I do believe that if you had been that very clear in your initial post that you were disagreeing with Wayne and Tom's interpretation of Macdonald's role at Merion perhaps we could have cut to the chase quicker, but that's neither here nor there at this juncture.   Still, it does help to distill the issues and separate fact from speculation.  

Mike, that wasn’t the point of my first post.  My first post was just to introduce some new information in to the discussion.   But based on the reaction that received, I then began questioning their interpretation, and have said so repeatedly throughout.  Unfortunately, you and others were so busy saddling me with ulterior motives that you failed ever to believe me.    My explanatory skills are far from perfect, but all the skills in the world will not overcome an audience that has their mind firmly set on not understanding.
Speaking of which, even now you discount my words and attribute beliefs and motivations to me that I have never had. . .

It is simply outrageous to suggest that he learned as much in 2 days as in the next 7 months of detailed study, even if Wilson continually gave Macdonald his well-deserved props.
. . .
Are you saying that Wilson didn't need to go to Great Britain?  That he would have learned just as much in those two days with Macdonald than he learned over 7 months studying courses, David??  

That is REALLY the foundation of this argument, isn't it?  I think you should come right out and say that if that is what you believe but it's certainly what is implied in your statements suggesting that we're trying to "separate the trip from what he learned from Macdonald".  

Jeez Mike, give me a break.

I never said he learned more in two days than in seven months.  I never said he didn’t need to go to Great Britain.  I didn’t imply it or suggest it.   I am not writing esoterically here.    I said what I mean and I mean what I said.  

1) You cannot separate out what Wilson learned before the trip from what he learned after the trip.

2.)  Wilson thought that what he had learned from CBM was extremely important, and we ought to take his word for it.  
 

David, this is probably a good juncture to ask the simple obvious question here.   If the Macdonald influence was so great on WIlson at this time, and then transferred to the early Merion by Wilson, why wasn't the Merion course similar to NGLA with holes all modelled after the great ones overseas?

 

Mike, if I had a dollar for every time you asked this and a dollar for every time a answered it, I could forget about a coffee and probably buy Starbucks!

Look at what Wilson says about the principles underlying the holes at NGLA (and Pine Valley):  ”. . . while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own course. “  Why would you think that Wilson would have taken any different approach than he recommends to others.   He used the principles, not the blueprints.

You forgot about Behr's calling Wilson the dictator of Merion's "construction" in 1914, you forgot about local newspaper accounts in 1918 that claim Wilson laid out both courses at Merion, you forgot about Tillinghast making very, very crystalline in 1934, a time when both Macdonald & Whigham were still quite alive (and friends of Tillinghast's) that Hugh Wilson designed Merion, you are forgetting that whatever involvement Macdonald had with Merion's committee seemed to stop dead by 1913 at the latest (if it had been gloriously successful, why not use him for the West course, or consult on further changes over the years?), and most importantly, you are forgetting that the golf course built at Merion looked nothing at all like any golf course Macdonald ever built, or that he or his disciples built over the next 20 years.

I didn’t forget about any of this stuff.  My last post was to TEPaul, this is yours.  

-- Your first few points are only relevant as to whether Wilson deserves design credit.   Surely you understand by now that this is not my issue?  

-- As for M&W’s involvement “stopping dead” in 1914, we have been talking throughout about the initial design of Merion, which opened for play in 1912.  It is a bit too late to redefine the topic, isn’t it?  

-- While it isn’t really my issue, as a neutral observer  , I’ve noticed your reliance on this Behr article is misplaced.   Behr thought that Wilson was more of a dictator than committee chair?   So what?   Does this mean that CBM wasn’t significantly involved??   How so?   That he didn’t always take advice?  How does that mean he didn’t take MacDonald’s advice?   That he studied hard?  Yep, with MacDonald and on a trip planned by MacDonald.  But what does whether he studied that have to do with anything anyway?  

Behr just isn’t talking about the design of Merion, or about CBM’s role.  Behr is making an offhand remark that is better to have one sound leader than an entire misguided committee.    He is paying homage to men who deserve great credit.  But he is saying nothing about MacDonald’s role at Merion.

Not only that, but in your apparent quest to find anything that puts Wilson squarely in charge, you missed the entire point of the article, which is about the opposite of what you take from it.   Behr essentially says, Look, you committees do not have the slightest idea what you are doing.  You’ve got to seek out those who do.  Not your golf professional, but those who have done this before.  Study how grass grows, go to NGLA and study the course, bring in an expert to inspect your site, and bring in an expert to help you route your course.  Get help.  No matter how smart you think you are, you need help.    

If anything, Behr’s article is an affirmation that Merion did it right.  Merion sent the chair of their committee to study with MacDonald at NGLA, then overseas.  And experts did inspect the site: CBM and Whigham.  And experts did help the committee in laying out the course; again CBM and Whigham were these experts.  

Just what this thread needs - a young guy with BOUNDLESS energy and a love of debating golf course architecture!

Please Jordan, run and go and hide......  

David,

I just typed a lengthy reply only to lose it.   Rather than type if all again, I'll try to summarize in two brief areas.

1) Your quote of Wilson saying that "we cannot hope to reproduce...but instead use the principles" of courses abroad is EXACTLY THE POINT WHERE HE BROKE WITH MACDONALD!!!, who continued for the next 20 years (with his disciples) to build courses where they artificially constructed template holes on the land, as opposed to working with it to build new and original holes using the "principles" only.  This is precisely the point where American architecture detoured from the ideas that Macdonald brought to the US, and exemplifeid at NGLA.   This is also why many of us have difficulty accepting your contention that Macdonald had much of anything to do with the actual design.   If, after Merion, Macdonald started building original holes and courses, your point would make sense.   However, that's not what happened at all; quite the opposite in fact!

2) Your interpretation of the Behr comment is rather unique, David.   I suggest you read that quote again, this time substituting the modern term "architecture" for the nomenclature of the time, "construction", where he clearly describes that their knowledge of same is what set apart Leeds at Myopia, Macdonald at NGLA, and Wilson at Merion.  He wasn't talking about them drawing up maintenance schedule for the day laborers, or deciding who would run the Christmas pollyanna...he was talking about the art of building and constructing a golf course!

This thread is more confusing then anything I can think of, even an Arthur Hills course.
 


I wonder what kind of a cat fight would occur if there was a thread with Matt Ward vs. David Moriarty...

Jordan,
   It wouldn't be so confusing if you spent more time on your schoolwork.

Jordan,

Stop trying to play peacemaker...just sit back and watch the fur fly.  

David Moriarty is an army of one...an island, a rock, as Simon and Garfunkel sang.  He'd rather be certain that he's right than convince any of us, and he's doing a good job of it.  

Periodically, Tom MacWood jumps in to his defense, but then thinks better of it and calls the whole thread "speculation".  

Also, David at least admits that Hugh Wilson designed Merion but Tom MacWood is waiting for the filmed DVD release before making that bold assertion.  

Mike

I guess it takes a New Yorker to put it all into perspective for you Pennsylvania, Ohio and Californian's.

As I wrote seemingly months ago anyone stepping on the grounds can see that the third is not a redan and to make it such would require quite a bulldozing of that green.  If the 15th is based on the Eden or the 17th and 16th greens based on the valley of sin then there are seemingly thousands of holes scattered on thousands of golf courses with template holes like it.

Geoffrey,

It was months ago!  That's the sad part.  

Personally, I'm checking into intensive therapy to better understand my perverse attraction to this thread.   I just find the whole idea of Macdonald having a big hand in the design of Merion so preposterous based on what is on the ground, today and yesterday, that I can't help myself.

If ever a golf course was built antithetical to the Macdonald/Raynor style, Merion is it.  

It's not that I don't love NGLA, Mid-Ocean, et.al., but they are clearly a different type of course coming from an entirely different approach.  

1) Your quote of Wilson saying that "we cannot hope to reproduce...but instead use the principles" of courses abroad is EXACTLY THE POINT WHERE HE BROKE WITH MACDONALD!!!, who continued for the next 20 years (with his disciples) to build courses where they artificially constructed template holes on the land, as opposed to working with it to build new and original holes using the "principles" only.  This is precisely the point where American architecture detoured from the ideas that Macdonald brought to the US, and exemplifeid at NGLA.   This is also why many of us have difficulty accepting your contention that Macdonald had much of anything to do with the actual design.   If, after Merion, Macdonald started building original holes and courses, your point would make sense.   However, that's not what happened at all; quite the opposite in fact!

What makes you think that MacDonald ever wanted anyone else to build exact copies of NGLA?   I am not aware of any exact copies outside of his design house.  Read what he wrote.  He was building those holes in order properly represent the principles, not to sell exact blueprints.   To pretend that MacDonald wasn't interested in spreading the proper principles is to ignore everything the guy ever wrote.  What about the 1000 variations on a redan comment?  What about him citing favorably examples of redan's that are barely similar to the template?   Your understanding of MacDonald is much more rigid that the facts would suggest.  

2) Your interpretation of the Behr comment is rather unique, David.   I suggest you read that quote again, this time substituting the modern term "architecture" for the nomenclature of the time, "construction", where he clearly describes that their knowledge of same is what set apart Leeds at Myopia, Macdonald at NGLA, and Wilson at Merion.  He wasn't talking about them drawing up maintenance schedule for the day laborers, or deciding who would run the Christmas pollyanna...he was talking about the art of building and constructing a golf course!

I dont agree with your changing of the word, but I dont think it makes one bit of difference.  Substitute words all you want, it still has nothing to do with whether or not CBM was involved at Merion.  

I didnt just read the quote, I read the entire article.  You should do the same.  They are talking about the importance of committees seeking proper education and guidance.   In understanding agronomy, in choosing a site, and in laying out a course.  

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on December 20, 2006, 03:05:40 PM

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 20, 2006, 01:17:32 PM

I prefer confirmed facts, a good understanding of all the historic figures (who they were, where they were, what they did), a good understanding of the period (culturely, economically, socially, politically, etc) when trying to determine the architectural history of a golf course or golf course architect.

Tom,

Do you always hold YOURSELF to this standard ?

Did you hold yourself to this standard when you ardently defended and insisted that Donald Ross's alleged statement that Seminole was FLAT was accurate ?

Do you recall asking me who was more familiar with the land at Seminole, Donald Ross or me ?

Perhaps, had you invoked your own research criteria you would have seen how absurd that statement was, and that it couldn't have possibly have been uttered by Donald Ross, as you continued to insist.

Check out the recent thread 'Donald Ross and the machine'. You were the only one who read that Ross quote as the entire site being flat. Anyone who thought Ross was claiming the entire site was flat believes Donald Ross was an idiot. Donald Ross was not an idiot, which goes back to what I said about having a good understanding of historical figures. When you are desperate - at the end of your rope - you have a tendency to deliberately distort and misinterpret.

I don't need to check out a different thread.

I know what you said on the Seminole is FLAT thread, where you insisted that Ross was right and that I was wrong, despite your never having seen the property at Seminole.

You tried every argument possible to reinforce that Ross's statement that Seminole was FLAT was accurate.

I called you intellectually dishonest then, and I'll repeat that categorization  due to your above attempt to deny that you ever championed the idea that Seminole was FLAT.

You had egg all over your face then .... and now.

While I agree with your criteria, you, above all others should adhere to it, instead of preaching to others that they adhere to it, while you ignore it at your convenience.[/color]

Tom MacWood,
I asked you this question on the Pine Valley thread but you may not be tuning into that one any more so I'll ask it here:

For someone who is obviously passionate about researching the origins of the courses at Pine Valley and Merion, why is it that you have never made the trip to see each course and the property on which each course sits?

Do you plan on making a site visit to either Pine Valley or Merion any time soon?

I'm sure there are many practical reasons for not making a site visit but I would think it would be an absolute must for a researcher/historian of GCA, particularly as it relates to the origins and evolution of each course.

I don't think GCA is like art, where (arguably) once you see a picture of the Mona Lisa in an art history book, you (arguably) don't need to make a trip to the Louvre to see it for yourself so that you may fully understand it. Don't you really need to (eventually) see Pine Valley and Merion for yourself? I can't imagine how it would not greatly benefit you as a researcher/historian of GCA.

If you don't want to answer please just say so, but I really am interested--have you wanted to see PV/Merion but haven't gotten the chance, are you waiting until later in the research process to visit PV/Merion, or do you not care either way about seeing PV/Merion?

Chris,

You are mistaken, at least in my opinion, where you state, "I don't think GCA is like art, where (arguably) once you see a picture of the Mona Lisa in an art history book, you (arguably) don't need to make a trip to the Louvre to see it for yourself so that you may fully understand it."

Using your example, and especially so because I just completed a new book about the theft of the Mona Lisa in 1911, one MUST see it in person if they want to have any depth of understanding about Da Vinci's masterpiece.

For example, one can read in a book that the painting displays a greenish tinge that was caused by a maintenance worker's attempt to prevent damage occuring to the painting as the Emperor of France displayed it in his bath house. To keep the humidity from destroying it as it had others (it is painted on a piece of white poplar), this anonymous hero mixed up a batch of homemade varnish that ended up reacting to the moisture in the air and turned green after a number of years. But the only way to appreciate this saving and tragedy is to see it in person as photographs definitely do not do it justice.

Ironically, the painting was saved for prosperity, yet because the properties of the varnish can not be analyzed it was decided long ago to leave it as it is... and so no one today really knows what the painting actually looks like and how vibrant the colors are...

Understanding and appreciating masterful works of art require one to visit and experience it in person; just like great golf courses...

Philip,
You know, I wasn't entirely in love with that analogy as I was making it, and decided to put "arguably" in there, but you're right... In fact, I got to see the Mona Lisa in person earlier this year and it was quite an experience.

I got a lot more out of seeing Pine Valley and Merion for the first time, but then again I'm more of a golfer than an art lover.

I don't agree with that statement nor do I accept the atated stature that a number have represented CBM as having at that time.
What seems readily apparent to me is that in 1910, CBM was JUST COMING into his own and was NOT the internationally respected designer that he would later become.

Phillip, Looking at the old magazines and information, I get the impression that MacDonald was pretty well respected during this early period, and not just for his design work.  NGLA was viewed as a real watershed event--  a great course based on the principles of the great links courses.   Here is a quote from 1914 Golf Illustrated Year In Review article by John Anderson:  

Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has its geniuses; golfing America should be proud of the fact that she has the finest golf architectural genius of modern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled.

The quote is from 1914, not 1910, but it is fairly indicative of the kind of praise MacDonald received.   Other examples within this thread are Wilson's tributes to CBM and NGLA, and Behr's article on green committees.  

As far David's claim that "MacDonald brought modern golf design to America.  He (and a few others) not only explicitly rejected what came before, he also brought back the principles underlying the great links courses..." If he was designing new courses based upon models of Bristish courses many years old, how can this possibly be considere "modern golf design?"

I tend to agree that modern is not the best word.  I used it because these guys often did (especially in advertisements) probably to distinguish themselves from what had come before in America.  The principles may have been old in Scotland, but they were new in America.   And however the aesthetics eventually ended up, it is hard to deny that CBM was a pioneer regarding the underlying strategic principles.  
____________________________

1. Are either of you implying that Merion was actively and seriously looking for Macdonald's approval of the site in Villanova?

I don't know when they bought the land, but I do know that MacDonald's visit and pronouncement that the land was suitable for golf was somehow meaningful enough to be mentioned in American Golfer.

It would be interesting to know when they bought the land, but I don't think this would be dispositive one way or another.  Even if they invited CBM to come down before they actually bought the land, the final decision was still obviously theirs.  And even if they had bought the land before, they were sophisticated businessmen, so I am sure they were aware that weren't obligated to keep the land forever, but could turn around and sell it if they decided not to build a course there.

I may be mistaken, but I thought I read somewhere that the original purchase was for 300 acres.  If so, then isn't it possible that they were trying to figure out just what portion of the land to use?

Also, we know there were two views at Merion about where the new course should be built.  Is it possible that CBM was brought in by those on one side of this discussion in an effort to convince the other side that the site was indeed well-suited for golf?

Do you actually think you've come across and posted on this website anything at all we have not been aware of for probably years? And if you do, what in the world would that be?

TEPaul, The new information to which I refer was the excerpt from the 1916 NYTimes article in the initial post.  The article was new to me, at least.  You and Mr. Morrison have never said whether you already had that article, and frankly it doesnt matter to me, because I am sure there must have been someone who had not seen it and who found it worth discussing.

I have repeatedly noted that I am not offering new facts, but rather have been concerned with the analysis which has been seriously flawed and continues to so be, although to a lesser degree than before.    

For example, you again dismiss the contemporaneous accounts of M&Ws involvement by Tillinghast, Travis, and Lesley as ”second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports.”   You also refer to the agronomy letters which only you have seen, and claim that if we could see MacDonald’s attitude in them (well after the pertinent time-period) then we would surely have a different view than we do.  

In the mid-term elections, one of the last ditch efforts of Senator Conrad Burns (R-Mt) was to suggest that the Republicans had a secret plan to win the war in Iraq, but that they weren’t going to tell the Democrats, because they would screw it up.  As you might have heard, Senator Burns was defeated.