole concept.
How do we know Findlay didn't give Wilson the idea??
What? Do you think about this stuff before you write it, or does it just flow out of your fingers?
Was Findlay involved in the project before the course was initially built and seeded? Because the mound was already there in November 1911. Did Findlay have a time machine?
Mike, as I said, the facts indicate that the hole was built to be an Alps, and the mound was part of the Alps concept. Accept it or don't, but it has been discussed to death, so no use going on about it.
Dave
I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion. Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.
And, again, I agree with Bradley above.
Vis a vis Raynor, my question was to Pat who questioned whether or not it was possible to understand the Redan concept without visiting North Berwick. You seeem to agree with me that it was possible. Thanks.
Rich,
Here's your question and here's my response.
I've never understood why it was felt that Wilson had to have visited North Berwick before he could design and built a "Redan."
Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?
Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication
By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.
How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?
Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.
Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.
No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.
[/quote]
Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?
Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication
By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.
How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?
Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.
Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.
No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.
David,
Would you not agree that everything that happened in the past comes to us by varying accounts, and that those accounts rarely line themselves up in perfect consistency?
Dave
I understand what you think, and respect your right to think as you do, but given the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I do not think that M&W were the driving creative force at Merion. Show me some evidence and I might think otherwise.
Absence of evidence? Hmmm. Perhaps you just aren't familiar with the evidence.
If not M&W, then who? I've seen no verifiable evidence that Wilson had a thing to do with the original routing or even that he was involved in the project at the time the original routing was most likely considered. And once he did become involved I am not so sure that the did much of anything until he consulted with an expert or three. It wasn't his nature to have resource like CBM and not use it. CBM chose the final routing. That's evidence of something, isn't it?
Are there some facts that I don't know about? Or are you just sticking with the old legend even though substantial portions of it have been disproven?
David,
Those guys were Americans.
As to the question, "If not M&W, then who?", the obvious answer is "The Committee."
This is the best way to describe the design credit for many of today's great golf courses, including Portmarnock, Pine Valley, Dornoch (and as some of the recently presented evidence implies) NGLA. There is always, of course, someone on any effective Committee who is the driving force: Macdonald at NGLA, Sutherland at Dornoch, Pickeman at Portmarnock, Crump at Pine Valley.
We have the word of the Committee at Merion that their driving force was Hugh Wilson. That is enough evidence for me to think he deserves more of the design credit than anyone else.
David,
The only thing I've ever done here related to the minutes is repeat exact quotes that have already been put on here prior by Tom and offered what I think they mean and how they read.
If you have a different interpretation of the meaning of those direct quotes then by all means, let's hear it, because I don't recall you weighing in at all yet with what I'm certain will be a very interpretive reading.
Patrick, if we can change your mind, anything is possible!
But how'd you come down on the original 3rd was a Redan discussion?
I've always felt that # 3 was an attempt to design a hole with redan qualities.
I seem to recall discussing it with you, and I don't think we were patting each other on the back in agreement . . . yet when you were demanding apologies yesterday I don't recall seeing your name on the list . . . .
I think you're confusing me with Mike Cirba.
Mike has always maintained that # 11 at LACC North is a redan, yet, he's in denial regarding # 3 at Merion being a redan.
Look at the two holes and tell me which one more closely resembles a redan
My memory must be going I guess.
Could be !
Would you listen to the advice of a Sex Counselor who had NEVER had sex ?
Remember, they're circa 1909-1910, not today with instantaneous electronic communication
By your theory, he wouldn't have had to go to Prestwick in order to build an "Alps" hole either.
How did his attempt at an "Alps" work out ?
Everyone seems to view the attempts to design and construct holes in 1909 in a 2009 context, where we have the benefit of a hundred years of hindsight, an overwhelming body of physical evidence and an abundance of photographic and electronic information.
Wilson's original 10th hole was a horrendous attempt at replicating an "Alps"
Had he spent a week at Prestwick studying # 17, I believe his efforts would have been vastly improved.
No one has to spend time studying anything, however, if you want a quality product, investing in one's education is the foundation for success.
The only one who seems to be remotely in your corner, at this point, is Pat Mucci and his opinions on Merion's history don't matter a jot anyway.
That part of CBM's advice to Wilson involved talking to him about the great holes he had seen in the UK and about how CBM had fitted some of those holes (i.e. the principles behind those holes) into NGLA - this seems clear to me.
But I just don't see how -- from that -- we can extend/link the claim for CBM's role to include the "placement" of these holes (i.e. the principles behind those holes) at Merion.
Like many I have followed these fascinating threads for some time now. I'm certain there are multiple related threads that I have missed, but one thought keeps echoing in my head. Why....
Why would Merion lose, bury, or deny Macdonald's involvement?
Would they not be at least intrigued by the notion?
I just don't see motive.
As for Merion's "Alps" hole (NLE), none of us have played it and most of us (seemingly including you) seem to think that the pictures of it we have seen are hideous.
You call it Hugh Wilson's hole, and yet I thought that Macdonald designed Merion.
Am I as confused as you seem to be?
There's no confusion at all.
In addition to the photos, contemporary criticisms indicated that Wilson's attempt at an "Alps" was sorely lacking.
Noone doubts that Wilson constructed the holes on the golf course, do they ?
Could you cite for me, where I stated that CBM designed Merion ?
I never stated that "(you) stated that CBM designed Merion. Re-read what I said directly above, please.
PS--Mr. Anderson is on a roll today. He is right that NGLA's "Alps" is at best a pale and inferior intimation of the 17th at Prestwick.
You're both far, far, far off the mark, # 3 at NGLA is so far superior to # 17 at Prestwick that they're not in the same architectural universe.
I strongly disagree with your opinion, Pat, but I will fight to my death your right to make yourself look foolish in holding it. ;)
In June 1910 M&W noted that they could not say for certain whether a first class course would fit without a contour map. We know that they had a contour map long before the NGLA trip because Wilson sent one to Piper. Do you really think that they did not send M&W one as well? Inconceivable.
Also, Mike, we know of two course visits and a two day meeting. But what about the communication in between. Wilson wrote letters about as frequently as you post. Do you really think he wouldn't have been picking M&W's brain every chance he got?
M&W came up with much (if not all) of the routing at NGLA while riding the property for a couple of days, and it was much less accessible than Merion. To think that they could not have come up with a routing defies logic.
Mike,
Joe Bausch started you a thread on NGLA. If you want to talk about your theory, flesh it out there, and I will be glad to tell you what is wrong with it. But I am not clogging this post with a tangent based on your misreading of the NGLA related documents.
And my argument hasn't been reduced at all. It has been enhanced by a key fact that you, TEPaul, and Wayne have misrepresented for about a year. You guys claimed all they did at NGLA was talk about documents and drawings from CBM's European trips. That is not what the minutes say at all. It turned out that they went up there to talk about CBM's "plans."
1. M&W told Merion they needed a contour to tell if the course fit.
2. Merion had a contour map made.
3. Then they went up to NGLA to talk about CBM's "plans."
These are the facts. Ignore them at your peril. Seriously Mike, do you really think it is logical that they wouldn't sent the contour map to M&W as soon as they had it made? After all, weren't M&W figuring whether the course would fit on the land? If they could do this with a contour map, do you really think Merion would have kept the contour from them?
Seriously Mike, we don't have to pretend we are idiots just because we an incomplete record.
Plus here was plenty of mention M&W working on the lay out plan for Merion. That is what the 1916 article was talking about. M&W gave them a good start in laying out the course. M&W taught them how to fit the correct principles into the ground at Merion. Read it Mike. Forget all you past erronious conceptions about planing for trips abroad and discussing vague, hypothetical principles and read it in context with what was ongoing. At the time of the meeting the committee was already trying to figure out how to lay out the course, most likely based on the preliminary plans of barker, M&W, and Francis/Lloyd. They went to M&W for help with this, and when they came back they made five attempts at making what they had talked about fit on the land. Then M&W came back to see if they had gotten in right.
Yet you claim they weren't involved in planning the course? Impossible.
Patrick,
Mike,
I may have missed it, but could you show me where David claimed that CBM designed Merion ?
Thanks
Exactly, David...his plans for NGLA, which was still being developed and which wouldn't officially open to the members for several months yet. He had to be very rightfully proud of them, and since it was evening, and early March, and only light out til 5pm, he couldn't show them the course yet (which he proudly did the next day), but along with his sketches of overseas holes he surely showed them his versions of them...almost certainly he showed them the plasticene models of them...in miniature, so they could see how amazingly he had captured their essence.
Again, he told them no such thing. He simply told them after his single day visit 9 months prior that he couldn't tell for certain if they had enough acreage for their course without a topo map, . . .
Yes, we know that some 8 months after Macdonald said he couldn't tell if the property was large enough for a course without one, we know Hugh Wilson sent one to Piper/Oakley and wanted to send soil samples from various parts of the property. We know Macdonald suggested they contact Piper and Oakley. If Macdonald was the one designing the course, why didn't he just contact Piper & Oakley, who he knew already from his attempts to get grass to grow at NGLA.
Once again David, you're simply making stuff up. There is not a single shred of evidence anywhere contemporaneously where anyone, EVER referred to Macdonald planning Merion. ZERO.
These are the facts. Ignore them at your peril. Seriously Mike, do you really think it is logical that they wouldn't sent the contour map to M&W as soon as they had it made? After all, weren't M&W figuring whether the course would fit on the land? If they could do this with a contour map,QuoteYOU'RE TELLING US THEY DID A PAPER JOB. THAT IS INSANE after everything they did to build NGLA ON THE GROUND.
STOP LISTENING TO MACWOOD.
MACDONALD AND WHIGHAM WERE NOT SLAM-BAM HH BARKER. THEY DIDN"T OPERATE THAT DAY. THAT WAS THE DARK AGES OF GOLF DESIGN IN AMERICA.
It sounds to me , after all this arguing , that no one deserves design credit for Merion since it was a group effort that wsa never intended to be attributed to any one person. We are the ones who are trying to jam a modern squrae peg interpretation into this old square hole way of doing things.
If they had wanted to be clear then about who deserved credit as "designer" I think they would have done so.
As time went by and researchers wanted a single name "Wilson" seemed the most logical one name to use.
Call it Charlie's Immaculate Conception. ;D
Then, worse yet, you guys tell us that CB Macdonald, who took months and months to plan NGLA before turning a spade of dirt at NGLA
Mike,
You're way off base on this.
CBM found a good number of the holes he wanted prior to purchasing the land.
He pretty much routed the golf course prior to determining how much of the 450 acres he wanted to purchase.
He only purchased 205 of the 450 available acreage.
Of the 450 available acres he determined which acreage he wanted since he had essentially routed the golf course prior to the ultimate purchase of the 205 acres.
I thought you knew that.
just "phoned it in" to Merion, as well, and worse yet, they bought it.
He had one day onsite in June of 1910, yet when the Merion Committee came to visit in March 1911, he miraculously had a plan all ready for them. ::) :o
How do you know that he didn't visit more than once ?
This is unbelievable, David.
Macdonald didn't operate like this. Never.
Are you suggesting that CBM and/or WH and/or SR visited more often ?
The man had too much knowledge and pride to do something so ridiculous and half-assed.
In light of that statement, how would you evaluate Donald Ross's Modus operandi ?
How would you evaluate his ability to never see a site and still design a good golf course ?
Or his ability to route and design a good golf course with but one site visits ?
He helped some friends start a new course and gave them great advice.
Period.
That's what you want to believe and that's what you insist that others believe.
Me, I don't know the depth and scope of his work/assistance at Merion, but, I think its' worthwhile to try to find out who did what at Merion.
While Francis seems to downplay his role, I'd like to learn more about his involvement. I liken him to SR in that he was probably the only one qualified, by basis of his education and experience, to understand the engineering phase of the routing, design and construction of the golf course.
Phil:
Taking most of your numbered question sort of as a whole----eg what plans or drawings were they looking at and why was it difficult to read then and necessary to bring in Francis (by Francis' own statement "add him to the committee")?
First of all Richard Francis was the local Philadelphia manager of A.G. Fuller Company, a national building construction company. Francis was a member of Merion but he was an engineer and surveyor and obviously his day job as such required him to work with things like topographical survey maps of property all the time, so he was completely familiar with contour maps and such and obviously used them in his professional capacity to make measurements and drawings on with measurements in the field.
Most people who aren't in a business that uses topographical contour maps just aren't able to understand them very well at first as the curvilinear lines representing the contours a a property are fairly hard to relate from a topographical contour map to the property you are actually looking at.
It takes a certain amount of getting used to. I know because I spent about 700 hours over a couple of years trying to do this myself with that so-called Ardrossan project which was the proposed move of my own golf club, Gulph Mills. It taught me a whole lot and it is why I often say most of the people on here interested in architecture who have never tried to do something like this need to really try it before they can truly understand what really does go on out there trying to route a golf course and design holes on both the ground and on topographical contour maps.
For Richard Francis it wasn't hard as that was part of his profession anyway. Engineers like Francis also do drawings, read drawings, measure land and drawings to match them together.
The fact is there was no routing and hole design plans done for Merion East before the Wilson Committee was appointed in the beginning of 1911. Hugh I. Wilson himself wrote when the committee was formed.
Macdonald/Whigam couldn't possibly have done this for them because he was only at Ardmore for a single day just to look at the land and even he said he couldn't tell them much more without a contour map of the property. Barker's own explanation of what he did not for MCC but for HDC's Connell (the real estate developer) was a rough sketch he made of the property itself on which he just penciled in a rough stick routing. Anybody can read something like that because all it is is points and lines----no actual architectural hole concepts.
Also from Wilson's first letter to Russell Oakley on Feb. 1, 1911 he says that Macdonald mentioned that they (MCC) should get in touch with the US Dept of Agriculture and in that letter he also said he was doing that immediately as he was enclosing their topographical contour map. It seems pretty clear they had just gotten them shortly after the committee had been appointed and they were about to get to work laying out many different courses on those topo survey maps.
So what they need Francis for was to help them read those topo countour maps; they were actually topographical blueprints of the boundaries of 117 acres and the contours of that land and not drawings with golf holes drawn on them. That would come later in Feb and March.
There were no architectural drawings of Merion East before that. Nothing like that was ever mentioned at any time in any record of any committee report or board meeting minutes before that. The first mention of it was Wilson's report to the board meeting of April 19, 1911.
The only person who EVER suggested such a thing in an entire century is David Moriarty in this really inaccurate and fallacious essay of his.
I hope you can appreciate this Phil, because it really is the recorded timeline history of Merion itself, and within less than the last year a good deal of documentary material was found at MCC where apparently it had not been seen in almost a century that completely supports this timeline that those men who were involved back then said later about the way the whole thing was done.
Arguing with Moriarty to try to get him to acknowledge this and admit it has just become a true waste of time as he just dismisses and ignores what he feels doesn't support his essay. Haven't you noticed he dismisses and ignores and rationalizes away everything we offer that supports this recorded history of Merion at that time.
To the rest of you:
I apologize for the abruptness of my post above, but I will no longer tolerate TEPaul, for obvious reasons.
I'd be glad to continue to discuss these issues with anyone who is willing to be civil and back up their analysis with facts.
Meanwhile, if anyone can point me toward any time-line or coherent and cohesive piece by anyone refuting my essay, please direct me to it. I have seen such promised many, many times but as far as I know none has ever been forthcoming.
Thanks.
DM
Unless I am greatly mistaken, all the prolific golf writers of the era attributed the work of Merion to Wilson and his Committee. And no one in that time was rude in omitting MacDonalds advisory role in the process. His son-in-law's account of the work is contrary to the other accounts, I will grant you that, but it is the minority report, and it was stated at a time of grief and filial affection. Other than that, your theory appears to be based on conjecture.
I said this at the beginning and I will say it again: the responses that have been aimed at your theory are exactly the kind of response that we should expect when poor scholarism is aimed at one of our most treasured American golf legends.
David,
I've been dipping in and out of the various Merion threads and while I wouldn't pretend to follow all the discussions, am I right in saying that you believe MacDonald and possibly Whigham were involved in the design of Merion ? That is to say, designing the routing and possibly individual hole designs based on models of other holes such as the Redan etc, rather than merely passing on generalknowledge about course design and his thoughts on specific model holes.
If my understanding of what you are saying is correct, what evidence that this was the case other than a mention in the minutes of Merion that the committee visited MacDonald to look at plans (with no mention specifically of what the plans were of).
I'm struggling to see how this could be the case given the ongoing activity of Wilson and his colleagues and the listing of M&W as giving advice rather than giving them billing as course architects/designers.
Niall
This is the timeline from Merion (MCC) that the entire record now available speaks about Macdonald/Whigam’s involvement with Merion East.
1. In apparently the second half of June 1910 Macdonald/Whigam make a site visit to Ardmore, Pa. to inspect land MCC has begun considering buying from real estate development company Haverford Development Company (HDC). Rodman E. Griscom, a prominent MCC member, very good golfer (former Philadelphia Amateur Champion) and member of NGLA was the one who asked Macdonald/Whigam to visit the site according to the MCC administrative record of the time. The following is the letter from Macdonald to Horatio Gates Lloyd summarizing his and Whigam’s June 1910 visit.
“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
In soil analysis have the expert note particularly amount of carbonate of lime.”
2. The following is Robert Lesley, the chairman of the “Search Committee, ” report to the board about Macdonald and Whigam.
“The committee through Mr. R. E. Griscom as fortunate enough to get Mr. C. B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam to come from New York and give us the benefit of their experience. These gentleman, besides being famous golfers have given the matter of golf course construction much study and are perfectly familiar with the qualities of grasses, soils etc. It was Mr. Macdonald assisted by Mr. Whigam who conceived and constructed the National course at Southampton Long Island.”
It continues:
“Mr. Connell and his associates fully realize the benefit to the remainder of the property if a first class Golf Course could be established on the ground, and for that reason offer one hundred (100) acres, or whatever would be required to lay out the course, at $825.00 an acre, which we understand is about one-half the average cost of the whole tract; this offer is conditional upon the property being promptly put into shape for a Golf Course.
Mr. Whigham estimated that the cost of putting the ground into condition for play would be $25,000.00, and the introduction of water $5000.00, making a very liberal estimate, as Mr. Heebner, in the construction of the Whitemarsh Club, about $12,000.00 the first year, and he believes that it will require an expenditure of $8000.00 over the next two years, making a total of $20,000.00 over a period of three years. An outside estimate of the cost of all the work required to put the property in condition for our needs, including the work to be done on the Club House, road building, etc., would be between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00, and we believe nearer the former.
It is probable that nearly one hundred and twenty (120) acres would be required for our purposes, and provided they can be obtained at not exceeding $90,000.00, we believe it would be a wise purchase.
It may not be within the province of this Committee to propose any financial plan for carrying out this matter through, but we venture to suggest the following, namely:
That an effort be made to organize a Land Company to buy the property and lease it to the Club in its present shape on a practically perpetual lease. The rental until January 1, 1912, to be at the rate of five per cent per annum on the cost price and taxes, with an option to the Club on or before that date to buy at cost; the rental and optional purchase price to increase by an amount equal to ten (10) percent on the original cost every five years after January 1, 1912.
This would leave open the question of how the Cricket Club would raise the $30,000.00 or $40,000.00 necessary to put the property into shape for use as a Golf Course. This might be done by the organization of a new corporation, to be known as the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, to which the lease of the new property should be assigned, and all or a majority of the stock of which Association would be owned by the Merion Cricket Club; the new Association to borrow the Improvement Fund, the payment of which, together with the payment of the rental and taxes for the grounds would have to be guaranteed by the Merion Cricket Club, and would constitute a valuable consideration for all the capital stock of the Association which the Club would receive; all golf dues go to the Association, and the Association to pledge to whoever advances the Improvement Fund a certain proportion of the dues of each member of the Golf Association as a Sinking Fund to gradually extinguish the loan. Of course it would be necessary for the Golf Association to charge higher dues than the present charge to Golf members of the Cricket Club, and for every member of the Golf Association to be a member of the Cricket Club.
We particularly desire to impress upon the Board the fact that if the opportunity to acquire a permanent golf course is to be taken advantage of, prompt action is necessary.
Respectfully submitted for the Committee,
(signed) Robert W. Lesley,
Chairman”
The board meeting minutes continued:
“Mr. Lloyd moved as follows:
“Resolved, that the board of government extend their sincere thanks to Messrs. Macdonald and Whigam for their kindness and courtesy in assisting the Special Committee on Golf Grounds with their inspection and opinions upon the new golf grounds. Carried
On motion, the meeting then adjourned.”
Edward Sayers
Secretary”
Next post will include the next mention (by MCC) about Macdonald by Wilson on Feb. 1, 1911 in a letter to Russell Oakley of the U.S. Dept of Agriculture, The Wilson report to the Board meeting of April 19, 1911 and a final letter in June 1911 to Wilson by Macdonald mentioning lime and fertilizer application to greens.
I've been dipping in and out of the various Merion threads and while I wouldn't pretend to follow all the discussions, am I right in saying that you believe MacDonald and possibly Whigham were involved in the design of Merion ?
That is to say, designing the routing and possibly individual hole designs based on models of other holes such as the Redan etc, rather than merely passing on generalknowledge about course design and his thoughts on specific model holes.
I'm struggling to see how this could be the case given the ongoing activity of Wilson and his colleagues and the listing of M&W as giving advice rather than giving them billing as course architects/designers.
In almost any similar pursuit, it it standard practice for the person in charge to provide his associates, assistants, or underlings with instructions on how to specifically carry out a task, then for the person in charge to review, edit, and eventually approve of the work done once it accomplishes what the person in charge set out to accomplish. This happens all the time with various professionals including architects, attorneys, gc designers, and even doctors, and is part of the learning process. While the person trying to carry out the plans is definitely important and has contributed something important, it would be engaging in a fiction to think that the general ideas and plans were not that of the person in charge.
In Merion's case, all the facts of which I am aware point to CBM as the person in charge of determining the lay out plan. And in the end, that is exactly what he did. He determined the final layout plan, and the meeting minutes supposedly acknowledge the the plan presented to the board was of M&W's choosing.
Mike Cirba:
M/W are two guys who were there for a grand total of two days in ten months and he thinks they were in charge of MCC's or the Wilson Committee's plans?
Tom. Are you certain that M&W were only there for 2 days in that 10 months? I ask, because this has been repeated numerous times, and while it appears well documented that they were there on 2 occasions, is it not possible that they were there more often? Also, it would be helpful if you could reproduce the minutes which speak to M&W approving the plans. Perhaps it could add some clarity to this discussion.
There is no doubt it will be corrected. I don't know how often they manage that part of their website but I certainly know who to speak to. It will be done.
Let me explain my thinking, as an example when Tom Doak was at University he was no doubt taught the principles of landscape architecture and maybe even something on golf course design. If his lecturer one day gave him an exercise in designing a course or part of course on a given piece of ground based on what he had been taught, and he then did so, presenting his design to the lecturer who marked it accordingly. Who would you say had done the design ? Presumably Doak or else his lecturer would still be getting joint design credit for all Tom's courses.
In almost any similar pursuit, it it standard practice for the person in charge to provide his associates, assistants, or underlings with instructions on how to specifically carry out a task, then for the person in charge to review, edit, and eventually approve of the work done once it accomplishes what the person in charge set out to accomplish. This happens all the time with various professionals including architects, attorneys, gc designers, and even doctors, and is part of the learning process. While the person trying to carry out the plans is definitely important and has contributed something important, it would be engaging in a fiction to think that the general ideas and plans were not that of the person in charge.
In Merion's case, all the facts of which I am aware point to CBM as the person in charge of determining the lay out plan. And in the end, that is exactly what he did. He determined the final layout plan, and the meeting minutes supposedly acknowledge the the plan presented to the board was of M&W's choosing.
David,
This is complete and utter nonsense, not supported by a single shred of evidence except your own fantasies of how things happened.
The Merion Committee had absoultely NO REPORTING RELATIONSHIP of any type to Macdonald and Whigham, so your efforts to make it look like a modern architectural firm with a Sr. Archie and his associates is simply 100% unadulterated BS of the most purposefully manipulative kind.
I had to roll up the car windows, frankly.
Henry E,
The only documented visits of M&W to Merion were June, 1910, and April 6th, 1911.
If they were there more often, no internal club records or contemporaneous news accounts reflect those events.
Ulrich:
Merion has a couple of really effective historians and one of the best and most organized archives I've ever seen
but let's just say they probably aren't quite so fixated on those kinds of things on their website
TEPaul, the above two statements are in direct conflict with one another.
How do you reconcile that ?
as some of the participants of this website are.
I don't think Merion G.C. is worried about losing credibility, nor should they be!
They may even be vaguely aware that there are some real loonies this way out there somewhere like MacWood and Moriarty but I'm pretty sure they aren't concerned about them or what they think of Merion's credibility! ;)
I don't know what the answer or facts are, but, David has put forth a reasonable question relating to the date of the land swap and Wilson's involvement.
As David indicated, a routing was done that incorporated 13 holes.
The land swap allowed Merion to design/construct the remaining 5 holes.
If the land swap was done prior to Wilson coming on board and steering the committee, then it HAD to be someone else's routing, NOT Wilson's.
I don't think anyone can question/deny the logic of the above paragraph.
Hence, the date of the land swap and the date that Wilson comes on board/steers the committee are vital dates.
Does anyone disagree with that ?
David, did I state your case correctly ?
I disagree Patrick, only to the extent that proving Wilson was not involved in early to mid-1910 at least casually would be near impossible...
I disagree Patrick, only to the extent that proving Wilson was not involved in early to mid-1910 at least casually would be near impossible...
Ulrich,
Merion's records also told us that Wilson went to the UK prior to 1912.
So, you tell me, should we automatically accept Merion's records as an infallible source regarding their history ?
I'm also not so sure that those on this site speak for Merion.
I don't know where the "search" will lead, but, If I were a member of a club I'd want the factual history to be revealed, irrespective of whether it confirms or denies the previously accepted history of the club.
What I really don't understand is the following:
IF M&W's involvement turned out to be expanded, SO WHAT ?
I would think it would be accepted with open arms.
Everyone accepts that Wilson built and fine tuned the golf course.
If M&W played a greater part in the routing and design of Merion, that's just another feather in Merion's
cap. It doesn't detract from the greatness of the golf course.
AND, if M&W DIDN'T play a greater part, SO WHAT ?
It doesn't detract from the greatness of the golf course.
Niall,
Not sure what your understanding of what happened is based upon. Could it be that you are still giving credence to the old Merion legend that CBM instructed Wilson in the general principles of golf course design when Wilson was preparing for his overseas trip? Because that has been discredited, and I see no factual support for your speculation that CBM's advice was of a general nature.
Yet your example portrays a situation where any advice given was extremely general . . .Let me explain my thinking, as an example when Tom Doak was at University he was no doubt taught the principles of landscape architecture and maybe even something on golf course design. If his lecturer one day gave him an exercise in designing a course or part of course on a given piece of ground based on what he had been taught, and he then did so, presenting his design to the lecturer who marked it accordingly. Who would you say had done the design ? Presumably Doak or else his lecturer would still be getting joint design credit for all Tom's courses.
You might have a point had CBM been uninvolved in this project and unfamiliar with the specific details and possibilities of the land at Merion, but this was hardly the case. Contrary to your example of a disconnect university professor, CBM was involved and was very familiar with the specifics at Merion:
1. Merion brought him in to inspect the specific property and to determine if it would support a first class golf course, and long before Wilson ever became involved:
- M&W had already inspected the land and had considered whether a first class course could fit on the property.
- They had also already considered using the best natural features for such a course, including the quarry and the streams.
- They had also considered that artifical mounds could be built to make up for the lack of those on the property.
- They had specifically considered using the land behind the clubhouse for the golf course, and suggested that it was necessary if a first class course would fit. This even though this land was not even being offered to Merion!
In short, in June of 1910, M&W knew what the specifics of what the land had to offer, and they were a contour map away of routing their suggested holes to see for sure if the holes fit on Merion's land. Yet you assume that once a contour map was created that M&W would have confined themselves to a general academic discussion of the great principles? I don't buy it and think the evidence cuts against it.
Not only that, but this is largely how CBM worked. According to Bahto (and to H.J. Whigham,) once Macdonald figured out what he wanted to do, he would let Raynor work out the details, and would edit Raynor's plans off site, at NGLA. He was even more involved at Merion, where he went back to the site and reexamined the land before he determined the final layout plan.
Add this to these numerous facts above, and I just don't have any idea why you or anyone else thinks that CBM's was just providing general and background information.
I've outlined my reasons for thinking the advice was of a very specific nature, in the post above and in this one. What makes you think that CBM's teachings were of a general nature? Was is your FACTUAL basis for so assuming?
Thanks.
I'd also ask David again what was so special about One Day Wonder Herbert Barker......
Do we know from some document or news report that Baker was only there for one day, or is this just an assumption based on someones' knowledge of the way he routed prospective golf courses?
Patrick,
LOTS of golf committees from various clubs went out to see and visit NGLA.
Was he desiging courses for all of them?
The real question is, from DM's perspective, is "Could Merion have done it without CBM?"
The real question is, from DM's perspective, is "Could Merion have done it without CBM?"
Because of the lack of information, I believe this is an unanswerable question. However after years of this, I think this is the first time I have seen that question, and it is a very interesting one to me.
the only letters that made it to the minutes were those presented to the board. Nothing else.[/quote]
Oh, come on Rich. The board of MCC doesn't even have the early course layout, regardless of who put it together - Wilson, M&W or even Barker.
Dave
I've been on the board of a golf club. During my tenure, EVERY letter received by the club, from Mr. and Mrs. Havisham to Mr. Hiigh Mucky-Muck, was presented to the board, at our monthly meeting. Maybe it was different ~100 years ago, but I doubt it, particularly if "Mr. High Mucky-Muck" was in fact CB MacDonald......
Rich
Oh, come on Rich. The board of MCC doesn't even have the early course layout, regardless of who put it together - Wilson, M&W or even Barker.
By the way, what do you suppose it says that you about your objectivity is you cannot even mention "Mr. High Mucky-Muck" without mockery and distain?
I have a copy of one such letter FROM CBM TO WILSON
Niall,
A reason that the committee would meet Macdonald at NGLA is to OBSERVE the great holes at NGLA, the holes supposedly representing the best the UK had to offer.
If I was a committee member I'd like to see the work of the fellows who were helping me route and design my course, wouldn't you ?
Niall,
I asked you for your support for your understanding that the advice and help was general and you referred me to Merion's website and suggested the burden of disproving it was mine to meet.
As it relates to the initial creation of the course, Merion's website is mistaken, and has been proven so. In other words, I have more than met my burden.
I won't argue with the general sense you may have gleaned from an error ridden history, except that to suggest you focus on the actual facts. That is what I have tried to do.
Are there any facts whatsoever that support your notion that the advice was of a general or hypothetical in nature?
You mention a few of my facts, but not in a way that the record supports.
You erroneously assume that M&W never contributed more than what was in the June 1910 letter, as if the June 1910 letter was M&W's only contact and was the end of their involvement, and we know this isn't the case. It is a mistake to assume that if it isn't in the minutes that it did not happen - the only letters that made it to the minutes were those presented to the board. Nothing else. So whatever else M&W did, it wouldn't be in the Minutes. Plus, the letter itself explains why it is not more specific as to how the course would fit, they didn't have a contour map.
It seems that only a map in CBM's hand would convince you or detailed correspondence. We know more correspondence existed but we don't have it, because there was no reason for it to have gone to the board. And we don't have the blueprint that Wilson sent to Oakley near the beginning of his involvement with the issue.. So we have to be reasonable and figure out what is most likely given all the facts. Yet your approach seems to be to rely on a history that has been largely or completely disproved.
If you have some facts to support YOUR position, I'd be glad to consider them, but it doesn't appear you do.
___________________________________________
Rich,
I have no idea what you refer to in your post above to Henry. Thirteen holes south of Ardmore? You are confusing a number of different sources and facts here. It is becoming very apparent that
1. While you think you have a grasp of the facts you really have no clue.
2. Your not quite as independent or unbiased as you would like us to believe.
Mea Culpa, David
As I'm sure you know, I'm referring to the general routing of the land mostly to the south of Ardmore (i.e. today's 1-13), for which the general layout was seemingly fairly obvious from Day 1. Whether Barker (or MacDonald or Wilson or whoever) was there on day 1 is a matter of conjecture.
Aha. I think I am beginning to understand our differences in approach. Like TEPaul, you seem think that because you have a belief, this somehow makes it a fact. In contrast, I prefer to base my beliefs on facts, and not visa versa. While you believe I don't have any significantly relevant facts, I think you must have an unusual understanding of both significance and relevance.
Keep in mind that according to reports at the time many of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad (almost all the holes, by one report.) Yet Wilson had never even seen these holes, and there is no indication that anyone on the committee knew a lick about them at all, much less in the kind of detail that would allow the committee to try to base their course on them!
Patrick,
LOTS of golf committees from various clubs went out to see and visit NGLA.
What committees from what clubs went out to see and visit NGLA from 1907 to 1912 ?
From 1913 to 1925 ?
From 1925 to 1939 ?
Was he desiging courses for all of them ?
I'll be able to answer that question when you identify the clubs that sent committees to see and visit NGLA.
Niall,
A reason that the committee would meet Macdonald at NGLA is to OBSERVE the great holes at NGLA, the holes supposedly representing the best the UK had to offer.
If I was a committee member I'd like to see the work of the fellows who were helping me route and design my course, wouldn't you ?
Patrick
Fair point but would you not have a look at their work before you gave them the job ? ]
Niall,
I think you're looking at the issue in the context of 2009 instead of 100+ years earlier, circa 1906-1911.
In 1874 there wasn't a single 18 hole golf course in all of America
CBM was an Icon of American Golf, a larger than life figure.
His credentials were beyond impressive.
He was one of the best American golfers winning the first U.S.G.A. Amateur Championship.
He was intimately involved with the formation of the USGA.
He served as Vice President of the USGA.
The USGA put he and Laurence Curtis in charge of interpreting the rules
He had traveled extensively in the UK studying golf courses
He had previously designed the first 18 hole golf courses in America, at Belmont and Wheaton, IL, circa 1992/3.
So, to answer your question, his resume was both incredibly impressive and impeccable.
I think I'm right in saying Davids theory is that M&W were already engaged.
David is better equiped to explain his theory/ies
On the other hand perhaps Wilson and his committee were only going to NGLA to get some general advice on course design and construction.
To me that seems a more plausible explanation but I accept it does come down to how you interperet what was the reason for their visit.
Again the report in the Merion minutes suggests to me that they were going to find out how a course was designed and built.
I don't know the entirety of the reasons that the committee visited NGLA, but, that's not the linchpin of David's premise/s
If the land swap occured prior to Wilson coming on board and steering the committee, then I think you have to agree with David that the course had previously been routed by someone else.
Could that be Barker, M&W or the other committee members or a combination of all of them ?
I don't think you can rule out any of the above, but, that's secondary to the issue of the timing of the land swap.
Hopefully, additional research will lead us to the point where VERIFIABLE FACTS and PRUDENT, NOT BIASED MINDS can draw reasonable conclusions.
If you want to change my point of view, show me some facts that differ significantly from the default point of view. Please esxcuse me if I don't reply to any further posts of yours unless they contain some significant facts. I'm tired of empty rhetoric.
Rich,
Don't you think the discussion and discovery process would be sped up if TEPaul provided Bryan Izatt with the Metes and Bounds ?
Patrick,
Of course Tom Paul is not impartial,
Finally, we agree.
but you guys are the ones asking him to put forward information to Bryan that might prove or disprove both the location and the timeframe of the Francis Land Swap.
What the hell does that have to do with anything ?
TEPaul has that information in his possession, yet he constantly refuses to provide the data to Bryan, someone who even you claim is impartial.
How in the hell can you defend TEPaul' repeated failure to produce the Metes and Bounds ?
It's intellectually dishonest, anti-scholarship and downright WRONG.
AND, YOU DON'T SEE THAT ? ? ?
I've suggested that impartial observers can ask questions and challenge contentions.
TEPaul WON'T answer the question about the Metes and Bounds.
Now you want to put the inmates in charge of the asylum ? ? ?
What the hell is wrong with you ?
My assumption is that David would find a way to have his questions surface through an impartial intermediary, but since he's once again proven that he can't discuss this without hurling insults at everyone who challenges him, perhaps that translation will serve to moderate and temper things down to actual facts and the exploration of same?
Please STOP.
You demonize David and grant TEPaul a pass ? ? ? Have you lost your marbles.
TEPaul accused him of being involved in a capital murder and you don't see why David is pissed ?
David hasn't been an angel, but, this is no one sided cat fight.
Mike, you're so invested in Wilson that you can't see straight and worse yet, you can't think straight.
Please STOP with these inane suggestions of appointing TEPaul a moderator.
He's not a disinterested, impartial, arms length observer. He's as partial as you can get, and that's OK when it comes to him putting forth his views, but, it disqualifies him from being a fair moderator.
Next you'll be suggesting Wayne Morrisson.
Rich,
Don't you think the discussion and discovery process would be sped up if TEPaul provided Bryan Izatt with the Metes and Bounds ?
Niall, they were never "engaged." They were amateurs and they were just trying to help those who really thought they needed help.
They went to NGLA in March 1911, at a crucial moment in the planning process when Wilson was anxious to get to preparing ground for the golf course. The time had long passed for general and vague discussion of great holes. The time had long passed for any general discussion. They needed M&W's specific help in understanding what could be done at Merion, and how to do it.
Keep in mind that according to reports at the time many of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad (almost all the holes, by one report.) Yet Wilson had never even seen these holes, and there is no indication that anyone on the committee knew a lick about them at all, much less in the kind of detail that would allow the committee to try to base their course on them!
Yet you think that all M&W did was wax philosophically, giving general advice? And based on this they returned to Merion and whipped out an incredible routing and 18 hole designs based on some rather subtle principles from holes that CBM had only described to them generally and that they had never seen?
Call be crazy, but it seems more likely that they had been trying to figure out how to fit what M&W had wanted on their land, and they went to the source for detailed help about where and why these holes should go, and how they should build them, and then they went back and came up with five attempts at carrying this out, and then M&W came down and chose the best one, maybe adjusting it further along the way.
_________________________________
As for whether or not it was noted in the MINUTES, the Minutes note that M&W chose the land for the course, and that they determined the final layout plan.
I have trouble imagining just how much more noted they could have been!
David,
I take your point regarding M&W's status, point duly noted. However in the same way that a professional will only provide a service in accordance with his/her instructions I doubt whether M&W would have jumped in and designed the course for them without asking. Again I come to the point I'm interested in which is did M&W design the course or just tell Wilson and his committee how to design and build the course ? I'm not sure that anyone else is interested in this but I certainly am. That MacDonald had a significant influence on the design at Merion, is clear to me, but I think there is a big difference in saying he was an influence and saying he designed the course.
In your own words above "they needed M&W's specific help in understanding what could be done at Merion, and how to do it." That could be read as M&W telling them the type of template holes they could fit in, what they looked like and to go about building them. That to my mind doesn't constitute providing a design for Merion.
I was going to go on and say that in terms of general advice I was thinking of MacDonald explaining the principles behind the classic holes, as well as advice on ideal hole lengths etc. That doesn't seem to be all that different to what you are suggesting ?
Good morning,
David - I was trying to inject some humor with my rebus. The previous 2 posts had mentioned sticking to facts or similar issues. I thought of the iconic Californian "facts" guy, Jack Webb, and tried to make a joke.
Too bad you didn't see it that way. C'est la vie.
David,
I don't think Tom Paul needs any advice from me. If anything, it's the other way around. He's forgotten more about GCA and golf and golf rules and golf clubs, etc. than I'll ever know.
Mike I am pretty sure I have provided the sources on numerous occasions, plus cited them in my essay. The primary article I mentioned was from the April 14, 1912 article int the Philadelphia Inquirer. A September 15, 1912 article from the same paper noted that nearly every hole was patterned after some famous hole abroad.
David,
I take your point regarding M&W's status, point duly noted. However in the same way that a professional will only provide a service in accordance with his/her instructions I doubt whether M&W would have jumped in and designed the course for them without asking. Again I come to the point I'm interested in which is did M&W design the course or just tell Wilson and his committee how to design and build the course ? I'm not sure that anyone else is interested in this but I certainly am. That MacDonald had a significant influence on the design at Merion, is clear to me, but I think there is a big difference in saying he was an influence and saying he designed the course.
To my mind, whether they "designed the course" versus "told Wilson and his committee how to design and build the course" is a distinction without a difference. This is especially so since they M&W were brought down to determine the final routing.QuoteIn your own words above "they needed M&W's specific help in understanding what could be done at Merion, and how to do it." That could be read as M&W telling them the type of template holes they could fit in, what they looked like and to go about building them. That to my mind doesn't constitute providing a design for Merion.
If you think M&W told them the type of holes that could fit on Merion's land, what those hole looked like, and how to build them, then our disagreement is purely semantics.
I've intentionally tried to avoid this discussion of whether M&W "designed" the course because that is definitional and not I am not interested arguing the semantics of what "design" means at all. I am only interested in how M&W influenced what was created on the ground at Merion, and think you have it about right above (except perhaps for your notion of how "template holes" were applied to the land at Merion or NGLA for that matter.)I was going to go on and say that in terms of general advice I was thinking of MacDonald explaining the principles behind the classic holes, as well as advice on ideal hole lengths etc. That doesn't seem to be all that different to what you are suggesting ?
Not all that different, but this conversation was taking place in the context of what could and needed to be done at Merion. To give you a purely hypothetical example, it is one thing to talk generally about the redan concept and quite another to talk about how the plateau next to the old barn would make an excellent spot for redan green and here's why . . . . Given all of the factors mentioned above and more, to assume it was of the former type and nothing more is untenable.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Niall,
A reason that the committee would meet Macdonald at NGLA is to OBSERVE the great holes at NGLA, the holes supposedly representing the best the UK had to offer.
If I was a committee member I'd like to see the work of the fellows who were helping me route and design my course, wouldn't you ?
Patrick
Fair point but would you not have a look at their work before you gave them the job ? ]
Niall,
I think you're looking at the issue in the context of 2009 instead of 100+ years earlier, circa 1906-1911.
In 1874 there wasn't a single 18 hole golf course in all of America
CBM was an Icon of American Golf, a larger than life figure.
His credentials were beyond impressive.
He was one of the best American golfers winning the first U.S.G.A. Amateur Championship.
He was intimately involved with the formation of the USGA.
He served as Vice President of the USGA.
The USGA put he and Laurence Curtis in charge of interpreting the rules
He had traveled extensively in the UK studying golf courses
He had previously designed the first 18 hole golf courses in America, at Belmont and Wheaton, IL, circa 1992/3.
So, to answer your question, his resume was both incredibly impressive and impeccable.
I think I'm right in saying Davids theory is that M&W were already engaged.
David is better equiped to explain his theory/ies
On the other hand perhaps Wilson and his committee were only going to NGLA to get some general advice on course design and construction.
To me that seems a more plausible explanation but I accept it does come down to how you interperet what was the reason for their visit.
Again the report in the Merion minutes suggests to me that they were going to find out how a course was designed and built.
I don't know the entirety of the reasons that the committee visited NGLA, but, that's not the linchpin of David's premise/s
If the land swap occured prior to Wilson coming on board and steering the committee, then I think you have to agree with David that the course had previously been routed by someone else.
Could that be Barker, M&W or the other committee members or a combination of all of them ?
I don't think you can rule out any of the above, but, that's secondary to the issue of the timing of the land swap.
Hopefully, additional research will lead us to the point where VERIFIABLE FACTS and PRUDENT, NOT BIASED MINDS can draw reasonable conclusions.
Mike,
Speaking of articles, and since you are still taking shots at HHBarker, you at one point mentioned that he was a one day player who did one day designs for $25. Could you provide your source for your claim? Thanks.
Patrick
Thanks for that. In my defence I should say I'm not totally ignorant on american golf and not only do I have Scotlands Gift but I've actually read it as well ! Seriously, I am aware of MacDonalds standing then and now.
My response was not intended to suggest that MacDonald had anything to prove but was pointing out the timing in response to you suggestion that the committee were going to have a look at previous work of the guy who they had asked to desgn there course.
The time to view the great holes imported from the UK and refined in the U.S. was prior to the design and constuction of Merion, not afterwards.
With regards the land swap happening before Wilson involvement, you suggest that I have to agree with David that the course must have been routed by someone else.
Correct.
The land may have been swapped because someone did a routing that included the swapped land,
Which means that Wilson didn't route and design the golf course.
it may also have been for agronomy reasons ie poor drainage, or for development purposes etc.
There are a variety of potential reasons of which a prior routing of the course is one.
Knowing the land, I would tend to disagree.
I don't know the land and therefore don't know which of the above is likely to be valid but let me ask this question,
do you need to do a full routing to get an idea that a parcel of ground big enough to form part of a course might be better adapted for golf than a similarly sized parcel elsewhere ?
I believe you do, for without a full 18 hole routing, how can you judge whether or not the land can adequately accomodate a superior 18 hole golf course ?
The land swap may give a pointer or a hint to support Davids theory (or then again maybe it doesn't) but I respectively suggest that it doesn't provide proof.
But, it DOES.
If Wilson doesn't get involved until April of 1911 and the land swap to accomodate the routing took place in 1910 or earlier, then Wilson COULDN"T have routed and designed the golf course.
"With regards the land swap happening before Wilson involvement, you suggest that I have to agree with David that the course must have been routed by someone else.
Correct.
The land may have been swapped because someone did a routing that included the swapped land,
Which means that Wilson didn't route and design the golf course."
Niall:
That is just so not correct that you have to or should agree with David Moriarty's (or Pat Mucci's) theory (which is total speculation) that Merion East was routed by someone other than Wilson and his committee.
TEPaul, I have no theory and my comments have NOTHING to do with who may have routed the golf course.
My comment has to do with but one factor, LOGIC. If the land swap occured prior to Wilson coming on Board, then the routing that made the land swap necessary HAD to be done by someone other than WILSON, since he wasn't involved.
You're too caught up in the particulars to understand the basic logic behind my comment.
I mean there is no question at all that there was a early routing done on some of the same land by HH Barker. But he did that for someone else very early on---ie the real estate developer who was trying to promote the sale of his land and even though MCC mentioned Barker's "sketch" or "stick" routing there was never another mention again of Barker, using him, paying him (which they certainly never did do) or even paying the slightest attention to anything he did for Connell.
Again, my comment has NOTHING to do with BARKER, it has to do with the an exercise in logic that by default excludes Wilson from being involved with the routing that was made possible by the land swap. Do you understand that ?
As for a routing or design from Macdonald, even if MCC had asked him to do something like that which it is really obvious they never did do for all kinds or reasons the fact is he did not have the time or the wherewithal to do that in 1910 and his letter to Lloyd in June 1910 makes the reasons why abundantly clear.
the other parts of Francis's story logically deny Moriarty's and Mucci's interpretation of what that one part means
Again, you're incorrect regarding my position, I have NOT offered an interpretation, nor have I indicated who routed the golf course.
I have stated that IF Wilson was not involved until AFTER the land swap, then he could NOT have been involved in the routing that was only possible if there was a land swap.
Tell me that you understand that.
but do you think they are interested in allowing those other parts of his story into this discussion for analysis of the whole mean of what his idea was and when?
Unlike you and others, I'd prefer to examine one facet at a time.
And, at this time, the facet I'm interested in is the timing of the land swap and Wilson's initial involvement at Merion.
The timing of the two events is a critical component in trying to figure out what happened.
Of course not---they try to keep those other parts out of an analysis of Francis's entire story like the plague. Why do you suppose THAT is? ;)
That's not true.
I believe Sully asked you and/or Cirba about the 15th green and 16th tee, and I don't seem to recall that question being addressed, let alone answered by you or Mike. Why do you think that is ? ;D
People like Moriaty and Mucci are just making this stuff up out of complete thin air probably because they think it makes for an interesting arguing for people sem-familiar with this entire subject; there is nothing at all factual to suggest such a thing except unfortunately a very unclearly worded description of one part of Francis' story that Moriarty claims has only a single way in which it can be interpreted---eg Moriarty's way.
Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
I've made NOTHING up.
I stated, the following, which is nothing more than an exercise in LOGIC.
IF Wilson's involvement doesn't occur until early 1911 and the land swap to accomodate the five remaining holes took place PRIOR to early 1911, then WILSON COULDN'T have provided the routing for Merion.
There is NO other conclusion regarding Wilson.
DO you admit to that ?
If NOT, could you explain how someone not involved until early 1911 could have provided a routing in 1910 before he was involved ?
That is simply not the case; there are other ways to interpret what Francis meant and meant to say and the FACTS coming FROM MCC back then that neither of those two were aware of BEFORE this essay totally support another interpretation of what Francis said in that part of his thirty nine years "after the fact" story!
This has little to do with how you or anyone else interprets what Francis said.
It has to do with deductive reasoning, PURE LOGIC.
IF Wilson isn't involved until early 1911 and the land swap to accomodate the remaining five holes was done in 1910, then Wilson COULDN'T have been involved with the routing.
WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE ABOVE STATEMENT AND CONCLUSION ?
"YES" OR "NO"
Patrick
Thanks for that. In my defence I should say I'm not totally ignorant on american golf and not only do I have Scotlands Gift but I've actually read it as well ! Seriously, I am aware of MacDonalds standing then and now.
My response was not intended to suggest that MacDonald had anything to prove but was pointing out the timing in response to you suggestion that the committee were going to have a look at previous work of the guy who they had asked to desgn there course.
The time to view the great holes imported from the UK and refined in the U.S. was prior to the design and constuction of Merion, not afterwards.
With regards the land swap happening before Wilson involvement, you suggest that I have to agree with David that the course must have been routed by someone else.
Correct.
The land may have been swapped because someone did a routing that included the swapped land,
Which means that Wilson didn't route and design the golf course.
it may also have been for agronomy reasons ie poor drainage, or for development purposes etc.
There are a variety of potential reasons of which a prior routing of the course is one.
Knowing the land, I would tend to disagree.
I don't know the land and therefore don't know which of the above is likely to be valid but let me ask this question,
do you need to do a full routing to get an idea that a parcel of ground big enough to form part of a course might be better adapted for golf than a similarly sized parcel elsewhere ?
I believe you do, for without a full 18 hole routing, how can you judge whether or not the land can adequately accomodate a superior 18 hole golf course ?
The land swap may give a pointer or a hint to support Davids theory (or then again maybe it doesn't) but I respectively suggest that it doesn't provide proof.
But, it DOES.
If Wilson doesn't get involved until April of 1911 and the land swap to accomodate the routing took place in 1910 or earlier, then Wilson COULDN"T have routed and designed the golf course.
Niall,
I'm not sure I understand your last post to me. If you don't want to call what they were doing "design" then that is fine with me. I am more concerned with figuring out how they influenced the course.
In this regard, and again purely hypothetical as to the specifics, I think that CBM and Whigham were communicating to the Committee such things as
- a redan green would work perfectly on that plateau against that old barn, and if you tear out the barn you've got a perfect redan bunker already built. As you will see tomorrow, angle is important so you need to put the tee over on the hillside next to the tee for the . . ."
- or, you guys really ought to secure that land behind the clubhouse, because you need a long dogleg hole and this would be a good place for one. Plus, further on, the curve of the stream creates a very good place for a Do-or-Die plateau green appropriate for a short hole of only about 130 yards. Tomorrow I will show you what I mean; mine is surrounded by sand and you should put sand on the 4th side of yours, but as for the creek f it you should take what nature was kind enough to give you.
etc.
Given all the factors I listed above, and given the course the committee built, I think it is untenable that the communication is any more general than the type described above, whether it be in person, in writing, or in plan. It may or may not have been more specific, but I don't think there was any way it would have been more general than this.
Understand what I am trying to say?
"My comment has to do with but one factor, LOGIC."
Patrick:
With your total lack of familiarity with and understanding of the actual facts from MCC's own records on this one your "LOGIC" has absolutely NO merit whatsoever! Neither your logic nor your opinions on here without a far more comprehensive familiarity than you have with all the details of Merion's internal history which you in no way have does not amount to a hill of beans and it never will.
"I have stated that IF Wilson was not involved until AFTER the land swap, then he could NOT have been involved in the routing that was only possible if there was a land swap.
Tell me that you understand that."
What I understand Patrick is that is a mighty BIG IF!!!
We KNOW that.
But, that's a linchpin issue.
What does that have to do with history of Merion East and who designed it?
Tell me that you're kidding,......... please.
It could tell us who DIDN'T route Merion.
IF you want to know that you need to spend a ton more time on it than you have or Moriarty has.
No I don't.
I just need to have the documented dates provided and pure logic does the rest.
It's not rocket science, it's simple deductive logic
That IF you mentioned in that statement above has nothing to do with the history of Merion or its architect,
Of course it does. It has everything to do with who DIDN'T route Merion, ergo, Merion's History.
You're just in DENIAL.
it only has to do with the penchant of people on here like you and Moriarty to think you have some license to continue to argue with people which appears to be your real interest over which golf course architecture and its history takes a very distinct backseat!
TE, you're so blilnded in your attempt to ardently defend the accepted history of Merion, which has proven to be flawed in some areas, that you can't accept the relevance of documenting the two dates and the logic that follows. OPEN your eyes, and your mind MAY follow.
Patrick
Is there any correspondence/minutes which mention the land swap and give the reasons for it ? If I have missed it I apologise but without supporting docuumentation for the reasons land swap I think it would be a stretch to contend that the landswap in itself was proof that a routing had been done to accommodate it.
Niall, I may have missed it too, but, I don't recall seeing any supporting documentation.
I disagree with you with respect to the reasons for the land swap, especially if 13 holes had already been configured/routed.
If you routed 13 holes why wouldn't you route the remaining 5 ?
Unless the land available wouldn't accomodate them.
Enter the swap.
Also if the routing was done as you say, wasn't it done a bit premature given the committees subsequent visit to NGLA and the 5 plans that the committee came up with prior to the NGLA visit ?
Not at all, and the perfect example of this exercise is none other than TEPaul himself.
TEPaul's club, Gulph Mills, was considering a move.
TEPaul was familiar with some land, I believe it was Androsian Farms.
TEPaul and/or C&C were involved in routing a new course before they even took title to the land.
So, to answer your question, it's not unusual at all.
NGLA did it only a few years prior to Merion.
I'm struggling a bit here with the timeline and the logic, again I might have missed something.
If a gang draws up plans to rob a bank on 03-01-08 and you first meet and join the gang on 02-01-09, you couldn't have been involved in drawing up plans to rob that bank. Any attempt by the authorities to prosecute you for that aspect of the crime would fail on the timing of the dates of the plans and the date you first became involved. The dates and LOGIC would provide your alibi, ergo, not guilty, unless you were O.J. ;D
As an aside, I would be interested to hear an architects thoughts on your comments that you would need to do a full 18 hole routing to determine whether you could get a superior 18 hole golf course on a site. My guess is that not necessarily but interested to hear the experts views.
Why would you think NOT ?
If you have 13 good holes, but can't get in the last 5, you don't have a golf course.
You don't need an expert to tell you that.
Your question has to be answered in the context of the available land and it's quality.
With a good 2,000 acres third graders can come up with a routing with no holes predetermined.
But, with limited and/or unusually configured or unusually topoed land, the process becomes far more difficult.
Unless of course, you feel that these novices put together a superior course without any consideration of the entire 18.
The committee members certainly weren't experts, were they ?
Patrick
Is there any correspondence/minutes which mention the land swap and give the reasons for it ? If I have missed it I apologise but without supporting docuumentation for the reasons land swap I think it would be a stretch to contend that the landswap in itself was proof that a routing had been done to accommodate it.
Niall, I may have missed it too, but, I don't recall seeing any supporting documentation.
I disagree with you with respect to the reasons for the land swap, especially if 13 holes had already been configured/routed.
If you routed 13 holes why wouldn't you route the remaining 5 ?
Unless the land available wouldn't accomodate them.
Enter the swap.
Also if the routing was done as you say, wasn't it done a bit premature given the committees subsequent visit to NGLA and the 5 plans that the committee came up with prior to the NGLA visit ?
Not at all, and the perfect example of this exercise is none other than TEPaul himself.
TEPaul's club, Gulph Mills, was considering a move.
TEPaul was familiar with some land, I believe it was Androsian Farms.
TEPaul and/or C&C were involved in routing a new course before they even took title to the land.
So, to answer your question, it's not unusual at all.
NGLA did it only a few years prior to Merion.
I'm struggling a bit here with the timeline and the logic, again I might have missed something.
If a gang draws up plans to rob a bank on 03-01-08 and you first meet and join the gang on 02-01-09, you couldn't have been involved in drawing up plans to rob that bank. Any attempt by the authorities to prosecute you for that aspect of the crime would fail on the timing of the dates of the plans and the date you first became involved. The dates and LOGIC would provide your alibi, ergo, not guilty, unless you were O.J. ;D
As an aside, I would be interested to hear an architects thoughts on your comments that you would need to do a full 18 hole routing to determine whether you could get a superior 18 hole golf course on a site. My guess is that not necessarily but interested to hear the experts views.
Why would you think NOT ?
If you have 13 good holes, but can't get in the last 5, you don't have a golf course.
You don't need an expert to tell you that.
Your question has to be answered in the context of the available land and it's quality.
With a good 2,000 acres third graders can come up with a routing with no holes predetermined.
But, with limited and/or unusually configured or unusually topoed land, the process becomes far more difficult.
Unless of course, you feel that these novices put together a superior course without any consideration of the entire 18.
The committee members certainly weren't experts, were they ?
Patrick
I typed the previous post in a bit of a hurry so let me summarise where I think we are. You contend that the land swap shows that there must have been a routing done as that showed the need for the land swap. My contention for what its worth is that is one possible reason for the land swap but it is not necessarily the only reason or neccessarily even the most likely one. You can argue that it is the most likley reason but to my mind you can't say a unsatisfactory routing was definitely the reason for the land swap without supporting documentation. I suspect we are just going to have to agree to differ on that point.
Getting back to my real interest as to who actually did the design for Merion, would you agree that it doesn't really matter whether there was a routing done which pre-emptied the land swap as the course was re-routed after this time ?
Niall
1 - Reasons for Land Swap - I wasn't actually putting forward a theory of why the land swap occurred, my point was to show that there might have been a number of reasons for the swap and therefore the fact of the swap (and timing) didn't in itself prove anything with regards to a particular possible reason.
I think you have to elaborate on the need for a swap if in fact the land prior to the swap was more than adequate to accomodate an 18 hole golf course. Remember, Macdonald recommened getting addtional land near the clubhouse to get a more perfect golf course.
And, while the golf course at Merion is exception, without the use of crossovers, the land might not have yielded such an exceptional course.
2 - Routing - the point I was trying to make here was that if the routing has already been done then why all the need for subsequent routings being doen after the visit to NGLA.
One possibility is because the prior routing was "imperfect" or "incomplete"
Certainly Patrick I'm not saying that a routing couldn't have been done prior to the land swap but if it was it would appear that it was later discarded, no ?
Not necessarily.
Remnants or the better part of the routing might have been retained
In order to commit to the land you just need to be happy that you can achieve what you want on it which is why I asked the question of whether you actually needed to do a routing to know that you could get what you wanted.
You can't ask that question in a vacuum.
You have to ask it in the context of the specific land in this particular case.
My reference to the saving nature of the crossovers is germane to the question/s you raised/d
Again interested to hear from any professionals out there.
3 - Timeline - I think I get the point you are looking to make with your bank anology. Again it comes down to whether you are convinced that a full routing was done for the land deal as to whether or not you credit Barker, Wilson or Macdonald.
I''m not crediting anybody.
I'm more interested in the timing of the events, specifically, the acquisition of the land and Wilson's date of involvement.
We now know that the club purchased the land between July, 1910 and November 15,1910.
4 - Routing on 100 plus acres - I would suggest that back then 120 acres was a reasonable sized area to build a course.
Not necessarily.
It would depend upon the properties, topography and configuration of the land.
Any architect is going to look for opportunities and constraints for his design. Any constraints may mean additional land ie bottleneck of land, quarry etc.
Do you need to actually do a routing to prove that you may need additional land ?
I think you do when you have a unique property.
I take your point that they maybe didn't have a topo plan then but they did have the opportunity to walk the land any time they liked and lay out stakes.
Patrick
I typed the previous post in a bit of a hurry so let me summarise where I think we are.
You contend that the land swap shows that there must have been a routing done as that showed the need for the land swap.
Agreed
My contention for what its worth is that is one possible reason for the land swap but it is not necessarily the only reason or neccessarily even the most likely one. You can argue that it is the most likley reason but to my mind you can't say a unsatisfactory routing was definitely the reason for the land swap without supporting documentation. I suspect we are just going to have to agree to differ on that point.
Agreed
Getting back to my real interest as to who actually did the design for Merion, would you agree that it doesn't really matter whether there was a routing done which pre-emptied the land swap as the course was re-routed after this time ?
It does matter in terms of authorship.
See my bank robbery post.