Philip:

Merion's former course had nine holes owned by the Cricket Club and their other nine holes owned by Clement Griscom and leased to the club. Clement Griscom and his son Rodman Griscom were two of Merion's biggest supporters in their golf association within the Merion Cricket Club. I doubt Clement Griscom was attempting to throw Merion off his land he leased to them.

If you dig a bit deeper into why Merion decided to move and build a new course I think you will find a big consideration had to do with the effects of the Haskell ball. That was a major topic of conversation at Merion at that time as it was at number of other old courses in that area that were considered way too short due to the Haskell such as the old St David's that eventually moved onto my great granfather's land and from which my grandfather and others from Merion decided to buy land and build Gulph Mills GC.

Eric:

That is completely hilarious and very apropos as MikeC said. Do you think we should recommend that DavidM look into the possibility of a cranium tap due to his positions on these unreal Merion threads of his?  

David,

Please calm down.   Remember, none of this is worth getting excited about.  (Sorry, but if you thought my post had an emotional tone approaching frustration...)  

Here's the difference;

Alan Wilson said that M&W provided advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East course.

Alan Wilson said that the Construction Committee laid out and built the two courses at Merion

Do you see a difference?

He goes further to indicate that all of the members of the Construction Committee, who he already credited with the sole design and construction responsibility, stated to a man that Hugh Wilson was the actual designer.  

What could be more clear?

As to the nature of that advice, I'm of the belief that all indications, including Hugh WIlson's statements, indicate that they were primarily of a theoretical, sound "hole principle" education, than coming onsite and saying, "you need to route this hole here and place that bunker there."

But, we don't know exactly do we?  And it's unlikely we ever will for certain.

What we do know is that Macdonald never claimed credit for any part of the Merion design, we do know that Max Behr in 1914 said that WIlson took advice but sifted the information and made the decisions himself, we know that contemporaneous news accounts credited Hugh Wilson as the man who laid out both courses at Merion, we know that Tillinghast bemoaned the fact that so few knew that Hugh WIlson was the architect of Merion, and we know that the course at Merion, both today and in 1912, bore none of the telling template characteristics that CB Macdonald was known for, and which his direct disciples carried on for the next 20 years.

We know a lot.  What we don't know doesn't warrant all of this speculation, nor does it warrant exalting Macdonald's activities at Merion beyond the credit that's already been given.

PHew...

David,

You stated to mike, "As for the difference between your two quotes, I do not see the difference you see..."

Mike stated, "Alan Wilson said that M&W provided advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East course..."

"Advice and suggestions as to the lay-out" is someone stating, "Hey guys, I have a SUGGESTION, why don't you do this over here?"

"Alan Wilson said that the Construction Committee laid out and built the two courses at Merion..."

"Alan Wilson said that the Construction Committee laid out..." is the someone stating "Look what I AM DOING OUT HERE..."

Are you ignoring my earlier question or did you not see it? If so, here it is again, Based upon what you stated, "Too many who were there place the credit with Wilson and the Committee for me to even entertain a contrary conclusion..." do you believe there is any individual or individuals associated with the committee who deserve MORE credit than others for the design of Merion?

Tom, I disagree with your assessment of what Tilly wrote when you responded that Griscom was not "attempting to throw Merion off his land he leased to them." That is not what Tilly said or implied.

He stated that, "Some ten years ago some of the clubs had their courses close to the city were warned that it would be best for them to purchase land a little more remote from town streets... Merion was forced to give up its course and move farther away..."

He was speaking about a NUMBER of clubs that were "warned" to relocate. This was not told them by Griscom as he wouldn't have told it to a number of golf clubs unless he owned a lot more land and leased it to many more clubs than previously known.

Tilly went on to mention other clubs by name as well, I just highlighted his statement that despite the warning "Merion had been forced..." This then sounds more like a beaurocratic forcing than a landlord forcing.

As for the difference between your two quotes, I do not see the difference you see.  

A. Wilson said that M&W helped them design the course.

You misread that last paragraph.   Wilson claims, while all the committee members contributed, Wilson ought to be considered to have contributed above and beyond the rest.   This does not diminish the fact that M&W helped Wilson throughout the plannning process.

Alan Wilson never said Macdonald "helped them design the course", David.   He said they offered "advice and suggestions as to the layout".  

Instead, he said that the Committee laid out the course, actually, both courses.   If Macdonald had laid out the course I assume Alan would have said "Macdonald and the Committee laid out the course."

I also want to know how I'm misreading the last paragraph.  First Alan gives all design and construction credit to the Committee and then states that to a man they all said Hugh Wilson was the one responsible.  

How is that misreading it?

"Quote from: MPCirba on Today at 08:22:12am
  That is a great thing, and I'm sure it had a great deal of impact and effect on the course that Wilson and the others created and I would never seek to minimize that, David.

At least we've reached a point where both of our beliefs are fully fleshed out, and the points of agreement and contention are sharp."

From David Moriarty to Mike Cirba:  
 
"You would never seek to minimize that?  This must be one of those attempts to bring humor to the threads.  

My beliefs are not even close to fully fleshed out."

David, you're beliefs about Merion are not even close to fully fleshed out?  

Jeeesus Christ, that sounds really ominous. Is there any possiblity, in that case, that you might keep your not fully fleshed out views to yourself until you fully flesh them out??

I tell you what---why don't you just call Merion Golf Club and tell them you're from California, that you've been to Merion once but you think their history is just wrong or at least nowhere near fully fleshed out and needs a thorough reinvestigation or "fleshing out" and then offer your services to flesh it all out for them. I would just love to hear that phone conversation. Is there any possibility you could tape it and play it or post it on here? I'm quite sure we would all be most interested.    

Pat:

No, Macdonald had an invitational for a bunch of good players in July 1910. Max Behr was there and wrote about it. He said it didn't matter if the course wasn't finished and the agronomy was terrible because they could all see anyway that the golf course was going to be a great one.

"Nineteen Hundred Eleven was a memorable year in golf not only for Harold Hilton but for the National Golf Links of America, for in that year the National Club-house was formally opened and the FIRST INVITATIONAL TOURNAMENT WAS HELD"

Page 207, "Scotland's Gift"

Patrick,

I am wondering if after all of this on Merion if we should examine NGLA next. After reading CBM's wonderful written "Statement" about it, I believe that there are a number of people who aided him in the design and are not receiving their due credit. In fact it almost mirrors the situation at Merion.

He wrote, "For aid in the original purchase of the land and in the LAYING OUT OF THE COURSE we must thank Mr. H. J. Wigham and Mr. Devereaux Emmet. Since then Mr. James A. Sullivan and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most deeply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in HELPING TO BRING IT TO PERFECTION."

It sounds like there are a number of people who advised and aided old Charley yet they are never mentioned as anything more than footnotes...

I think I feel a hypothesis coming...    

He wrote, "For aid in the original purchase of the land and in the LAYING OUT OF THE COURSE we must thank Mr. H. J. Wigham and Mr. Devereaux Emmet. Since then Mr. James A. Sullivan and Mr. Joseph P. Knapp have been most deeply interested in the development of the course, and have expended much time and energy in HELPING TO BRING IT TO PERFECTION."

It sounds like there are a number of people who advised and aided old Charley yet they are never mentioned as anything more than footnotes...

I think I feel a hypothesis coming...    

Philip,

Can you more clearly define what he meant by "aid", "deeply interested" and "helping"?  

One has to wonder exactly how far from perfection NGLA would have been without the architectural expertise of Mssr's Sullivan and Knapp!?!?  

I suggest you follow through and track this down.   I'm personally wondering if the split fairway on the Bottle Hole wasn't somewhat symbolic of Dev Emmet's seeming ability to go both ways?  And don't even get me started on the Punchbowl!

I smell another piece of the puzzle.  

"First, it is unreasonable to measure contribution to a design in days.  Designers like MacKenzie were known for  laying out entire courses a matter of a day or two.  

Second, you and Mike are both saying 3 or 4 days, but I have seen NO EVIDENCE how long Macdonald was in Haverford on either one of his site visits.  It is entirely possible that it was much longer that the 1-2 days total that you guys seem to think it was."

David Moriarty:

Days have very little to do with it in the broad scheme of things. What has everything to do with it is the written record we are left with.

I don't care if Macdonald spent one hour at Merion laying out and designing and overseeing the construction of the entire golf course or whether he spent six months there laying out and designing and overseeing the construction of the golf course.

The point is no matter how much or how little time it may have taken him if he had done anything remotely like that in Philadelphia I see no reason whatsoever why both Hugh and Alan Wilson and everyone else connected with Merion would not have mentioned that as part of the written record the left us.

But no one did mention anything like that regarding M&W in Philadelphia.

What they did all leave us with is ample written evidence that it was Wilson and his committee that did all that in Philadephia.

By the way, it is certainly not lost on me, and I presume on anyone else reading these threads that you just continue to ONLY mention and over-analyze those few words in which M&W's advice was mentioned as if there was no other written record of who did Merion East and West.

You continue to completely ignore and avoid all the other voluminous written records from everyone else about who it was that laid out, designed and built the golf course. I would point you once again to post #649 and the constant references in Alan Wilson's report as to who it was---eg Wilson and the Committee.

Aren't you the one who agreed with me that those Wilson reports and what they said are probably the most valuable evidence we have? After all, noone, not even you, has ever denied he was the architect and the one there every day with his committee.

Well, if so, look at all that they said and not just what they said about Macdonald and Whigam which to date is all you have ever mentioned on here. Why is that?

To date you have not mentioned all of it, just those references to M&W, and I think it has become pretty apparent some time ago why you've done that---eg to support an unsupportable hypothesis that M&W have been discounted or minimized in the creation of Merion by either us on here or by Merion or by both.

They have not been discounted or minimized, not in my opinion, anyway. I accept the very words of those men who were most connected to the project---The Wilsons, not only what they said about M&W but what they said about the others there every day who were involved in the project. What they and so many others said about Wilson and his committee and the creation of Merion is just so obvious as to what it means.

I suggest you begin to do the same--eg look also at what everyone said about Wilson and his committee if you EVER want to understand the truth about the creation of Merion, and frankly if you ever want to be seen as even remotely credible on this website and on these threads.

The fact is you have incessantly disagreed with everyone on here, constantly maintaining that either Merion itself or us need to give M&W more credit for something. The fact is after all this time it seems that noone agrees with you or your "hypothesis" to that effect. Doesn't the fact that noone agrees with your hypothesis, or the fact that they have even begun to mock it, have any meaning to you at this point, and if not then why not? Seriously?

Is your final analysis on this Merion/M&W subject going to be, once again, that everyone is confused but you, or misunderstands you, or is arguing with you unecessarily or insulting you? I sure hope not because that is poor analysis, poor research and very poor scholarship on your part.

If you float a "hypothesis" on here and after all this time it seems to be unacceptable and unaccepted by all the contributors on this website some of whom are pretty savy in this kind of analysis, I would expect you or anyone else to understand what that really means. This isn't about you---it's about your hypothesis on Merion and M&W! Realize it.

"Macdonald's own silence on this issue over the next almost 30 years (in which time Merion became one of the most famous courses on the planet, hosting not only major tournaments but Bobby Jones' Grand Slam victory) speaks volumes, don't you think?"

MikeC;

Not that I am finding myself in the unlikely position of agreeing with and supporting something David Moriarty has said on here, and I assure you what I am about to say is not supporting him on here or agreeing with him and I'm saying this because I want to make damn sure he doesn't try to claim it is on here at some point down the line, but......

....it is definitely NOT a sure thing that if Macdonald himself did not mention a club (in his book or otherwise) that definitely DOES NOT mean he did not have much to do with it and in some cases a whole hell of a lot to do with it.

The reason I say that is the example of The Creek Club, which frankly is very little like whatever his relationship was with Merion. Nevertheless, he virtually never mentioned The Creek and there is no question at all he had a whole hell of a lot to do with it in all kinds of ways.

But, again, the circumstances at The Creek and the circumstances at Merion with Macdonald probably couldn't be more dissimilar.

As indicated by these Merion threads, the famous courses are too easy to research. I think y'all should try something more obscure....maybe like Kinston CC (NC), or Ionia CC (MI).

 

Just trying to help,

Joe

Joe,

Kinston CC in North Carolina was designed by Ellis Maples and opened in 1940.

I show two courses in Ionia, MI, both nine holers;

Rolling Hills GC in Ionia was designed by Warner Bowen and opened in 1977

More interestingly, Shadow Ridge opened in 1916-17 and they indicate the course there was designed by Donald Ross.

None of the three courses received any helpful input from CB Macdonald.  

Tom,

That's really fascinating.   It seems that by default Macdonald was working for his de facto bosses both inside the office and outside the office.   Not the most comfortable position to operate within, to be sure!

Good thing I guess, because Mid-Ocean seems to be the happy result, and it's a course I just love.  

David,

Let me try to answer your questions as directly as I'm able based on what clearly involves some level of supposition.

1) Yes, but we don't know how much of it was based on the theoretical education he provided Wilson and the Committee versus concrete, practical on the ground advice about the routing, feature placement, green shaping and orientation, etc.   I have argued that it was much more of the former and much less if any of the latter for the simple reason that everyone and their brother who was there at the time claimed that Hugh Wilson laid out Merion East.  Hugh WIlson mentioned they got a "good start" based on those principles.   Alan Wilson speaks of "as to the lay out", but it's not really clear how much is based on conceptual strategic concepts versus on the ground realities.  

It would speak much more forcefully had he chosen to use active verbs, as he did repeatedly in discussing what the Committee had done, what they were responsible for, etc.   Instead, here he uses terms like "advice and suggestions", and "as to the lay out".   If AW had written, Macdonald "laid out a number of holes", or Macdonald "helped to lay out" then it would be much clearer that Macdonald was really part of the design process.  Instead, probably just like the guys who Macdonald mentioned helped him at NGLA, he likely provided his opinion and probably some good ideas along the way, but that's far different than being the course architect.

I think his words were very precise for a reason and I think that reason is simply that while he wanted to acknowledge M&W for their contributions, he clearly didn't want it to be misconstrued that they were the men who routed, designed, or otherwise were respnsible for the creation of the course at Merion.  At the time he wrote this, 1925, Macdonald was already quite famous as having laid out a number of successful, prominent courses (NGLA, Piping Rock, Greenbrier, et.al.), and whether he AW used the words "we didn't use an architect" to refer to Macdonald or not, I'm sure he knew that anyone reading this would have come at it with the knowledge that Macdonald was known as a course designer.   So, in my opinion, AW very clearly drew a line between what he regarded as valuable help from M&W and the design credit that he clearly placed elsewhere.    

2) See #1

3) We don't know.   I'm sure they offered some advice and suggestions, but we don't know the extent of it, whether it was followed, and we don't know much at all frankly.   What we do know is that they came after the train was in motion.

Hope this helps.