Tom,

I'm sorry if anything I said seems like a personal insult.   I can tell you that nothing was intended that way.

I do find disengenuous your interpretation of what Behr clearly wrote about Hugh Wilson's "dictatorial" role at Merion, and I sincerely find your attempt to distinguish the term "constructed" vs "designed" to be wholly incompatible with what I think you know was the meaning of the term to those early pioneers, simply because it doesn't support your speculation that "we don't know who designed Merion originally."

Who do you think he was the dictator of, Tom?   What do you think that Behr meant when he stated that Wilson, like Macdonald and Leeds, would listen to advice from others but then clearly were the ones who made all of the decisions?  

Was he talking about where to put the irrigation lines, or perhaps Hugh Wilson was just a mean dictator to the lowly workmen on the job doing the ditch digging?  Perhaps he just was the dictator to the maintenance men working in the clubhouse while waiting around for M&W to visit once every six months or so?    

C'mon Tom...you KNOW that's preposterous and that Behr was clearly talking about the design, building, planning, and ultimately, the whole shebang, soup to nuts.

If you can't admit that, I think you're denying it simply to support your hypothesis, and I know I personally would not want to be standing on such a flimsy foundation in questioning Wilson's lead role, especially when it's supported by men like Tillinghast who where there regularly when the course was being built.

Tom, you can say all you want that the context of this discussion was about "committees" but the Behr comment was also very clear when it used the term "Construction", and compared Wilson's role in constructing Merion to what Macdonald constructed at NGLA and what Leeds constructed at Myopia.

The "committee" reference is valuable, as well, as you keep going back to some vague notion that Merion was designed by "committee", with M&W providing oversight advice.

That's nonsense, Tom, and Behr makes that clear as early as 1914 when he points out very accurately in his article the fact that today we'd use the term that a horse designed by committee would probably look like a camel!  

Here, he's saying, by Wilson taking the lead in a dictatorial sense at Merion in the construction (planning, design, construction, grow-in, etc.) process by virtue of his extensive study of the art (he, Macdonald, and Leeds studied the process like NOBODY before them, according to Behr) that a wholly wonderful result came about.

There is simply no other intellectually honest way to interpret what Behr wrote, Tom.   I'm sorry...this isn't Bill Clinton's "I didn't have sex, with that woman, Miss Lewinsky", where every word is nuanced and open to interpretation.

Max Behr said exactly what he meant, and attempts to say he was taken out of context, or that "constructed" didn't encompass the whole design, build, and grow process to these early pioneers are simply misleading.  I do think you know better.

Mike
The Behr article is about green committees. Course construction could very easily translate to course architecture I agree. The article is still about green committees and green chairmen and the attributes they should possess (including a knowledge of golf architecture). To claim this is proof Wilson designed the original East course or that Behr is claiming Wilson designed the East course is a  stretch IMO.

Mike
Clearly Wilson was heavily involved, no one is saying he wasn't involved, but it seems you won't be satisfied until I say Hugh Wilson designed Merion.There isn't overwelming evidence to support that, in fact just the opposite. The overwelming evidence is that the committee designed the course, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.

Tilly claims in 1934 the course was designed Wilson; in '39 Whigham claims the course is Macdonald's. Based on what we do know (from contemporaneous reports) I think there both off the mark. It seems pretty clear it was a group effort.

Mike
Clearly Wilson was heavily involved, no one is saying he wasn't involved, but it seems you won't be satisfied until I say Hugh Wilson designed Merion.There isn't overwelming evidence to support that, in fact just the opposite. The overwelming evidence is that the committee designed the course, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.

Tilly claims in 1934 the course was designed Wilson; in '39 Whigham claims the course is Macdonald's. Based on what we do know (from contemporaneous reports) I think there both off the mark. It seems pretty clear it was a group effort.

Tom,

If like me you don't find the following to be strong evidence of "architecture by committee" as you contend, then I think you need to cite some specifics of your own, besides Whigham's seemingly absurd paean to Macdonald after his death.


"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..." – Max Behr 1914 (18 months after the East course was opened and around the time the West opened)



"It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..."  - A.W. Tillinghast 1934 (onsite many times during the inception of the course)


It took me 25 years of searching, but I recently stumbled upon a 1918 Atlantic City newspaper article on microfilm. It was a rambling review of the history of Seaview, especially its massive clubhouse (now expanded into a hotel.) The article did mention the course: "Hugh Wilson laid out course and Ross did the trapping," a subhead read.

"Hugh I. Wilson, who also laid out the two Merion courses (bold mine), is responsible for the Seaview course," it said in the text. "Five or six years ago, Clarence H. Geist, then president of the Whitemarsh Valley County Club (outside Philadelphia), decided that there was no earthly reason why Philadelphians and other golfers should go south in the winter to get their golf. He felt that there were scores of men of big affairs who ... could run down to the shore and play over the weekend ..." – 1918 Atlantic city newspaper article as recounted by Ron Whitten.


"In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.  He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably.  One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique.  The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly.  He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle.  As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee.  The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off."

"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th hole (the Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St. Andrew's 18th hole."

"On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.  A report of the opening said the course was "among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country".  This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years."  - Merion History


"Plus, I've been looking through numerous articles from Philadelphia newspapers back then, particularly from longtime golf writer for the Philadelphia Public Ledger, William Evans, that refer to Wilson constantly as the architect of Merion East and West. These were in the years Wilson was still alive. One even mentioned that since it was provable that he was never paid for his architectural efforts he was one of the few whose amateur status was never questioned or challenged."

"MacWood refers to Merion East being attributed to Wilson as the result of legend. If these things were written constantly in local papers about Wilson as the architect of those courses (and others) while he was alive and it was simply not true one would certainly think Wilson or others reading those accounts would have informed the newspapers of that obvious fact. " - Tom Paul's mention of Philadelphia newspaper articles on Merion and Wilson during Wilson's lifetime.


Tom, if you have other articles to cite beside Whigham's funereal comments, and Lesley's broad-brush approach as the head of the Merion Greens Committee, in which he very politically correctly and no doubt generously cited everyone on the standing committee as well as golf celebrities who "advised" like Macdonald and Whigham, probably now is the time to bring that research to public light.

Mike
Merion was designed by a committee, headed by Wilson, advised by M&W.

Tom M.

I agree with Shivas.

I'm open-minded about who designed what, where, when, because I know from my own research that there are various times when myth is taken as fact, and where impressions take on their own reality.

However, I think the preponderance of evidence presented here so far is overwhelmingly in favor of Hugh Wilson being the driver, the leader, the decision-maker, the planner, the visionary, the detail-guy, the committed, responsible servant to the Merion membership at that time and also the one who made all final decisions from a design standpoint.

Isn't that what we call today, the "architect"?

If you have countervailing evidence, please present it.

Tom M.

I agree with Shivas.

I'm open-minded about who designed what, where, when, because I know from my own research that there are various times when myth is taken as fact, and where impressions take on their own reality.

However, I think the preponderance of evidence presented here so far is overwhelmingly in favor of Hugh Wilson being the driver, the leader, the decision-maker, the planner, the visionary, the detail-guy, the committed, responsible servant to the Merion membership at that time and also the one who made all final decisions from a design standpoint.

Isn't that what we call today, the "architect"?

If you have countervailing evidence, please present it.

Mike & DS
I'm looking for any evidence that will shed light on who did what.
What did Wilson contribute to the original design?
What did Francis contribute to the original design?
What did Griscom contribute to the original design?
What did Toulmin contribute to the original design?
What did Lloyd contribute to the original design?
What did Macdonald contribute to the original design?
What did Whigham contribute to the original design?

Tom MacWood,

In fairness, I'd like to read Tom Paul's specific quotes from Evans in the Philly newspapers during Wilson's lifetime, as well, and hope he posts them with date and context.

However, I believe that it could be fairly generalized that almost any and every course ever built was "designed by committee" in the sense that rarely is any undertaking of such a nature the sole work of one man.

While we acknowledge that fact as a given, we also generally seek evidenciary attribution of design to a person, or partners, or a small group simply because it also acknowledges the reality that there is usually a single person or team ultimately responsible for the decision-making around such a project.

In the case of Merion, it seems very clear that his contemporaries felt strongly that Hugh Wilson was that man an deserved clear recognition beyond any of the others who were also involved to a lesser extent.

This thread has been largely about determining the role of Macdonald and Whigham in the design and construction of Merion, and while we sit here on page 27 and are approaching 1000 posts debating this issue, I still see not a single reason to conclude that their distant "advisory" role should be elevated beyond simply that, nor do I see that anyone besides Hugh Wilson (other than perhaps some evidence that Pickering's construction experience helped considerably) should be credited with the overall design.

Mike & DS
I'm looking for any evidence that will shed light on who did what.
What did Wilson contribute to the original design?
What did Francis contribute to the original design?
What did Griscom contribute to the original design?
What did Toulmin contribute to the original design?
What did Lloyd contribute to the original design?
What did Macdonald contribute to the original design?
What did Whigham contribute to the original design?

Tom,

That would be interesting to learn, but I have to ask in the case of Pacific Dunes, do you question?

What did Tom Doak contribute to the original design?
What did Jim Urbina contribute to the original design?
What did Mike Keiser contribute to the original design?
What did Kye Goalby contribute to the original design?
What did any of TD's other associates contribute to the original design?
What did Shoe contribute to the original design?

Should we conclude that Pac Dunes was designed by committee?

Mike
What other courses were designed by committees made up of men without any design experience?

How do you determine what each committeeman contributed? How do you determine what M&W contributed?

Tom,

In the earliest years of golf in this country, the timeframe that is germane to this discussion, there were plenty of courses laid out by men or committees with no design experience.

That was exactly the point of the Merion Golf Club sending Wilson overseas to study and learn by first visiting with Macdonald, and then studying the finest courses in GB for seven months, Tom.  

They KNEW they wanted to create something beyond where US architecture had taken the game at that point, and they KNEW that Macdonald had succeeded in creating something special, and they KNEW that the best courses and holes were back in the home of golf and they KNEW that the only way to achieve their ambitious desired ends was to send a guy they had complete confidence in over there to LEARN, and bring back the benefits of his education and build them a new, special golf course that benefitted from his learned observations.

If Wilson's lengthy trip had never happened, then your point would be better understood and accepted.   However, the reality is that it did happen, and that Wilson, like any good leader, consulted with those around him who knew particular details and then pieced all of that together using his own instincts and wisdom, and created something very different and special that we admire to this day.   He also spent years revising and fine-tuning his creation, working with men like William Flynn to build what is probably still the greatest inland, parkland course in the country, if not the world.

Mike Cirba,  I find it fascinating that when it comes to the question of MacDonald's involvement you demand the specific details, yet when it comes to Wilson's, you wonder why we cannot just cannot take the words of Behr or Tillinghast.  Why take their words for it, when you won't take the word of the president of Merion?  

Your Pacific Dunes comparison doesnt follow.   I don't think Mike Keiser published an article clearly and specifically crediting a designer other than Doak as an advisor on the design, did he?  
__________________

David,

In an effort to cut through what seems like 17 or more different strands of rhetoric by many, and acknowledging that you have been asked a great many questions that would take days for you to address, I thought that I would ask you one more and whose answer would certainly aid in refocusing this as a discussion.

Since you have said a number of times that you want to see CBM get his proper credit for his participation in the creation of Merion, I ask this.

Could you please elaborate on what YOU (and this is your opinion) believe is the proper credit that CBM should be given and what credit he is not being given?

Phillip,

Phillip, as JES has indicated, he and others have asked me these types of questions before, and every time I have tried to give them an honest and complete answer.   But to give you an idea of how this conversation usually goes, I believe that JES’s entire response to my most recent answer was something like “that is the biggest load of crap so far on this entire thread.”    Nonetheless, at the risk you’ll find my answer an even bigger load, I’ll try to answer as best I can.

Unfortunately, it will take a bit of time, and I doubt I will get to it until tomorrow, probably tomorrow night.  

Mike Cirba,  I find it fascinating that when it comes to the question of MacDonald's involvement you demand the specific details, yet when it comes to Wilson's, you wonder why we cannot just cannot take the words of Behr or Tillinghast.  Why take their words for it, when you won't take the word of the president of Merion?  

David,

I believe that I've repeatedly said that Macdonald and Whigham "advised" on the Merion project, consistent with Lesley's article.

If you read the article he wrote, I think he speaks in very general terms, and as the President of the Greens Committee, did the politically correct thing in citing everyone for their contributions when he said;

"The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee; Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman, R.S. Francis, H.G. Lloyd, R.E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham."

There is absolutely no question that these were the men on the committee charged with building a new course for the Merion membership and there is absolutely no doubt that Macdonald and Whigham advised them at some point.

However, two things are important to note here.   Besides this article, is there anything else from anyone noted in architecture at the time who cited the design contributions of, say, Griscom?   Did Tillinghast or Behr wax philosophically about the course laid out by Dr. Toulmin?   Did George Thomas say that R.S. Francis taught him much of what he knows about architecture?  

No, of course not, because their roles on the committee were likely very different than WIlson's, with one man probably the Treasurer, one possibly in charge of PR with the membership, one probably the Secretary, and so on.   That's the PURPOSE of a committee...to divide top-level administrative responsibiities for a project or undertaking.

We also know that M&W advised.   We know they advised Wilson before his trip to GB, and he very gratefully thanked them for that and acknowledged how much Macdonald taught him.   We also know they made at least one (Tom MacWood claims 2 but I'm waiting to see proof of that assertion) site visit and gave his blessing to the ongoing work, calling a full SEVEN of the holes equal to anything built yet in this country.   You'll notice he didn't say anything about his own role, or seven of the holes he designed, or advised on, or anything else but giving credit and blessing to a project that he helped Wilson initiate.

Beyond that, we know nothing more.   However, given Macdonald's stature in the game, even if he just did those things I cited, don't you think that was enough for Lesley to give him his due props in a national magazine article on Merion?   I certainly do.

I just don't know what additional credit you want to give to M&W without further evidenciary details, David?   I think that's what many of us are wondering.

I've acknowledged repeatedly what Lesley wrote and I have no doubt that it's accurate.   I simply think you're trying to read much more into it that isn't supported by any facts or corroborative evidence.

So, I'll ask you the same questions I asked Tom MacWood, because they are still the most relevant questions on the table that are being denied and ignored;

Why would we choose not to believe Max Behr in 1914 when he said that Wilson had a dictatorial role in the decision making and construction of the new courses at Merion (which opened for play in 1912 and 1914), and why would we choose not to believe AW Tillinghast in 1934, who had been onsite many times, and who KNEW all of these men well and personally, including Macdonald and Whigham, who were still alive at that time, when he plainly stated for all the world that Merion was the creation of Hugh Wilson?  Why would we choose to disregard conteporaneous news accounts of the time who stated clearly that Hugh Wilson laid out both courses at Merion?