[Andy Hughes]

A number of those early amateur architects with their lifelong projects did that too and if you guys can't understand that or you just don't want to, you'll never really understand that era and some of those men like Wilson who made those great early courses.

Well, yes and no.  The key is they were lifelong projects, not a year or less, that created strategic courses with merit.  If HW and his committee were able to create a quality course in such a short time with no exposure to quality courses beforehand, I think that would be more unusual than you are implying.
Also left unanswered is the relative quality of Merion when it first opened vs its quality after HW returned from his 1912 trip.

[TEPaul]

"Now Wayne has shown the land was actually bought June, 1909, and it is looking possible that the trip did not occur til 1912..Alan's 'first step' took a while to happen, especially if the 'first step' actually took place after the course was laid out and seeded."

Andy:

And that's precisely why I feel it is very worthwhile to explore various avenues to determine if in fact Wilson did go over there in 1910 or so, but certainly at some point before 1911 or before the course went into construction.

Let me ask you something Andy. I have never known the dates when Crump left for GB and returned home but I do know he was over there at a particular date in Dec, 1910 because there is a postcard from him from over there in the archives postmarked that date.

Let's say I found a postcard from Wilson from over there in the Merion archives? Would that then prove to you that Wilson was over there before the course went into construction?

Do you really think David Moriarty would feel that was proof enough? Do you feel that would be enough to put an end to these Merion threads of David Moriarty's?  

[Andy Hughes]

Let's say I found a postcard from Wilson from over there in the Merion archives? Would that then prove to you that Wilson was over there before the course went into construction?

It would not 'prove it' to me, but I would then believe he was there when the postcard was sent.  Just like I do not believe DavidM has 'proved' HW made a trip in 1912 but I do believe at this point that it is so. Not sure that makes sense?

I should mention--I have no axe to grind here, I am not invested in the notion that HW did not go earlier than 1912. I am more curious in what really happened and how a great course was created.

[TEPaul]

"Well, yes and no.  The key is they were lifelong projects, not a year or less, that created strategic courses with merit.  If HW and his committee were able to create a quality course in such a short time with no exposure to quality courses beforehand, I think that would be more unusual than you are implying.
Also left unanswered is the relative quality of Merion when it first opened vs its quality after HW returned from his 1912 trip."

Andy, you really have to understand something a little better about those courses like Merion East, NGLA, Pine Valley et al from that early time. I think everyone on here needs to understand something about them back then in the beginning a whole lot better.

Some of you guys keep wondering if the architecture was really great right out of the box. It wasn't so much about the architecture of those courses mentioned back then----or not anything like you guys seem to think. Anyone could obviously see the skeletons of those courses getting built and tell that they looked like they could be great but the thing all those men back then were really concerned with was not the ramifications and nuances of the architecture, it was to try to figure out how in the hell to construct them so turf could be established on them.

They had almost no idea about that and nowhere to turn for help. This is what we need to understand better.

Wilson had to tear up a bunch of his original greens and rebuild them not because he or others didn't like the architecture or the style of some of it but because there was no way anybody could establish turf on them the way they were originally built.

Maybe this is all just an understanding that Wayne and I have at this point because we have and have read most of those 2,000 agronomy letters, and apparently noone else has.

One really does need to understand what those men back there were thinking about if we want to really understand what they were doing. I'm pretty sure Wilson did not write 1,000 letter on beetles and bugs and grubs and worms because he liked them. He was just trying to figure out how to establish turf for golf like everyone else was back then. And don't for a minute think that DID NOT get directly into golf course architecture, particularly green construction. It did and BIGTIME. Just reading some of those agronomy letters and Hugh and Alan Wilson's reports on the creation of Merion East and West makes that clear as a bell.

That came first, in their minds, and if they had to tear a bunch of architecture up to make grass grow permanently on it then that's exactly what they did back then in that super early day. That's what Wilson had to do at Merion East.

It was no different for Macdonald at NGLA, for Wilson at Merion or for Crump at Pine Valley.

That's what we need to appreciate more and understand better because that was their reality, even if it isn't ours today.

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I think what we also need to keep in mind is that the Merion of 1912 was not the Merion of 1916 nor the Merion of 1925 or the Merion of 1934 because it WAS a lifelong project, for Wilson and Flynn at least.

As I mentioned to Andy earlier, the first course out of the gate in 1912 had little bunkering, as Tillinghast noted.  Sometime after Wilson's trip, and before the 1916 US Amateur (which I believe Philip mentioned was nominated around 1914), Wilson and the Committee and Flynn, et.al. started to add the details; the famed white faces of Merion.

Where do you think the rumor started where Wilson would have Valentine lay out bedsheets as he attempted to position the bunkers, which ultimately largely created the strategic aspects of the golf course that we know and appreciate today?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
I think what we also fail to realize is that the Merion of 1912 was not the Merion of 1916 nor the Merion of 1925 or the Merion of 1934 because it WAS a lifelong project, for Wilson and Flynn at least."

Mike:

I think a whole lot more people really do understand that then you think, at least those on here. But what I think virtually noone on here understands yet or truly appreciates is the Merion of 1911 and 1912 was probably the only kind of Merion that was possible at that time and the vast majority of why any of it needed to change from that point had very little to do with golf architecture and almost everything to do with agronomy.

There is virtually no way anyone could read all those agronomy letters and think otherwise.

I have no doubt at all---none---that if Hugh Wilson couid read any of these Merion threads he could not possibly help think to himself that these people on here have virtually no idea what he was doing and thinking back then.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I agree, but I think my point to Andy is that I believe he's thinking about the Merion of 1912 or 1914 as a "great course" in today's terms, such that it was awarded the US Amateur within that timeframe.  I'd also contend that if Tillinghast says the course was almost bunkerless in 1912 then the course in 1916 (post-Wilson's GB trip) had scads of bunkers added during that time period (I have a map of the 1916 course showing locations of bunkers).  

Also, one has to consider that there wasn't a heckuva lot of competition of really good courses then, and also that the Merion membership was fairly well connected, much as they are today.  Given all of those factors, it's not wholly surprising that the relatively new course (almost every course of note was "new" at the time) was awarded the US Amateur.

[TEPaul]

"Where do you think the rumor started where Wilson would have Valentine lay out bedsheets as he attempted to position the bunkers, which ultimately largely created the strategic aspects of the golf course that we know and appreciate today?"

It's not a matter of me thinking where that came from, I know exaclty where it came from. I know precisely where the bedsheets and the famous "White Faces of Merion" came from.

It happened on the present 6th hole, the old 3rd hole.

That was the hole I mentioned on here a few weeks ago that had the brothel to the right of the green. It was called the "Hen House" and Wilson created and stocked the place with some needy but beautiful showgirls for the sole purpose of luring Charles Blair Macdonald to Philadelpia so he could layout, design and oversee the construction of the course for Merion.

Well, Macdonald got in that "Hen House" and he was in there for an hour and twenty nine minutes with Wilson, his committee and Pickering and Flynn and Valentine waiting for him in the middle of what is now the 6th fairway.

Wilson looked at his watch and couldn't take it any more (Wilson was a most efficient guy if you haven't figured that out yet and so was Flynn). So Wilson hollered at the top of his lungs;

"Macdonald, you fat letch, get the hell out here and show us how to place and make a bunker!!"

Two minutes later Charley came rushing out of the "Hen House" to the right of where the 6th green now is looking for all the world to see like an overweight Roman Emperor wrapped in a toga. And he had at least two of those showgirls chasing him. He wasn't that far from Wilson and the Boys when one of those naked girls ripped the bedsheet off C.B's fat body and tried to run back giggling into the "Hen House" with it leaving him stark naked on the middle of the 6th fairway.

Wilson, always fleet of foot, ripped the bedsheet away from the showgirl as he watched all three of them run naked back into the "Hen House".

At that point Wilson said;

"Guiseppe, the hell with Macdonald, you just take that disgusting bedsheet and just lay it on the ground over there and we'll all go back to the tee and look at it."

And that's where the bedsheet story and the "White Faces of Merion" came from.

Did Macdonald have any involvement in this "Whte Faces of Merion" look and the architecture of it?

You're damned straight he did, that disgusting bedsheet was his from the Hen House. How the hell else do you think a bedsheet was ever going to get on Merion East??

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I guess that could be loosely construed as "a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes".  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Seriously, you obviously want to know where those unusual (for that time) bunkers and the look of them came from.

Well, as I said earlier we have a whole bunch of drafts of that 1916 report of Hugh Wilson's and in one of those drafts was a paragraph on architecture, on bunkers, he Xed out of the report.

In that Xed out paragraph Wilson explained in some detail the way he thought bunkers should play and the way they should not play. He also explained where the look of them came from--he actually called it 'the very best school for the study' (of bunkers).

Would you care to guess where that "very best school for the study (of bunkering)" was, in Hugh Wilson's opinion?

By the way, you have a lecherous and dirty mind.

[Mike_Cirba]

I would guess that he referred to some course in the Heathlands, but it's obviously a guess.   Walton Heath?  

Or maybe Pine Valley??

As far as my lechery, I used to be vaguely embarrassed but as I've aged I've embraced it.  

[Andy Hughes]

I agree, but I think my point to Andy is that I believe he's thinking about the Merion of 1912 or 1914 as a "great course" in today's terms, such that it was awarded the US Amateur within that timeframe.

Mike, yes, that's right. I have not gotten a good sense of the quality of the course when opened vs later.  Clearly the course evolved quite a bit over time--maybe the course was pretty basic to start and the strategy vis-a-vis bunkering came later. That seems to be the case. Maybe it is no coincidence that the strategy came later if the trip overseas also came later, combined with the agronomic issues which Tom has made clear were priority number one.

[TEPaul]

"I would guess that he referred to some course in the Heathlands, but it's obviously a guess.  Walton Heath?  
Or maybe Pine Valley??"

Like most everyone else on here you have a one-track architectural mind!

"The question of bunkers is a big one and we believe the very best school for study is along the seacoast among the sand dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape."
Hugh Wilson

So now we know. The revolutionary new look in inland American bunkers that were prototyped at Merion East were never from the "National" School, or the linksland or the heathlands. It was known as the "Avalon" School of bunker architecture.

[Mike_Cirba]

"I would guess that he referred to some course in the Heathlands, but it's obviously a guess.  Walton Heath?  
Or maybe Pine Valley??"

Like most everyone else on here you have a one-track architectural mind!

"The question of bunkers is a big one and we believe the very best school for study is along the seacoast among the sand dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape."
Hugh Wilson

So now we know. The revolutionary new look in inland American bunkers that were prototyped at Merion East were never from the "National" School, or the linksland or the heathlands. It was known as the "Avalon" School of bunker architecture.

Tom,

That's awesome and fascinating!  No wonder they were so uniquely original.

Now, I have to ask, what school of bunkers do you think Huge "Puffy" Wilson attended?

[TEPaul]

"Now, I have to ask, what school of bunkers do you think Huge "Puffy" Wilson attended?"

I believe it was PS 138.

All I know about "Puffy" Wilson's bunker style is they say his bunkers always used remarkably fine ultra white sand. Some even say it looked almost like a powder and that whenever Puffy muffed a shot out of it he would just fall face down in that powdery white stuff and sometimes just stay there for up to ten minutes at a time snortin' and sniffin' and carryin' on like nobody's business.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Sort of a "Macdonald and the Bedsheet" story updated to reflect modern realities, huh?  

[TEPaul]

MikeyC, something has always told me that you ain't no real fan of Fazio or Macdonald & Co bunker-makers supreme.

But you should be or maybe you will be if you knew how much research they all did in the 2001 Merion Bunker Project.

I knew the young and talented lad who ran that bunker project or I've known his dad for years. The nice young man used to call me for research and info sources all the time about all kinds of things but mostly relating to bunkers. So I told him that Macdonald bedsheet story and the Hen House to the right of the 6th hole. I don't know whether you noticed but that old house is still there to the right of the 6th green.

The next thing I know here are all these puffy and upholstered looking bunker surrounds all over Merion totally unlike any bedsheet that Charley ever wrapped around his fat lecherous body.

So I immediately got Tosherino on the horn and asked him what in the Hell that look was all about on Merion's bunkers.

He told me he and the Faz and Macd & Co used my research source and went searhing in that old house that used to be the "Hen House" and the place was dark and dank and totally vacant except for some ratty old puffy, ultra upholstered looking armchair.

He said since that was all they could find research-wise for the bunker restoration project they just hauled that old mess of a piece of furniture out on the course and copied it.

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeyC, something has always told me that you ain't no real fan of Fazio or Macdonald & Co bunker-makers supreme.

But you should be or maybe you will be if you knew how much research they all did in the 2001 Merion Bunker Project.

I knew the young and talented lad who ran that bunker project or I've known his dad for years. The nice young man used to call me for research and info sources all the time about all kinds of things but mostly relating to bunkers. So I told him that Macdonald bedsheet story and the Hen House to the right of the 6th hole. I don't know whether you noticed but that old house is still there to the right of the 6th green.

The next think I know here are all these puffy and upholstered looking bunker surrounds all over Merion totally unlike any bedsheet that Charley ever wrapped around his fat lecherous body.

So I immediately got Tosherino on the horn and asked him what in the Hell that look was all about on Merion's bunkers.

He told me he and the Faz and Macd & Co used my research source and went searhing in that old house that used to be the "Hen House" and the place was dark and dank and totally vacant except for some ratty old puffy, ultra upholstered looking armchair.

He said since that was all they could find research-wise for the bunker restoration project they just hauled that old mess of a piece of furniture out on the course and copied it.

Thank Heavens for that, Tom.   At least they weren't just flying blind.

By the way, what was the condition of that old armchair?   The mind cringes and stomach retches at imagining its condition considering its probable usage.

Despite those sordid realities, would you consider it a restoration candidate?  

[TEPaul]

That question does not address the point. The point is C.B. Macdonald's influence and involvement on Merion East has never died and it isn't likely to in any of the next few centuries at least.

But the Merion bunkers have been through a lot of iterations and influences----eg the sand dunes of Avalon look, the sex laced bedsheet look, the Mrs Guiseppe Valentino's lace doilie look, the RichKit Mohawk look, and now the ratty old puffy upholstered armchair look.

What in the world can our children and grandchildren expect next?

[Mike_Cirba]

Oh yeah, I am still hoping for an answer:

Assuming no pre-1912 study trip, where did Wison learn the Alps principles and the Redan principles, if not from Macdonald?  

David,

You are presuming that those holes employed the Redan and Alps strategies from the get-go, and weren't added after Wilson's return from GB.  

Since it's very clear that Leslie was talking about the fronting bunker on #10 being the "Alps feature", do you know if it was there in the original course that had almost no bunkering?   Or, was it added after Wilson came back from GB?

Since it's clear that the only thing even remotely resembling a redan on the 3rd hole is the front right bunker, do you know if it was there in 1912, or added after Wilson returned?

Where would Wilson have come up with the Valley of Sin features that don't exist on any Macdonald/Raynor courses?

Either Wilson picked up those things and added them from his trip overseas, or Macdonald was such a master educator that he had Wilson design a redan where the green slope is backwards defeating the whole original intent of the shaping of the hole and also had him build an Alps where the mountain was behind the green instead of in front of it!  Which is it?  

At least you've dropped the silly pretense you've had for the past 3 months where you would have us believe that you aren't arguing that CB Macdonald actually layed out Merion.  Finally, you've come clean, despite constantly berating me for calling you on your BS.

Yes, you have it right, David.  Hugh Wilson brought CB a topo map, Macdonald layed out the course in one night at NGLA, came to check the progress of his lowly underlings, and pronounced all was right with the world.

Somehow, it all got lost in the annals of time until you David came along to enlighten us.

In the words of Matt Ward, "PUUUHHHLLLLEAASSSEEE".  

[Bryan Izatt]

Oh yeah, I am still hoping for an answer:

Assuming no pre-1912 study trip, where did Wison learn the Alps principles and the Redan principles, if not from Macdonald?  

Is there information that Wilson called them Alps and Redan; or did someone else name them that?

In any event, he got the principles wrong, as Mike has bolded above.  Was that his fault; did he misinterpret the principles?  Or did whoever imparted the principles give it to him wrong.

Mike, there's a third possibility - he learned the (partial) principles from someone else.

[CHrisB]

Oh yeah, I am still hoping for an answer:

Assuming no pre-1912 study trip, where did Wilson learn the Alps principles and the Redan principles, if not from Macdonald?

I don't have a problem with the idea of Wilson learning the principles of Alps holes and Redan holes from CBM. He probably learned the principles of many holes "that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time" from CBM. I think he probably learned a lot of "GCA 101"-type stuff like that, and that they probably discussed what kinds of things might work given the natural conditions at Merion.

But I haven't seen any evidence anywhere to suggest that CBM said anything like (pointing to the topo map) "I think you should try to put a Redan here", or "your Alps hole should go there".

All of the evidence presented so far indicates a more general discussion. They probably discussed all sorts of ideas on all sorts of levels, some of which likely did apply directly to Merion--for instance, perhaps recommending that they contact Piper/Oakley for assistance regarding "the preparation of the soil and grass choice". CBM may have even offered specific advice about Merion ("You could try x, y, or z if you get into a tight corner of the property", or "with your soil conditions, you may want to keep in mind x, y and z"). Indeed, they probably did discuss "more ideas on golf course construction than [Wilson et al.] had learned in all the years [they] had played".

But that doesn't mean that CBM made a single decision about what actually happened at Merion. All the evidence so far points to Wilson et al. going back to Merion and deciding for themselves what they would try to do with their first iteration of the course.

I'll bet that before M&W arrived in late spring 1911 to visit the course (which was "nearing completion in the planning"), they didn't know what they would see at Merion.

If there were some statement somewhere directly attributing CBM for a specific idea or feature used at Merion, then this discussion would really take off, in my opinion. Something like "The advice received from Macdonald and Whigham was of the greatest help and value--in fact, we could not have solved our routing problem without them, and the 10th hole could rightly be attributed to them alone". Until something like that is found, the Merion history (at least as it pertains to CBM) can't be re-written.

[David Stamm]

 

I did not say that Macdonald layed out Merion.   I just said that there is no way his advice was only a general overview.  They were talking about Merion.

David, I think that's where the confusion lays with some here. If it's not a general overview, then what exactly is it.

[TEPaul]

"If there were some statement somewhere directly attributing CBM for a specific idea or feature used at Merion, then this discussion would really take off, in my opinion. Something like "The advice received from Macdonald and Whigham was of the greatest help and value--in fact, we could not have solved our routing problem without them, and the 10th hole could rightly be attributed to them alone". Until something like that is found, the Merion history (at least as it pertains to CBM) can't be re-written."

ChrisB:

That's precisely what I've always said on these Merion threads of David Moriarty's.

Particularly, that Hugh Wilson wrote a report about the creation of Merion FOUR YEARS AFTER THE FACT!

In that report he took the time to really thank Macdonald for the advice he'd given he and his committee at NGLA and he went into detail in that same report about what-all was done up there and talked about. Again, I remind everyone, he wrote that four years later!!

But then in the second paragraph of that same report, written four years after the fact, Wilson goes into the fact that "OUR problem was to layout and build 18 greens and 15 fairways.." Hugh Wilson used "Our" and "we" throughout his report and his letters and in not a single instance did either of those references ever include Macdonald. It always referred to Wilson and the Merion Construction Committee he chaired.

My point is that if Wilson was writing this FOUR YEARS AFTER THE FACT in the same report, why in the world would he mention what Macdonald had done for them at NGLA and in some detail and then never mention A SINGLE OTHER THING IN THAT REPORT about Macdonald doing anything else for them at Merion itself?

That just seems so obvious why that report is written that way.

To try to imply that Macdonald did enough more at Merion for that committee and that course to be called signficant without having Hugh Wilson at least mention SOMETHING about it in that SAME report he wrote FOUR YEARS LATER with all that mention of NLGA and the visit there just makes no sense at all to me.

It makes no more sense than anything else David Moriarty has said on these threads. Is it any wonder David Moriarty has basically never even addressed or acknowledged this patently commonsense issue in Hugh Wilson's report despite me mentioning it a number of times?

I don't think so!

Frankly, a club of that age is lucky to have a report like Hugh Wilson's who I doubt anyone denies was the architect of the golf course. Most courses of that age don't have such a thing. Certainly Pine Valley didn't have such a thing from George Crump. If one is going to try to research the creation of Merion it's important that one does not look at one part of it only and simply avoid the importance of the rest. The first few sentences or so of the second paragraph of that Hugh Wilson report are every bit as valuable in understanding the creation of Merion as anything in the first paragraph, in my opinion. And taken together, and with equal importance as both paragraphs should be, they tell the overall story of the creation of the golf course from its architect. There is no reason to basically avoid anything he said in that report and to imply that he was in some way not telling the truth is a slight on Merion and Wilson that has no justification in fact that I can see.

After possibly fifty pages this "hypothesis" of David Moriarty has been put through a thorough catechism---a complete examination, and it was been found seriously lacking by almost all the examiners on here.

That is the way it should be on here and that is precisely what makes this GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com discussion group valuable.

 

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

And here I though this thread was dead a couple of days ago.

To close the loop from a couple of pages ago:

Bryan,  I am not sure why the big misunderstanding.  Hugh Wilson gushes ( Your interpretation). over Macdonald's input into the creation of Merion, essentially saying that Macdonald taught the committee most ( Most?? He said "more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played" It's a inference to say that was most of what they knew.) of what they knew about building a course and even which of the principles of design would work at Merion; Hugh Wilson's brother said M&W's advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value, and noted that M&W were the only  (Where does he say they were the "only" outside help.  They may be the only ones mentioned as advisers, but in the article you linked, Wilson mentions "We collected all the information we could from local committees and greenkeepers, and started in the spring of 1911 to construct the course".)  other outside help given on the project;  Tillinghast and Travis also note that M&W were very helpful in laying out the course.  Lesley mentions M&W alongside (Alongside?? As equals?? He mentions them as advisors.) the committee and credits them all, and no one else, with creating the course.

So every contemporary account of the project notes that they were not only involved, but that their involvement was important, significant, substantial, whatever you want to comment. (Why can't you simply answer the question about what definition of significant you are using and how the facts fit that definition.  Then, I'll go away on that point).

Andy,

I agree that the debate about significance is really quite silly.

(Sure it's silly, but weren't you the one that started claiming that the contributions of M&W were underappreciated.  That their contributions were significant.  I suppose it's silly to pursue how you arrived at that conclusion)

David

Following is a little deconstructive analysis.


JES II,

Sure.  Below is the portion of the article, a little over 2 pages.  Ala Mucci, I will try a little color coding, and my bolds are references to what I consider the site specific portions.  

Green = The committee member’s knowledge and qualifications before they met with CBM
Blue =  What the committee learned.


The Merion Cricket Club, of Philadelphia, played
golf on leased property for nearly twenty years
and, as is usual in this country, the land became so
valuable that the club was forced to move. This
experience showed the advantage of permanency,
so early in 191 I the Club appointed a committee
consisting of Messrs. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin,
and Wilson to construct  (No mention of M&W "alongside" or as part of the committee.)  a new course on
the 125 acres of land which had been purchased.
The members of the committee had played golf
for many years, but the experience of each in construction
and greenkeeping was only that of the
average club member. Looking back on the work,
I feel certain that we would never have attempted
to carry it out,(Implying that the committee did carry it out. It's only in retrospect that they would never have tried.  Was he talking about before or after CBM had educated them?) if we had realized one-half the things we did not know. Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start (Start!!!  Not everything we needed to know about everything, just a start on the principles) in the correct principles of laying out the holes, through the kindness of Messrs. C. B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.
We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his
bungalow near the National Course and in one
night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction
than we had learned in all the years we had
played.(He doesn't quantify how much they knew when they started nor how much CBM added to it.  He was thankful for the advice and it was valuable, but it does not necessarily imply that it's all the advice or knowledge they got before they built) Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous
courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we
learned what was right and what we should try to
accomplish with our natural conditions.  (You're reading in that what they should try to accomplish that night.  Perhaps they learned that at a later time based on the principles.  Perhaps they only learned what principles they should try to apply.  It doesn't necessarily mean that they learned how to lay out the principles on a topo map that may or may not have been there.  It could also mean that some principles, whatever they were would work at Merion and others would not in the natural conditions.  Could it be that they learned that they couldn't lay out a fast and firm course on clay-loam.  Obviously they didn't learn the principle of drainage from CBM since they had to rebuild the greens.)  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 suggest to any committee
about to build a new course, or to alter their
old one, that they spend as much time as possible
on courses such as the National and Pine Valley,
where they may see the finest types of holes and,
while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety,
they can learn the correct principles (Is there any evidence what the "correct principles" they should learn?  Were the principles concepts?  Or were they principles on how to lay specific holes out on specific pieces of land, for instance an Alps on Merion?) and
adapt them to their own courses.

Our problem was to layout the course, build,
and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.
Three fairways were in old pasture turf. These
will be mentioned later. We collected all the information
we could from local committees and greenkeepers, (Aha, other uncredited advisers)
and started in the spring of 1911 to construct
the course on ground which had largely been
farm land.

The whole chapter:

http://digital.lib.msu.edu/collections/turfgrass/TurfForGolf/tfg-17.pdf

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()