Wilson and the Committee visit MacDonald and NGLA . . .

« **on:** December 25, 2006, 02:37:07 AM »

//////

« **Reply #1 on:** December 25, 2006, 07:59:29 AM »

Interesting hypothesis, and I would not discount it at this point.

We have never known when Wilson (and his committee or members of it) went to Southampton for that two day session which has been known about for so long. As far as we know I don't think anyone knows when that took place.

We don't even know when Wilson sailed for Europe in 1910, we don't know how long he stayed over there or even where he went other than just Scotland and England (which he mentions himself).

For all we know the previous history writers may have just ASSUMED that Wilson and his committee visited Southampton before Wilson sailed for Europe.

Alan Wilson's report is particularly unclear on this point. Unfortunately, it's Christmas morning and I think Hugh Wilson's report found it's way into the attic yesterday and I'm not going up there to get it right now.

We do not know why there is so little information by H. Wilson or anyone else about his trip abroad and the details of it. We do not know why there would be so much material on the specifics of the agronomy of Merion and so little on the specifics of its architecture.

This has been a mystery to us for years and we've searched everywhere for evidence. What about Wilson's famous 'reams of sketches and drawing' he brought back from GB to build Merion East? They have never been found. What happened to Macdonald's of NGLA, for that matter.

It's too bad we don't have more on that early time but we just don't. We have always had a sinking feeling that the explanation for all this missing material is in that cryptic remark in the history book that much of the archival material was destroyed when the room it was in flooded.

Things back then were obviously not recorded as we would hope they would've been. Is it any wonder why really? Do you think anyone really understood at that point that this golf course would become so famous, and that every detail or what everyone involved with it did should be recorded? Of course not and that is obviously why both Hugh and Alan Wilson were asked to write their reports about the creation of the course after the fact.

Just to show how inexact stories could be at varous points, there was a rumor floating around at one point that Hugh Wilson was extremely lucky in that he shifted his reservations home at the last minute. The story was he shifted his reservations OFF the TITANIC and onto another ship.

Only problem with that story is Wilson came home in 1910 and Merion East was built when the TITANIC went down in 1912.

« **Reply #2 on:** December 25, 2006, 08:17:37 AM »

But even if this hypothesis is interesting, and even if we cannot find some clear evidence that Wilson and his committee went to Southampton to visit Macdonald only once and before Wilson went to GB, I think this hypothesis will inevitably lead to more and more ridiculous speculation about M&W and their involvement in Merion East.

After-all we do have those two reports by the Wilsons and they are THEIR own reports AFTER the fact of the creation of Merion East and they are pretty clear who it was that layed out and built Merion East and who the architect was. Again if M&W had some signficant involvement in the layout or the design of the course why wasn't that mentioned by Alan Wilson in his report that was asked for by Merion's first history writer? How about that question, David Moriarty? How do you explain that other than to just say you don't know? Are you going to get into implying that there may be some conspiracy around here to minimize the contributions of outside architects the way Tom MacWood did before he left this website? Alan Wilson mentioned the numerous suggestions of the committee but in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible as the architect of the course. How much more do we need to know?

If we find something somewhere that says in detail that Macdonald came down here and routed the course in a day or two or recommended the old 10th green or the "redan" 3rd or the Valley of Sin swale in #17 or the "Eden" green on #15, and drew those out and watched them get built, don't worry, David Moriarty, we will be happy to tell you about it first.

« **Reply #3 on:** December 25, 2006, 08:54:06 AM »

David,

Wilson may have had the old fashioned habit of substituting the nominitive plural for the singular, so it is possible he meant only himself when he kept referring to "we." You could check it against other examples.

Gary

« **Reply #4 on:** December 25, 2006, 10:05:51 AM »

Gary;

I don't think there's much question that when Hugh Wilson used the words "we" or "our" in his report he was referring to himself and what was called by Merion "The Special Construction Committee" made up of the men mentioned on the Merion thread many times. If you saw it in the context of his report I don't think you'd have much doubt.

There was another committee formed in 1910 to choose the site in Villanova though. It was made up of S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd and Robert Lesley, chairman. The only man on both committees was H.G. Lloyd.

As far as whether or not Hugh Wilson and his committee went to see M&W at the National once or twice or if it was once whether it was before or after Wilson went to GB (which is essentially the point of David Moriarty's hypothesis on this thread) or even when it was in 1910 has always been sort of unclear and perhaps for many many decades.

The Merion history books have always said it was before he went to GB but perhaps they have all been wrong as perhaps some misassumption was made at some point along the way. Something like that is certainly not unusual in club history book writing as is evidenced by the significance of the innocent mistake made with the date on a topo map in the most recent PVGC history book.

I've just looked over both reports with this question in mind and at first it seemed pretty confusing. Alan Wilson says both committees were formed in 1910 but he says nothing about whether H. Wilson and his committee went to National before or after Wilson's trip abroad.

On the other hand, Hugh Wilson in his report says the committee charged with creating the course was formed in 1911. From other available and eminently provable facts I think anyone will see that H.Wilson was just off by a year in his report about the formation of the committee charged with creating the course which he chaired. He obviously meant the committee was formed in 1910, as his brother, Alan, wrote later. This is not the first time Hugh Wilson made a mistake by a year on a date---eg was a year off. His date in this same report on the construction of the West course was a year too early, as facts prove.

However, despite probable mistakes in dates in his report, I think this remark in H. Wilson's report proves he went to GB AFTER meeting with M&W at National with his committee (or members of his committee). Wilson, in his report is talking about he and his committee ("we") meeting with M&W at the National and what they learned from him.

I'm paraphrasing Wilson's entire paragraph that contains his explanation of what they learned at the National;

"....We spent two days with Mr Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on Golf Course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."

And, so, I think we can see that since Wilson said 'later' in that quote above that it proves he went to GB AFTER meeting with M&W at the National with members of his committee.

And obviously that had to be in 1910, not 1911 because Wilson would not have had the time to go to Europe and get back to start the course in the Spring of 1911.

It also seems pretty illogical that Wilson would have described himself as the novice he was on architecture when he and his committee went to see M&W at the National if it was afterwards and he had already spent a number of months in GB studying golf courses and their architecture in preperation to build Merion East. Plus Wilson may not have known very well where to go over there without first meeting with Macdonald before his trip.

Plus we have his agronomy letters to Piper and Oakley that begin Feb 1, 1911 and are continuous and continuously sent by him from Philadelphia. At that point Wilson was back from GB and ready to rock and roll.

« **Reply #5 on:** December 25, 2006, 10:08:56 PM »

Hey Tom - Delete your post and let this subject die ! Unless there is something new let things stand as they were presented.

« **Reply #6 on:** December 25, 2006, 10:19:35 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 25, 2006, 02:37:07 AM

"Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct[size=4x] principles [/size] 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 tha[n] we had learned in all the years we had played. Through sketches and explanations of the right [size=4x]principles [/size]of the holes that [size=4x] formed courses abroad [/size] and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we could use. 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 National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the[size=4x] correct principles [/size] and [size=4x] adapt them to their own course."[/size]

Wilson praised M&W while writing about laying out and constructing Merion.

It's clear that he praised them for introducing them to some of the general PRINCIPLES with respect to laying out a golf course, but not anything specific to Merion.

1.   Who was with Wilson with at NGLA?

Committee Members and/or interested parties from Merion

He writes throughout in the plural: ”. . . our ideals . . . we did get a good start . . . we spent two days . . . we learned what was right and what we could use.” So he was with someone, and that someone was also involved in laying out the course, so it was probably a member or members of the committee. Still I thought it odd though because he doesn’t mention any particular person (at least in the quoted text,) nor have I ever read or heard who was with Wilson.

2.   Why doesn’t he mention his trip overseas?
The conventional wisdom is that MacDonald helped him with his itinerary, and taught him basic principles of design, and then Wilson went overseas and that is where he learned enough to design and build Merion East. I have always wondere why he doesnt discuss the trip,[size=4x] IF [/size] his meeting with CBM was supposed to be all about the trip.

But, it wasn't and Wilson himself in the quotes above tells you that it wasn't about his pending trip abroad.

I think maybe I have found my answer, and now wonder about the accuracy of our assumptions underlying the abovementioned quotes.

If I recall correctly, the Alan Wilson report lists the following events, paraphrased because TEPaul has deleted his posts:
1. M&W visited the site to go over the grounds;
2. M&W visited the site to consider and comment the committee’s plan;
3. M&W had the committee as guests at NGLA; and

4. M&W’s advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.[size=4x]

That' untrue.
You've distorted and misrepresented the facts and your conclusion is flawed.
General Principles were provided by M&W, not anything specific to Merion. [/color][/size]

We have been focusing on the fourth, but perhaps ought to take a look at the third. Here is my hypothesis:

The Hugh Wilson statements above did not refer to his pre-overseas visit to Southampton, but instead referred to a later trip taken with the committee, in conjunction with the the lay out and construction of Merion East.

If my hypothesis is correct, then in the quotes above, Hugh Wilson was describing MacDonald advice to the committee specifically regarding the lay out and construction of Merion East. [size=4x]

That's a flawed conclusion and is contrary to the quotes you've provided above. Nothing was specific to Merion.
It was the "General Principles" that CBM advised on[/color][/size]

The hypothesis fits well in the context of the two quotes above:
1.   Both statements were made while Merion was writing about the layout and/or construction of Merion.
2.   Wilson wrote in the plural because he is writing about the committee.
3.   The second half of the quote in Bahto’s book no longer seems as out of place. If Wilson was specifically referring to MacDonald’s advice and influence on the lay out and construction of Merion, then it makes perfect sense that he would say:

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 National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own course.

Also, it explains the reference in the A.Wilson article to the visit to NGLA, listed as part of his description of CBM's involvement in NGLA.[size=4x]

But, that's contrary to George Bahto's quotes were Wilson specifically references "General Principles" and not anything specific to Merion.[/color][/size]

So that is the hypothesis.[size=4x]

And, I'm dismissing it based on the contradictory evidence you presented.

But, I admire your tenacity and your attempt at an end run. [/color][/size]

« **Reply #7 on:** December 25, 2006, 10:37:47 PM »

"Hey Tom - Delete your post and let this subject die! Unless there is something new let things stand as they were presented."

Willie:

As you know I have great respect from a long term Merion guy like you who loves the place and knows it as well as anyone. Do you mean delete all two or three of those long posts of mine above? If you want me to I sure will. I think most of us are really starting to wonder what in the world David Moriarty thinks he's accomplishing on these Merion threads. You say the word and I'll delete them and just let things stand as they've been presented on the other thread.

However, I think David Moriarty posed a pretty interesting hypothesis----eg did Wilson go to GB before first meeting with Macdonald at the National in 1910 or afterwards?

I believe I proved in Wilson's on words above that Wilson met with Macdonald first and then went to GB as has always been reported in the Merion histories.

« **Reply #8 on:** December 25, 2006, 11:39:53 PM »

OK, I just don't want another Bethpage, or Shinnecock.

« **Reply #9 on:** December 26, 2006, 08:00:33 AM »

"That being said, we still have the question of just when this trip took place. I have been trying to put together a timeline, and it is raising some questions. Is there any solid proof that Wilson went overseas in 1910?"

David:

You're very welcome for that information. You're trying to put together a timeline, are you? A timeline of what and for what?

Neither Wayne nor I know when exactly went Wilson to GB, how long he went for or precisely which courses he visited. No one from Merion knows. The Merion club history book writers apparently never knew or reported when it was. Six to seven months has sometimes been reported but we're not sure about that. Wayne suspected it may've been several months. I'd assume he probably went over somewhere around the middle of the year AFTER having gone to the National with his committee perhaps in the spring or early summer of 1910 and probably came back from GB in the fall. What do you plan on doing with this timeline?

Is there any solid proof Wilson went to GB in 1910?

What kind of proof are you looking for? Would it be things like oceanliner tickets both ways that have Hugh Irving Wilson, Philadelphia, Pa. representing Merion Cricket Club on them or perhaps hotel receipts or green fee slips and such?

What we have is Hugh Wilson's own report from the mid-teens mentioning he went to England and Scotland after visiting the National with his committee and before Merion East was built. I'm sure he'd look pretty silly to a whole lot of people if he wrote and published that report and just made up the fact he went to Scotland and England to study architecture.

But here's a potential Hugh Wilson "sighting" in GB you may want to chew on and mull over for your timeline, even though it may only indicate a meeting in the states.

We have a letter from Harry Colt to Hugh Wilson in the early 1920s in which he asks if he would kindly send him the first two issues of the new agronomy bulletin that would shortly become the USGA Green Section Bulletin.

In that letter Colt mentioned that Wilson hadn't heard from him in many years. At the end of Colt's letter to Wilson he states;

"Am I ever to have the pleasure of seeing you here? We now live in this old Berkshire village. I am sure you would appreciate its beauties and we should be very glad to show them to you. My wife wishes to be very kindly remembered to Mrs Wilson and yourself."

Now where do you suppose Mrs Colt and Mrs Wilson would've run into each other? Did Mrs Colt travel to America with Harry in 1912, 1913 or even 1914 and meet Wilson and his wife in Philadelphia or even at Pine Valley in a tent with Crump in 1913, or did perhaps Hugh Wilson take Mrs Wilson with him to GB in 1910 and perhaps Harry, Hugh and Mrs Colt and Mrs Wilson had dinner together or something when perhaps Hugh visited the heathlands and Sunningdale during his architectural study trip in 1910?

Furthermore, I can't imagine why Colt would've mentioned to Wilson that he'd moved to that old Berkshire village if Wilson and his wife hadn't seen him and Mrs Colt in 1910 in wherever he and Mrs Colt lived before that. And, of course, why would Colt mention to Wilson that he'd moved to that quaint Berkshire village if Wilson had never been to GB and had no idea where he lived anyway? That wouldn't make much sense, would it?

This is looking pretty juicy, don't you think?

Perhaps Merion should re-write its history giving specific and significant credit to Harry Colt for his advice to Wilson in the heathlands in 1910 as Wilson was apparently sketching and drawing architecture in GB in preparation to return to Ardmore to design and build Merion East. Perhaps we might want to look at the possibility of factoring Mrs Colt into some kind of architectural involvement with Merion East too.

Don't laugh, David----in a general sense the look of the features at Merion East, particularly the bunkers, looked to me a whole lot more like what Wilson would've seen in the English Heathlands than what he'd have seen in the Scottish linksland. And the overall look of the architecture of Merion East looks to me a whole lot more like heathland architecture than Macdonald's "National" school style of architecture.

I have always suspected that one of the greatest interests to a man like Hugh Wilson traveling to GB in 1910 would be that INLAND architecture that was considered so revolutionary and superior at that early time as it was basically considered to be the best examples of the first good INLAND architecture in the world. This probably wouldn't have been lost on Wilson as it is pretty clear to tell that he understood the site he was going to build the new Merion Cricket Club course on was very much an INLAND American site.

« **Reply #10 on:** December 26, 2006, 08:59:43 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 26, 2006, 08:00:33 AM

Is there any solid proof Wilson went to GB in 1910?

Wilson studies the Old Course

Wilson does London

« **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2006, 11:52:19 AM »

Quote from: Eric Franzen on December 26, 2006, 08:59:43 AM

Quote from: TEPaul on December 26, 2006, 08:00:33 AM

Is there any solid proof Wilson went to GB in 1910?

Wilson studies the Old Course

Wilson does London

Eric,

That's too funny and probably as plausible as David's newest theory advanced here.

David claims that his hypothesizing isn't to credit M&W to the detriment of Wilson as the person responsible for the Merion "layout", bur I think it should be pretty transparent to everyone by now that this is exactly where this speculation is trying to lead us.

First, David claimed he just wanted Macdonald to get his due as having "advised" the Committee.

Once it was established that we all had acknowledged that over and over and that it was a clear part of the historical record and nothing at all new, then that seems not be be enough for David.

So, as Bill Dow suggests, I'm not going to play the game this time. I love research as much as the next person and more than most, but not when all of the evidence that points out Wilson as the man who laid out both courses at Merion are summarily dismissed for the idea that M&W were there for a day or two at some point, and not when the course at Merion, either today or yesterday, bears the slightest resemblance to anything Macdonald or Raynor ever built.

So anyone wishing to play along at home should go look at NGLA, Yeaman's Hall, Camargo, Charleston, Mid Ocean, etc....all very fine courses, and then come back and plausibly try to suggest to yourself that Madonald also did Merion.

What a joke.

« **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2006, 01:45:22 PM »

Could you please quantify what "of the greatest help and value"[/i] means?

« **Reply #13 on:** December 26, 2006, 01:58:47 PM »

Quote from: JES II on December 26, 2006, 01:45:22 PM

Could you please quantify what "of the greatest help and value"[/i] means?

Jim-

Might this be along the lines of 'generosity of spirit'?

« **Reply #14 on:** December 26, 2006, 02:15:22 PM »

That's what I'm afraid of, and I really hope not.

I told Wayne and Tom that I was pretty sure that other thread was started and carried out solely in an effort to make them look bad (ie: trap them in some sort of mistake or contradiction). I am really not sure this one could have any purpose whatsoever...especially once he again fails to answer the question.

« **Reply #15 on:** December 26, 2006, 02:17:56 PM »

Gee, this is a great episodic saga of "Cold Case Files-Philly". Now David, since this isn't a criminal case, but rather a civil matter of attribution for a work of art or architecture, then I assume your search for facts is based on a preponderance of evidence, rather than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. So you got that going for you...

All this sifting and winnowing... pretty soon we'll have a suitable mix to make a fruit cake.

« **Reply #16 on:** December 26, 2006, 02:34:44 PM »

David,

If you are truly interested in getting "opinions" on this as you are considering writing an article or longer for publication, then you must be far more open with your thesis and documents in support of it.

For example, what is your actual source for "“Hugh I. Wilson” sailed from Cherbourg, on May 9, 1912, destination New York, on the S.S. Philadelphia. Hugh I. Wilson was aged 32 and a United States citizen. The S.S. Philadelphia was scheduled to depart on May 1, but was apparently undergoing repairs in South Hampton during April 1912. Perhaps coincidentally or perhaps not, Cherbourg was the first stop of RMS Titanic after it left Southampton, England on its one and only commercial voyage. At least one American crew member of the S.S. Philadelphia boarded the Titanic to make a quick trip back to the United States while the S.S. Philadelphia was being repaired..."

If you want to take a scholarly approach, and I really do applaud your efforts in doing so in the face of the opposition already present, then you need to do it in a scholarly manner.

Don't make a statement as if it is fact... you must PROVE it such, and in this case by citing your sources. No one will accept or be willing to believe your ascertion unless you do so.

An example in true life. I dated a girl in high school, in fact she attended a prom with me. My closest friend throughout my early years until after college age is her cousin. She married a man named Philip Young. He isn't me.

Many people have the same names and you will be needing a great deal more than a name on a passenger manifest to prove this.

I do think it is worth looking into...

« **Reply #17 on:** December 26, 2006, 02:46:18 PM »

David,

If this was your intent all along, the why did you have to first take us on the Tragical History Tour that you did over the past month?

I agree with Philip. If you've uncovered something new, informative,and groundbreaking, then please share it, as we've been asking for since the beginning.

I'm not looking to prop up any myths or protect any sacred cows. Let's hear what you have...please...finally. $:-\$

« **Reply #18 on:** December 26, 2006, 02:56:24 PM »

only 914 more posts needed to beat the record!

« **Reply #19 on:** December 26, 2006, 03:06:55 PM »

David,

If in fact the same Hugh Wilson traveled back from GB in May of 1912, why does that mean he could not have gone to GB in 1910 as well? I thought the current timeline has the course being seeded in Autumn 1911 and opened for play in September 1912.

Does it say anywhere that Wilson only traveled overseas once?

What is the quality of the evidence that dates the course opening in September of 1912?

For starters, those two questions would seem to be important.

« **Reply #20 on:** December 26, 2006, 03:59:08 PM »

David Moriarty,

Are you sure that this vessel didn't sail from the FRENCH port of Cherbourg ? My eyes have difficulty with fine print, but,
if you look carefully at the name on the line "sailing from, it look likes the name ends in a "g" not an "e"

It appears that the S.S. Philadelphia wasn't sailing from the U.K. on May 1, 1912, but, I'll defer to those with better eye sight.

If he was sailing from the UK, wouldn't the manifest have listed his point of departure as Southampton, or whatever port was the departure point in the UK ?

« **Reply #21 on:** December 26, 2006, 04:17:21 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 26, 2006, 03:59:08 PM

David Moriarty,

Are you sure that this vessel didn't sail from the FRENCH port of Cherbourg ? My eyes have difficulty with fine print, but,
if you look carefully at the name on the line "sailing from, it look likes the name ends in a "g" not an "e"

It appears that the S.S. Philadelphia wasn't sailing from the U.K. on May 1, 1912, but, I'll defer to those with better eye sight.

If he was sailing from the UK, wouldn't the manifest have listed his point of departure as Southampton, or whatever port was the departure point in the UK ?

I searched for the passenger list on Ancestry.com. The search result was displayed like this:

Name:    Hugh I Wilson
Birth:    abt 1880
Origin:    United States of America
Departure:    Cherbourg
Arrival:    9 May 1912 - New York, New York

It looks like the ship departed from France. Not the UK.

« **Reply #22 on:** December 26, 2006, 04:22:13 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 26, 2006, 03:24:15 PM

Plus he states that when they started laying out Merion he and the committee knew next to nothing about what he was doing. This would not have been the case had he already gone to Europe.

By this logic I should be qualified to paint an equivalent to the Mona Lisa by simply visiting it and studying it for a bit...or possibly build the Golden Gate bridge after a drive or two over it...

How does Wilson's visiting and studying the coureses of teh British Isles disqualify him from finding tremendous challenge in creating a brand new course?

[edit it]
Or put another way...why would 6, 7 or 8 months studying what was on the ground on the courses of the British Isles make the prospect of building your own course from scratch an easy proposition?

In fact, if CBM had any substantial role in the process, beyond the acknowledged and documented advisory role, why would Wilson express the degree of difficulty faced in the terms you continue to quote...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.
-- Hugh Wilson (my bolds)

« **Reply #23 on:** December 26, 2006, 05:06:22 PM »

If they viewed CBM as "part of the team" or "on the committee" they surely would include his expertise and experience in their cumulative of same, no? Would his expertise fall under the qualifier of "only that of the average club member"[/i]?

« **Reply #24 on:** December 26, 2006, 05:35:53 PM »

Cf. http://www.steamships.org/passlists/americanline.htm -- which reveals that, at least as of September 1908, the S.S. Philadelphia's route was "Southampton to New York via Cherbourg."

News:

DMoriarty

TEPaul

TEPaul

Gary Daughters

TEPaul

Willie_Dow

Patrick_Mucci

TEPaul

Willie_Dow

TEPaul

Eric Franzen

Mike_Cirba

JESII

Doug Braunsdorf

JESII

RJ_Daley

Phil_the_Author

Mike_Cirba

PThomas

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

Eric Franzen

JESII

JESII

Dan Kelly