Ron Whitten on Shinnecock

[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design".   

That's fact. 

Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad?

Mike,

Sure, there are a multitude of ways that the hole could have benefited upon Wilson's return.

It's called "fine tuning" and it's done almost universally.

The FACT is that the Redan was already in place BEFORE Wilson sailed abroad.

As to how the hole may have benefited from Wilson's trip there are a number of ways.

The slope/s of the green
The altering of the perimeter of the green.
Bunkering
Tee location.
Tee distance

After all, Richard Francis was there and is providing a first hand account.   Francis also wrote that, "The Committee in charge of laying out and building a new course was composed of.."Wilson, Griscom, Toulmin, Lloyd, et.al. without a mention of Macdonald or Whigham.  Again, fact, not inference or supposition.

We're aware that M&M were not members.

We're also aware that the committee traveled a good distance to meet with M&M at NGLA.

Think of M&M as "design consultants" and not club/committee members.

I know that's painful for you and the Merionettes, but, it's a FACT.

Hugh Wilson later wrote; "May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.   

Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.”

Isn't that everyone's problem when building a new course ?

The FACT that Wilson himself mandates visits to NGLA should tell you how NGLA and M&M influenced him.

Another fact is that Griscom and Macdonald were friends through business and golf.   Having just spent several years conceiving, designing, and building NGLA it would have been wise and prudent for Griscom to ask Macdonald to come down and provide the benefit of his experience and study once Merion decided to create a new golf course, similarly amateur-led.   It would have also made eminent sense to go up to see his course at the National.   These were years-long relationships through the inter-city matches and business connections.   I wouldn't be surprised if Rodman Griscom was one of the men Macdonald sought input from "both here and abroad" in his polling of the best holes as he conceived his Ideal Course.

Mike, they did just that, the committee visited NGLA and M&M visited Merion.  But, you know that.

Your suggestion that there is no record of Rodman Griscom participating in the design process because we don't know what work he did for Wilson's Committee is again, meaningless.   

We similarly don't know what Macdonald's design committee of Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, and HJ Whigham each did to contribute to the holes at NGLA.   To suggest that these clubs would have formed committees of amateurs to design and build their golf courses and then specifically recorded who did what on what hole for their greater glory or for posterity is absurd.

I think we do.
And, if you've read "Scotland's Gift" you too should know the answer.

Macdonald and Whigham aided Merion in three well-documented ways.   Let's not go down that road again.  Thanks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design".   

That's fact. 

Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad?

It is quite possible that it was something like a Redan, based on what they thought was a Redan, based on what they saw on their two day visit to NGLA, and upon return from GBI, Wilson made improvements to it to make it more like the true Redan.

And, it isn't really a Redan.  There is not reverse slope. It is not a reverse Redan, if we use the strictest CBM standard of a fall away green at 45 degrees angle.  It is about in line with play and slopes back to front. 

The only real feature I can see is the old barn foundation would certainly be like the original Redan bunker, and maybe was uncovered to make it more like the key bunker.  Just a guess, obviously.

[MCirba]

Is there any mention of the hole being called a redan prior to 1912?

[Patrick_Mucci]

It is quite possible that it was something like a Redan, based on what they thought was a Redan, based on what they saw on their two day visit to NGLA, and upon return from GBI, Wilson made improvements to it to make it more like the true Redan.[/color]
Jeff,
Even today, golfers confuse what constitutes a "Cape" or "Leven" hole.I don't think anyone ever claimed it was a "true Redan" so I don't know why you'd interject that qualifier.
Surely, the 4th at NGLA had to make an impression on them.
Surely, their visit to NGLA had a major impact on their design.How else would you explain the "Alps" at Merion ?

And, it isn't really a Redan.  There is not reverse slope. It is not a reverse Redan, if we use the strictest CBM standard of a fall away green at 45 degrees angle.  It is about in line with play and slopes back to front. 
 
Once again, you're using a strict interpretation.The written, contemporaneous word states that it was a "Redan"Now it may not meet your criteria, or my criteria, but, it met their criteria.You, me and the others on this site have the benefit of 100+ years of GCA history, they had virtually none.

The only real feature I can see is the old barn foundation would certainly be like the original Redan bunker, and maybe was uncovered to make it more like the key bunker.  Just a guess, obviously.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I only interject that "qualifier" as fact as to what has always been out there.

Agreed they called it a Redan, and we don't know why.  They liked the name?  It was close enough in their thoughts? (again maybe the deep bunker was all it took to remind them of the original?)  Francis, writing some time later said they copied the Redan, but again, we don't know exactly what he means, only that Wilson's trip had some benefit on the hole.

BTW, I didn't use my strict interpretation, I mentioned something CBM said about creating Redan holes.......

We generally agree that they didn't use the word strictly at Merion. We know they saw the Redan at NGLA, and that CBM showed it to them.  And, we know their Redan is much different.

I think that is all we know for sure.

Cheers.

[MCirba]

I had plum forgotten they also saw Macdonald's version at NGLA prior to design/construction, as well as the Alps, et.al.

 Maybe they were sleeping in Macdonald's class?   

There is no question they thought they were building a Redan at some point before opening in the Fall of 1912 or they wouldn't have called it one.

I think this description, basically a par three tee shot to a green set on a diagonal over a deep bunker set on the lower side of a rise is what defined it as a Redan for them.   After seeing those sleepers on the original I'm guessing also that the still existing cellar wall of the barn would have been a good reminder.

I don't think they were concerned at all about building the front to back side-slope into the green and I really don't think that landform would have supported such a strategy very well, coming as it does after a very steep, abrupt rise which provided the golfer little ability to use the ground short of the green to effect.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

It is not a reverse Redan, if we use the strictest CBM standard of a fall away green at 45 degrees angle.

Just in case you some day build a Redan and want to be reasonably exact in some of the principles, the angle of the green at North Berwick is about 32* from the line of play.  Not surprisingly, Macdonald got it pretty close at NGLA at 35*.  Wilson was not so close at 20*.

I agree that Merion missed the boat more or less on capturing the key principles of the Redan as the hole stands today.  It seems David and Patrick are asserting that it was more Redan-like in its early state. In the end, it was referred to as a Redan at the time, however like or different it was from the original.

If the argument is whether Macdonald deserves credit for the design of the hole or for turning Wilson et al on to the hole, then it would seem to me that the credit should be tempered with the fact that the design of the hole is not close to either his rendition at NGLA or to the original. 

As I recall, Merion's version of the hole named the Alps was found significantly wanting before Wilson went overseas.  It apparently also was well short of either Macdonald's Alps at NGLA or the original at Prestwick.

I would think that if Macdonald did the design for these two holes that they would have turned out more like what he had done at NGLA than what actually turned out.

[MCirba]

Brian,

I'm not sure how it could have ever played more like a Redan than it does today as there is no record of it ever changing.   

Your point about the degree of diagonal is a good one, as here again is the topo of the 3rd.   Slight diagonal, yes, nothing like the original or the one at NGLA.   I also don't think the table-top landform is quite as long or extended as at either of those courses, so that was likely a limiting factor, as well.



For instance, take a look at how long that ridge that extends from the right kicker down into the green runs at NGLA by comparison.   

[DMoriarty]

For the record Mike, you opened this "turgid can of worms" when you turned a discussion of the Redan into a discussion about Francis by blatantly misrepresenting what Francis wrote ("He states that they located the hole first, and only then, . . .  determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.")  Since then you've been throwing out your usual attenuated and nonsensical theories in your usual Anyone-But-CBM crusade.

And yes, I do mean theories, although that word probably gives what your baseless conjectures much credence.
- I don't know whether or not Griscom visited North Berwick in 1906 and 1911.  But whether or not he did, it is baseless conjecture for you to suggest that this automatically means he must have been source for the Redan idea at Merion. 
- Likewise regarding your "fact" that Merion got its professionals from North Berwick.  You take this to mean that the idea for the Redan must somehow have come from this connection, and there is nothing in the record to support this conjecture.
- Likewise your contradictory conjecture that, although the hole had already been designed and built, no one thought to to make it a Redan until Wilson traveled abroad.

As for your conjecture that, because his daddy owned the shipping lines, Rodman Griscom was somehow exempt from appearing on the passenger and crew lists required by the laws of the United States and Great Britain, the facts don't seem to bear this out. Members of the Griscom family (including Clement, who was president of the conglomeration of shipping lines) appear on the manifests just like everyone else.  And Frances was a frequent traveler overseas, although she most often traveled with her father and mother (including in 1906 and 1911.) There is no record of her having traveled with her brother in the years you claim she did.  It is possible that Rodman met up with her in North Berwick at some point I suppose, but as I said, it makes no real difference.   You can't just pretend he must have designed the hole at Merion based on the fact (?) that he saw the hole in North Berwick.
 

Richard Francis also wrote that the 3rd hole "benefited" from Wilson's trip abroad and that the location of that hole, with it's basement barn wall still intact, "lent itself to this design".    That's fact.  Would you kindly explain how you think the hole "benefited" after Wilson's return from abroad?

It is a "fact" that he wrote that.  It is also a "fact" that he didn't explain how the hole "benefited."  Unlike like you, I don't take this as carte blanche to make up shit to suit my whims.  I don't know how the hole "benefited" and neither do you.  It is not even clear to me that "Francis" definitely remembered how the hole "benefited."    We can guess at how the hole might have "benefited." For example perhaps, Wilson got a glimpse at how intimidating the original bunker looked, and set out to make his greenside bunker equally intimidating.   Just a guess.  But what is NOT a guess is that the hole, including the tee and green (and reportedly the hole for green-side bunker) had already been designed, built, and seeded BEFORE Wilson ever traveled abroad, and it reported that many of the holes were based on the famous holes abroad BEFORE he returned from his trip.

After all, Richard Francis was there and is providing a first hand account.

He wasn't overseas with Wilson, and there is no evidence he was with CBM and HJW when CBM and HJW came down to Merion to first go over the and in June of 1910.  It is possible he went to NGLA, but knowing what I know of the parties involved, I would be very surprised if he was included in the trip to NGLA in March of 1911 when CBM was advising Wilson as to the layout plan.  And we have no idea whether he was on hand when CBM and HJW returned to Merion a few weeks later to again go over the land and to determine and approve the final routing plan from among the various options. 

As Francis himself put it, he "was added to [the construction committee], probably because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit, level, and tape." We don't have a date certain when he was added, and Merion's Minutes make no mention of the existence of this committee during the time period in which CBM and HJW were helping with the design. In short, it is not at all clear what if anything Francis has to tell us about CBM and HJW's contributions to the plan. 

Hugh Wilson later wrote; "May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.   Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.”

I love how you ignore that Wilson is strongly suggesting that he was copying CBM'S GOLF HOLES, and all you can see is that he used the word "our."  Of course is was Merion's problem.  CBM wasn't a member of Merion.  CBM used similar language in the summer of 1910 when he told Merion:  "The most difficult problem you have to contend with is to get in eighteen holes that will be first class in the acreage you propose buying.  So far as we can judge, without a contour map before us, we are of the opinion that it can be done, provided you get a little more land near where you propose making your Club House."   It was their problem, and according to Merion, CBM was instrumental in helping solve their problem.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rodman Griscom was one of the men Macdonald sought input from "both here and abroad" in his polling of the best holes as he conceived his Ideal Course.

Statements like these are a good reminder of just how naive you remain about this early era.  The men who were polled were the preeminent men in all of golf.  There is record of their opinions on the matter in various issues of the British Golf Illustrated beginning shortly after the turn of the Century. Rodman Griscom was not one of these men. 

Your suggestion that there is no record of Rodman Griscom participating in the design process because we don't know what work he did for Wilson's Committee is again, meaningless.   We similarly don't know what Macdonald's design committee of Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, and HJ Whigham each did to contribute to the holes at NGLA.   To suggest that these clubs would have formed committees of amateurs to design and build their golf courses and then specifically recorded who did what on what hole for their greater glory or for posterity is absurd.

So in your previous paragraph Rodman Griscom was being put on the same pedestal as John Low and Horace Hutchinson, and now Griscom is comparable in design to MacDonald, Travis, Emmett, and HJ Whigham?  The one thing worth considering from this paragraph is that if prominent golfing luminaries like Travis, Emmett, and HJ Whigham were essentially brushed aside by CBM's ideas, will, and drive (as he said, he operated as a "Committee of one") then it is probably a bit much for you to suggest that, when it came to ideas for Merion's design, that the likes of Rodman Griscom and Richard Francis would have asserted their will over CBM's.

Also, while I know you hate hearing this, the record strongly suggests that Wilson's committee was formed to lay out and construct the golf course according to the plan CBM and HJW had approved.  (". . . we would lay it out according to the plan [CBM and HJW] approved, which is submitted here-with . . .") Most definitely Wilson and others had input into the design, but according to Merion's board the final determination and approval of the design was left to CBM and Whigham.

Macdonald and Whigham aided Merion in three well-documented ways.   Let's not go down that road again.  Thanks.

If you don't want to go down that road, then quit misrepresenting what happened.   CBM and HJW spent at least four days with representatives of Merion during the design process. 
 - CBM and HJW visited the site in June of 1910 to advise Merion as to what they should do with their land, and according to Merion's board,  Merion determined to make the purchase based largely on what CBM and and HJW had told them.
- Wilson and others spent two days at NGLA in March of 1911 and, according to Wilson's brother, during their time there CBM offered advise and suggestions as to the layout of the course and those suggestions were of the greatest help and value.
- CBM and HJW returned to Merion a few weeks later to again go over the land and over various options for the layout plan, and from these various options CBM and HJW determined and approved the final layout plan, which was submitted to the board as the plan "approved" by CBM and HJW, and the board determined to lay the course out on the ground according to that plan. 

These are the instances of face to face contact, but we have no record of the extent of additional contact through letters and/or phone calls.  You want to assume there were none, and that Merion representatives just showed up on CBM's doorstep unannounced, and then that CBM just showed up at Merion unannounced a few weeks later.  But a more reasonable theory is that CBM and HJW were communicating with and working with Merion throughout the planning process.   

[DMoriarty]

I had plum forgotten they also saw Macdonald's version at NGLA prior to design/construction, as well as the Alps, et.al.

 Maybe they were sleeping in Macdonald's class? 

So you "had plum forgotten" that while in the midst of the design process Wilson and others spent two days with CBM at NGLA going over his plans and studying his golf holes, and that his "advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value." Did you also forget that a few weeks later CBM and HJW returned to Merion to again go over the land and the various potential layout plans, and that they determined and approved a single, final plan which was submitted to the board, and the board determined to lay out the course according to the plan CBM/HJW had approved?

No wonder you think the idea for the Redan must have come from RE Griscom. You seem to have blocked out all the evidence of CBM's extensive involvement in the planning process.

[MCirba]

David,

Phew.  I can't keep up.

One question.

Who created the five different layout plans after returning from their visit to the National in March/April 1911, after which CBM came down for a day and gave his approval to the one he thought best. 

Since Macdonald had no capacity within the club to approve anything I trust you mean the definition found at this link?  http://i.word.com/idictionary/approval

[DMoriarty]

Bryan wrote:

It seems David and Patrick are asserting that it was more Redan-like in its early state. In the end, it was referred to as a Redan at the time, however like or different it was from the original.

I haven't suggested that the hole has been changed. I don't know whether it has been or not (except that they've long grass short of the green to stop the ball from bouncing up.) Conditions are obviously different today, though, it may be that with conditions, equipment and abilities of 100 years ago, that the hole played a bit more Redan-like.  (Although given that it is a reversed Redan I'm not sure the same playability characteristics even apply.)   

If the argument is whether Macdonald deserves credit for the design of the hole or for turning Wilson et al on to the hole, then it would seem to me that the credit should be tempered with the fact that the design of the hole is not close to either his rendition at NGLA or to the original.

This has never been my argument. My point has always been that CBM was instrumental in determining the routing and the hole concepts, but that Hugh Wilson was responsible for the execution (or lack thereof.)   As for what this means with regard to "credit for the design" I don't know and I really don't care. I am more concerned with figuring out what influence CBM had over the course,and it looks to me like the influence is strong, even if Wilson's execution wasn't was Raynor's would have been.

As I recall, Merion's version of the hole named the Alps was found significantly wanting before Wilson went overseas.  It apparently also was well short of either Macdonald's Alps at NGLA or the original at Prestwick.

I think you are cherry picking here. The hole was around for over a dozen years and it was often highlighted when the course was described.  It is true that Findlay (who credited CBM as having been responsible for Merion's Alps and many of the others) was negative about the hole when he wrote about it in July of 1912, but he was positive about the hole when he wrote about it a few months later. So it isn't exactly clear what his beef was with the hole initially, other than that it needed a lot of work to match Prestwick's.[/size]

I would think that if Macdonald did the design for these two holes that they would have turned out more like what he had done at NGLA than what actually turned out.

Not sure what you mean by "did the design."  My focus has always been on the routing and hole concepts.  The interpretation and execution of those hole concepts was left to Wilson and his committee.  Had CBM and/or Raynor built the holes or supervised the construction, the course obviously would have turned out differently, but crucial aspects of the course would have remained the same.

[DMoriarty]

One question.

Who created the five different layout plans after returning from their visit to the National in March/April 1911, after which CBM came down for a day and gave his approval to the one he thought best.

I'll try to answer your question, Mike, but it would really help make the conversation more productive if you would at least try to accurately present the record. Robert Lesley's Golf Committee report did NOT indicate that someone had "created" five different layout plans "after returning from the their visit from NGLA."  Rather, Lelsey's report indicated that after returning from NGLA, they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land. There is no mention of who came up with those five plans or when, but we'd have to fools to read it as if their time with NGLA didn't have anything to with the planning process.

So here is what we know about this stage of the process:
  1.  Wilson and others went to NGLA, where CBM and HJW made suggestions and offered advice about the layout. According to Alan Wilson, "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value."
  2.  Upon returning [from NGLA] they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land. 
  3.  Shortly thereafter, CBM and HJW returned to Merion, spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if Merion would lay the course out according to the plan CBM and HJW approved, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.
  4.  The final plan as approved by CBM and Whigham was submitted to the Board, and the board determined to lay the course out on the ground according to that plan.

I don't think anyone can say with absolute certainty what Lesley meant when he wrote that upon returning from NGLA, they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land, but it defies credibility to think that the five different plans had nothing to do with the advice and suggestions as to the layout that CBM had been providing them at NGLA.  Looking at the event in context, my guess is that one of a few things were happening:
1)CBM and Wilson had worked out a number of possible options in NGLA, and when Wilson returned from NGLA he rearranged the course and laid out (marked off) the different options on the land for CBM to inspect upon his return. OR
2) CBM and Wilson had come up with a layout plan, but when Wilson returned to NGLA it didn't work as they had hoped, so they laid out some alternatives "on the land" for CBM to inspect when he returned. OR
3. CBM and Wilson had worked out part of the major plan, but couldn't work out the rest without actually going over the land (again) and when Wilson returned he tried his best to fill in these gaps with different layouts, knowing that CBM would be returning to choose the final plan. 
4. OR something else of this nature.

As I said, I don't know for sure and no one else does either.  But there is NOTHING in the record indicating that Wilson discarded what CBM had taught them and proceeded with their own design despite what CBM had been advising and suggesting. This cuts against everything we know.

Since Macdonald had no capacity within the club to approve anything I trust you mean the definition found at this link?

Quit playing games Mike. That's not even the same word. The context leaves little doubt that Merion left it to CBM to choose, determine, and sanction to the final plan. While he wasn't a club member, CBM had as much power to "approve" the final plan as Merion gave him, and it looks like Merion left the final decision up to him.

[MCirba]

David,
 
As you know, the Merion Cricket Club Minutes do not say "they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans on the land", do they?   The five design plans were in fact on paper, and at the Board Meeting in April of 1911 the selected plan was attached and "submitted here-with".   That's a major and noteworthy distinction, don't you think?
 
Further, if Macdonald had been working with Merion on detailed plans, why did he need to come and re-inspect "the ground"?   Wouldn't he have been intimately familiar with those grounds through laying out the course on topographical maps as you've intimated?   But no, he had to come and compare the five paper plans to the ground because there is no record of him ever seeing a topographical map of Merion and he'd only been there once in person, 10 months prior.
 
If those plans had been "on the ground", in the form of stakes, are you really suggesting that they walked him around the property 5 times to look at perhaps five different routings indicated by five different color stakes?   That would be silly, wouldn't you think?   Why did they have Richard Francis survey the land if not to create maps, as he told us?   Recall that he told us he was "added" to Hugh Wilson's Committee formed earlier that year because in his words, "...because I could read drawings, make them, run a transit level and tape" and that he wrote he "spent many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking" in contribution to the layout of the course?
 
If Macdonald provided a detailed routing that Merion adopted, it’s actually funny to consider what exactly Hugh Wilson and his Committee must have been doing all of those months.
 
You've told us that the many contemporaneous accounts effusively praising Wilson and his Committee with “laying out” Merion, or having “laid out” Merion meant simply that they constructed it to someone else’s plan, or perhaps meant that they simply placed stakes in appropriate spots on the property, again to someone else’s plan.   Isn't this incongruous with their planning role, especially since the very experienced Fred Pickering was in charge of actual construction? 
 
I have to laugh out loud envisioning these learned, staid captains of industry wandering around aimlessly with stakes in a field, perhaps with CBM shouting at them, “Mr. Wilson, ten paces to the left!!   No...no...NO…MY LEFT you dunderhead!!!” 
 
I do not mean to suggest that Macdonald did not have a major positive influence on the creation of Merion East; he clearly did and Merion was certainly appreciative of his advice and suggestions at critical times.
 
Was Merion directly inspired by what Macdonald had achieved at the National?  Absolutely.   Did they want to emulate his example of building eighteen top-notch holes on a single course?  No question.   Did they want to follow his example of borrowing from the strategies and features of the best holes abroad?   Of course they did.
 
It could be argued, and I do believe, that the time the Committee spent at NGLA was likely the key turning point in the entire project.   From my IMO article, "Who Was Hugh Wilson?";
 
Evidently, the time spent with Macdonald at NGLA had immediate impact to the group’s ongoing efforts.   As recorded in the Merion Cricket Club’s Board minutes from April, 1911, “Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes, which were copied after the famous ones abroad. On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans.”

As instructors, Macdonald and Whigham seemed equally pleased by the Committee’s final efforts.  In early April, Macdonald and Whigham came back to Ardmore for the second and final time (the first had been 10 months prior per invite of Mr. Griscom to weigh in on land Merion was considering for purchase) to review and advise on the newly developed plans.  From the April, 1911 MCC Minutes; “On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world.”
 
I would argue, simply, that NGLA blew them away.   I believe they suddenly saw the audacious potential of what was possible, and that potential was far greater than any of them had previously imagined, which clearly influenced their future thinking and subsequent plans.
 
CBM graciously provided Wilson and his Committee with exactly what they asked him for.  Wilson later wrote that they received, ”…a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes…Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad…we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.  The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes.”
 
Wilson went on: ”May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest type of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.  Our problem was to lay out the course, build and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.
 
But wait, I hear you say…didn’t Macdonald “approve” the final routing plan, as if he had the final say?   Don’t the Merion minutes tell us that?   
 
I believe this is an inaccurate interpretation, simply because CBM had absolutely no position of responsibility or authority acting for or within the club, or over Wilson’s Committee.  Instead, I think the first definition below is clearly the accurate one;
 
ap•prove] ( -pr v )
v. ap•proved, ap•prov•ing, ap•proves
v.tr.
1. To consider right or good; think or speak favorably of.
2. To consent to officially or formally; confirm or sanction:
 
 
In fact, the only reason the golf course was discussed at all at the April 1911 Board of Governors meeting was that the recommended plan required the purchase of 3 more acres than the 117 the club had originally acquired in November of 1910, and again referenced by Hugh Wilson in his first letter to Piper & Oakley in February 1911.   They didn't go there asking the Board of Governors to approve the routing plan they wanted; they could do that at the Golf Committee level.  Instead, they were there asking them to approve the additional purchase of three acres!   
 

And you know the Minutes reflect that fact, as well.  It is very possible that a major reason for bringing CBM back to Merion in April 1911 was simply to get the blessing of his learned opinion that they could then use to help convince the MCC Board of the necessity and wisdom of spending the additional funds.  After all, the Merion Cricket Club was a large, well-established, and multi-faceted club with many sporting activities and golf was a relative upstart at that time; a large capital purchase to acquire 120 acres was not a slam dunk by any means.
 
That plan was subsequently accepted by the Board and construction commenced in the spring of 1911.   Others, such as AW Tillinghast shared Macdonald’s optimism when he wrote that spring; “I have seen enough of the plans for the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realization of the hopes of the committee.” 

Tillinghast never credited the course to Macdonald either in his multiple written accounts, but to Hugh Wilson's Committee.   As with everyone else at the time, they simply said that Macdonald and Whigham advised Wilson's Committee, which is well documented.

[DMoriarty]

Well that is a long and colorful post Mike.  Might I suggest you reconsider the meaning of the phrase "in fact."

I wrote my previous post off the top of my head and didn't check it against the actual minutes, which is why I didn't put anything in quotes. It may be that I've put "on the land" in the wrong spot. Later today I'll dig up my copy of the actual minute passages and make any necessary changes and corrections. Assuming it reads as you said, it is a "noteworthy distinction" but ultimately I don't think it makes any difference to our respective interpretations. Given how Lesley and Merion repeatedly used "laid out" it is most likely he was referring to arranging on the land. This is especially so when we consider that this was in conjunction with rearranging the course.  Of course this doesn't mean that there were no written plans. I think that we agree that there were written plans, although we don't know the nature of those plans.  My disagreement comes when you insist that CBM could not possibly have had anything to do with the creation of these written plans, whether directly or indirectly.   The record strongly suggests otherwise.   

But as I said, when I get a chance I'll review the record and make sure my summary is accurate.  I have a number of questions and comments which I'll ask later, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate clarification on one issue. You wrote that CBM "had to come and compare the five paper plans to the ground because there is no record of him ever seeing a topographical map of Merion and he'd only been there once . . .."    This seems an unreasonable position to me for a number reasons but let me just focus on one.  We know (from the Ag letters) that Merion had had a topo map prepared by this point in time.   

Given that CBM had already expressed the need for a topo map, and given that Merion had that topo map created, don't you think they'd have given CBM a copy, or at least brought it with them to NGLA?   Do you really think it reasonable to insist that CBM had never seen a topo map?  Do you think Merion was hiding it from him?

I think if our goal is to really understand what happened we need to look at these events with at least a modicum of common sense.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

As you'll recall, in the ongoing debates about Merion over many years, no one has ever published the complete text about rearranging the course, in context, from the minutes.  Apparently you now have a copy of the minutes.  You and others attacked the Merion half of this debate for years for not posting the complete story in the minutes. Will you now post the complete relevant part of the minutes?

Having checked the threads from the past, you appear to have moved the "on the land" part from the rearrange part of the quote to the five plans part.

   

[DMoriarty]

Apparently you now have a copy of the minutes.

Bryan, just to be clear, I don't have a complete copy of the minutes. A few years ago Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club graciously agreed to provide me with all of the sections of the early club minutes dealing with golf and the new golf course, and (much to his chagrin) MGC instructed Wayne Morrison to provide me with all of those sections. So, unless Wayne lied to me (and to the chair of his committee at Merion) I have been provided all of those sections.

Will you now post the complete relevant part of the minutes?

I was provided the copies for research purposes and asked not to publish or distribute them, so while I'd like to I am not inclined to set them out in their entirety here.

That said, most of the material has already been published/posted by other parties, and when I get a chance I will post Lesley's April 1911 Golf Committee Report because I have it from other sources. I can also post all the mentions of Hugh Wilson's construction committee.  This is easy to do because there are NO MENTIONS of Hugh Wilson's Construction Committee.

Having checked the threads from the past, you appear to have moved the "on the land" part from the rearrange part of the quote to the five plans part.

Thanks. Looking at it today, I think you and mike are probably correct, but I'll wait to make the change until I get a chance to pull up and review the copies of the actual minutes.

[MCirba]

I'll be happy to reproduce the relevant parts here by Monday but would prefer David does so for obvious reasons. 

[DMoriarty]

I'll be happy to reproduce the relevant parts here by Monday but would prefer David does so for obvious reasons.

What obvious reasons, Mike?  Are you really calling me out because my unscripted paraphrase does not exactly match the language in the original?  You guys have extremely high standards for my participation here.  If your standards were half as high for your own participation, these would be much more productive conversations. 


Let me give you a hint so you don't get confused in the future. When I am quoting, I use quotation marks.  If I don't use quotation marks then I am not quoting. Capice?
____________________________________________________

Bryan,   Below is the Golf Committee report from what I believe to be the April 19, 1911 the Board meeting. I copied it from an independent source, but it matches my copy of the minutes (except I don't have an image of the date, and I cant vouch for whether or not the report ends where indicated.)
"Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
     "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes, which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
     "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional.
     "We considered very carefully whether we should undertake the work with our own Superintendent, but not having any organization or tools, concluded the work necessary to put the course in condition for sowing in the fall could be handled most economically and to the best advantage by employing Johnson and Co., Contractors, to handle the work on a cost and percentage basis. They will plough, harrow, fertilize, grade, drain, clear out trees and brush.
     "Under our agreement we can employ as many men as we desire, and can stop the work on a week‘s notice."

So the minutes say that they they went to NGLA "after laying out many different courses on the new land."  Then later, "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."  As I explained above, it makes no difference to my position.  Nonetheless I am sorry if any was confused, but as I explained, I never intended for my post to be taken as a direct quote. 
____________________________

Mike, I've been trying to answer your questions. Care to answer my questions regarding the topo map? 

Given that CBM had already expressed the need for a topo map, and given that Merion had that topo map created, don't you think they'd have given CBM a copy, or at least brought it with them to NGLA?   Do you really think it reasonable to insist that CBM had never seen a topo map?  Do you think Merion was hiding it from him?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan, just to be clear, I don't have a complete copy of the minutes.
 
A few years ago Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club graciously agreed to provide me with all of the sections of the early club minutes dealing with golf and the new golf course, and (much to his chagrin)
 
MGC instructed Wayne Morrison to provide me with all of those sections.
 
So, unless Wayne lied to me (and to the chair of his committee at Merion)
I have been provided all of those sections.
 
David,
 
It appears that Wayne Morrisson did lie to you.
 
It appears that despite instructions from the Committee Chair, directing Wayne Morrisson to send you ALL of the minutes, that he took it upon himself to disobey the directive from the Committee Chair and ONLY send you the minutes that he in his sole and arbitrary discretion thought you should have.
 
Now that we've seen evidence of Wayne's character and the level of intellectual dishonesty he exhibited, you have to ask yourself, what did he withhold from you ?
 
It had to be something that would further your position and undermine his.
 
Why else would he disobey a directive from the committee chair to send you ALL of the minutes ?
 
It can only be that the information he withheld, supported your position, undermined and harmed his.
 
That's disappointing and would seem to reflect a total lack of character on Wayne's part.
 
It's certainly not a very honorable way to conduct yourself and the act of insubordination certainly wouldn't please the Committee Chair.
 
What a joke they are.
 
 
Tweedledee and Tweedledum

[DMoriarty]

For those who are lucky enough to not be harassed every day by TEPaul offsite, Patrick is referring to a group email sent by Wayne Morrison (and forwarded to me by TEPaul) wherein Wayne Morrison was apparently bragging about how he had sandbagged Merion Golf Club (and Merion Cricket Club) by not providing me with the documents that Merion Golf Club and Merion Cricket Club had agreed to provide to me.  According to Wayne:

"Against my will, I was asked to send David Moriarty Merion's Board Minutes regarding the creation of the course.  I was overruled by the chairman of my committee and I regret not persuading him otherwise.  But as the point of origin of David Moriarty's access to the minutes, I can state beyond a doubt that he does not have all the board minutes nor the reports to the members.  I chose to send him a majority, but he does not have them all."

This despite that a few years ago officials at MGC and MCC had agreed that MGC would "email [me] all copies of the Merion Cricket Club minutes about the Merion East course" that MGC had in their archives, and Wayne had informed me that he had sent me everything relating to the creation of the East course.

My guess is that Wayne was just posturing, again trying to create the false impression that there are some super-secret documents which I haven't seen and which somehow undermine my theories. It is a tactic Wayne and TEPaul have used for years, but fortunately both clubs thought better and graciously shared their information. It seems that Wayne was trying to build up that fake wall again, through subterfuge.  (Alternatively, as Patrick speculates, maybe he really is hiding something. Who knows with Wayne?)

Anyway, I contacted Merion for an explanation, and I have been informed that Wayne has apparently clarified his story, and is now back to claiming that he did indeed send me every section of the minutes that MGC had relating to the creation of the East Course.  I guess Wayne must have 'misspoken' when he told his email group that he had chosen not to send me all the documents he had been instructed to send me.

As an aside, in contrast to Wayne and Tom Paul, those who are actually authorized to speak for Merion Golf Club have always been cordial and fair to me, and I appreciate their professionalism and have great respect for the club.   It is really a pity that those two keep embarrassing these great clubs.[/me]

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm not sure of the wisdom of trying to continue in these poisoned waters, but I would like to thank David for posting the Golf Committee report all in one piece.  Just to clarify for me, are the four paragraphs one contiguous piece in the minutes?  I'm confused by the opening quotes for each paragraph with no closing quote.  Is that the way it is in the original?  Does that usage of quotation mean something?  Does it suggest there are parts missing between the paragraphs?  I think I'm beginning to succumb to the conspiracy theory ethos around here.

........................



____________________________________________________

Bryan,   Below is the Golf Committee report from what I believe to be the April 19, 1911 the Board meeting. I copied it from an independent source, but it matches my copy of the minutes (except I don't have an image of the date, and I cant vouch for whether or not the report ends where indicated.)

"Golf Committee through Mr. Lesley, report as follows on the new Golf Grounds:
     "Your committee desires to report that after laying out many different courses on the new land, they went down to the National Course with Mr. Macdonald and spent the evening looking over his plans and the various data he had gathered abroad in regard to golf courses. The next day was spent on the ground studying the various holes, which were copied after the famous ones abroad.
     "On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans. On April 6th Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Whigham came over and spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself, decided that if we would lay it out according to the plan they approved, which is submitted here-with, that it would result not only in a first class course, but that the last seven holes would be equal to any inland course in the world. In order to accomplish this, it will be necessary to acquire 3 acres additional.
     "We considered very carefully whether we should undertake the work with our own Superintendent, but not having any organization or tools, concluded the work necessary to put the course in condition for sowing in the fall could be handled most economically and to the best advantage by employing Johnson and Co., Contractors, to handle the work on a cost and percentage basis. They will plough, harrow, fertilize, grade, drain, clear out trees and brush.
     "Under our agreement we can employ as many men as we desire, and can stop the work on a week‘s notice."



...................................
 
____________________________


...................................

I know this has been debated ad nauseum, but a simple reading of these four paragraphs says to me that:


1.  the Golf Committee had laid out many (no indication of how many) different courses on the new land before they went to see Macdonald.  I could read that as laid out on a map or topo of the property or they may have put stakes in the ground in a literal sense.  The writer doesn't say, so I don't know.


2.  The Committee spent one evening looking over Macdonald's plans for NGLA and his data from abroad.


3.  The Committee spent the next day out on NGLA studying Macdonald's template holes on the ground as built to that point, having seen the plans the night before.


4.  When the Committee got back to Merion they rearranged the course and laid out five different plans.  I would take it that the rearrangement was on paper as evidenced by five different plans on paper.


5.  On April 6, Macdonald and Whigham came to Merion and looked over the land and reviewed the five plans (and maybe others).


6.  On the same day Macdonald and Whigham advised the Committee of which of the five plans they recommended.


7.  Macdonald said the course would be great if they used the plan he recommended.


8.  It would seem that on his site visit Macdonald may have suggested some change to the plan he recommended that led to his idea that they needed three more acres.


I cannot simply read into this report that Macdonald routed or designed the course.  The Committee went for an evening and a day to NGLA on what sounds like a tutorial on Macdonald's template ideal holes and their implementation on the ground at NGLA.  No doubt this tutorial was helpful to and appreciated by the Committee and they probably learned a lot.  Macdonald provided advice in one day on site at Merion on which of Merion's five plans he recommended and possibly amended it on the fly while there.  No doubt Merion was appreciative of having his input and of having his approval of one of their plans.




Re your statement:

The context leaves little doubt that Merion left it to CBM to choose, determine, and sanction to the final plan.

isn't the use of "choose" and "determine" redundant?  And, "sanction" seems a little over the top in terms of how it is normally used.  How about "recommend"?  He recommended and they accepted his recommendation of one of the five plans.


Can you clarify what you mean by "hole concepts"?  No doubt the Committee learned a lot about the ideal holes and their principles at their tutorial at NGLA.  No doubt they carried some of what they learned about those ideas and concepts back to Merion and incorporated them into their plans.  Did you have something more than that in your idea of "hole concepts"?

[MCirba]

Bryan,

I agree on all counts including the poisoned waters and except for one snippet indicating Board approval those sections posted by David are what I've been provided as well.

That snippet has been posted here previously and is in the book as well.
 
The only area I'd disagree is about the 3 acres additional, which I believe was related to the "Francis Swap" into adjoining lands owned by the Haverford Development Company.   The club had secured 117 acres back in December 1910, needed to lease 3 acres from the railroad near the clubhouse (which we know they did) but the plan that got selected required an additional 3 acres to be purchased.  If you recall, Wilson's first letter to Piper and Oakley in Jan/Feb of 1911 also mentioned Merion having secured 117 acres so we know whatever land swap took place happened after then.
 
End result is the course that opened was 123 acres in size.   The Board of Governors needed to approve the larger purchase which is why the matter was before them in the first place.
 
 David,

Regarding a topo map, CBM never to my knowledge "expressed a need" for one.  He did tell Merion that he and Whigham thought they could fit it a good course on the land they were considering but without a topo map in front of him they couldn't be sure.  Still, Merion went with his recommendations and the correspondence with Macdonald included in the November mailing to the board mentioned nothing further in that regard.

And while we may assume it would have been prudent for Wilson's Committee to bring one to NGLA neither Wilson's account nor the recap you posted above from the Minutes indicate that they reviewed a topo of Merion while at NGLA.  Instead that meeting seemed very focused on the great holes abroad and what CBM had accomplished in reproducing their principles at NGLA and rightly so. 

After all, that's what they came to learn as Wilson later recounted.

Per your email, the "obvious reasons" I wanted you to post the Minutes were so I wouldn't be accused of being a Homer who may have somehow edited or tampered with their contents.  I was not calling you out on anything but did note that the Minutes didn't say they laid out the five plans on the ground as you were recollecting off the top of your head.  Sorry if that came off as confrontational as it wasn't meant in that way.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also hesitant to jump back in, but wanted to point out that 3 acres was along Golf House Road, generally conceded to be the area the developer had allowed a certain amount of flexibility.  However, there was another 3 acre parcel they acquired via lease from the railroad for decades until purchasing it later, that is/was the site of the 12the green and original version of the short 13th.  So, the total land acreage was 123, with 120 purchased from the developer.

just for those loosely following along.....

[MCirba]

Rather than rely on what I wrote about topos from memory, perhaps someone could simply reproduce the letter that Macdonald wrote to Merion in July 1910?  I'm not home but I'm sure it's easily found in the back pages.  Thanks.