"Does an observation of PN feature translate into an unsupportable guess?"
If you aren't paranoid why would do you continue to misrepresent and exagerate my views?"

Tom MacWood:

Aren't you forgetting a pretty elemental fact? Do you realize that Hugh Wilson spent over six months in Europe studying and sketching architecture? If you understand what that logically means are you trying to say that anyone in this country who might have used those architectural concepts from European golf were advised by and collaborated with Macdonald and Whigam? I didn't actually know that Macdonald and Whigam patented those concepts but maybe you read in some esoteric early magazine article that they did.

Did you know the large dip in the front of #17 Merion East is supposedly Wilson's version of the "Valley of Sin" feature? Are we then to assume from you that Old Tom Morris advised and collaborated with Wilson/Flynn/Pickering and commitee at Merion East?

Wayne and I aren't misrepresenting anything but at this point it may be safe to say that we think it's you that's doing some pretty comical exaggerating!  

Does a PN feature on #4 translate into an unsupportable guess? Frankly, I'd say yes, unless golf architecture analysts can accurately say a large carry bunker or a scheme of a set of carry bunkers that spans a wide fairway is a PN bunker. Go look at the bunker about 330 yards out on the Bottle hole at NGLA---that's a copy of the PN bunker---and it looks nothing like the carry bunker on the second shot at Merion East's #4, way back when or today!  

Is it possible for you to learn anything on here or are you just going to continue to mindlessly defend every wacko assumption and guess you come up with---eg PN bunker on #4, Tillinghast sold out his architectural principles, Crump sat around PVGC for five solid years watching his crews construct everything to Colt's designs and watching the grass grow.  

Believe me, if we, or you, or anyone else uncovers anything, anything at all that really does indicate that Macdonald and Whigam advised Merion and those desigining and building the course how they should route it, design some or any hole or even any feature, we'll do everything we can to make that fact widely known. I can't imagine why you keep saying we're trying to defend local legends. You have no idea how much respect I have for C.B. Macdonald, and even Whigam seeing as all I've read that Macdonald himself said about Whigam. If we can prove that Macdonald or Whigam or Raynor had something specific to do with Merion East I can't imagine anything more interesting than that.

How do you know that the stories and reports of Macdonald/Whigam visiting and advising Merion wasn't to do with agronomy? God knows, seeing as the practically 2000 letters we have on agronomy from those early days that certainly was a massive concern of Wilson's, Flynn's, Macdonald before them and Crump just after them.

But you never really think of things like that do you?

Tom, look, if you have anything specific to add about Macdonald/Whigam or anyone else why don't you just do it? Otherwise this line of guessing, questioning and implications about us or Merion on here is a real waste of time!

 While my eyes may fool me in my reading of this routing, I have some questions.

  #3(old#7?)-Was the old angle of the tee more appropriate for the green ? It is changed?

  #9-Was the old angle better for this green angle also? It is changed?

   #10-Was the old hole stronger than the exisiting one?

  #13-Was the old hole more fun with a creek(?) by the green?

      #15-Would you prefer the old tee angle?

Tom P and Wayne M

As an ignorant but interested outsider, methinks you doth protest too much.  Tom MacW asks some very pertinent and informed questions, and you both seem to dismiss them not on their merits, but on their source.  From the (superb) initial post it seems obvious that Merion is and has been a work in proress.  It is obvious from comparing the 1916 routing to what exists today that Flynn (or whoever) made some very significant changes to Wilson's Merion, but the two of you seem unwilling to step up to the plate and acknowlege that.  Tom MacW seems to state (properly, I think) that Merion, (like many courses of similar quality) represents an organic design, responsible of many hands.  You seem to have a problem with this.  Why?

Constructively

Rich

"It is obvious from comparing the 1916 routing to what exists today that Flynn (or whoever) made some very significant changes to Wilson's Merion, but the two of you seem unwilling to step up to the plate and acknowlege that.  Tom MacW seems to state (properly, I think) that Merion, (like many courses of similar quality) represents an organic design, responsible of many hands.  You seem to have a problem with this.  Why?"

Rich:

I don't understand why you say that. Are you aware what we're talking about here? If you aren't it sure doesn't surprise me!

We're talking about the initial phase of the architetural construction of Merion East. That would basically be that period when the course first went into construction in the Spring of 1911 until it opened for play in Sept 1912. That diagram you see above (appparently drawn by Flynn) is that golf course---eg the way Merion East was back then. That drawing is the course during the Open of 1916. After that we know full well what went on at Merion East to get it's architecture and the course to the way it was in the early 1930s. That was Wilson and Flynn because we have all of Flynn's drawings which show all the minute detail of that next phase of the course's architectural evolution.

But the phase from the Spring of 1911 until the course opened in sept of 1912 and the way it appeared on that drawing above (1916) is what there's very little left to go on! That's the phase very little is left to draw from. There're no Flynn drawings from that early time, no construction plans of any kind, nothing left of the sketches Hugh Wilson brought back from Europe.

All that remains is about is a ten page account written by Hugh Wilson with some addenda by Alan Wilson of the evolution of the course that Piper and Oakley asked him to write in 1915-16. About one paragraph even refers to the actual construction of the architecture from 1911 to 1912. The rest discusses agronomy, green construction, weeds, rolling, greenkeeping, grubs and worms and everything else it took to run and maintain a course in those days. That report of Wilson's was effusive in praise of Macdonald and Whigam for that weekend at NGLA before they began but it mentions nothing more about them. Wilson wrote that report in Feb 1916.

So what do we know about that early first phase of construction? What does anyone know about it at this point?

We know that Hugh WIlson was charged by the club to go to Europe and to study and draw architecture. We know Wilson was part of the Merion committee that was charged with the building of the course. We know that entire committee went to NGLA and spent and entire weekend with Macdonald getting what they all described as a crash course in golf architecture. The Merion record is replete with that committee's appreciation for what Macdonald did for them during that weekend at NGLA--particularly Wilson is appreciative---I'm reading right now here in front of me what Wilson himself wrote about that time with Macdonald in 1910 before he traveled to Europe for six months to study and draw! I'm reading the first of Wilson's letters to Charles Piper of the US Dept. of Agriculture in Feb of 1911 when he first wrote Piper and Oakley (the beginning of 14 years of correspondence in over 2000 letters). Right in that first letter Wilson says;

“Mr Macdonald spoke of you and said you could help us out if anyone could”----this was about three months before Merion East went into construction.

He then went to Europe and studied and played and drew. What were some of the courses and holes Macdonald probably told him to study? Well, probably those same famous holes and courses that were the raw material of the template holes of NGLA and others. Where did Macdonald come up with those template holes? He came up with them from a solicitation just after the turn of the century and a poll of the best and most knowledgeable players and architectural people in Europe at that time of what the best and most respected holes in Europe were.

Did Wilson see those holes in Europe? Obviously he did. Did he or anyone else build them or close approximations of them at Merion East? We can see he didn't or no one did. Only a few little conceptual ideas were used that really aren't recognizable. Merion East is a conglomeration of architectural principles not necessarily architectural copies or even "concept copies';

"Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the famous 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 (NGLA) and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland, confirmed Mr Macdonald's teachings. May I offer the suggestion to any commitee building a new golf course or altering their old one, to spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine valley, where they may see the finest holes and while they cannot hope to reproduce them entirely, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their courses."
Hugh Wilson, February, 1916

We know who that committee was that created the Merion East course (Messers. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson). We know the foreman of Merion East’s construction was a man named Pickering and might’ve been Flynn’s brother in law. Toomey might have been the engineer picked up by the railroad magnates who apparently funded the project. We know Flynn was the greenkeeper and perhaps much more at that time but there is not record, except brief mention in letter and such.

This is the initial phase we’re talking about and concerned with. We have absolutely no bias for or against anyone being responsible for the architecture of Merion East---zero. We just want to find out how it happened and who was responsible for it. Isn’t it odd that with-all we do have we have no real mention from any of these men about the architectural input of anyone other than obviously those who just quietly went about constructing that course in perhaps six months!! One would certainly think that after what the committee said about Macdonald’s tremendous help to them before Wilson went to Europe if he or Whigam had come down there and really done something significant for them during construction with advice or whatever, they certainly would’ve said so.

That leads one to conclude that in that first phase they just did it themselves! But in the next phase of the architectural evolution of Merion, primarily beginning in the early 1920s and lasting until about 1934 we basically have everything we need to know in detail.

It is true that before we got involved with Merion with this Flynn material we have that Merion was not that aware of just what or how much Flynn did for that course. Now they are and they are more than happy to both know it and admit it.

As for Macdonald and Whigam or anyone else we have no hesitation at all to include anyone in this Merion evolution if we can just prove it they way we can with what we have from Flynn later.

This constant talk from Tom MacWood that we’re protecting some Philadelphia local legends or we or Merion is paranoid about something is just plain silly on his part. I’ve said many, many times on here that I have great respect for Tom MacWood’s ability to come up with raw research material but not much respect for how he analyzes it. I really do mean that and this is just another example.

I’m more than happy to be able to help add Macdonald to Merion’s architectural evolution when the courses was first being built but to do that we need more than just a newspaper article saying he ‘visited and advised”. Advised on what? Architecture, agronomy, what? And I do know what a PN looks like. MacWood sees some three bunker carry set on #4 and proclaims that to be an indication of Macdonald’s input? That’s just bullshit---that bunker is nothing like a PN and never was---it’s a massive carry bunker set across about a 45 yard wide fairway.

As for C.B. Macdonald, I told that group in NYC last week and particularly George Bahto that I really felt he should research and write more about Macdonald not just from the perspective of architecture but from other aspects of golf he was and had been involved in. I believe that far earlier than any of us now realize that Macdonald basically just dropped out and returned to NGLA in semi-seclusion sort of a depressed and perhaps beaten man. In that I feel is a tremendous story of early golf waiting to be told.

Early on in those Wilson/Piper/Oakley agronomy letters Piper told Wilson that Macdonald wasn’t answering his letter and Wilson told Piper not to worry about it that he’d just call him and see if he could get through to him and that he wasn’t easy to approach. And this from the formation of the USGA Green Section Committee that they’d all worked so hard on through the teens;

“Charlie Macdonald has refused to serve, putting his refusal on the grounds that he has practically dropped out of active golf. If you think it wise, I am sure that I can persuade him to serve in the formation of the committee whether or not he resigns afterward.”
Wynant Vanderpool of the Morris Co G.C., NJ
In a letter to Hugh Wilson, 1920

Again, if Tom MacWood has something specific to add to all this regarding Macdonald/Whigam or anyone else I wish he would do it instead of telling us we’re over-reacting or that were paranoid about something, I can assure you we’re not.

But the phase from the Spring of 1911 until the course opened in sept of 1912 and the way it appeared on that drawing above (1916) is what there's very little left to go on! That's the phase very little is left to draw from. There're no Flynn drawings from that early time, no construction plans of any kind, nothing left of the sketches Hugh Wilson brought back from Europe.

TEP:

Merion hosted the 1904 and 1909 Women’s Amateur.  What course were these events held on -- East, West or some course lost to the ages?  Who was responsible for this course and could remnants of that course have been incorporated into the work in 1911 / 1912?

Steve

Steve,

The Women's Amateurs you refer to took place on their course in Haverford north of the main rail line before the move to the current East (1912) and West (1913).  The site of the course preceding the East was bordered by Fishers Road, Rose Lane and Old Gulph Road.  The original 9 holes measured 2833 yards.  The 18-hole competition record over 2 rounds of the 9-hole course for men was 91 and for women the record was 123.  

Additional land was acquired so that in 1900 there were 18-holes.  This land was loaned to the club by Clement A. Griscom who with Rodman Griscom were enthusiastic early supporters of golf at Merion.  The Frances Biddle Griscom Cup (mixed family members of Phila players) and the Clement A. Griscom Cup (inter-city matches between NYC, Boston and Phila) were donated by the family.

The popularity of golf among the members led to overcrowding on the Haverford course.  There was also a desire to move to grounds that were not leased as was the Haverford site.  This prompted the membership to seek new grounds for golf (East Course) and a short while later the need for a second 18-holes (West Course).

SPDB:

Jeeesus Christ, in that last post you sound like a whole team of lawyers practicing for an appearance in front of the Supreme Court!

If I said what MacWood speculated on about Merion East was tantamount to him speculating Macdonald designing the golf course then I completely retract that remark. We're just trying to figure out what happened in that first phase from 1911 to 1912. Tom MacWood can have any opinion about the course he wants to--I sure don't hold that against him but I sure as hell don't have to agree with it. But it seems Wayne and I and Tom MacWood are on the same page on what Macdonald and Wihigam did down there. Some newspapers reported they visited and advised. I'm sure they did. But on what? And the fact is in about six months in the first phase somebody built that golf course. Frankly, my supposition is the guys who were there every day designed and built the golf course. If someone proves differently I'll be the first to embrace that, and I'm quite sure Wayne Morrison and Merion Golf club will too, despite how paranoid people like Tom MacWood who's never even been there thinks all of us are.

Wayne - A quick response with more when i have a free(r) moment. You above many others are intimately familiar with how well preserved the features at Merion are (i'm speaking of course about continuity of design features, not consistency of quality). Looking at this map, it is clear to all familiar with Merion that 1,10,11,12,13 are all entirely different holes. But the rest remains largely unchanged (save for the hole ordering).

Among that consistency, one feature is conspicuous by its absence, the Principal's Nose bunker. Nothing substantive would be advanced by noting the ingenious placement of the approach bunker on 6(curr. 5), since it exists there today. It seems only reasonable in that context to make note of a feature that has disappeared or altered, apparently without note or at least none that I can recall... without need to refer to presumptive subtext.

Tom MacWood,

YES, it is.

And, I didn't posture that he gave specific advice, you did !

Again, you GUESS at the intent and extent of CBM's involvement.

You continue to draw unsupported conclusions.

At least I know the facts regarding the oblique dunes and have personally observed them.

By Robert W. Lesley (Merion member):

"The seventh, or the Redan Hole, is a one shotter situated on a side hill with a deep gulley and severe bunkering in front of it, and requires the most delicate placing to hold the green…the tenth hole its tee far back in the woods and its green has for background a high hill covered with grass, and resembles the Alps hole at Prestwick."

The original 10th at Merion and the 17th at Prestwick are about the same length but there is little else in common.  Although the 10th at Merion had a "Sahara" style bunker (but with grassy mounds), the high hill was behind the green and protected the 1st fairway.  The Alps "Sahara" comes into play about 50 yards short of the green at Prestwick while the bunker at Merion was just in front of the green.    Merion had fairway bunkers and Prestwick does not.  Merion was a dogleg right and Prestwick is straight.  I wouldn't say that the hole resembles the Alps, not even conceptually.

As for the current 3rd former 7th at Merion being a reverse Redan, I never did understand that.  At first glance it looks a little like an uphill reverse Redan but the green plays nothing like a Redan.  The original tee on this hole was left of the current tee and would have had less of a Redan look than it does today.  Again, the playability of the green is not and likely never was Redan-like.

It would seem that an untrained eye compared these two  holes holes at Merion with classics abroad.  Yet, Lesley's commentary was probably influenced by statements made by Alex Findlay.  An Aug 23, 1912 Philadelphia Ledger article by Findlay describing the course (and indicating that the course at that time played today's routing progression) mentions that the 3rd hole "will remind golfers who have played abroad of one of the nicest holes in existence."  It would seem as though he was referencing the Redan.  As to the 10th, Findlay writes "the second thereto requires a strike precisely like that to the Alps, or seventeenth at Prestwick, Scotland.

Whigham's comment is most curious.  I'd very much like to know what he meant by considering Merion a Macdonald/Raynor course.  More than likely 27 years later and in grief, he was simply mistaken.  However, early golf architecture history is filled with misattributions, some deliberate others by innocent errors.

Pat Mucci strikes at the heart of my issue with Tom MacWood's conclusions (which he sometimes seems to make and other times shies away from).  There is no evidence as yet that specifies what advice during course construction Macdonald gave.  We know that the advice he gave prior to Wilson's departure was instrumental in fast tracking his understanding of design principles while the itinerary provided was of value as well.  Beyond that, we know nothing except for a general acknowledgement of gratitude to Macdonald for "advice" and should be wary of speculating too much.

I further think that a recognition that Merion was aided by Macdonald (and again, I believe they were but in an unknown manner) was beneficial to the club even though the membership was growing incredibly fast.  An association with Macdonald, the most famous and talented man in golf at that time was both proper and judicious.  They may have had an established membership but it was a new course and any validation would have been essential.

Wayne:

According to George Bahto it seems what Whigam was referring to in his eulogy of Raynor was the West course of Merion.

Frankly, Tom, I am getting rather tired of this.  You seem to want to discover something and stretch the evidence to create a blockbuster where there is none, as yet.  I don't have the time you seem to to devote to this, so here is my last response to this issue.

"Have you seen any photos of the old 10th? I believe you are mistaken about the 10th being a dog-leg hole. Were all the prototype holes built in America (including the Alps) exact replicas holes? It appears Macdonald (and Raynor) adapted these prototypes to the site, and often mixed and matched famous features. Why should we preclude the folks at Merion from similar adaptability?"

I have seen photos of the old 10th prior to, during and immediately after construction of the new 10th.  This and the Flynn drawing below is why I think the 10th was a dogleg:



What do you think?  In addition, I am not at all certain that the drawing that Steve Sayers posted is by Flynn.  I know the drawing was in the Ledger newspaper article but the reference to a Flynn drawing was elsewhere in the article.  It may have referred to the Flynn drawings for the Brooklyn Eagle (of which this is a copy) that were published in the 1916 US Open guide and perhaps elsewhere in the article.  The Flynn drawings are different in their details compared to the routing drawing posted.  If this was by Flynn, he didn't draw to the same detail and there are differences on just about every hole.

Now, I am well aware that Macdonald did not do exact duplicates of his template holes and there are differences.  But please tell me how you think this hole is conceptually linked to the 17th at Prestwick.

"You are entitled to your opinion…but your opinion is in conflict with Macdonald, Whigham and Leslie."

His name is Lesley as in Lesley Cup.

"Golf Illustrated ‘The Redan Hole’ by CB Macdonald and HJ Whigham (7/1914): There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher."

Unless the green was remodeled, they are wrong in characterizing it as a Redan.  Yes, I know that Macdonald was an expert and Whigham an accomplished assistant to Tweedie and the Foulis brothers and CBM at National, but they seem to be in error.  Do you think the green plays like a reverse Redan?  It would help if you've seen it up close.


"I doubt Macdonald and Whigham would be influenced by Findlay’s description."

Why would they?  I'm not saying he influenced Macdonald or Whigham.  My supposition is that he influenced Lesley (please note the spelling).  Just how do you think oral traditions right or wrong perpetuate?  Just because something is said over and over doesn't make it RIGHT!  You really do have to see this one for yourself.  Just because it is called a Redan doesn't mean it plays like one.  The 11th at Phila Country looks like a Redan but doesn't play like one.  Maybe the green was remodeled, I have not seen any information to indicate that it was.

"I think it is reasonable to conclude that they gave advice on every aspect having to do with designing and building a new golf course..."

I'm sure they gave a tremendous amount of advise to Wilson and the entire Merion community about building a new course.  I am certain that they helped a great deal, however at this point what can you say beyond general help?  The distinction you miss is what advise did they give about building that particular golf course?  Nobody knows and you don't seem to get it.

"Based upon the evidence, I do not subscribe to the theory Macdonald was brought in as a publicity scheme. The club was well established and completely viable. If that was their motivation why not just pronounce Macdonald as the designer?"

I never characterized the reference to Macdonald as a publicity scheme.  I merely pointed out that it was advantageous to mention that Macdonald advised and proclaimed the course a very good one.  Nowhere in the credit and gratitude shown is it mentioned what help and advise was given.  Do you or do you not imply that such advise dealt in specific designs and routing at the course?  If you do, I don't think there is any evidence of that to date.  Again, we consider much the same information (although we have much more on site experience,where you have none, and much more archival information available to us that you do not have) and draw different conclusions.  So be it.