Mike Cirba's 'Who was Hugh Wilson?' is posted under In My Opinion

[DMoriarty]

Yes I am familiar with that argument and have been for quite some time.  I has been discussed to death, and I have no interest in delving into it in a thread about Wilson.  Wilson had nothing to do with the swap.  Briefly, the supposition that this three acres was the "swap" makes no sense for a number of reasons, one of which is that the land included in the swap was already part of the golf course in Nov. 1910 as shown on the property plan.  Another reason is that Francis described a swap, not a purchase. They exchanged land across from the clubhouse for the 130x190 parcel up at the top.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:
-------------------------

Wow, what a US Open!   Merion was amazing, and being on the grounds yesterday and walking the property in entirety twice really confirmed a lot of things for me that are sometimes difficult to see from the confines of a desk and computer screen.
 
I’ve been periodically checking in the ongoing Merion discussions/debates another thread and see for the most part, it seems folks there are covering the same ground we all looked at in detail many years ago.   Now that some of that has bled over into this thread, I wanted to make a few related points.
 
I don’t intend to address all of the criticisms/disagreements with my essay because I don’t think that serves this website very well, but I’m very comfortable in my reading of the facts at hand and trust many others share my interpretation.   I’m also certain that there will be a few with different opinions to which they’re entitled.   If anyone has specific questions on which I based any of my assertions please let me know and I’ll do my best to answer them.    Otherwise, I think the piece speaks for itself well and is bolstered with the substantial evidence provided.
 
Two new pieces of information did surface in recent threads, however, so the more that comes out the better off we’ll all be in understanding what happened exactly.   First, I saw where Dan Hermann posted the following from the Merion Cricket Club Board Minutes the following based on Hugh Wilson’s November 1914 resignation:
 
“The resignation of Mr. Hugh I. Wilson, as Chairman of the Green Committee, was presented, whereupon, on motion of Mr. Lillie, duly seconded, the following resolution was adopted:

RESOLVED, that in accepting Mr. Wilson’s resignation as Chairman of the Green Committee, this Board desires to record its appreciation of the invaluable service rendered by him to the Club in the laying out and supervision of the construction of the East and West Golf Courses. The fact that these courses are freely admitted by expert players to be second to none in this country, demonstrates more fully than anything else that can be said, the ability and good judgment displayed by Mr. Wilson in his work.

The Board desires to express on behalf of the Club its sincere thanks to Mr. Wilson and its regret that pressure of business makes it necessary for him to relinquish the duties of Chairman of this important committee.

On motion duly seconded, Mr. Winthrop Sargent was appointed a member of the Golf Committee and Chairman of the Green Committee.”
                                                                                                                  
I hadn’t seen that before, and found it interesting that the according to the club, Hugh Wilson seems to have had the exact same role in the creation of both the East and West courses at Merion….the “laying out and supervision of the construction” of both golf courses.
 
Now, I’ve never heard anyone challenge the fact that Wilson designed the West course so I’m not sure what makes the East different?   Wouldn’t these men know very clearly what Wilson did as head of the Committee?
 
The other interesting tidbit that surfaced recently was an article written by Merion President Robert Lesley that appeared in the 1934 US Open program.  (courtesy of Pete Trenham’s wonderful Philadelphia golf history site, www.trenhamgolfhistory.org)   Lesley was Chairman of the permanent Merion Golf Committee in 1910 and through those early years, and would have directly appointed both the permanent Chairman of the Green Committee, as well as temporary Chairman of the Construction Committee.  
 
Lesley does not mention the contributions of Macdonald in this piece; his much earlier article on both courses in Golf Illustrated mentions the Committee, “who had as advisors…” CBM and Whigham.   However, I don’t think by 1934 there was any possible confusion about the usage of the term “laid out” in the parlance of the times that clearly indicated architectural authorship.
 
I find the second page particularly interesting, as he talks about continuity of leadership of the Green Committee from 1909 to present, citing the Green Chairmen involved.   He first lists Hugh Wilson.  
 



 
 
A 1922 article about the changes at Merion that created today’s holes 10, 11, 12, and 13 stated that Wilson had been Chairman of the Green Committee at Merion for 7 years, until his voluntary retirement.
 
We know that Wilson joined Merion in 1903, and we know that after Wilson resigned from the Green Chair in 1914, with Winthrop Sargent taking over that role, and I believe Sargent served through the war and into the early 20s.  
 
David Moriarty pointed out that in 1911 Winthrop Sargent was also Green Chairmen, overseeing the goings on at Merion’s original course in Haverford, which shouldn’t really be surprising because in January of the year Hugh Wilson had been asked to lead the new Construction Committee in charge of laying out and constructing a new golf course for the club.   I would think that would be asking a lot of him to serve both roles at that point.
 
The timing of all of these events to me suggests that Wilson’s tenure as Green Chairman was likely from about 1906 through 1914, with a gap in 1911 and possibly 1912 while he designed and built the new course.  

Because I didn’t have a second source beyond Lesley, (although Joe Valentine’s very similar 1930 article comes close}, I chose not to add this information to my IMO piece, but hope to find more conclusive info.   In any case, I think there is a very high likelihood that Wilson was indeed the Chairman of the Green Committee in 1910, based on what Lesley and Valentine both reported.
 
If it wasn’t Hugh Wilson, perhaps someone with information in that regard could tell us who was Chairman of the Green Committee in 1909 or 1910?   Isn’t it also usual for a member to serve as an associate on a Committee for some period of time before becoming Chairman?
 
Speaking of the MCC Minutes, I think it’s a mistake we’ve all made in assuming that those Merion Cricket Club Board minutes are going to have much detailed information about golf.   After studying the club structure for some time, it’s clear to me that detailed golf matters of assignments and appointment would be handled at the Golf Committee, run by Robert Lesley, with only those matters with financial or club-wide consequences rising to the level of the Board of Governors.   Indeed, as seen in the oft-quoted items here, there was consideration by the Board of the whole question of the property purchase in November of 1910, and not again until April 1911 when the recommended layout plan required the purchase of an additional 3 acres beyond the 117 originally approved.   This was not the 3 acres near the clubhouse that Merion rented from the railroad for the next several decades: the course that Merion originally constructed was on 120 purchased acres and 3 rented for a total of 123, yet in February of 1911 Hugh Wilson wrote Oakley that Merion had acquired 117 acres.  
 
So, sometime between February and April the course layout required three more acres than originally thought.   With fixed property borders on the east and south, it seems to me the most likely place for variation is along the west where Golf House Road is today.  
 
Perhaps someday someone will locate the minutes of Lesley’s Golf Committee…now that would be the Holy Grail!
 
Another interesting thing that surface outside of GCA is that Hugh Wilson seems to have spent a heckuva lot of time playing on golf courses with quarries in play.   The first course we know Wilson played was the Belmont Club, later to become Aronimink, where he was Club Champion in 1897, held the course record, was the medalist in the first Philadelphia Amateur, and served on the Match Committee at the precocious age of 18.
 
The course he played was designed by three members, including Dr. Harry Toulmin, who later served on Wilson’s committee at Merion.   It included holes routed along the edge of a quarry, as seen in the following picture.   For what it’s worth, the par four third with a creek wrapping around three sides may have given Wilson some ideas for the future, as well.  
 

 
 
I also learned Friday from Princetonian and Springdale CC member Bill Crane that the original course at Princeton, which Wilson played during college while serving on the Green Committee when a new Willie Dunn course was being designed and constructed, had quarry crossings on four holes!
 
So, understanding that quarries can make such a dramatic golf feature causes me to be even more certain that there is no way in the world that CBM, Wilson, et.al, would have ever recommended original purchase of a property that purposefully and artificially truncated the Johnson Farm a mere 90 yards beyond the quarry.   That’s frankly inconceivable, despite how Francis later described things.
 
On the grounds yesterday again, it is so apparent how the course almost erupts in width on the northern end to accommodate play in and around the quarry.   It is so visually obvious to me that they couldn’t get the golf they needed/wanted there without widening that parcel, particularly with the decision to create a route around the quarry on sixteen for those folks unable to make the carry.  
 
I notice we often hear mention of Francis saying that he swapped for land that measured 130 by 190 yards up where 15 green and 16 tee is today, which I also believe he did (widening it from about 100 yards by and shortening it from almost 300 yards it measured on the November 1910 scale map), but almost never hear Francis’s next statement, which would have been 1-4 months before Merion even owned the property if we are to accept that the Francis Swap happened before November 15th, 1910.   Francis continued;
 
"Within a day or two, the quarryman had his drills up where the 16th green now is, and blasted the top off the hill so the green could be built as it is today."
 
It's inconceivable to me that Merion would be up there blasting a site they didn't even own if this happened before November 15, 1910.   Bad manners, at minimum!  

Also, I think another big mistake we all make is assuming that Merion swapped an equal parcel of land across Golf House Road for the additional land needed for the golf course, but Francis really doesn't say that, does he?
 
Perhaps someone will someday locate the topo map Wilson sent to Oakley and we'll all know for certain how the original 117 acres Wilson described in his letter to Oakley in February of 1911 were bounded.  Now that would be a second Holy Grail!  
 
As far as Jeff Silverman’s book, I’m not sure it’s available for purchase, but there is a publication available titled a “A Centennial Celebration of the East Course” and it’s very good with a lot of interesting, newly discovered information about Wilson’s family roots, and Rodman Griscom growing up playing golf at North Berwick and learning under Benny Sayers if you can procure a copy.
 
I’m not sure I agree with his assertion that Macdonald only considered 100 acres, but
I do think that we don’t exactly know what specific land Macdonald was considering in June 1910 other than some of the 140 acres of the Johnson Farm were included.   I say that because we know from later articles that Hugh Wilson and Merion wanted to acquire land south of the original purchase, where today’s 11th green and 12th tee are located, but the club couldn’t get that deal.   The Dallas Estate wasn’t purchased by HDC until a few months after Macdonald’s visit, so I’m not sure we can assume that this part of what CBM viewed.   For all we know for sure, other properties that HDC had secured further west of the Johnson Farm and north of Ardmore Avenue may have been considered originally when CBM and Barker were there in June of 1910.    We know that HDC that same month originally wanted to sell "100 acres, or whatever would be needed".  We know the western boundaries of the golf course were still undetermined as of November 1910.    I frankly don’t think its cut and dried based on the record of events or facts discovered to date.
 
In any case, if there are additional questions regarding the sources of any of my assertions in the essay, I’m happy to respond.  Thanks again for everyone’s interest.
 
Cheers,
Mike
 

[DMoriarty]

Nothing in the above post even begins to address any of the points raised in my previous post, No. 23.  It is just more of the same.  Mike intentionally ignores the contemporaneous evidence of what happened and instead selectively relies upon less detailed (and less accurate) information from much later, and draws unsupportable conclusions from that information.  In short, he is relying on the Legend to try and prove the Legend, and all the while ignoring the contemporaneous record when it comes to the respective involvement of Wilson and Macdonald.

His reliance on the 1934 Lesley article is a perfect example.   We have multiple reports from Lesley within Merion's Board Minutes themselves, and we have is 1914 article. In these, Lesley leaves little doubt that Merion was repeatedly turning to CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham to guide them through the planning.   Yet Mike ignores all this and goes with this 1934 article even though it conflicts with Lesley's own earlier statements and doesn't even get the dates correct.  Typical.  

Also typical is the mess he's made of this whole Wilson-as-Green-Chair tangent . . .  
 - First he repeatedly stated with certainty that Wilson was Chair of the Green Committee from 1909-1914.  
 - He also stated that the Green Committee and the Construction Committee were one and the same.
 - Then when I informed him that he wasn't the chair in 1911, he told us that was hard to believe, but that maybe Wilson didn't want to be chair in late 1910 and 1911 because he was having a kid.   (Ironically, this is when the course was being planned!)  
 - Then he modified this to claim that Wilson was the chair from 1907-1914, but stepped down in the middle, during the crucial time.  
 - Now he's changed it once again.  Now Wilson was the chair from 1906-1914, but that he stepped down only in 1911 when he was on the Construction Committee.  (I guess maybe he didn't step down in the fall of 1910 because of the birth of his kid after all.)
 - Also, now he changes his tune and acknowledges that the Green Committee and the Construction Committee were not the one-and-the-same,  yet he fails to realize that it was this premise that got al this going in the first place!
 - And now Mike even has the nerve to make an indirect plea to me to tell him who the Green Chair was during this time period, as if he can just make these things up and then it is somehow my responsbility to disprove all his unfounded speculation!  Well I already told him who the Chair was in 1911. Sargent. Wilson wasn't even on the Committee. If he thinks Wilson was the Chair before then, in 1906, or whenever, he needs to prove it himself.

Ironically, none of this matters because the Green Committee wasn't even one of the two committees involved in the planning!  But it is typical of the sort of mess he creates when he uses wishful-thinking as his guiding analytical precept regarding Merion's history

Take as another example Mike's treatment of the 1923 J.E. Ford article.  The article details Wilson's 1922-1923 changes to the course, and in this context Ford noted that Wilson was "a pioneer golfer here and chairman of the Merion green committee for seven years - or until his voluntary retirement."  From the sounds of the "or" it seems he might still have been chair at the time the article was written.  Regardless we at least seem to have an article written in the 1923 which mentions Wilson's service as Green Chair in the 1920's. Indeed, earlier in this thread Mike stated that Wilson had served as Green Chair in the early 1920's, noting "the fact that Wilson again served as Chairman in the early 20s."  

Since Mike thinks Wilson was chair in the early 1920's, and since he has an article from 1923 about Wilson as Chair, you'd think he'd be able put two and two together.    Yet, inexplicably, Mike has twisted this article as if it somehow proves that Wilson must necessarily have been Chair of the Green Committee from 1906 until 1914, excepting a few years in the middle.  Bizarre.  

The "logic" here is beyond me.  And it has nothing to do with the planning of Merion East.  

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba
---------------------------
David,

I’m sorry, but your understanding is simply incorrect.

We know from multiple sources that Hugh Wilson resigned as Chairman of the Green Committee in November 1914, citing pressure of business.

In 1916, William Evans wrote the following, making clear that by that time Wilson had served as Chairman of the Merion Green Committee “for many years”;



In 1923, J.E. Ford (as Donnie MacTee) wrote the following, in which he makes clear that Wilson served seven years as Chairman of the Green Committee before his voluntary retirement.    He also points out that at present, Wilson was still an “active member” of the Green Committee, but presumably not Chairman.



This article also states that Wilson was one of the original architects of Merion and that he wanted to used the land where the 11th green and 12th tee are located but the club couldn’t get that deal done. 
 
Another article I have that I'm too lazy to dig up right now states that Wilson is again Chair of the Green Committee in 1924, after these articles, and shortly before his death.
 
As you suggested, I think it's probably a good idea not to go back and forth here and muck up this thread.   I'm sure there are plenty of others where you can debate with folks who are regular GCA contributors.
 
Thanks for your interest.

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - Can I be a "Class B" member of Merion? 

[DMoriarty]

First Mike, regarding your comment that my "understanding is incorrect," I have no definite "understanding" of who was the the green Chairman at Merion in 1906.  If you think Hugh Wilson was the chairman of the Green Committee in 1906, then prove it.  It doesn't matter a bit as to the discussion of who designed Merion because the course was found, designed, and built in 1910-1911, and because the green committee was not in charge.  But nonetheless you cannot just assume him the chairmanship in 1906 based on nothing little more than wishful thinking.

Second, you claimed it was a "fact" that Wilson served Chair of the Green Committee "in the early 20's."   Yet when a 1923 article mentions he was Chair you conclude that the article must have been referring to 1906?  I don't follow this leap of logic.  

Third, I don't understand your reliance on the 1916 Evans article which seems to suggest that Wilson was back at chair by 1916, along with Sargent.  Doesn't this article cut against your latest 1906 theory?   As for the 1924 article I fail to see relevance.  

If anything, you seem to be reinforcing what I had always assumed . . . That Wilson was the Chair of the Green Committee off and on from sometime after 1911 until his untimely death.  I see nothing at all about who was green chair in 1906.  

Fourth, as for your closing comments, I would have been happy to not post on this thread at all, but you had posted at least four or five long comments directly challenging what I had posted elsewhere, and even called me out by name numerous times.  And much of what you were posting is demonstrably false and was simply confusing the record.  It seems as if you would prefer a forum where you can challenge the ideas of others without having your ideas likewise challenged, and this hardly seems sporting to me.  Plus, it seems more than a bit hypocritical on your part, given the way you reacted before and after my IMO.

I am simply trying to clean up some of what is in your comments on this thread.  I haven't even touched on the IMO itself.

[Dan Herrmann]

^^^^
The why are you commenting here if not related to the wonderful IMO essay?

[DMoriarty]

Because unfortunately you and Mike chose this thread to try and address matters being discussed in the other threads, and much of the information in his/your posts is either demonstrably false or extremely misleading.

Look, I'd be glad to take it to another thread, or better yet to stop discussing Merion with Mike altogether, but if he is going to keep having you post misleading information about the history of early Merion in the threads, I'll probably continue to correct the misinformation.

As for his IMO, I'd still like others to have a chance to consider without interference, so that can wait.

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:
=================
David,

This is really pretty simple.   Let me try again.

In January of 1916, Philly golf writer William Evans mentioned the changes at Merion for the 1916 US Open.   He wrote that Winthrop Sargent was presently the Chairman of the Green Committee and that Hugh Wilson, who he calls "the genius" responsible for both courses at Merion had previously been Chairman of the Green Committee for "many years".   That would be "many years" prior to January 1916.

The article by Philadelphia golf writer JE Ford (aka Donnie MacTee) from 1923 is even more specific.   He tells us that before voluntarily retiring from the the Green Chair, Wilson had been in the position for "seven years".   He also tells us that at the time, Wilson was "still an active member" of the Green Committee, but does not name him as Chairman.

Wilson voluntarily retired from the Chair of the Green Committee in November 1914.  At the time, Sargent took over and I have articles each year through 1917 mentioning Sargent in the Chair.   There is no mention of Wilson serving in the Chair from 1914, until 1924, in an article describing changes to the course for the US Amateur that year..   That is what I referred to when I wrote that it appears Wilson again in the early 20s served in that role, but this was after the 1923 article that mentioned seven years, not before.

Wilson joined Merion in 1903.   You had previously mentioned that Wilson was not mentioned as being on the Green Committee, much less Chairman in the 1911 MCC Minutes and speculated that Wilson became Chairman sometime in 1912 or so.   

Your supposition that he suddenly appeared out of nowhere and was given the assignment of Green Chairman in 1912 doesn't hold up to this evidence.   The idea that then Evans would write "many years" when Wilson resigned less than two years later isn't credible.  Neither does it stand up to Ford telling us that Wilson served "seven years" before voluntarily resigning. (in 1914).   

So, once again, let's examine what we know about the Chairmanship when Evans wrote "many years".

1916 - Sargent
1915 - Sargent
1914 - Wilson until voluntarily resigning in November with Sargent taking over
1913 - Wilson?
1912 - Wilson?
1911 - Sargent (Wilson was named to head the newly formed "Construction Committee" that January)
1910 and prior - ?

Why would Evans write that Wilson had served "many years" by January 1916 if Wilson wasn't Chairman prior?   Why would Ford write that Wilson had served "seven years" before voluntarily resigning?   Do you have any record of voluntarily resigning a second time?   

This would also be very consistent with what Max Behr wrote about Wilson in 1914 when he claimed that Wilson, like Macdonald at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia, was almost a "dictator" in terms of acting as the final decision maker on matters concerning their golf courses.   One does not accumulate such power without tenure.

You complain about people failing to follow your "logical inferences" on one of the other threads, but I wholly trust that folks can make their own correct logical inferences from the evidence presented here.   

I'm sure you'll come back with the "last word" as you always do.   Perhaps you'll even convince some readers.   That's fine.


All,

I mentioned earlier that Wilson grew up playing Belmont which had been routed by three members, including Dr. Harry Toulmin of Wilson's Committee, along a quarry and had a hole where a creek wrapped around the green on three sides.

Wilson then went to Princeton, where the teams golf course crossed a quarry a number of times.   Courtesy of Bill Crane, a member at Springdale Golf Club (formerly Princeton GC), here it is;




During Wilson's time at Princeton, he played this golf course while serving in his Junior and Senior years as a member of the Green Committee while the club/school) was building a new Willie Dunn golf course (with revisions by club pro James Swan).   

Today, the club, which is now called Springdale, plays on the same property on a course reconfigured by William Flynn in the late 1920s after Wilson's death.   Flynn later stated that he wanted the course to be a fitting tribute to his mentor, Hugh Wilson.

Thanks,
Mike

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba:
=================
All,
 
I'd like to correct two details in my last post.   First, I realized that the William Evans article is from April of 1916, not January.   Not materially relevant but thought I'd be thorough.   Also, we know that Mr. Winthrop Sargent was still Chairman of the Green Committee in 1918, as seen in this very cool article from during WWI.
 

 
That would make the years we know the Green Committee Chairman as follows.   I think the window of "seven years" of Wilson serving as Green Committee Chairman before his voluntary resignation as mentioned in that 1923 article is beginning to narrow.   More pertinently, I think the "many years" Wilson served as Green Chairman as written by Evans in 1916 is pretty apparent.
 
1924 - Wilson
1923 - ?
1922 - ?
1921 - ?
1920 - ?
1919 - ?
1918 - Sargent
1917 - Sargent
1916 - Sargent
1915 - Sargent
1914 - Wilson until voluntarily resigning in November with Sargent taking over
1913 - Wilson?
1912 - Wilson?
1911 - Sargent (Wilson was named to head the newly formed "Construction Committee" that January)
1910 to 1904 - ?
1903 and prior - Rodman Griscom
 
Also, I think we sometimes forget how long these guys were all friends and how long they knew each other.   This article from the Philadelphia Inquirer from May 1st, 1904 shows that the Merion Committee (less Francis), were companions for a long time, as well as others from the 'hood like Crump and Tillinghast.
 
To think that these guys didn't regularly discuss golf, golf holes, and golf courses is inconceivable.
 

[DMoriarty]

Mike, at this point you are just repeating yourself and have come no closer to even beginning to establish that Wilson was chair of Merion's green committee beginning 1906.   At best you've further supported what many already believed . . . Wilson seems to have been chair of Merion's green committee off and on from sometime after 1911 until his death.   If he had also been Chair beginning in 1906 or whatever the date of the latest iteration of your theory, you are no closer to establishing it.

More importantly, it doesn't matter anyway.  This latest wild goose chase of yours about the Green Committee was prompted by three false assumptions on your part, all of which are demonstrably false:
  1.  You claimed that the Green Committee must have been charged with planning the course.  The Minutes indicate otherwise, as does the entirety of the contemporaneous record and the statements of Alan Wilson, Robert Lesley, and Hugh Wilson himself.
  2. You claimed that the Green Committee and the Construction Committee were synonymous.  This is refuted by Merion's Minutes, and even you have since acknowledged that they weren't synonymous, because in 1911 Wilson was on the latter but not the former.  
  3.  You claimed that the Wilson was Chair of the Green Committee during the period when the course was being planned.  Merion's Minutes directly refute this.  He wasn't listed as on the Committee in 1911 and you've offered nothing indicating he was on the Committee in 1910. In fact you have speculated that he wasn't Chair in the fall of 1910 because of the birth of his child!    

In short, no matter who was Chair in 1906, this whole inquiry is based on fallacious, disproven assumptions on your part, and is entirely beside the point.  

_________________________________________________________________


I'm done discussing the Green Committee issue with Mike.  But before I go, I should thank him for repeatedly bringing up all that old information on Princeton and Belmont, if only because it exemplifies just how tenuous his analysis has become.  There is no evidence Wilson was involved in designing either course, and these were hardly examples of the the type of architecture found at Merion East.

If the best Mike can do to establish Wilson's qualifications is to repeatedly point toward his playing experience at turn-of-the-century Princeton and 19th century Belmont, then I am not sure why he even bothers?
________________________________________________


Rather than me having the "last word" how about we give the last word to Hugh Wilson himself?  Here is picture of the strapping young Hugh I. Wilson from during his Princeton days:



And here the Princeton team negotiates trouble featured on the Princeton course Mike mentioned above:  



And lastly, who better to tell us about Hugh Wilson than Hugh Wilson himself?  

Wilson himself never once indicated that he planned Merion East, but in 1916 he did write a bit about the origins of the course.  Until I figured out otherwise, the following passage from Wilson's 1916 Chapter on Merion had long been dismissed as merely describing a general meeting on golf courses which supposedly took place in preparation for Wilson's legendary but fictional 1910 study trip abroad. The reality is that the meeting took place near the end of the planning process, after Macdonald had already been helping Merion plan their new course for about 8 months.   While I am sure Mike will go to his grave denying it, I have no doubt they were working on the layout plan for Merion East.  In fact, according to Alan Wilson's description of the NGLA trip, Macdonald's [color=blue"advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."[/color]

I've bolded the parts dealing most directly with Hugh Wilson's qualifications at the time, but it is worth reading the whole thing to get an understanding of Wilson's upmost respect for the ideas and teachings of C.B. Macdonald. My how things have changed for some Philadelphia.

[E]arly in 1911 the Club appointed a committee consisting of Messrs. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin, and Wilson to construct a new course on the 125 acres of land which had been purchased. The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. Looking back on the work, I feel certain that we would never have attempted to carry it out, if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham. We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.
     -- Hugh I. Wilson, 1916.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Oh I hate to cross thread these things, but I am sure most will point out that he only says he learned.  He took advice and suggestions.  He say other committees should spend time on great courses. ETC.  But, yes, he does have great respect not only for CBM but the difficulty of actually building a golf course.

As we have discussed, I have no doubt that laying out the many plans they started with, looking at them, and having CBM review was a part of that busy NGLA schedule that seems to have focused on study of the holes they were about to route.  Of course, they did have CBM and his later visit as a safety net.

[DMoriarty]

So much for giving Hugh Wilson the last word . . .

[Dan Herrmann]

From Mike Cirba
==============

David,
 
Given the rigidity of the position you’ve taken on these matters I can understand why you want to shut down further discussion, new materials, and any speculation or “logical inferences” on a thread started by Ran featuring my IMO piece.   From my perspective, my intent is certainly not to argue with you again about Merion, but to celebrate what history records about the accomplishments of Hugh Wilson.
 
This topic is obviously fascinating to me, and as I mentioned in the first post on this thread, I think your original IMO piece was very useful for some of the information it contained but also by causing a bunch of folks to go back and dig deeper and find considerable related, valuable information that none of us ever knew before.   Truth be told, however, your original IMO was written without the benefit of all of that additional information that often contradicted your earlier assertions.   That's ok, that's how we all learn.
 
I know over that time I’ve moderated my original somewhat skeptical and rigid position and I think my IMO reflects that.   I now believe that the visit of Wilson ’s Committee and what they learned at NGLA was of major significance to the project, and Wilson tells as that, his brother tells us that, and the MCC Minutes of Wilson’s report reflects that.   We know specifically that it caused Wilson's Committee to scrap previous attempts at creating a layout and come up with five new plans.   That was of obvious tremendous value and really indicates to me how much they appreciated CBM’s advice and knowledge, and their statements reflected that.   His pointing them in the direction of Piper and Oakley is also self-evidently an important piece of the ultimate success of the project.
 
However, over all of this time, whenever new information surfaced that indicated a greater role for Hugh Wilson, or a timing of events different from what you postulated in your IMO theory,  it seems to me that you’ve simply rejected any and all conflicting or contradictory information out of hand, and retrenched into an inflexible, argumentative mode with any and all dissenters to your opinions and theories.  
 
I think you are on somewhat firmer ground when you argue your belief that CBM played a greater role in the original layout of Merion than he was given credit for.   Although there is no actual physical evidence that he did anything but view the Johnson Farm site and write them a follow-up letter given lukewarm approval, host Wilson’s Committee at NGLA, and then come back to Ardmore ten months after his initial visit to help them pick the best of five plans, at least that argument does not preclude the possibility of additional evidence some day being discovered.   However, as seen in my IMO piece, it was fairly routine for CBM to offer “friendly advice” whenever a course of significance was being built in the east, so Merion was certainly no exception.   That doesn’t mean he routed the golf course, devised the specific configuration of holes, much less determined their internal strategies and to date, there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he was even asked to do that for Merion.  
 
It’s theoretically possible, however, and therein lies the difficulty of arguing with your position.   Those who counter your arguments are fighting a ghost…the idea that CBM could have, should have, almost had to as you see it, done more given his reputation and considerable knowledge.   We’re left trying to prove a negative, that CBM didn’t do anything more than the evidence and historical record indicates and that’s ultimately futile and time-wasting.
 
In that regard, on other threads I see you are now hinging your position on the idea that CBM “approved” one of the five plans, as if he had the final say in the matter.   I believe this is an inaccurate interpretation, simply because CBM had absolutely no position of responsibility or authority acting for or within the club, or over Wilson ’s Committee.  Instead, I think the first definition below is clearly the accurate one;
 
ap•prove ( -pr v )
v. ap•proved, ap•prov•ing, ap•proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction:
 
 
In point of fact, the only reason the golf course was discussed at all at the April 1911 meeting was that the recommended plan required the purchase of 3 more acres than the 117 the club had originally acquired in November of 1911, and that Hugh Wilson referred to in his first letter to Oakley in February 1911.   They didn't go there asking the MCC Board of Governors to approve the plan they wanted; they were there asking them to approve the additional purchase of three acres!    It is very possible that the entire reason for bringing CBM back to Merion in April was simply to get the blessing of his learned opinion that they could then use to help convince the Board of the necessity and wisdom of spending the additional funds.
 
There is no question that Wilson, his Committee, and Merion sought CBM’s advice and valued it, and the record reflects that, and that alone.
 
Conversely, I think where your argument falls flat as more and more evidence has surfaced is the idea that Wilson and his Committee were inexperienced dunderheads unable to find a suitable, usable routing (with some guidance from CBM) and instead needed CBM to do it all for them.   Indeed, the very first hole as originally routed aimed right at Golf House Road made architectural mistake 101 as it effectively cut ingress and egress to the northern part of the property except for the tiny sliver of land behind the clubhouse where the original 13th hole was located, causing an ungainly crossover through the clubhouse to get to the 14th tee.   The next hole crossed Ardmore Avenue down the length of it.   Three other holes in a row crossed it later later.   Some holes were jarringly unnatural like the original 10th with the monstrosity built behind it.   A number of greens were unfit for the demands of the approach.   It was a work in progress, and I think my IMO reflects that, as well.
 
Despite the reams of additional information that Joe Bausch and others uncovered regarding everyone…everyone in the Philadelphia area (including multiple accounts by Tillinghast who had both seen the plans and talked to Macdonald about them) crediting Wilson with the layout, you continue to neglect or ignore or reject all of that information and instead come back again and again to Wilson’s statement where he said; ”The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member.”
 
I have to say that I find it inconsistent and telling that you want to use the word “construction” to limit the scope of Wilson ’s Committee yet want us to believe here that Wilson meant it to include architecture.   Why is that?
 
On the other hand, I am sure that both included architecture, as I mentioned earlier with various examples.  
 
By all accounts, Hugh Wilson was a VERY humble, and even self-effacing man, and it has always struck me how he avoided the limelight, despite being probably the most knowledgeable man in these matters in the Philadelphia region for fifteen years.   Even in those news accounts where the reporters have spoken directly to Wilson , there are no direct quotes, which I’m sure was intentional.   He did not want to be the focus…he wanted his work to be.
 
More relevant to this discussion and the reason I think you’d like to wrap up here, is that it appears extremely likely that Hugh Wilson was the Chairman of the Merion Green Committee in the years in question, a position which would have put him squarely in the middle of the activities of 1910, and prior.  
 
You would like us instead to all believe that Hugh Wilson just somehow fell from the sky in 1911, without any prior experience to be named the Chairman of a Committee charged with laying out and supervising construction of a new golf course, over men like Rodman Griscom and Dr. Toulmin, and HG Lloyd who had served on the Green Committee since virtually golf began at the club over a decade prior.  
 
William Evans wrote in 1916 that Wilson had been Chairman of the Green Committee for “many years”, yet at that point had not been in that role since he voluntarily resigned in November 1914.   JE Ford wrote in 1923 that Wilson had served as Chairman of the Green Committee for “seven years” before his voluntary resignation.
 
I’m not sure why you’d like to shut down additional research and speculation about Wilson ’s experience and role prior to 1911 and just keep accepting repeating the same mantra about the “average club member”.   Aren’t you intellectually curious to learn more?
 
You mistake Wilson ’s gracious, appreciative, and modest statements with reality, because his own statement is demonstrably both false and hyperbolic.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 grow up playing three holes of their own on the family estate by 1895?   Rodman Griscom did.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 serve as the Green Committee Chairman through the club’s formative years, play in national amateur tournaments, co-found the Golf Association of Philadelphia?   Rodman Griscom did.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 take lessons with his sister, herself a US Women’s Amateur champion under Benny Sayers at North Berwick , home of the redan?   Rodman Griscom did.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 help design the second nine holes for his club on his father’s land?   Rodman Griscom did, likely with help from HG Lloyd and others of the Green Committee in 1900.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 help design one of Philadelphia ’s very first courses for Belmont CC, which later became Aronimink?   Dr. Harry Toulmin did.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 get appointed to the Green Committee of his school’s club in his junior and senior years while the club was trying to build a new golf course that had been designed by Willie Dunn?   Hugh Wilson did.
 
Did the “average club member” of 1911 play in team and individual matches through much of the early 1900s on the best golf courses in the East against CB Macdonald, Devereux Emmett, Walter Travis, H. Chandler Egan, AW Tillinghast, George Crump and other luminaries?   Hugh Wilson and Rodman Griscom did.    
 
The men of Wilson ’s Committee were all bright, competent, accomplished, and quick studies from a variety of fields.   They had also seen amateur friends and associates of theirs accomplish the creation of great golf courses in other cities, such as NGLA and Myopia.   They wanted one of their own and the record shows they went after it and succeeded, but not after much trial and error and persistent, dedicated effort.
 
Perhaps this is a good place to leave things, as your latest post attempting to belittle Wilson's background simply shows the obvious...that much of the earliest architecture in this country was not very good.   The original course at Princeton picture is indicative, and I have little doubt that the Willie Dunn course that followed was probably only a slight improvement.  
 
Much of the original Merion East course when it opened had warts, as well.   The picture of the “experimental mounds” around the 9th green is evidence of that, as was the humungous mound built behind the 10th that rises as naturally blended into it’s surrounds as a pyramid.   Thankfully, Wilson with Flynn continued to refine and improve the course over a decade into something great.
 
On a personal level, I no longer take offense at your tone because in many ways, I do understand your frustration.   You seem to firmly believe in your theories, against all evidence to the contrary, but it seems that your opinion hasn't gained much traction, here or elsewhere.   You sometimes blame that on some self-perceived Philadelphia mafia protecting a false legend, but that’s really not the case.   It’s your own arguments that are ultimately lacking proof, or even weight of evidence, even with your obvious skill at debate and argument.
 
Most recently, both Jeff Silverman and Gil Hanse penned related pieces in conjunction with the centennial of the East course and the US Open at Merion.   I doubt you’ll find two more open-minded, sincere individuals committed to preserving and presenting the history of the game.   Both confirm the original story of Merion, only now with the emphasis of the additional findings that have been uncovered since you wrote your IMO piece.  They are both worth a read, if you have an open mind.
 
Thanks,
Mike
 
 

[DMoriarty]

I am not interested.  There is nothing new in your latest post.  I zoned out after a few paragraphs and only skimmed the rest, but it seems to be a regurgitation of all the same old stuff.  Let me know if you ever figure out who was green chair in 1906.  

Good luck with that.