Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

« **Reply #375 on:** December 07, 2006, 09:50:28 AM »

I must have missed the post in which you provided actual evidence supporting your position of the true influence of M&W? Care to link that post?

« **Reply #376 on:** December 07, 2006, 10:24:58 AM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 07, 2006, 08:38:28 AM

"It seems to me there has been attempt to downplay the evidence that points to a stronger influence on the part of Macdonald & Whigham. The Alps was not really an Alps. The Redan was not really a Redan. We are not going recognize or acknowledge the Principles Nose. So on."

Firstly, there is no dispute at all, and never has been that there was a Principal's Nose feature on the current 4th hole. Why do you claim there was?
When I first brought up the PN as a feature on the early course...you disputed it. You claimed a PN must be a certain distance from the tee and therefore this feature couldn't be a PN.

If it is to bolster your other claims, it is counterproductive to include a falsehood. Secondly, you say there is a stronger influence (and isn't that the implication of the title of this thread--a piece of a puzzle that you two seem to know the answer to?) but the holes you cite are poor examples.

Thats your opinion. It was not the opinion of Macdonald, Findlay, Lesley and others. Trying to claim Macdonald & Whigham didn't know what they were talking about when it comes to what was and wasn't a Redan is pretty amusing.

Just because somebody, even those you regard as illustrious, calls something a Redan or an Alps or a Valley of Sin or an Eden doesn't make it one. You seem to refuse the notion that their contemporary concepts and definitions may differ from our own and may differ from Macdonald's more robust definitions for his book.

I think the problem is you are trying to judge these holes in a modern context. We have an abundance of protype holes to compare these holes to today. At that time we had the NGLA, the entire idea of protype holes was new and not fully developed. The other problem is trying judge holes that have been altered or completely removed. Its very difficult to judge these holes based on the limited number and quality of the photographs.

Don't forget, you proposed that the features that don't seem evident were likely altered. When evidence is presented that the 3rd green was not altered you ignored it. When evidence was presented that the so-called Eden green wasn't altered until 1934 (long after the accounts you cite were made)--and that was only an expansion of the left rear corner of the green, you say nothing. When it was called into question that the old 10th "Alps" really didn't play like one nor closely resembled one, your response and that of your cohort was particularly lame. Frankly, you follow the written word too closely and don't conduct a broader research effort including the all-important SITE VISIT.

Again based upon the quality of the photographs its not a good idea to judge any of the holes as poor reproductions, especially when you have contemporaneous reports to the contrary.

"When M&W's name is brought up as being an influence...you'll get: what evidence to you have that he designed any hole at Merion-East. The anwser is there is no evidence other than the existance of some of his pet features and his involvement as an advisor. Of course that same question could just as easily be asked of Wilson, what evidence do you have that Wilson designed any of the holes on the early course and the answer would be the same, no evidence."

It has long been acknowledged that credit goes to M&W for the advice given at an early meeting at NGLA and vague references afterward. If you think that there was more of an influence, where is it? To say that there are no other attributions of record doesn't prove your claim at all. You must do that. We don't know who was involved with what designs in the earliest iteration of Merion East. Alex Findlay gives an awful lot of credit to Fred Pickering, a man you ignore on here, though you did provide details of his marriage and other census records. I suspect we will never know for certain who did what until we we get to the changes over time made by Wilson/Flynn and later Flynn--there are drawings and other archival information that help fill in the gaps after the opening of the course.

You quick demand evidence of M&W's involvement in the design of any hole at Merion. I'm still waiting for you to tell us which hole or holes Wilson designed on the first course.

"In many ways the West course was the more revolutionary golf course. It was designed by Wilson. It seems to me it was the first course made in the Wilson/Flynn image (in contrast to the East) and became the model for the redesigned East."

Your revisionism is constantly showing in your attempt to make a name for yourself in "discovering new truths" even if they are false or unsupported under careful inspection. Following your line of inquiry, how do you know Wilson designed the West Course? Where is that proved for you to make such a statement? What do you know of the relationship between builder, designer and committee at that time?

I call as I see it. If I had opportunities to make a name for myself in the past...its not something that guides me. I suppose you are going to tell us Flynn designed it.

"When we sweep under the rug the true nature of the early East and the influence of M&W - in contrast to the West - I think we are missing a big part of the story."

You are missing a lot, including the big part of the story. You are making Hollywood style reproductions of documentaries that play better to the general public that doesn't have the time or knowledge to see through your flawed conclusions. I think you two are the Oliver Stones of golf research.

Thats your opinion, I don't see it that way. My goal is always to get at the truth, and I think I do a pretty good job of it.

Its been my expeience that getting at the truth when a legendary figure is involved (or an often told story is involved)can be very challenging....people resist altering a story they've become comfortable with. For example all the heat I got when it was learned I was researching Crump....there was pretty much a full court press to destroy my credibility (you were involved) before I'd even finished and presented my essay.

The truth is almost always more interesting than the legend.

« **Reply #377 on:** December 07, 2006, 10:28:19 AM »

Quote from: JES II on December 07, 2006, 09:50:28 AM

I must have missed the post in which you provided actual evidence supporting your position of the true influence of M&W? Care to link that post?

JES
Are we going to go around and around on this track again....the same response could be turned on you in regards to Wilson.

With all due repsect I do not recall you adding any historical evidence on the massive thread or any other thread for that matter.

« **Reply #378 on:** December 07, 2006, 10:33:35 AM »

That's the problem here Tom, I am not promoting Hugh Wilson as the architect. You, however, are stating that CBM's influence has been swept under the rug. Yet you cannot provide any evidence of this influence.

« **Reply #379 on:** December 07, 2006, 12:18:41 PM »

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 07, 2006, 04:05:05 AM

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 06, 2006, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 06, 2006, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 06, 2006, 05:49:59 PM
Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 06, 2006, 03:53:09 AM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 05, 2006, 02:41:00 PM
Quote from: DMoriarty on December 03, 2006, 01:09:26 PM

In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?

I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]

Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?

There could be a variety of explanations.

First, I doubt that CBM would give credit to a poor imitation.
But he did. Read the July 1914 GI. He credited Merion as a Redan.[/color]

No, it's alleged he did. There's a difference
You should also know that CBM often contradicted himself.
[/color]

Secondly, the article could have been written based on a conversation, or editorial license could be the culprit.[/b]

Or, he could have written the words himself, and they were unedited.

Why can't you accept the obvious answer? [/color]

Because I've learned that quotes and statements attributed to others in articles are not to be taken as The Gospel.

It has his byline on it.[/color]

That doesn't authenticate it

Are all his other writings to be discredited too? [/color]

Each has to be examined on its own merits.

Or is this the only one?

You'll find that CBM not only contradicted others, but that he contradicted himself in his writings.

Each statement has to be examined in order to assess its validity.

Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much.

Then, you're not familiar with Southern Florida.
Stand on the 9th green or 10th tee at Jupiter Hills and tell me that.[/color]

I am familiar with South Florida - more the Gulf coast, though, where there are no 25 or 50 foot "hills".

As I said, you're not familiar with the land where Seminole resides as well as the nearby land.

How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?

NO, it's not possible.
The hills are sharp and high, rising 30, 40 or perhaps 50 feet or more, abruptly.[/color]

Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci. Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so.

Where do you think it's 50 feet? [/color]

From the 11th tee to the 11th fairway is one spot..
6th green to 7th fairway. 4th green to 1st fairway.
If a basketball rim is at 10 feet, and I'm 6'3" I couldn't throw the ball from the fairways to the tee heights, but, I can throw a ball 25 feet into the air.

Perhaps Ross thought that overall the property was still relatively flat. [/color]

That's absurd. Just ask anybody who's played the 4th 5th, 6th and 7th holes, not to mention # 2, # 3, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15, # 17 and # 18.

It certainly is not hilly compared to many locations in the northeast.

And I bet those locations in the northeast aren't as hilly as the Rockies.

Ross knew where he was and Ross knew what the definition of "FLAT" is.

Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Seminole and that you're wrong on this issue.

Thanks

« **Reply #380 on:** December 07, 2006, 12:22:32 PM »

Quote from: JES II on December 07, 2006, 10:33:35 AM

That's the problem here Tom, I am not promoting Hugh Wilson as the architect. You, however, are stating that CBM's influence has been swept under the rug. Yet you cannot provide any evidence of this influence.

Did I say you were promoting Wilson as the architect? What I'm saying is you (and many others) on this thread have not approached this in an even-handed way....Wilson's influence on the original design has not recieved the same amount of scrutiny as Macdonald's (no one has questioned it at all as far as can tell).

It appears Wilson's influence is a given (no similar demand for evidence regarding what holes he is responsbile for), while Macdonald & Whigham's influence is questioned strenuously (the common refrain where is the proof he designed any of the holes).

I see this approach as trying to sweep one guy under while letting the other fellow rests comfortably on top of the rug.

« **Reply #381 on:** December 07, 2006, 12:37:39 PM »

Quote from: JES II on December 07, 2006, 07:16:50 AM

1) Are you of the opinion that todays golf balls spin more than those of 90 years ago?

I was more thinking of the clubs. I've never hit a ball of 90 years ago, but I have hit modern balls (and balata balls) with old clubs. And while it is definitely possible to put quite a bit of spin on balls with the old clubs, I think the new clubs probably put more spin on the balls. I may be wrong about this though, I am not the best judge, because I dont have a very consistent game. Have you ever hit new balls with old hickories?

Quote

To change the sequence would be to change the sequence of how the hole is actually developed. In other words, turning the axis for the approach direction and then tilting the green equates to building the tee and then building the green. Do you think CBM established his tee complexes for his one-shotters and then tried to find somewhere to put a green?

Do you really think it was common practice for designers to build greens without having any idea where they were going to put the tee? I think they have a good idea of the location of the tee and green before they build anything.

Quote

In my exercise, when you tilt the book left and then turn it you are essentially building (or finding if you prefer) the green and then turning the book clockwise to establish the approach direction (or tee position if you prefer). The sequencing is of utmost importance.

But it all depends on the nature of the slope. If it slopes slightly up in addition to right to left, then placing the tee at an angle isnt going to change that, and that is my point. The sequencing isnt going to change that.

Quote

Care to post the entire REDAN article by CBM? I would not know where to find it so it would be much appreciated.

Posting it might prove difficult but here is a link:
http://www.aafla.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi4h.pdf

Quote

Frankly I could care less what a hole is called. For me it comes down to playability. I would call the bunker on the front right of Merion's #3 a Redan bunker. Unfortunately, that is the only characteristic of the hole that is similar to the rest of the Redan concepts I know of. The green sloping away from the tee at an angle is, to me, the most important of these playability concepts.

I understand what you are saying, and for the most part agree with you. But realize that while you may not be attaching a name to your description, you are still defining the hole, based on your conception of the most important playability concepts.

I wouldnt call the hole a redan either, using a modern understanding of the term. But many any of the most knowledgeable men of the relevant time period did call it a redan, and for this there are three potential explanations, one of which is improbable, one of which is likely, and one of which is absurd. In that order:

1. Their definition was the same as yours, and at the time the hole fit that definition. Or . . .

2. Their definition was different that yours, and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .

3. Their definition was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.

The first is the approach that Tom MacWood seems to suggest at least some of the time. With all due respect to Tom, at this point I think it is improbable. I have seen no evidence that the hole slanted away, other than that it was called a redan.

I think the second approach is the most likely. It fits with MacDonald's definition (which talks of side slope but not front to back slope) and it fits with the usage by MacDonald and others which allowed for the departure from other hole characteristics which could be deemed as critical [for example, a relatively level or slightly uphill tee shot, a tee shot of at least a certain distance, or a setting which commonly experiences strong and variable winds.)

The third is the approach that Mssrs. Morrison, Paul, Mucci, Childs, and Cirba have taken, and in my opinion it is unsupportable. As has been pointed out on here before (by Patrick, no less) these guys had a very solid handle on their use of language. And when multiple parties are using the same words to describe the same features, it would be absurd to simply assume they were all mistaken, at least without substantial proof.

« **Reply #382 on:** December 07, 2006, 12:42:27 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 07, 2006, 10:49:02 AM

The only thing I disagreed with is where on the photograph you think the Principal's Nose was, not its existence. I never claimed the PN must be a certain distance off the tee, I simply told you where it happened to be located on that particular hole.

On a previous thread when the possiblity was brought up that the PN existed based on the map in the Ledger you vigorously disagreed...I remember Sean Berry being involved in that debate as well.

I'm not saying the men you cite didn't generally know what they were talking about. But according to any informed understanding, the 3rd hole never played like a Redan. It had a deep bunker on a slope below the green, but that's it. As for Valleys of Sin (the Merion ones being in the green), please tell me how that is indicative of anything to do with Macdonald. What Valleys of Sin is there in any of the National School architects?

I have no idea if the Valley of Sin existed on any Macdonald & Whigham courses...perhaps George Bahto knows. Did Wilson reproduce the VoS on any other golf courses to your knowledge?

I have been saying what they say is a certain feature often differs from our perspective today. Their definitions were a lot looser back then so we should avoid making direct links with Macdonald as a point of origin since the concepts were not formal enough to allow this. You seem particularly dense on this subject.

Seems to me you've lost perspective, trying to compare Merion to courses that were built years later (by Raynor and others) and not appreciating that the NGLA & Merion were really covering new ground, the first to use famous holes and famous features as inspiration.

So you don't wish to use photographic evidence due to the quality of the photographs yet you take the written word on face value. I think it suits your case so you choose to do so. If the situation were reversed and the photos supported your case and the written word did not, you would likely take an opposite view. That is just an opinion.

Use both, but IMO the quality of the photographic evidence does not warrant your strong condemnation of these holes.

I don't need to tell you which holes are Wilson (East or West). You make the claim that M&W had a great deal of influence on the East Course and not so on the West. What specific influence do you refer to? Don't shift the onus on others that call you on your unsupported claims, that is not a proper response and is a sign of weakness. You make the claim that we really don't know who designed which holes on the East but you know for a fact that Wilson designed the West. Please offer the proof you have of this. Don't put the onus back on me. This is your claim in the context of no attributions on the East, so you prove it.

You don't need to tell me what holes Wilson was responsible for the orignal East course, but you demand evidence on M&W? It seems to me you are opperating under a double standard.

I firmly believe your goal is to end up with the truth. I don't believe that you have reached your goal.

As for the Crump piece, I think you are straying off topic to deflect real issues with your statements. I happen to think your article was excellent. What I did argue against was your unproven and erroneous claim that PVGC was trying to subordinate the work of Colt in favor of their own Crump. That was a dumb premise then and it remains one now. If anything, the Club overestimated Colt's involvement. Maybe because the routing map, a copy of which we purchased, was well known to the Club as Tom Paul speculates. If there was a full-court press, it was against your notion of provincial regard for everything being Crump. In fact, the opposite was true. Some of us around here might have left the dead to their rest and not unearthed a private matter regarding how he died. It is interesting but there are evident reasons why no one bothered until you to confirm the rumors. Tom Paul later determined the location of the suicide, which differed from your own findings and found on the death certificate.

The Crump piece illustrates the emotional attachment people have for their legends and legendary figures.

« **Reply #383 on:** December 07, 2006, 01:02:59 PM »

Tom/Dave,

If the requirements for being called a template hole back then were so fast and loose, then how do we know that many of the holes Wilson built at Merion West, Cobbs Creek, and Seaview wouldn't have been similarly titled as replicas, or "resemblances", had they each hosted famous tournaments soon after inception, as was the case with Merion East, and had the subsequent press and reporting that went along with it?

If I apply the sort of loose guidelines for what we're calling holes that we seem to be in this thread, then the present 17th at Cobbs Creek could easily be called an Eden. Frankly, in thinking about it, that would make as much sense easily as calling the 3rd on the East course a Redan. The 4th hole on Merion West has some real similarities to a Biarritz, with the long, narrow green, depression right in front of the surface, and mounding along the sides of the green simulating the elongated bunkers on most Biarritz's.

I think we can even call the 11th or 9th at Merion West sort of a Double Plateau, and the 15th there also bears some characteristics of a reverse redan.

« **Reply #384 on:** December 07, 2006, 01:08:14 PM »

I hereby nominate Pat for the most COLORFUL poster on GCA.

« **Reply #385 on:** December 07, 2006, 01:47:39 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 07, 2006, 01:02:59 PM

Tom/Dave,

If the requirements for being called a template hole back then were so fast and loose, then how do we know that many of the holes Wilson built at Merion West, Cobbs Creek, and Seaview wouldn't have been similarly titled as replicas, or "resemblances", had they each hosted famous tournaments soon after inception, as was the case with Merion East, and had the subsequent press and reporting that went along with it?

Mike, you act as if we made up the fact that these guys had a much looser understanding of these terms that we do now. You arent seriously questioning this, are you? The terms weren't necessarily "fast and loose" but they are obviously different than what we now believe. Otherwise these guys were all idiots.

And you speak of template holes as if there was some sort of registry for them. MacDonald did some holes which could be considered templates, and Rayner certainly did. But other than that I have no idea what the fascination on here with figuring out whether these were or were not templates. I dont see any evidence that they viewed MacDonald's holes as exact blueprints for other designers to follow, so I have no idea of why you would use the "template" requirement as any sort of guage of MacDonald's potential influence.

MacDonald's importance isnt limited to a few "templates." He brought over concepts, strategies, principles, and an entirely new (for america) approach to golf course design.

Why did Merion decide to go in such a different direction? The likely answer is that MacDonald had at NGLA, and that he had encouraged others to do so.

Why did they decide to send Wilson to Europe? Likely because MacDonald had turned to Europe and emphasized its importance.

Why did Wilson go see MacDonald before his trip? Because Merion likely thought that he could learn a lot from MacDonald.

Why did they have MacDonald inspect the property? Why did Wilson credit MacDonald for helping with some routing issues? Why did Wilson use some similar principles at Merion?

All arrows point back to MacDonald and NGLA. To dismiss the man's influence is absolutely preposterous. And whether or not certain holes are similar enough to be considered to be a template by some modern notion is absolutely beside the point.

As for your reference to the other holes and courses, maybe MacDonald's influence was greater than we thought. Maybe his influence can be seen throughout all of Wilson's design. If you guys would drop this silly template notion, you might find MacDonald's approach to golf design throughout Wilson's design. Maybe No. 18 on Merion East has a giant Biarritz inspired swale in front of the green.

Or maybe not. But the relevant contemporary community attributes many similarities to the course at which MacDonald was allegedly involved. This hurts your argument more than it helps it.

« **Reply #386 on:** December 07, 2006, 01:53:26 PM »

David,

Tom MacWood is trying to prove CB's involvement with the East course by contending that this is the only one of Hugh Wilson's courses that had either Template holes or Features from the Old Country, and used the "template" comments by a few of the old guys to bolster his contention.

My counter to that is simply that if the other Wilson courses had the same press scrutiny that the East did early on, by virtue of being selected for the biggest tournament in the country, they those folks might have found other "template" examples on his other courses, particularly given the very fast and loose standards (by our estimation) that they seemed to apply to their definitions..

There is no doubt that CB had a big important role in American golf and there is no doubt that he helped Wilson get started at Merion.

However, I still think that any copies of holes, or features of holes, had way more to do with the EIGHT MONTHS that Wilson spent overseas STUDYING and SKETCHING courses and great holes than it did with the 2-4 days? he spent with Macdonald.

That's all.

« **Reply #387 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:04:11 PM »

Mike,

Your post was to me as well as Tom MacWood. While I do think that Tom has posted much important, interesting, and accurate information, I think our views on these issues do differ in some respects.

Even so, you are mischaracterizing his position, which is based on more than just the use of certain similar features at Merion, or "a few" of the old guys commenting on them. But he is more than capable of defending himself.

Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 07, 2006, 01:53:26 PM

David,My counter to that is simply that if the other Wilson courses had the same press scrutiny that the East did early on, by virtue of being selected for the biggest tournament in the country, they those folks might have found other "template" examples on his other courses, particularly given the very fast and loose standards (by our estimation) that they seemed to apply to their definitions..

Except that Merion West was used in the 1916 Amateur, and a discussion of the relative merits of both courses as well as the USGA's decision to use two courses were both hot topics for press coverage before, during, and after the event.

Quote

However, I still think that any copies of holes, or features of holes, had way more to do with the EIGHT MONTHS that Wilson spent overseas STUDYING and SKETCHING courses and great holes than it did with the 2-4 days? he spent with Macdonald.

You are ignoring much of the contemporary historical record regarding MacDonald's potential influence. Wilson acknowledged that MacDonald helped him with routing problems. Whigham apparently discussed MacDonald's involvement. MacDonald made one (or multiple?) site visits.

Plus, more importantly, why do you think Wilson went to Europe to study? Why were they looking back to Europe in the first place? You dont think that MacDonald should be credited trail blazing in this regard? Do you think that it is conceivable that while Wilson was at NGLA that the topic of what he should study in Europe wouldnt have come up? That they wouldnt have discussed the strategic principles present in the holes around them?

Had Wilson instead chosen to study under one of the hack Scottish pros who had been building courses around Philadelphia, Wilson could have gone to Europe for a year and come back and built nothing more impressive than the Haverford Merion.
______________

Mr. Morrison said:

Quote

Mike,

You need to use smaller words I have given up.

Yes Mike, please use smaller words, for I am just too stupid to understand your gihugic vocilarium. I need simple one syllable words like FACT, and a few two syllable words like MANNERS. Words in which Mr. Morrison has no interest. He prefers larger words like de-faaaam-aaaa-toeee-rrrrrry and riiiiiddd-iiii-culllle.

« **Reply #388 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:08:33 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 07, 2006, 02:48:29 PM

My humor index is nearing a yearly low. I've been on the phone with Microsoft for 5 hours trying to resolve a worm or virus problem.

Maybe the virus got into Google and caused you to mis-measure Merion's 10th by 40 yards . . . did it also cause you to call me a liar and/or an idiot for measuring it correctly?

« **Reply #389 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:16:35 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 07, 2006, 12:18:41 PM

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 07, 2006, 04:05:05 AM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 06, 2006, 09:20:22 PM
Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 06, 2006, 07:06:28 PM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 06, 2006, 05:49:59 PM
Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 06, 2006, 03:53:09 AM
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 05, 2006, 02:41:00 PM
Quote from: DMoriarty on December 03, 2006, 01:09:26 PM

In calling for the commentators of the time to be more strict, how do you feel about C.B. MacDonald, the godfather of templates in the U.S., calling the third at Merion a Redan?

I don't believe he did any more than I believe that Donald Ross called Seminole "FLAT"[/color]

Then you don't believe that MacDonald wrote the article in the July 1914 edition of American Golfer, where he said just that about the third at Merion. It does have his byline on it. Are you suggesting it was ghost written?

There could be a variety of explanations.

First, I doubt that CBM would give credit to a poor imitation.
But he did. Read the July 1914 GI. He credited Merion as a Redan.[/color]

No, it's alleged he did. There's a difference
You should also know that CBM often contradicted himself.
[/color]

Who are you saying "alleged" that he called it a Redan. The article is titled:

"REDAN HOLE AT THE NATIONAL GOLF LINKS
By C. B. MACDONALD and H. J. WHIGHAM"

In the article it says

"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. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland."

Are you saying someone else alleged that CBM said this and then wrote it under CBM's byline? Or are you saying that CBM wrote it, but didn't mean it because he was being self-contradictory? Are you a conspiracy theorist?

Secondly, the article could have been written based on a conversation, or editorial license could be the culprit.[/color]

Or, he could have written the words himself, and they were unedited.

Why can't you accept the obvious answer? [/color]

Because I've learned that quotes and statements attributed to others in articles are not to be taken as The Gospel.

It has his byline on it.[/color]

That doesn't authenticate it

Are all his other writings to be discredited too? [/color]

Each has to be examined on its own merits.

Or is this the only one?

You'll find that CBM not only contradicted others, but that he contradicted himself in his writings.

Each statement has to be examined in order to assess its validity.

So, where are you landing on this (if anywhere)? Did he write it and he's contradicted himself? Or, someone else wrote it and used his byline and that he was misquoted? What merits do you see when you assess this article?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Not to get too far off track here, but saying that Seminole has the largest hills in south Florida is not saying much.

Then, you're not familiar with Southern Florida.
Stand on the 9th green or 10th tee at Jupiter Hills and tell me that.[/color]

I am familiar with South Florida - more the Gulf coast, though, where there are no 25 or 50 foot "hills".

As I said, you're not familiar with the land where Seminole resides as well as the nearby land.

Actually you said "Southern Florida" not "Seminole". More revisionist history.

How high are they - 10 feet. Is it not possible that someone like Ross might consider that "flat" relative to most other locales?

NO, it's not possible.
The hills are sharp and high, rising 30, 40 or perhaps 50 feet or more, abruptly.[/color]

Point partially conceded to Mr Mucci. Using the USGS application I see that the dune line along the ocean and along Ocean Dr appear to rise to 25 feet or so above sea level, and abruptly so.

Where do you think it's 50 feet? [/color]

From the 11th tee to the 11th fairway is one spot..
6th green to 7th fairway. 4th green to 1st fairway.
If a basketball rim is at 10 feet, and I'm 6'3" I couldn't throw the ball from the fairways to the tee heights, but, I can throw a ball 25 feet into the air.

Huh? Is that how you measure elevation change? By throwing a basketball in the air? How do you know how high you throw a ball? How do you measure that? Measuring elevation change is very hard to do accurately. If you're doing it by reference to other things, consider that 50 feet would be about the height of a 5 story building. Have you used any kind of measuring device? The USGS application says they're between 25 and 30 feet above sea level - not 50.[/color]

Perhaps Ross thought that overall the property was still relatively flat. [/color]

That's absurd. Just ask anybody who's played the 4th 5th, 6th and 7th holes, not to mention # 2, # 3, # 11, # 12, # 13, # 14, # 15, # 17 and # 18.

It certainly is not hilly compared to many locations in the northeast.

And I bet those locations in the northeast aren't as hilly as the Rockies.

Ross knew where he was and Ross knew what the definition of "FLAT" is.

So, Ross was just being absurd in calling it flat. What definition of flat do you know that Ross knew. How do you know he knew it. Why was he so absurd as to say Seminole was flat? Or is this another conspiracyto misquote the golden age architects?

Just admit that you don't know what you're talking about with respect to Seminole and that you're wrong on this issue.

Thanks

« **Reply #390 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:18:15 PM »

David,

Virtually everything you've said in conclusion has been stipulated previously.

There is no question that the Wilson visit to Macdonald was important for;

1) Visiting and seeing NGLA
2) Understanding the concepts of strategic golf and some of the examples Macdonald was most familiar with
3) Helping Wilson with his itinerary for his 8 month trip overseas.
4) At least one site visit upon Wilson's return.
5) Some further advisement of an indeterminate nature that may have included routing, agronomy, membership issues, but that has no other documentation.

But, I'd once again contend that there is nothing NEW here at all that hasn't been reported over the decades. Perhaps I don't understand your goal or Tom's?

Is it that Macdonald should be given greater credit for the architecture of the East course at Merion? If so, where is the documented proof?

Wayne is right that it is the burden of proof lies with those who advance a hypothesis, and conjecture about two template holes and an eden green are hardly definitive in any way, shape, or form.

I can almost understand if like Joe Burbeck, Charles Macdonald was a man who didn't like to be in the spotlight, but was really a "behind the scenes" guy.

However, you would have to look far and wide to find a guy who was more boastful, self-assured, and self-promotional than Macdonald in those days. He and Whigham wrote extensively about the architectural work CB was doing, and all throughout this period.

The course at Merion was so well-received on inception that it hosted the country's premier tournament a few years later. Yet, the only mention I can find from Macdonald about Merion is where he calls today's 3rd hole a "redan" in making a more general point about the hole type.

Why is that? If what we're trying to prove is Macdonald's greater influence at Merion, then why was Macdonald strangely silent on this topic.

Even George Bahto's book about CB has a single very brief mention of Merion, once again talking about the 3rd as a Redan. George has researched CB extensively and has reams of documentation.

What is being presented here that is new, David? What is it that we're supposed to be understanding based on the evidence presented to date?

I don't get it.

« **Reply #391 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:50:36 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 07, 2006, 03:18:15 PM

But, I'd once again contend that there is nothing NEW here at all that hasn't been reported over the decades. Perhaps I don't understand your goal or Tom's?

Tom can speak for himself, but I agree that there is little or nothing new here. In fact, I think that the evidence I have seen infers that it has been well-known and largely accepted since the beginning that MacDonald, his ideas, and his golf course, all had a major influence on Wilson at Merion East, especially early on.

Quote

Wayne is right that it is the burden of proof lies with those who advance a hypothesis . . .

Again I agree. The one with the hypothesis bears the burden of proof. But the hypothesis is Mr. Morrison's, not mine. He has repeatedly denied and diminished MacDonald's influence regarding Merion East. He is the one who is trying to rewrite history and shine even more of a light on his hometown hero's. But where is his proof? He has none. Instead of actually trying to challenge the historical record he simply ignores it.

One cannot simply say, So what if the contempary first-hand accounts say XYZ . . . I dont believe what I read, so you have the burden of proving XYZ. This is historical research and in historical research contemporary first-hand accounts are the proof! At least until someone proves them to be inaccurate.

An example from this thread: Mr. Morrison relied completely on the a magazine shot chart of Jones' 1930 drives at Merion's 10th to calculate the distance of Merion's 10 hole. He needed no further evidence and treated the shot chart as all the evidence he needed. I questioned the article and Mr. Morrison made it quite clear who he believed had the burden of proof. Me. And I met that burden by offering not my speculation or personal experience or hopes or wishes, but with better, more accurate evidence. I had the burden and I met it.

Never mind Mr. Morrison's rudeness or his defamatory comments or his failure even now to acknowledge he was wrong. He was correct that I had the burden of proof in that circumstance because I was the one with the hypothesis which, if true, would alter the conventional wisdom.

Likewise, Mr. Morrison has the burden of proof here, and he hasn't even come close to meeting it. All I am doing is reminding us of what we already know, even if Mr. Morrison kicks and screams and demands we ignore what has long been known.

Quote

What is being presented here that is new, David? What is it that we're supposed to be understanding based on the evidence presented to date?

Just what the historical record has long told us. And nothing has come remotely close to challenging the historical record yet.

With all due respect, your pathologizing about MacDonald's motivations and personality do not meet the burden required to rewrite the historical record.

« **Reply #392 on:** December 07, 2006, 03:55:43 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 07, 2006, 12:37:39 PM

Quote from: JES II on December 07, 2006, 07:16:50 AM

I wouldnt call the hole a redan either, using a modern understanding of the term. But many any of the most knowledgeable men of the relevant time period did call it a redan, and for this there are three potential explanations, one of which is improbable, one of which is likely, and one of which is absurd. In that order:

1. Their definition was the same as yours, and at the time the hole fit that definition. Or . . .

2. Their definition was different that yours, (CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland.". How is this definition different from the current definition?)
and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .

3. Their definition was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.

4. Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.

The first is the approach that Tom MacWood seems to suggest at least some of the time. With all due respect to Tom, at this point I think it is improbable. I have seen no evidence that the hole slanted away, other than that it was called a redan.

I think the second approach is the most likely. It fits with MacDonald's definition (which talks of side slope but not front to back slope)
You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.
and it fits with the usage by MacDonald and others which allowed for the departure from other hole characteristics which could be deemed as critical [for example, a relatively level or slightly uphill tee shot, a tee shot of at least a certain distance, or a setting which commonly experiences strong and variable winds.)

CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan. The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.

The third is the approach that Mssrs. Morrison, Paul, Mucci, Childs, and Cirba have taken, and in my opinion it is unsupportable. As has been pointed out on here before (by Patrick, no less) these guys had a very solid handle on their use of language. (I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it). He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline. And when multiple parties are using the same words to describe the same features, it would be absurd to simply assume they were all mistaken, at least without substantial proof.

Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.

« **Reply #393 on:** December 07, 2006, 04:57:13 PM »

David,

Again, I think you and I are just differing by degrees.

For instance, I might proffer that Macdonald was responsible for say, 60% of the strategic inspiration for the Merion course, and perhaps 10% for what was eventually put on the ground.

I say that because I believe his role was diminishing. First, I believe that Wilson learned much more in 8 months overseas than he could possibly learn in 2 days with Macdonald at NGLA. Macdonald's important role was in telling Wilson WHAT to look for, and how those courses, holes, and features played a role in great design.

However, I don't see much in the way of continuing education from Macdonald and virtually nothing in the way of specific hole or feature design from Macdonald after Wilson came back. Evidently there is some mention of helping with a routing issue, and he and Whigham continued to be referred to graciously as "advisors", but I think that was more in gratitude to their original help than any ongoing collaboration. However, he likely did have some involvment, which I'm going to objectively, and probably generously estimate at 10%.

The fact that there is no written or historical evidence in either the Merion archives OR Macdonald's records goes a long way to suggest that to be true.

Perhaps in your thinking, and perhaps in Tom's, those number might like more like 80/30%, but I think that's a serious overestimation, again, based on the lack of any real documentation at either Merion or from Macdonald's papers that there was anything much beyond the initial visit and some intermittent future correspondence.

« **Reply #394 on:** December 07, 2006, 07:07:28 PM »

Tom, do you think that there was the possibility that the club allowed these loose commets about Macdonald's involvement with the course to drum up interest for potential members? This would make sense given his reputation in American golf at the time. I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I thought it might answer part of the question in regards to "advisement" and "blessing" being used in the interaction of Macdonald and Wilson. In other words, his name lent clout and because the mebers didn't know a thing about what made a great course, Macdonald merely being "involved" on the periphery would somehow put the members minds at ease in regards to Wilson, a rookie, taking on the job.

« **Reply #395 on:** December 07, 2006, 08:07:17 PM »

Bryan, as usual a thoughtful and insightful analysis, but one with which I dont entirely agree.

I think you are putting too much weight on the notion of there having been a formal definition, probably because I used the word. I should have been more clear and said "understanding" or "definition and usage." I think I usually have said the latter, but will try the former.

The reason I distinguish this from your formal definition is that, when it comes to understanding what is meant by words, looking at how the words are used is really 'where the rubber hits the road,' as our friend Matt Ward would say. This is especially true when we have the examples of usage from the person who set forth the supposed definition, and more true still when such usage occurs contemporaneously (in the same article) with the supposed definition.

So let me reprhase the three possible scenarios:

1. Their understanding of the term was the same as yours, and at the time the hole was consistent with this understanding. Or . . .

2. Their understanding of the term was different than yours, and included holes (at least in their reverse form) that had the other characteristics (benchland, sideslope, deep bunker, angled green) but that did not slope away from the front. Or . . .

3. Their understanding of the term was the same as yours, but for some reason (stupidity?, pride?, laziness?, confusion?, misinterpretation? bolstering? trickery? dishonesty?) they didnt use their own terms correctly.

Quote from: Bryan Izatt on December 07, 2006, 03:55:43 PM

CBM's definition was in the article as follows:
"TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland."

You call this a definition, JES thinks it is a construction manual, and I think it is simply descriptive. I see no reason to believe that MacDonald meant to limit himself so specifically, especially given the examples he cites and also his continued description. For example, he says the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course. It is hard for me to reconcile this with trying to apply an extremely formal definition.

But setting all this aside and assuming he meant this introduction to his article as a specific definition, your this old 'definiton' is different from the modern understanding in that it does not mention the front to back slope, and after a quick reread of the article I dont think the article does either.

Quote

4. Their definition was the same, but they wanted to take credit for the use of their ideas on other GCA's holes, so they ascribed their ideas to holes that really didn't fit (perhaps that's like "pride" or "bolstering" you mention above.

I'd definitely place this under my third scenario. One problem with this theory is that MacDonald was far from the only one to compare the Merion holes to holes which MacDonald also used for inspiration. What was in it for them? Filthy Lucre?

Also, your theory is way too speculative. Where is your proof?? It is beyond pop-psychology to simply attribute a lie to the guy because he was arrogant and we dont like what he was saying. And as far as I know there is no evidence that anyone ever disagreed with him or called him on this. And people were certainly not afraid to take an MacDonald-- there are some extremely critical reviews of NGLA. One would think that they would have jumped at the chance to prove him an idiot using one of his own holes to do it.

Quote

You seem to keep mis-stating this point. The tilt of the green from the tee is neither side to side or front to back. The angle of play makes the tilt at some angle (say 45*) from the line of play. The essential part is that it slopes down and away to the left at some angle as seen and played from the tee.

I am surprised you make a point of posting what you call the definition, and then you almost immediately move beyond that definition. He doesnt say the tilt from the tee, he says a tilt a benchland right-to-left. If we buy JES's theory of taking these things in order, then the right to left reference has nothing to do with the tee, which hasnt even been located yet.

My point is that you guys are obviously twisting (literally?) to try to get what MacDonald said to fit into your definition. If the definition is unclear to you, look at the usage. Which contradicts what you guys are saying.

So, while I understand that we now all think that the hole needs a downslope, that is not really what MacDonald said, at least not in this article. And his usage may indicate that this is not what he meant either, (at least for reverse redans and at least at this time.)

If the benchland had even the slightest back to front slope then the hole could easily tilt left but not away. And with hard ground the hole would still play generally as he suggests. Keep in mind that he is very clear that it was the wind which was the primary determinate of how the hole played, and the wind would have a very similar impact on the tilting hole with a slight upslope as with one which slopes away, provided that the ground was hard.

Quote

CBM described the tilt as the essential part of a Redan. The evidence seems to suggest that the required running away tilt of the tableland, at some anle to the left of the line of play from the tee, was not to be found at Merion.

There you go again, messing with your own definition. He says left-to-right tilt, not front to back tilt. What evidence suggests that the "essential" tilt is front to back, as opposed to right-to-left?

Quote

(I thought Patrick was arguing in favour of CBM didn't really say (or write it). He was alleged, by person or persons unknown to have said it under his byline.

He presently is. In the past, he has quoted these MacDonald articles as gospel. I think he may have gone off the deep-end with this time! That being said, in the past he has been a stickler for insisting that these guys were very much in control of their language and word usage.

Quote

Based on the "evidence" number 4 is as logical a conclusion as any.

Bryan, in other contexts you have asked me to support my claims with facts. So with all due respect, let me ask you . . . WHAT EVIDENCE?

--What is the evidence that MacDonald didnt mean what he says in this article?
--What is the evidence that he was trying to bolster his own reputation, aside from amateur pathologizing. (And if this hole was so obviously not a redan even then, how would taking credit for a crummy redan that didnt work as a redan bolster his repuation?)
--What is the evidence that the other commentators, all respected and knowledgeable men, would misuse the term as well?

People keep talking about the evidence, but the only evidence I have seen is that the present hole doesnt fit the present definition of a redan. That surely is not enough to rewrite history, or impose our modern understandings on the past.

« **Reply #396 on:** December 07, 2006, 08:22:18 PM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 07, 2006, 04:57:13 PM

However, I don't see much in the way of continuing education from Macdonald and virtually nothing in the way of specific hole or feature design from Macdonald after Wilson came back. Evidently there is some mention of helping with a routing issue, and he and Whigham continued to be referred to graciously as "advisors", but I think that was more in gratitude to their original help than any ongoing collaboration.

Mike, you've obviously bought into Mr. Morrison's rhetorical deck-stacking here. There is evidence of continued involvement, but you dismiss it entirely because "you dont see much in the way of continuing education from MacDonald." The facts you site (the visit, the acknowledgements, the help on the issue, the "advisors" comment, whatever Whigham said, the multiple references to the MacDonald-like design principles. This is all important EVIDENCE of continued involvement and influence. And you have given no justification for dismissing this in favor of your baseless speculation.

For example, you think that all this other stuff was in gratitude? Based on what? What is your EVIDENCE of this?

Quote

However, he likely did have some involvment, which I'm going to objectively, and probably generously estimate at 10%.

You cant seriously think you can throw out an objective percentage on this, can you?

Quote

The fact that there is no written or historical evidence in either the Merion archives OR Macdonald's records goes a long way to suggest that to be true.

This just isnt true. Wilson acknowledgde that he helped and was an "advisor." Why doesnt that count as written and historical record. And what of Leslie's article? Wasnt he the chairman of the same green committee that is partially credited with the design? And what about all of the other stuff above. Whigham?

I think you may be confusing whether MacDonald was an influence, on the one hand, with determining exactly what Wison learned from him, on the other.

There is ample evidence of the former, but little way to accurately determine the latter. But we shouldnt discount the evidence of influence just because it is now impossible to determine what that evidence was.

Mike, why do you dismiss all this stuff as not being part of the historical record?

Using made up numbers, wouldn't it be more fair to say the following:

We are 80% positive that MacDonald had a major influence on Wilson regarding Merion East, but we can only identify about 5% of what Wilson may have learned from MacDonald

« **Reply #397 on:** December 07, 2006, 09:06:08 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 07, 2006, 08:22:18 PM

Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 07, 2006, 04:57:13 PM
However, I don't see much in the way of continuing education from Macdonald and virtually nothing in the way of specific hole or feature design from Macdonald after Wilson came back. Evidently there is some mention of helping with a routing issue, and he and Whigham continued to be referred to graciously as "advisors", but I think that was more in gratitude to their original help than any ongoing collaboration.

Mike, you've obviously bought into Mr. Morrison's rhetorical deck-stacking here. There is evidence of continued involvement, but you dismiss it entirely because "you dont see much in the way of continuing education from MacDonald." The facts you site (the visit, the acknowledgements, the help on the issue, the "advisors" comment, whatever Whigham said, the multiple references to the MacDonald-like design principles. This is all important EVIDENCE of continued involvement and influence. And you have given no justification for dismissing this in favor of your baseless speculation.

For example, you think that all this other stuff was in gratitude? Based on what? What is your EVIDENCE of this?

Quote
However, he likely did have some involvment, which I'm going to objectively, and probably generously estimate at 10%.

You cant seriously think you can throw out an objective percentage on this, can you?

Quote
The fact that there is no written or historical evidence in either the Merion archives OR Macdonald's records goes a long way to suggest that to be true.

This just isnt true. Wilson acknowledgde that he helped and was an "advisor." Why doesnt that count as written and historical record. And what of Leslie's article? Wasnt he the chairman of the same green committee that is partially credited with the design? And what about all of the other stuff above. Whigham?

I think you may be confusing whether MacDonald was an influence, on the one hand, with determining exactly what Wison learned from him, on the other.

There is ample evidence of the former, but little way to accurately determine the latter. But we shouldnt discount the evidence of influence just because it is now impossible to determine what that evidence was.

Mike, why do you dismiss all this stuff as not being part of the historical record?

Using made up numbers, wouldn't it be more fair to say the following:

We are 80% positive that MacDonald had a major influence on Wilson regarding Merion East, but we can only identify about 5% of what Wilson may have learned from MacDonald

DM, Allow me to cite some examples of advisement and whether or not this warrants design credit.

George Thomas wrote of Wilson, "I always considered Wilson, of Merion, Penn., as one of the best of our architects, professional or amatuer. HE taught me many things AT Merion and Coob's Creek and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly ADVISED me by letter when I wrote him concerning them."

Are we to give Wilson credit for Rivieria, Bel Air, LACC, etc.?

In turn Thomas returned the favor. "...in the ultimate show of respect to his fellow Philadelphians, Flynn asked that George Thomas travel east to share his expertise for the project." Geoff Shackelford, Golden Age of Design, in regards to the work Flynn performed at the Ninth hole at Pine Valley. Who gets credit for what?

There is a photo of Mackenzie making sketches at Riviera w/ Thomas and Bell looking on. Are we to give Mackenzie credit for Riviera? No. Why? We don't know what the sketches suggested nor do we know if Thomas used any of the ideas. Can we deduce that Mackenzie MIGHT have had an influence, sure. He was there, and we know this by documentation and by photo and , in additon, Mackenzie was asked to come for advisement (little to his knowledge, he thought he was asked to come to design a project).

WE DON"T KNOW WHAT MACDONALD SAID TO WILSON. And because there is some evidence, whether real or percieved, of Redans, Principles Nose's and the like, doesn't mean Macdonald gets credit for that. Hugh Wilson made his own trip to the British Isles and saw them for himself. American architecture was trying to find it's own way at that time, and while it used "templates" from Britain in it's infancy, it quickly started to develop it's own style, while still using some of the principles from Britain. And so it is today.

« **Reply #398 on:** December 07, 2006, 09:07:30 PM »

Does anyone know if CBM built a "redan" which sloped from back to front?

Could the commonality of naming golf holes (individual names like Thom's elbow for #14 at Shinnecock, as opposed to category names like "redan") in those early days account for a wider more inclusive description of a hole like #3 as a "redan" when it seems far removed from that type today?

« **Reply #399 on:** December 07, 2006, 09:12:11 PM »

David,

We're both plainly speculating here based on very, very thin evidence.

Yes, we do know that Macdonald did have a big influence on Wilson. He pointed him in the right direction, taught him all he could over two days, told him where to go in GB to see some of the greatest stuff over there, and....and that's where the picture gets fuzzy.

We know of at least one site visit, but the nature is unspecified. We know that Wilson was grateful but not for anything beyond the initial push in the right direction and an account of being available for consultation afterwards. We also know that some of the leading golf people of the day called one hole a redan, one an Alps, and Travis evidently said the 15th green was based on the Eden green.

That's all well and good, but that's all there is to hang your hat on. Any of those things could have been learned by Wilson from his extended (8 months is a long, long time to look at golf courses every day) stay in Great Britain than from anything Macdonald may have imparted. He also built features that I've never seen from Macdonald such as Valley of Sin features, but that existed in Scotland. Where do you think that idea may have come from?

Again, speculation, but in lieu of any formalized records or documentation, that's all we have.

I'm inclined to think that what David Stamm suggests about Macdonald giving the project instant cache to the Merion membership and prospective onlookers as very, very plausible. After all, Macdonald was the most important and well-known man in American golf at the time. Why wouldn't Wilson want him to be known as "advising" on the project, in whatever capacity, if even just for PR purposes; especially given Wilson's "first time" architectural status?

Also, I'm sure Wilson would have been very interested from Macdonald to learn about construction techniques, agronomy, maintenance standards, and a whole host of things having nothing to do with architecture directly.

To me, the most weighty evidence in this whole matter is the actions, or inaction of Macdonald himself. Knowing his tremendous ego, I find it incredulous to believe that if he had a great deal to do with the actual design and building of the Merion East course, he would have trumpeted that news widely. He was a huge self-promoter, and with very valid evidence to back up his boastfulness. The fact that he said almost nothing about Merion, the fact that there is not a single shred of written evidence about his involvement with Merion in any of the voluminous files that have been unearthed over the years, and the fact that the course itself bears virtually none of the type of close replications to "ideal golf course" standards originated and duplicated countless times by Macdonald and his disciples all tend to make me believe that once he pointed Wilson in the right direction, the rest is history.

News:

JESII

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

DMoriarty

T_MacWood

Mike_Cirba

Phil_the_Author

DMoriarty

Mike_Cirba

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

Bryan Izatt

Mike_Cirba

DMoriarty

Bryan Izatt

Mike_Cirba

David Stamm

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

David Stamm

JESII

Mike_Cirba