[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

The fact remains, in all of the writings, there's not one reference to any SPECIFIC help CBM MIGHT have offered, from anyone.
The fact remains that there are no references to anyone's specific contribution, so I do not think you can draw any conclusions from the absence of information in this case.      

Do you think that one night and one day with C&C, Dye, Fazion or Doak would be sufficient enough education for you to route, design and construct a golf course ?

I know that I'd need at least another 8 hours

No, but then I did not go to Princeton. But, Patrick, Wilson must have gotten this knowledge from somewhere, right?

Agreed.  Although, as veteran golfers, they acquired a good degree of knowledge from their experiences[/color]  

M&W were the only outside sources of information even cited.  

That citation is vague at best and doesn't automatically exclude other sources.[/color]


You seem to be saying that Wilson could never have designed the course absent his supposed trip overseas.  

No, I"m not saying that.
Anything that HIW and the committee could do to study more, gain more exposure and additional experience would be beneficial.[/color]

What will you say once you are finally convinced that Wilson did not go to study until 1912?  

I will say that he didn't have the benefit of exposing himself to golf courses in the UK.[/color]

From where did Wilson learn how to do what he did?  

It's not as if he didn't have extensive experience in golf.
How much was inate and how much was acquired remains unknown.[/color]

I think I could learn a heck of a lot in one night and one day, especially if we focused our discussion on the actual site in question.

I don't think you could learn 5 % in one night and/or one day.
The art of routing alone is something you could study for years and still not learn how to do it right.

And, it's not as if they could dial up Google Earth and look at the site.  Their tools were rudimentary at best.[/color]
 
Remember, Macdonald had already inspected the Ardmore site at the time of the NGLA meeting;.  

It took him years to develop NGLA and you think that a day or two on site was ample for him to have a total understanding of the property.  Who knows how much he remembered and how much he forgot.  It's not like he could go to Google Earth to refresh his memory.[/color]

It is unreasonable to assume that Wilson and Macdonald did not discuss the design of Merion and the specific attributes of Merion's site.

From what, recollection ?
I think it is unreasonable to think that HIW and CBM discussed the specific attributes of the site as it related to specific design features on a hole by hole basis, especially if they had no aids to assist them.

Why is there no mention of reviewing topos or specific land features, like elevations, hills, dales, rolling terrain, tee sites greensites, routings etc., etc. ?[/color]  

Wilson wrote about learning how to apply principles to Merion . . . He wrote that we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.  He also wrote that they learned what was right and what [they] should try to accomplish with [their] natural conditions.

This was not some vague theoritical lecture.  

I disagree.
Those are vague generalities, with NO specific references.[/color]

They were specifically discussing how to route and build Merion East, and on the eve of laying out the course.


Your conclusion is beyond a wild stretch, that's not what they were discussing[/color]

Until you can come up with references to specific areas of assistance, I don't see how you can give CBM more credit than Wilson has already given.

As we have discussed endlessly earlier, (whether you agree with their words or not) commentators at the time wrote that the 10th was based on the priniples of the alps hole, and the 3rd was based on the principles of the redan.

CBM himself described what a Redan was, and the features and qualities at # 3 are void of those features and qualities.  Since it was CBM who brought the Redan to America, he should know what constitutes a Redan, and it wasn't # 3.

As to your claim of the 10th being an "Alps" hole, the 10th at Merion doesn't possess the intervening hill needed to present an "Alps" hole.  The land is flat with no pronounced earthen structure blocking the golfers view of the green[/color]    

If Wilson had not yet been overseas to study, then where else could he have learned the principles underlying these holes, except from Macdonald and NGLA?

What principles ?
He was an experienced golfer, it's not like he lived in an architectural vacuum.  If you think spending one night and one day at NGLA is all the curriculum required to become an architect, you're selling the profession awfully short.

I know people who have studied NGLA for years, who continue to study NGLA, and, they're still learning about the architecture, yet, in one night, and one day, you think he received total consciousness with respect to the art and science of architecture.[/color]

Surely the presence of these holes in the initial routing indicates that Macdonald had a big influence on Wilson and his design.

Anyone who has played Merion, who has also played # 3 at NGLA or # 17 at Prestwick, wouldn't state that # 3 at NGLA influenced the design of # 10 at Merion.  That's another wild stretch on your part.[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Your hypothesis now has us imagining Hugh Wilson, sitting with CB Macdonald by candlelight in the late hours with a topo map laying out Merion.

Don't tell us you're not trying to imply that Macdonald laid out the course, which has been your goal for the past 3 months.   Give us credit for a bit of intelligence, ok?

As far as why Wilson and the Committee went to see Macdonald and NGLA in the first place, c'mon Dave...you're a smart guy.  NGLA was a landmark course, and even thought it wasn't opened yet, I'm sure word had spread among these guys like Tillinghast, Travis, Lesley, etc., all of who knew Macdonald and Whigham.   In addition, both M&W were former US Amateur champions and renowned players.  

But more importantly, NGLA was one of the first "do it yourself" architectural endeavors in this country.   Prior, the idea was that you had to have some Scottish pro come and give you the benefit of his "expertise".   Guys like Macdonald were very unhappy with the results of this approach to that date, and I'm sure Tillinghast (who was another of the first to venture uncharted into these waters) and others concurred heartily.   By definition, Wilson and the Merion Committee would have known about this general disenchantment, and probably felt similarly, as it's likely they did play at some of the few decent courses around at that time like Shawnee, Garden City, Oakmont, and perhaps Myopia, and the whole "homegrown" groundswell started around this time, exemplified by guys like Crump, Wilson, Fownes, et.al.  

You would have us believe that men like Wilson were babes in the woods when it came to golf and golf courses, but they were as well-connected to what was happening on the general scene as anyone, and more knowledgeable than most.

Even though men like Flynn and Pickering were on staff, both with course design and construction experience, your question is better phrased, why WOULDN'T Wilson have gone to visit NGLA?

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Regarding your last post, see my post #384---it explains in real detail how these men knew each other and perhaps even why Merion decided to form a committee from the club to build their golf course and not use an architect, as Alan Wilson clearly said in his report. Macdonald's NGLA had gotten some attention in 1910 but I believe the way he went about it got a club like Merion's attention as much as anything else. They very likely figured if Macdonald could go about builduing a good course like that so could they.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Your entire premise is now hanging on the very thin thread that the "Alps" and "redan" inspired holes existed as such on the nearly bunkerless course which opened in Sept. 1912.  

Or, was this first course the "rough draft" you mentioned that Travis referred to and the strategies (largely defined at Merion by the bunkering (anyone who doesn't believe that please go and look at an aerial)) were built in later after Wilson returned from Great Britain?

You manage to avoid the question time and again about how Wilson's "Eden" green on 15 was heavily sloped back to front (like the original at St. Andrews) while Macdonald's at NGLA is flat if Wilson built it based on what he learned from Macdonald versus what he learned in Scotland.

You also manage to avoid answering the question about where the Valley of Sin features on 16 & 17 come from, considering that this feature exists on NO courses by Macdonald or Raynor.

You also conveniently mention these two named template holes over and over again (although they bear so little in common with their forebearers as to be laughable), yet neglect to add that 16 of the holes have absolutely NOTHING in common with the trademark of the King of Template designs as Macdonald did on ALL of his courses and his disciples followed suit.

I am following the evidence David, but I don't follow it off the clifftop leaps of speculation that you repeatedly do.    

[TEPaul]

Chris Brauner said;

"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."

David Moriarty responded:
 
"You may be right, which is why I have never said that Macdonald deserves design credit for the course.  But everyone here seems to think that we either have to give Macdonald full credit and practically cut Wilson out, or visa versa, when surely neither one of these options is realistic."

MY GOD, WILL YOU GUYS JUST LOOK AT THAT!!

David Moriarty, why in God's name has it taken you about two months and about 60 pages to get around to admitting that which is what we here have always known and said.

And NO, NOONE here said we have to give Macdonald full credit and cut Wilson out or give Wilson full credit and cut Macdonald completely out. NOONE here ever said that so for Christ Sake just stop the crap of trying to say anyone here said that or implied that----THEY DIDN"T.

What we here have said is that at least M&W deserve the credit for Merion East that the architect of the golf course, HUGH WILSON gave them and in print in HIS 1916 REPORT.

The fact that you continue to just avoid the reality of that report of Wilson's in total and what it says in total is really indicative of what you've been trying to do on these threads.

What you need to do is deal with post #579 and what it says about Hugh Wilson's report or else just give it up on these threads. What you need to do is deal with the reality of why Wilson IN THAT REPORT IN 1916 gave M&W the credit he did for that visit to NGLA and said virtually nothing else about what they did while in Philadelphia. You have to deal with that or else just come right out and admit you must be implying Wilson was lying for failing to credit them with some significant involvement once the project got underway---and that certainly includes the routing.

You can't continue to avoid this.

[Mike_Cirba]

Until something like that is found, the Merion history (at least as it pertains to CBM) can't be re-written.

I disagree.  The history is being rewritten, whether anyone ever accepts it or not.  
- Wilson's trip overseas before the first spade of dirt was turned was a huge part of Merion lore, and now it looks like that did not happen.  
- This trip overseas was long considered the basis for Wilson's knowledge and abilities, and now that looks to be less likely was well.
- Wilson's description of Macdonald's influence was long thought to refer solely to trip preparation, but now it looks as if they were specifically discussing the task of laying out and constructing the course.
- Holes like Nos. 3 and 10 were long thought to have been inspired in Europe, but now it looks like the information came from Macdonald, not overseas travels.  
______________________________

So, these are your final conclusions?

They are all based on a very faulty assumption and ironically, you're the one who presented the information which sinks your hypothesis.

They are all based on the erroneous assumption that the course that opened in Sept 1912 was the same course that Lesley and others wrote about a few years later, full of strategies and with at least two holes "inspired" by counterparts overseas (you'll notice Lesley mentioned Prestwick and not NGLA as Wilson's inspiration for the Alps hole!).  

The problem with that theory David is the information you brought to us earlier about Walter Travis calling that first iteration of the course in 1912 a "rough draft", and the other info you presented where Tillinghast during the same period  refers to the newly-opened course as largely bunkerless (it now has something like 130 and many of them existed by 1916).  

One can imagine quite easily the routing being similar to today's (with the known exception of 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 13 and possibly more), but mostly just tees, greens (which were blown up and completely REBUILT 18 months after opening), and mowed grass in between.  

Anyone familiar with the property would know that there is only one way for holes to flow on each side of the road, because there isn't a long par four's width to go north to south on the lower holes or east to west on the upper holes.

The configuration of holes around the quarry is quite brilliant, but we already know that was Mr. Francis' brainstorm.  Most of the other holes are well laid out, and use a very common technique of the time in putting the tees and greens at the highpoints (largely for drainage) with valleys in between.  

The original course used no particular routing brilliance in the use of the creek, with arguably having it run up the left side of 5 a nice touch, but the crossing in front of the 4th and 9th greens was not exactly brain surgery.

No, I think mostly all of the strategic interest you find at Merion David is in the greens, the green surrounds, the bunkering patterns, the angles presented by the greensites and protecting bunkers to the optimum approach areas, and the cool improvements to 1, 10, 11, 12 (13 is probably not as good today unfortunately) that happened in 1925.

All of the other things...the greens, the bunkers, etc. ALL happened AFTER Macdonald had LEFT THE BUILDING!  

Wilson may have come back on a ship in May 1912, but the boat you'd have us ride is pretty much washed up on the rocks at this point!  

[JESII]

I'll be curious to read Dm's response to those posts Tom and Mike because, as I see it, they pretty well cover all the points those skeptical of this hypothesis could think of.

To be fair, DM has said all through this thread that his goal is to unravel the course of events that lead to the course opening in Sep of 1912. Assuming that is all he is concerned with, I cannot imagine taking this much time to attempt to establish the foundation of something that changed so significantly in the years immediately following that date.

[TEPaul]

JESII

The thing that sort of interests us about David Moriarty's approach to Merion is that he seems to think there are all kinds of unanswered questions about the course, its creation and its evolution over the years. I don't think there are.

The fact that Wilson went to GB in 1912 certainly was interesting but I don't think the significance of it is all that much because the fact is it was Wilson and his committee that build the East Course in 1911 anyway, and David Moriarty's discovery of the 1912 trip is not going to change that fact.

I don't think the discovery of that trip is going to change whatever involvement M&W had in the laying out and building of Merion East either because Hugh Wilson's report certainly covers that too as does his brother's report about ten years later.

I don't think David Moriarty will be able to impeach the events as described in those reports either. There were some dates that were wrong in Hugh Wilson's report but Wayne and I have known about that for years now.

The history of Merion East has pretty much been written in some pretty good detail, and i don't see anything at this point that would require it be rewritten by David Moriarty or anyone else.

And as for that 1912 trip to GB, even though we never knew that and either did Merion it certainly does make that Titanic story in the Merion history book a whole lot more plausible and understandable.

For years now Wayne and I have wondered how in the hell Merion could've ever thought Wilson almost went down on the Titanic if he got back from GB in 1910 almost two years before the ship sank on April 12, 1912.

But listen, if all that will ever come out of these 60 or so pages about Merion is the fact that Wilson was in GB in 1912, then in my opinion it all was worth it. And I think that's about all that has come out of these threads or perhaps ever will.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You state that, "Holes like Nos. 3 and 10 were long thought to have been inspired in Europe, but now it looks like the information came from Macdonald, not overseas travels."

Why must this be so? Isn't it reasonable to believe that others might have spoken to them about holes of this type, men they knew and trusted and recognized as having knowledge in this area?

As an example, and not stating it to have occurred, just the REALISTIC POSSIBILITY of its happening, what about Tillinghast?

Were you aware the Tilly built at least one version of the "Alps" hole in the teens? He had been to the UK for golf purposes on three occasions and was deeply influenced by what he had seen and learned over there.

Why couldn't the influence behind these hole types have come from him, or someone else other than CBM or even have been as a combination of ALL these potential advisors?

[JESII]

But listen, if all that will ever come out of these 60 or so pages about Merion is the fact that Wilson was in GB in 1912, then in my opinion it all was worth it. And I think that's about all that has come out of these threads or perhaps ever will.

No wonder you have 25,000 goddamn posts...if you think this exercise will have been worthwhile if all that is learned is the date of the trip overseas was wrong, I will submit right now that you and that dog of yours need to check into some place with padded walls...

[TEPaul]

"I cannot imagine taking this much time to attempt to establish the foundation of something that changed so significantly in the years immediately following that date."

Sully:

Just wait a second there. I'm not sure whether that sentiment is something you came up with or whether it's a result of this thread and some ideas that are getting to be locked in preceptions now because of threads like this.

Sure, Merion East changed over the years but does that fact mean that Wilson and his committee intended it to significantly change over the years when they set about laying it out, designing and building it in 1911?

That's what it looks to me like some are starting to say on here and obviously think for some reason. David Moriarty may even try to justify that fact by that remark that Travis made a few years later.

There is nothing we can see that lead us to believe that Merion East as constructed in 1911 was meant to be temporary architecture in some way.

What we need to look at is why it changed in the ensuing years----eg what caused it to undergo the changes it did.

If we look for the reasons it changed I think we may find some that most didn't expect.

But if someone like David Moriarty is going to try to make it look like Wilson knew in 1911 that he was going to be working on the course in 1925 when he died and that the course may not be finished until the early 1930s I will counterpoint that theory.

The real point in these kinds of courses is what Wilson thought in 1911 compared to what he thought in 1916 compared to what he thought in 1925 just tells an incredible story.

That's what we need to focus on here, in my book.

The same goes for Crump. What he thought in 1911 vs 1914 vs 1918 tells a mind-boggling story, I think. The only problem with PV's history is Crump wrote so little about it. The same is most definitely not true about Wilson and Merion. Wilson basically never stopped writing about it, at least in a context that interested or concerned him. For God's sake, Hugh Wilson wrote about ten times more about what was going on at Pine Valley than Crump did. The same goes for Hugh's brother Alan and PVGC.

[JESII]

Tom

I'm not thinking of Wilson's intent to alter the course prior to doing so.

I'm referring to the fact that it was significantly altered (regardless of the reasons). I am giving DM the benefit of the doubt here that his goal is to get a clear picture of the chain of events leading up to and stopping with the opening of the golf course in 1912.

I am really not sure why there is enough interest in what exactly was on the ground on Sep 14 1912 to warrant this torturous exercise. But, in that sense, I think Travis' term "rough draft" probably does carry some significance.

[TEPaul]

"No wonder you have 25,000 goddamn posts...if you think this exercise will have been worthwhile if all that is learned is the date of the trip overseas was wrong, I will submit right now that you and that dog of yours need to check into some place with padded walls..."

Sully:

It's rare on here for someone to instantly say they were wrong about something and the person who called them on it was absolutely right, but you are right about that and I am absolutely wrong.

If I actually think that if all that comes out of these 60 pages of Moriarty threads on Merion is the fact that Wilson went to GB in 1912 and neither we nor Merion knew that, then you're absolutely right, that is ridiculous and I do need to retire to a padded room.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Of course I realize that you are beginning to say things on here that you definitely cannot prove at this point but they are potentially interesting nonetheless----perhaps potentially REALLY interesting.

The first one is that Wilson and his committee may've taken a toporaphical map of Merion to NGLA with them and worked on it with Macdonald. I think I can pretty much guarantee that no one has ever thought of that--not us, and not Merion at any point in their history recording or writing.

Unfortunately, no matter which way to Sunday any of us parse the words of either Hugh or Alan Wilson in their reports or anything else about that NGLA trip we are not going to prove Wilson and his committee took a topo map of Merion to NGLA with them and worked on it up there with Macdonald. At least we aren't able to prove it yet. There would definitely have to be something a lot more concrete to prove that other than some assumed timeline events. To even assume that as fact is total speculation on your part, albeit VERY interesting speculation.

But to even begin to assume something like that you should first try to come closer to proving these things which you have not proved because they will be essential in an actual factual timeline;

1. That Macdonald came to Philadelphia before Wilson and the Merion Committee went to NGLA. I don't think I would view that as particularly important in the broad scheme of things but that is what you just implied.

2. That Wilson's trip in 1912 was his first trip to GB on Merion's behalf. You may think you've proven that but I doubt anyone else does.

It is still very much possible that Wilson and his committee may have gone to NGLA in 1910 and that Wilson may've gone to GB in 1910. I just want to remind you that no one wants to see you just slough that off and just begin hereon and forward to act like you've proved there's no way he could've been there earlier. I need to remind you that saying you're convinced of that is most definitely not the same thing as proof of it, and it will not pass for proof of it in this crowd.  

Furthermore, if one looks very carefully at Wilson's words about sketches and explanations it most certainly appears they were sketches and explanations of holes abroad and not sketches or explanation of holes or even ideas for them on some Merion topo. Wilson virtually says as much;

"Through sketches and explanations of the right priniciples of the holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions."

It is of course understandable that they would be looking at sketches of holes from abroad because the long told story of the creation of NGLA was that Macdonald brought back sketches and drawings of holes abroad to build NGLA just as the long told story has been that Wilson did the same thing with Merion.

At that point Macdonald may've still been using those sketches from abroad on NGLA and showing Wilson and committee how he was translating those sketches into the holes of NGLA. This would be a pretty effective way to show novices construction ideas and techniques, don't you think? I sure as hell think it is and has been for me. It's just doesn't get much more instructive than actually watching it get done. Try it sometime!  

(I must say that even the idea that Wilson and his committee may've taken a topo map of Merion to NGLA is a good one to at least wonder about. I realize that thought could not have come to you before I mentioned the other day that in that first agronomy letter from Wilson to Piper in Feb 1911 Wilson did mention sending a topo map of Merion to Washington. Frankly, I never even remotely thought of that fact in the context that Wilson and committee may've taken one to NGLA with them. Frankly, I don't even remember Wilson mentioning a contour map of Merion to Piper in that first letter.

Obviously the reason for that is that we were always basically looking at these agronomy letters mostly in the context of William Flynn. Now we are looking at them again in an entirely different context.

But even with all this speculation, no matter how interesting it may be or turn out to be, you still do need to answer a pretty important question here which you seem to be continuously avoiding------and that is if Wilson felt that something---anything---that Macdonald or Whigam did for them and the Merion golf course was significant ONCE THEY GOT UNDERWAY in the spring of 1911, then WHY IN THE WORLD DID HE NOT MENTION IT in his report in 1915 when he mentioned what went on during the NGLA trip before the course began???

How do you explain Wilson not mentioning ANYTHING if M&W did something for the actual course that was significant? I just can't explain why he wouldn't have mentioned at least something in that same report where he went into detail about the trip to NGLA

So how do you explain it David? Do you think he was lying? Do you think he forgot? Or do you really think, as most of us do, that Macdonald probably just didn't do anything at that time that was significant enough for Wilson to mention and at this point you just find it too hard to admit that?

But I'll be watching to see if you really do answer this question or if you just continue to avoid it. Believe me, I can certainly understand why you continuously avoid the question.

[TEPaul]

By the way, David Moriarty, I'm most certainly not saying that we have any evidence at this point that Wilson was in GB before the course went into planning and construction or that we ever will find any evidence of that, but let's say we did find something that positively established he was over there then----what would you feel about whatever your "hypotheses" are about Merion and M&W then?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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,

Why do you insist that HIW learned the principles of the "Alps" ?

The "Alps" principles are immaterial since one doesn't exist at Merion.

As to the Redan, one doesn't exist at Merion either, although, a case could be made that a hybrid with some of the characteristics is present in the 3rd hole.

But, # 10 has NONE of the substantive attributes of an "Alps", so your question is irrelevant and not applicable to Merion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,  I dont have time to respond to everything, but just wanted to note that they had a contour map in early 1911.  They would have been foolish not to bring it to NGLA, and I dont think they were foolish.

That's speculation on your part.
Fairly reasonable, but still speculation.

And, if they had a contour map, why is there no reference to the exercise its presence would command ?

Why would HIW reference general principles and construction if he had a contour map and they were actively reviewing it ?

I think the absence of any reference relating to a site map would indicate that they didn't have one and that they weren't getting into specifics such as routing, hole and feature design.

[TEPaul]

"David,
Why do you insist that HIW learned the principles of the "Alps" ?"

Pat:

It's pretty simple really. He probably assumes Wilson learned the principles of the "Alps" from Macdonald at NGLA because essentially Wilson said he did. Didn't you read what Wilson said in his 1915 report on the creation of Merion about his trip to NGLA and what they did there? If not here's part of it;

"Through sketches and explanations of the right priniciples of the holes that formed the famous holes abroad and had stood the test of time,.....The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes..."

We know there was an Alps hole at NGLA then and we also know that there has always been the story that Macdonald had sketches and drawings of the famous holes abroad. Presumably The Alps hole in GB was one of those sketches. Unfortunately, like the purported Wilson sketches from abroad for Merion, the purported Macdonald sketches from abroad for NGLA seem to be gone now.

This doesn't necessarily mean that Wilson built an Alps at Merion under the definition of an "Alps" by certain people but nonetheless Wilson did say he learned the right principles of the holes that formed the famous holes abroad and stood the test of time. Persumably Macdonald had a sketch of the Alps principle at NGLA as well as showing Wilson what he thougth that was with his 3rd hole at NGLA.

[TEPaul]

To me the real key to who did what at Merion or for Merion is all in that report of Hugh Wilson from 1915. It is one thing to speculate on who did what on some golf course back then when one has nothing at all from the people who purportedly built the course. But that is not the case with Merion. We have a report from the man who built the course, was its architect of record, that he wrote four years after the beginning and I just can't understand why anyone would not read carefully what he said in that report. And I also feel quite strongly that if he did not say something in that report about someone or their involvement at a certain time there was probably a very good reason for it. To me the creation of Merion is in that report (and that report is supplemented by his brother Alan Wilson's report ten years later on the creation of Merion) and I don't think Merion's history needs to be reanalyzed or rewritten because of his report. Of course if someone thinks Hugh Wilson was lying in that report, that's another matter altogether but I doubt you will find me participating in some thread that begins to speculate that.

[TEPaul]

JESII said:

"I am really not sure why there is enough interest in what exactly was on the ground on Sep 14 1912 to warrant this torturous exercise. But, in that sense, I think Travis' term "rough draft" probably does carry some significance."

Sully:

I don't think there's anything that warrants this kind of torturous excercise but frankly I am very interested in what exactly was on the ground on Sep 14 1912.

To me understanding what went on the ground at that time and the whens, hows and particularly the whys for changing it at various times begins to tell the actual story about what those men knew at various times and particularly what they didn't know. Understanding those things better is the raw material of understanding not just the architecture of that time but the entire world of golf at that time.

My sense is that many of us, even on here, really don't understand that early time very well at all, and I think there are some good reasons for it---not even complicated reasons really. But they could be reasons that a website like this one just isn't all that interested in pursuing because it seems to me the reality is it wasn't so much about golf architecture as we'd like to think or like to make it.

Merion East (and West) just could be one of the seminal laboratories to truly understanding this entire time of golf and architecture, and other things so much better.

You probably have no real idea what I mean by that but I think you will see. If one really looks at what we now have on Merion, Wilson et al, particularly from Wilson himself, one cannot help but see that we just may be looking in the wrong place (architecture) to try to understand better who was doing what and when at Merion East and the reasons why.

My sense is getting to be that to understand Merion and that time better we probably need to understand that it was not necessarily the architecture they were concerned about, at least nowhere near as much as we think they were. It was something else entirely that hardly ever concerns us much anymore in the building of golf courses.

[Mike_Cirba]

Why would HIW reference general principles and construction if he had a contour map and they were actively reviewing it ?

I think the absence of any reference relating to a site map would indicate that they didn't have one and that they weren't getting into specifics such as routing, hole and feature design.

Patrick,

The ironic thing is that if Wilson and the Committee were as clueless as David would have us believe, wouldn't jumping into the laying out of holes on a contour map be equivalent to taking a post-Doctoral course when the 101 level learning hadn't yet been completed?

[TEPaul]

I believe what all you guys may shortly come to realize is that what was really going on back then at NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley et al can be seen in the analogy that it was sort of like those guys were getting into building what they thought were some pretty cool new cars, but the only problem was they just couldn't figure out where in the hell to find some decent wheels to put on them so they could begin to drive them.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I sense that you're saying that agronomy issues in many ways drove some architectural decisions and realizations during that early time.  If that's correct, can you provide some examples of what you're alluding to?

Thanks!

[JESII]

Tom,

Your post #601 is very disappointing to me. I enjoy our conversations very much. When it comes to talking golf, and golf course architecture, I want you in the room, but for you to make the statements you did there in 601 after throwing so much crap around throughout this thread...I distinguish this thread from the first one because David Moriarty explicitly stated at the outset of this one that his intentions were to figure out what was on the ground in Sep 1912 and how it got there...is incredibly frustrating. If you really feel...

Merion East (and West) just could be one of the seminal laboratories to truly understanding this entire time of golf and architecture, and other things so much better.

then lets weigh into it properly and figure out what we can.

If, as it seems you are inplying, that agronomic issues played a tremendous role in the architectural evolution of golf in America in the teens, twenties and beyond let's talk about why.

You have said dozens times that if David Moriarty tries to overstate CBM's role at Merion, beyond the acknowledged and accepted that is, you have all the ammunition you need to put him in his place. I don't think anyone really doubts that considering the familiarity you and Wayne have with the place. So let's move on, and give Dm the benefit of the doubt and try to find out what was on the ground in September of 1912 and then from there discuss what drove the changes that took place over the next 30 years that resulted in the masterpiece I know today.

Sound like a deal?

[TEPaul]

Sully;

I think we do have all the ammunition to put David Moriarty in his place if he continues to state that we are underplaying Macdonald's role in Merion. But I'm certainly not withholding any information, most all of it is right on here under our noses and the most important piece of it, in my opinion, is Hugh Wilson's own report (and supplemented by Alan Wilson's report that hasn't been put on here). That's what I believe explains the history of the creation of Merion East. It's about that simple, really. All the rest of the arguing on these threads for sixty pages is over things of either no importance or pretty minimal importance regarding the creation of Merion East and who did it. I mean I don't care whether Wilson went to GB in 1909, 1910 or 1912, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't change anything---he and his committee still built the golf course themselves just as he said they did, his brother said they did and all kinds of other people back then said they did. I don't care if people on here want to argue over what a novice is or isn't for forty pages either---Wilson and his committee still built that golf course themselves as everyone knows. Some on here can infer that they couldn't have done that without somebody's total help and oversight but the fact is they did it without any real oversight from anybody anyway. There's not going to be any rewriting of the history of the creation of Merion on here and there doesn't need to be.

The only real reason these thread go on, I think, is because he just keeps telling us we're minimizing Macdonald's role in Merion, we tell him we aren't, he tells us we are, we tell him we aren't, he tells us we are, etc, etc, etc ad infinitum.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()