Now, on to the actual creation of the early Merion course on Ardmore Avenue:
5. Based on all the available information, we have no choice but to conclude that MacDonald and Whigham advised the committee in the laying out of the course, and that their advice was significant and beneficial to the committee.
As far as I know, there are at least three contemporaneous accounts of MacDonald and Whigham being involved in the creation of Merion East; one concerned CBM’s inspection of the site, one account was written during the design of the course, and one account was written after the course was opened but while work was still apparently being done.
-- In the December 1910 American Golfer, Tillinghast reported that CMB and Whigham had inspected Merion (apparently at the invitation of committee member R.E. Griscom) and “pronounced the new land to be admirably suited to the requirements of the game today.”
-- In the May 1911 American Golfer, Tillinghast reports that the new course at Merion is “nearing completion in the planning.” He also noted that CBM and Whigham had visited the site; that “CBM and Whigham have been aiding the committee;” that CBM and Whigham were greatly pleased over the prospects; and that CBM said that in his opinion seven of the holes equaled any in this country.
-- In the January 1913 issue of Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis reviewed the new Merion, and noted that CBM had been “of great assistance in an advisory way/” and that CBM had told Travis that Merion “would have one of the best inland courses he had ever seen.”
These references have consistently been minimized as too vague, or as lip-service, or as footnotes or snippets. Or they have just been selectively edited, Mike Cirba does when describing the these references: ” You'll notice [CBM] didn't say anything about [CBM’s] 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. While CBM may not have, Travis and Tillinghast did. They said he was there, that he “aided the committee” and that he was of great assistance.
But mainly these quotes have been dismissed or discounted based on the faulty assumption that there would be more than this had CBM and Whigham really been “of great assistance” or had they really been “aiding the committee.” We now all know that this argument is completely fallacious. No record of the specific details exists one way or another, beside these accounts. So we cannot discount CBM’s involvement based on the absence of a record—we’d have no record whether or not he was significantly involved. Likewise, no one has offered any evidence to support the assumptions underlying the many variations on this theme, like the Why isn’t listed on CBM’s Resume? theory.
I see no reason why these three accounts should be dismissed so lightly. The authors of the articles knew what was going on at Merion. And they provided us with what may be the only progress reports from the course’s creation. Throw them out and we are left with a completely empty contemporaneous record. But I guess to some an empty record is preferable to one that acknowledges CBM’s involvement.
A few more things of note about these three references:
For those who argue that CBM would have tooted his own horn had he been involved should look at the source of these three reports. It is MacDonald in at least two and possibly in all three of the articles. In other words he was tooting his own horn.
For those who argue Wilson deserves the lion’s share of the credit, note that at this point Tillinghast and Travis have not even mentioned Wilson at all Rather, they just mention the committee. In fact the first reference to Wilson that I have seen was from 1913 and was in reference to his role as chair of the construction committee of the West Course.
The next reference occurs after the 2nd course was built.
-- In 1914 Robert Lesley wrote an article titled “The Merion Courses” which acknowledged CBM and Whigham as advisors to the committee in laying out the course. Leslie wasn’t a clueless journalist, but rather a prominent figure in American golf and, I think, the president of Merion during this the time. His six page article is no snippet, footnote, or throw-away, but was rather a careful and concise history and description of the creation of the two new Merion courses. In the article, Lesley covers three topics, (devoting roughly equal space to each) which can roughly be thought of as the history and creation of these courses, the differences between these courses, and notable holes on each courses (including the 7th (now the 3rd) which he calls the Redan, and the 10th which he compares to Prestwick’s Alps.)
In the first part of the article, Lesley describes what he calls “the history that lead to this remarkable development in American golf.” In other words, the history of the Merion courses. Lesley concisely covers a lot of ground, including:
The prior sad state of golf in America, especially Philadelphia;
Merion’s practical need for a new course;
The two competing relocation plans (a course overlooking the Schuylkill Valley vs. a convenient location easily reachable by car and train) and the ultimate choice of the current site;
The location of the clubhouse in relation to the railway station;
The history and lineage of the clubhouse.
The laying out of the first golf course.
The immediate overcrowding of the new course.
The details of the purchase of the land for the new course.
The creation of the new course.
A general thanks to all involved in the creation of the courses.
Like the rest of the information covered in the article, the description of the laying out of the course is brief, but to the point:
”The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee [names omitted] who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham.” (my bolds)
That is it. The entire description of laying out the course. No further description of the nature of CBM’s involvement was provided.
But the second course gets even less description—Lesley does not even mention by names those responsible for the second course. Indeed, while Lesley provides a general thanks to all involved in both courses, the only people he singles out by name were the committee members (with Hugh Wilson identified as the chair) and MacDonald and Whigham.
Lesley’s article not only confirms that that CBM and Whigman advised on the laying out of the initial Merion, it also implies that Lesley thought their involvement significant enough to list them along with the committee.
-- Additionally, Mr. Stamm has posted that in Merion’s history, Tolhurt noted that Whigham and MacDonald continued to advise after the trip and that the committee had the benefit of their experience.
There may be more but that is what comes to mind now, with one important clarification: This evidence has always been known and out there. I bring nothing new at all. The question for me has always been: How do we treat this evidence. I think we ought not to second guess those who were there, unless we have a compelling factual reason for doubting them. This means no more unsupported supposition or post hoc pathology. No more illogical conclusions drawn from unavailable evidence. No more flippant dismissals. No more continued attempts to discredit the information based on what we’d like to have happened.
And we need to drop some of the illogical methodologies that have plagued this thread from the beginning.
So that is about it. I may have forgotten a few references and I think that Tom MacWood has a few that I did not mention, but he can add them if he wants. Taken together, this information makes up a substantial part of all we know about the initial creation of Merion. To discredit it without factual support for so doing is unreasonable and insulting to Merion.