Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?

« **Reply #825 on:** December 21, 2006, 01:23:55 AM »

"Quote from: Philip Young on Yesterday at 10:54:01am
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.

Quote:
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."

GUYS (David and Phil);

This is some great stuff; this is fundamental, it's interesting, no, it's fascinating. This is what we should be talking about on here. This is the REAL evolution of architecture in America---early America, perhaps the most fascinating time of all of it.

THAT, is the kind of discussion we WANT to have and NEED to have on this website.

You guys hold those thoughts, even if you disagree---particularly if you disagree.

I've got to hit the sack, but I'll be back first thing tomorrow. I want to talk about that exchange of yours. I'm gonna make you do it----and stick to it, and hopefully not go off on some trivial tangent or some "provablility" fixation.

Lay the historical structure down of the subject you two just hit on and we may even get as far as an intelligent "What If" discussion.

Good on you guys!

See you tomorrow.

« **Reply #826 on:** December 21, 2006, 01:50:49 AM »

David,

You are exactly correct when you state that, "The quote is from 1914, not 1910, but it is fairly indicative of the kind of praise MacDonald received..."

The problem is that being INDICATIVE of praise is NOT the same thing as being UNIVERSALLY praised!

CBM had his detractors and some quite well-known and vocal, as in the case of Tillinghast! This is important because of the dynamics of the people involved in the creation of Merion and the real possibility of criticism of what his recommendations may have been. This is, of course, speculation, but so is any statement, and many of them have so far on this thread, that goes beyond the statement that CBM advised the committe chosen to oversee the design and construction of Merion.

You should see the potential in this for didn't you write in the same post as my quote of yours above as a criticism of Tom Pasul, "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.” ?"

Tom, you wrote, "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." I don't disagree with that statement at all; I just recognize that there is a huge difference between being "pretty well respected" and universally respected and offer as proof Tillinghast's quite specific statement(s) about CBM's design philosophy.

« **Reply #827 on:** December 21, 2006, 02:01:59 AM »

Philip:

It'd be hard for me to say whether Macdonald was 'quite well respected' or "univerally" respected in 1910 or 1914 or 1920, 1926 or 1938.

But I certainly would like to here what you think Tillinghast meant by any statements he made at any time about Macdonald's design work, Macdonald's design style, about what Macdonald thought of other things, or even what Tillinghast felt about Macdonald himself.

« **Reply #828 on:** December 21, 2006, 02:29:34 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 01:50:51 AM

We believe in our opinions given what we have and have seen, even if we're more than willing to change our opinions if new and different info comes up.

What really pisses me off, though, about this catechism on this thread about the creation of Merion and who was responsible for it, is, I, for one, am hearing from you and MacWood that this is about Wilson against Macdonald, or about Philadelphia golf and architecture against others and other areas, just as MacWood seemed to imply that the PV discussions were only about Crump or Philadelphia against Colt.

Nothing of the kind. If somebody says stuff like that to me I'm going to continue to be the way I have been, as I think I have every good right and reason to be.

TomPaul, I am sorry you see it that way, I am just trying to make some sense out of what I see as an extremely skewed analysis.

There is more to historical research than finding information; you also need objective and critical analysis. Whether because of local bias or some other reason, your claim that you guys are evaluating this information objectively is just not supported by the facts.

Even if we set aside Mr. Morrison's tantrum and refusal to accept an objective measure, you guys just do not want to even consider information that doesnt fit your preconceptions. Your flippant comment about ”second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports” [referring to the contemporaneous accounts of Travis, Tillinghast, and Lesley] is just the latest example.

The most egregious example is that throughout this entire thread you guys have ignored and/or discredited the contemporaneous news accounts and insisted on proof of MacDonald's specific contributions to the initial design before you acknowledged his involvement at all. This even though you were well aware that all evidence of what specifically happened cannot be found. So even if MacDonald had been specifically involved, his involvement would never be proven by your standards.

If my challenging this type of analysis means that you will subject me to continued distain, then so be it.

« **Reply #829 on:** December 21, 2006, 02:41:25 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 02:14:16 AM

Personally, I think your intention on this thread was to try to prove us wrong about a few yards of distance that Jones hit a drive on #10 Merion, and to then use that as some kind of example or evidence to go on and maintain that all of our research on Merion was suspect. Why do you suppose you were REALLY trying to do that?

You can deny this, or sluff it off if you'd like but, I, for one, don't think I'll be buying it.

Yes, it was all a ploy. I forged the NYTimes article, manipulated the conversation, corrected Mr. Morrison's misperception about Jones' driving distance, all to bate him into hte predictable response of flying off the handle, calling me a liar, idiot, etc., and then refusing to talk to me ever again. Mission Accomplished.

As for the rest, it really doesnt matter at this point, but for the record . . .
. . . the measure wasn't off by a few yards, but 40 yards.
. . . all this business about measuring doglegs is irrelevant; drives are measured in a straight line;
. . . the course was dry and hard but the drives on No. 10 (marked in the magazine) still went less than 260 yards.

Again, this is a terrific example of an unwillingness to accept contrary views, even if they are purely factual.

« **Reply #830 on:** December 21, 2006, 03:08:53 AM »

Tom Paul,

You asked, "But I certainly would like to here what you think Tillinghast meant by any statements he made at any time about Macdonald's design work, Macdonald's design style, about what Macdonald thought of other things, or even what Tillinghast felt about Macdonald himself..."

You must have missed where 2 pages and 76 comments ago in my post #966 of this thread I wrote:

Tilly went on, "... although he was a broker by profession, and after securing models of famous holes on British courses of that time, he more or less followed these designs in the building of the National... Some years later he designed the beautiful course, the Mid-Ocean, at bermuda. Numerous other courses were designed by him, still following his custom of working severely to the artificial construction of feplicas of British golf holes.

"I have known Charley Macdonald [this is the only time I have ever seen him called "Charley"] since the earliest days of golf in this country and for many years we have been rival course architects, and I really mean rivals for in many instances we widely disagreed. Our manner of designing courses never reconciled. I stubbornly insisted on following natural suggestions of terrain, creating new types of holes as suggested by Nature, even when resorting to artificial methods of construction. Charley, equally convinced that working strictly to models was best, turned out some famous courses. Throughout the years we argued good naturedly about it and that, always at variance it would seem. Now he is gone and I can only salute his memory..."

Tilly wasn't a fan of CBM's work yet was able to disagree with him over the years face-to-face in an amicable way. Despite his disagreement with CBM's design philosophies, Tilly also recognized that in implementing them he did design some stunning courses including NGLA & Mid-Ocean...

« **Reply #831 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:19:28 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 20, 2006, 06:42:47 PM

Mike Cirba:

One of the strong possibilities you apparently forgot to consider in your post #998 is Macdonald may not have been particularly interested in offering Merion, Wilson and his committee any specific or significant involvement in the creation of their golf course. Apparently no one on here has considered that and it's pretty surprising no one has. If any of you could see some of the references to Macdonald's attitude in some of those agronomy letters particularly as time marches on into the late teens and early 1920s I think they would get a far different impression of this entire situation and of Macdonald too. But of course most of you are just floundering around second guessing a bunch of second and third hand newspaper and magazine reports. It's far more apropos and appropriate, I think, to consider the information from those more directly involved such as the Wilsons.

"even with Mr. Morrison's distracting retracted defamatory detractions."

MikeyC:

There's some pretty cool second half alliteration in that remark(able), don't you think?

Tom,

Yes, I believe I had considered that. In my one seemingly tongue-in-cheek post I said that I was becoming more than half-convinced that one of two things happened.

Either Merion informed Macdonald politely that he was no longer needed (how quickly you forget my "don't let the wicker basket hit you in the ass on the way out" line

), or I speculated that perhaps Macdonald got pissed at the temperature of the soup or something and never came back.

Althought I said it in joking fashion, if I were a betting man I'd wager that either of the two scenarios is probably close to the truth.

It would certainly explain a LOT of peoples actions, inactions, and writings throughout the whole continuum til 1939 when Whigham somewhat remarkably claimed out of the blue that Merion was a "Macdonald/Raynor course".

« **Reply #832 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:33:59 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 20, 2006, 11:21:10 PM

Phil:

I agree with you there. I'm no art historian or expert but it can be pretty mindblowing with the different impressions of viewing great art in a book vs looking at it face to face. Seeing the Mona Lisa was a real revelation to me but not so much as seeing an exhibit of Van Gogh a few years ago. My God, was that something to get close to some of his paintings. They're postively palpable and you don't get that sensation looking at them in a book.

Tom,

Isn't that amazing? His paintings are almost three-dimensional when viewed in person, and the layers of brushstrokes create levels of relief that are stunning to behold.

Man, would he have created some wild golf courses if he got involved in Kolven! Probably wouldn't of been much of a minimalist, though.

« **Reply #833 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:44:17 AM »

Tom,

I agree that the subject is fascinating, but I really don't think we've exhausted it yet on THIS thread, as it played out in the particulars of Merion.

My belief, quite different than David's or Tom MacWood's apparently, is that Hugh Wilson and the Merion Committee split philosophically and literally with Macdonald at some point, simply over this divergence in approach and styles.

The fact that there is clear evidence of Macdonald's early advisory involvement, and then...nothing...dead silence, for the next 25 or more years...

Until, Macdonald's funeral.

I can't see how this was an amicable parting, although I would venture to believe that the Merion Committee had enough respect for Macdonald and Whigham to be polite and grateful for their assistance to that point, but I'm betting at some point a loud "harruummppff" was heard from Macdonald, and that was that!

I also believe that Wilson's laudatory remarks about the two men and their great assistance were quite sincere, but I also think it quickly became a situation of diminishing returns.

Behr's description of Wilson's "dictatorial" approach would not have meshed well with Macdonald's autocratic style, I suspect, and I think at some point Wilson just said, "thank you very much", and went off on this own with the rest of the Committee, Flynn, Pickering, et.al.

« **Reply #834 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:29:30 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 10:19:24 AM

MikeC:

Actually in these agronomy letters there're a few brief references to Behr and a letter he wrote to them or generally about Merion. I'll quote them if I find them today.

Alan Wilson's reaction to Behr was pretty interesting in that he said he wasn't even aware that Behr had really been to Merion (which seems preposterous on its face---eg Behr actually belonged to Pine Valley in the teens).

And Hugh's reacation to Behr's description of both he and Merion was just funny. Hugh said he wasn't sure how Behr arrived at the fact that what he (Hugh Wilson) had done or had been done at Merion was actually so remarkable it was really a 'moral' issue. And then Hugh said perhaps he would figure out what Behr was saying but it might take him the rest of his life to figure it out.

Isn't if funny when it comes to Behr and his writing? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Tom,

That's fascinating, as well.

Could it be that the hypothetical split between Macdonald and Wilson could have ended up with various other architects and other prominent people in the game choosing sides to some degree, if not in terms of strained relationships necessarily, but philsophically, as in the Tillinghast comments about Macdonald's work?

« **Reply #835 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:58:05 AM »

Hey Tom Paul,

Did you see that post a few pages back where both David and Tom M. agreed that not only is Patrick Mucci so blind that he wouldn't be able to tell if Seminole was flat if Ross located it in the Mojave Desert, but also, where they also said that Notre Dame sucks and that Patrick doesn't know the first thing about the course evolution of Garden City Golf Club, much less Merion??

I thought that was a seminal post from the both of them.*

Oh, by the way, I think they also said he wouldn't know an Alps from a Redan, and that the 1st hole at NGLA sucks, and the only way they should lengthen the 18th is to sink him in the adjacent bay and then put a tee on Patrick's flat-top haircut!

* Shameless attempt to engage Patrick in this discussion as we go for the record.

« **Reply #836 on:** December 21, 2006, 04:21:02 PM »

Not sure I have seen this in previous postings. Maybe it is there somewhere.

This is from "Hazard" Tilly in the American Golfer April 1916. The article reports that Hugh Wilson has stated some inprovements will be made to Merion.

" The east course, selected for the meeting, offers some mighty fine golf, without freak holes. The nearest approach to freakishness is to be encountered on the eighth, which was constructed for a well-placed tee-shot, followed by a ticklish pitch and run to the green, which is not above criticism. Fortunately this hole is to be reconstructed for the Championship, and when the putting-green is elevated and a deep hazard placed in front, the approach will be very different, as it will demand a controlled pitch. This change on the eighth is the only one of importance, although Mr. Hugh Wilson states that the seventeenth green will be lifted in the spring, and numbers of new hazards placed. "

Just another note of a Wilson statement about Merion. I have good intentions to go back and clip out all these article references so it can be found in one spot. Apologies if the above reference material has been previously posted.

TEP,

Thanks for the note about CBM, and others re-visiting Merion in 1924 or so.

I took the information about the visit as true, and the stuff about finding Fox Chapel as funny. Although, recently, a clerk said he was from upstate NY. I asked where. He said 'Poughkeepsie'. I counted my change and left.

« **Reply #837 on:** December 21, 2006, 06:34:44 PM »

So let me get this straight...you let this thread go as it did, even contributing a tiny little bit to it, all the while you were sitting on the damning evidence? I hope to god this report says CBM and Smithers designed every single nook and cranny of the godamn property. I hope it says that Hugh Wilson is simply a figment of the imagination of the over-protective Philadelphia School boys in an effort to totally eliminate any scrap of evidence that CBM may have ever set foot on the land.

Merry Christmas...

« **Reply #838 on:** December 21, 2006, 06:56:34 PM »

You warned me when I first came on about it occasionally seems like a good old fashioned shoot out in Dodge City. I trusted you 'cause I figured you might have been around for the glory days in Dodge.

Would you call this "report" by Alan Wilson "ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE"[/i]?

« **Reply #839 on:** December 21, 2006, 07:51:06 PM »

Quote from: T_MacWood on December 20, 2006, 10:21:22 PM

Quote from: Tom MacWood on December 16, 2006, 10:22:18 AM

"In these days of steam shovels and modern improvements, it is possible to do wonderful things on [size=4x]flat, level country.[/size]

I have come to the conclusion that I prefer to lay out a course on [size=4x]level land.[/size]

[size=4x]
The Seminole course near Palm Beach is an example of what can be done with that type of terrain.[/size]

I don't say its the best I have ever designed. Nevertheless, I like it very much."

Only someone who thought Ross was an idiot or someone who was trying delibrately distort Ross's intent would claim this quote indicates Ross thought the entire Seminole site was flat.

Only an idiot would fail to read and understand what they've quoted above.

How would you gleen anything else from the above quote ?

The alleged quote clearly states that Seminole is FLAT, LEVEL TERRAIN.

And, you defended that comment, insisting that Seminole was FLAT and that Ross knew what he was talking about and that I didn't.

Then, after you looked at a topo, you modified your position, trying to weasel out of your endorsement and support of Ross's remarks, and you repeatedly insisted that Seminole was flat until you looked at topos.

Just admit that you were dead wrong to accept the quote as The Gospel and that I was RIGHT in declaring that Seminole was anything but flat, and that you can't believe everything that you read, even if it's alleged to be from the subject under discussion.

Go ahead, you can do it, just admit that I was right .... again.

Your venture into revisionist history is a failure.
But, despite being FLAT out wrong, I"m sure that you'll double your efforts in an attempt to wiggle out of your colossal error. [/color]

« **Reply #840 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:13:36 PM »

Tom Paul,

I'm looking forward to reading Alan Wilson's report and thank you for posting it. Hopefully, it will clear up a lot of the confusion for all of us here and we can wrap this thread up on a high note.

However, after reading about the possibility of Tom MacWood leaving this site, I frankly feel very down that I may have contributed to that. Nobody loves this history stuff more than Tom and if we don't always agree on the conclusions, he certainly stimulates deep thinking and further research. Frankly, there are very few guys anywhere who are as into the details of the past as he is, and I hope we haven't lost a kindred spirit.

Also, I did try to call you back earlier today but got what sounded like a modem. Can you try again tomorrow? My availability at work should be much better.

« **Reply #841 on:** December 21, 2006, 09:55:30 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 11:30:17 AM

Mike:

Honestly some of the things Moriarty and MacWood have said on this thread and the way they've said them is sort of like watching two people try to convince a large crowd that it's midnight when everyone can see it's high-noon.

"But honestly, it's midnight somewhere..."

In all fairness, it works better when trying to justify it being 5 o'clock somewhere

« **Reply #842 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:09:55 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 10:05:38 PM

""But honestly, it's midnight somewhere..."

Doug:

Pretty good point, and that sounds like Moriarty:

Moriarty speaking with a large group of people at High-Noon:

"People, it's midnight. Can't you see that?"

Large group to Moriarty:

"No, it's high-noon, can't you see the sun shining overhead?"

Moriarty to the crowd:

"That doesn't matter because it must be midnight somewhere."

"Well, there's nothing to prove that it's not midnight here, so I am correct in saying it's midnight..."

« **Reply #843 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:11:30 PM »

Doug:

Is it midnight when one can see the noon day sun directly overhead?

« **Reply #844 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:14:35 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 10:11:30 PM

Doug:

Is it midnight when one can see the noon day sun directly overhead?

Not if you're sauced by noon and completely unaware of anything!

« **Reply #845 on:** December 21, 2006, 10:27:57 PM »

Tom,

Sorry to hear it went down like that. I do hope he decides to come back.

Now, if Moriarty decides to leave, that's something else entirely!

JUST KIDDING, DAVID!

Man, I take my golf architecture and history very seriously, but we all need to lighten up a touch. Half the time I post I have my tongue firmly implanted in cheek, but perhaps the smiley faces don't convey that well enough. $:-\$

« **Reply #846 on:** December 21, 2006, 11:01:08 PM »

Keep it coming, Tom. This is good stuff!

« **Reply #847 on:** December 22, 2006, 03:33:48 AM »

Quote from: Mike Cirba on December 21, 2006, 10:27:57 PM

Now, if Moriarty decides to leave, that's something else entirely!

Mike, my leaving the site would not be nearly as detrimental to the place as is Tom MacWood’s departure. I did not always like Tom’s approach or agree with his perspective, but this site needs more people like Tom, not less.

That he has been drummed out should be considered an embarassment to all of us. We are the ones who refuse to confront the white elephant in the room.

I want to make sure I am clear on just what happened. I am sure my take will be about as popular as it usually is.

1. TEPaul discussed private emails with Tom Macwood, even telling him that he would forward them to MacWood.
2. When the emails did not arrive, MacWood called him on it in a public forum.
3. This probably sent TEPaul into panic mode, and rightfully so. After all, TEPaul is the one who betrayed the confidences of the men who sent the emails.
4. TEPaul tried to cajole MacWood into pulling the post, and MacWood wouldn’t budge.
5. TEPaul then used his pull at gca.com to get someone else to pull Tom MacWood's post.
6. Understandably, MacWood finds this unacceptable.

MacWood wasn’t the one who was telling tales out of school, TEPaul was. If these emails were private, TEPaul should have kept them to himself. MacWood’s post shouldn’t be censored just because TEPaul betrayed confidences just to make a point to Tom MacWood.

Should MacWood have posted the names? I probably would not have handled it the way he did, just because I’d rather not drag third parties down into this muck. But I have got to say, given the abuse that Tom MacWood has taken from TEPaul, I cannot say I blame him one bit.

This was TEPaul’s bad, not Tom MacWood’s. Yet unfortunately we may lose MacWood over it.

« **Reply #848 on:** December 22, 2006, 03:35:16 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 21, 2006, 11:55:46 PM

I see David Moriarty checked into the website and then checked right out again.

Can you blame him?

You are joking right? I knew that whatever these letters said, you would view them as proving me wrong, but this is a bit much.

Just to keep things in a bit of perspective, here is the beginning of the section of my summary addressing the laying out of the course:

Quote from: DMoriarty on December 20, 2006, 01:37:12 AM

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.

And here is the section from above addressing their involvement:

Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, ---both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick---twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value.

« **Reply #849 on:** December 22, 2006, 06:16:59 AM »

David,

I believe that you missed the most important statement made in the report, and one that would appear to completely disagree with your belief that, "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..."

Yes, the letter CLEARLY states that, "Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam... twice came to Haverford, first to go over the grounds and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our Committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value..."

You omit was written IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THIS. "First of all, they were both "Homemade". When it was known that we must give up the old course... and a "Special Construction Committee" designed and buit the two courses without the help of a golf architect..."

Once again, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..."

"Without" is as absolute a word as can be used...

CBM & Whigham then, advised and were ignored... There is no other possible inference that can be drawn from the statement, "DESIGNED AND BUILT THE TWO COURSES WITHOUT THE HELP OF A GOLF ARCHITECT..."

News:

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

TEPaul

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

Phil_the_Author

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

Mike_Cirba

john_stiles

JESII

JESII

Patrick_Mucci

Mike_Cirba

Doug Braunsdorf

Doug Braunsdorf

TEPaul

Doug Braunsdorf

Mike_Cirba

David Stamm

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

Phil_the_Author