[TEPaul]

GeorgeB & Tom MacW;

I agree with what you say in your last posts. Please don't get me wrong or misunderstand the tenor of what I've said about Wilson or Macdonald, Raynor, Whigam (or any other architect) on this thread regarding the design of Merion.

Personally, if it turns out that Macd/Raynor/Whigam did have something to do with Merion's design I'd be thrilled by that and I bet Merion would too. All of them were most significant architects and thinkers and movers in that earlier era of American golf architecture, most assuredly C.B. Macdonald.

But I just don't think it's fair or in the slightest bit accurate to make even assumptions and definitely not conclusions about any of them doing anything specifically at this point with what's been supplied so far about their whereabouts or contributions. I also feel strongly that if architectural attribution was given to any of them at this point, other than what Hugh Wilson has said himself (supported to some degree by a few others who were involved with the creation of Merion) and has been documented would be a poor example of an otherwise valuable and valid research process.

If that evidence of their contributions shows up in the future, and it very well might given some of the leads here, then would be the time to embrace what they did for the design of Merion with basically open arms--but not until that time.

But questions and various scenarios of what might have happened is fascinating and should continue--that will be the only way to get as close to the bottom of what went on there between the spring of 1911 and Sept of 1912 (what came after that we know fairly well already) as anyone possibly could at this point.

BTW, the Merion Committee formed to look into building a new course at Ardmore was clearly formed in the beginning of 1910, not in 1911. After being formed, it was the Chairman of that committee, Hugh Wilson who was nominated to lead the architectural effort and to spend 6-7 months in Europe researching the architecture of that effort all of which took place in the year of 1910.

I should also state a personal opinion of mine at this point which is forming from reading much of the enormous agronomy correspondence of Wilson's. That is that none of us should take lightly the capabilities of Hugh Wilson agronomically or architecturally because we believe him to be first time architect.

The dedication, the comprehensiveness and efficiency that he appears to have possessed and displayed would probably astound every one of you. There's no reason to believe he would not have taken advice from C.B. Macdonald directly, or that he didn't take it but when he set out to build Merion in the spring of 1911 do I think he had to have that advice to have created Merion? Not at all!

It's also commonsense to me to look at Wilson's remark about the entire development of Merion both architecturally and agronomically in a certain way. When he said, in retrospect, that if he'd known one half of what he knew later he never would have done it. This shows me a man who did a great deal on his own volition, and not one who wholly or in part depended on other architects to do the job at Merion.

Clearly with the vast majority of this he was talking about the agronomics of Merion and the agronomics of golf at that time. In this area, again, over a period of 10-14 years Wilson (and those he was corresponding with) became probably the world's most accomplished at golf course agronomics!

[ChipOat]

Paul Turner:

The dune grass in your picture is almost identical to those Merion bunkers that had/have the stuff.

I'm not a big fan of it, myself.

Tom Paul and Mike Cirba:

Although I've heard Merion's #3 referred to in the past as "a Redan" or "Merion's version of a Redan", I wouldn't agree since the deep greenside bunker is the only similarity.

However, would you consider #'s 10,12 & 15 to be "Cape"-type greens (bunker instead of water)?  That was an original Macdonald design, you know.

Furthermore, would you consider #7 to be a "Biarritz" green?  Looks pretty similar to me.

Hmmm.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

#3 Merion has been referred to as Merion's redan but I wouldn't really look at that green as any kind of copy of a redan (although it interesting how many reverse redan style greens Flynn later did in all kinds of unique configurations!).

One should just understand the particular preconstruction landform of that hole. Basically that green is built on top of an old "Pennslyvania Bank Barn", the lower foundation of which forms most of the green both vertically and horizontally. If no one had ever heard of a redan before the creation of Merion that green probably would have been done exactly the way it was.

#10 was a green done about 12-14 years after the initial creation of Merion and calling that a "cape" copy would be inaccurate too, in my opinion, as that's way too generic.

The same can be said about #12 and #15. #12 was also a redesign and basically probably just happened as a result of routing necessity (not to continue to cross over Ardmore Ave) and following the later purchase of the 7 1/2 acres that now make up #11 green-end and #12 tee. #15 would probably be descibed by Tillinghast as some kind of combination of a dogleg (using bunkering instead of stupid trees), a cape and an elbow hole.

#15 green is pretty interesting too in how it came to be. Richard Francis, a member of the "committee" who was the inhouse member engineer, noticed that holes were not fitting very well on the clubhouse side of Ardmore Ave, and while working with measuring instruments in the field and on the drawingboard that there was some club land on the other side of Golf House Rd that was not useable for routing (now in housing).

So he took off on his bicycle in the middle of the night to Horatio Gates Llyod's house, another member of the "committee" who had originally purchased the Ardmore property and convinced him to engineer a swap for the land across Golf House Rd for a piece of land approximately 130 yds wide and 190 yds long that is now the last 1/3 of #15 and the first 1/3 of #16.

According to Francis, within a day or two of this swap the quarryman was out blasting the top of the hill away which then became the site of #16 green, and the great #16 quarry hole came into being as well as the green of #15!

[Chris_Clouser]

I hate to throw another thing in the mix in this fine discussion, but I was reading something last night and noticed that Perry Maxwell was given credit for some work at Merion in 1938 or 1939 on both courses.  Have any of you seen any information that would give credence to this?  In discussions with the Merion GC last year, they said that they had heard that previously, but really didn't have anything to confirm it.  But they did know that he did some work in the area possibly around that time so it could have been possible, but not likely.  Not being that familiar with Merion, I have no idea whether any of the greens appear to be Maxwell like or have in the past.  

Personally, I would think that date may be a little late as he spent most of his time in Philly in the first half of that decade but it may have been work to help with drainage issues that occured in 1938 due to the heavy rains that the area suffered.  I've seen other documentation saying that the greens were flooded and needed some work done to them, but I was assuming that they would have Flynn come in and do that work.  But he was working on the greens at Philly CC at the time, so maybe it is a possibility.  

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

Points well taken re: 1923 construction of 10th & 12th greens.  But what about #15 (built 1911).  Is that a "Cape" strategy?

If #7 green (also 1911) isn't a "conservative Biarritz", then I'm missing what that concept is all about.

Hmmm.

[ForkaB]

I always thought that Merion (East and West) were designed by Clifford Roberts (Fireball's great uncle), Jimmy Paul, Glenna Collett Vare, Tommy Armour and "Blind Melon" Crenshaw (Gentle Ben's unmentioned stepfather and erstwhile Blues legend).

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
I think you may have gotten Dornoch's pedigree confused with Merion's.

TE
Macdonald's visit in the spring of 1911 coincides with the start of construction, so your theory that Macdonald wasn't there to lend agronomy advice (and Wilson didn't appear to need agronomy advice) makes sense. And the course evidently wasn't sown until September.

Based on that what assistance do think Macdonald was giving at that early stage?  

[TEPaul]

"I always thought that Merion (East and West) were designed by Clifford Roberts (Fireball's great uncle), Jimmy Paul, Glenna Collett Vare, Tommy Armour and "Blind Melon" Crenshaw (Gentle Ben's unmentioned stepfather and erstwhile Blues legend)."

Rich:

Unfortunately, I'm painfully aware that you've thought something like that and that's precisely why I have and need to continue to warn this website about almost everything you both think and say!

[TEPaul]

"Based on that what assistance do think Macdonald was giving at that early stage?"

Tom MacW:

I'm not thinking that Macdonald gave any assistance at that early stage but you are. And I do understand that's when architectural construction began.  

Why would I assume he gave any architectural assistance or certainly why would I assume (think) he gave some specific assistance--like maybe to build a vaguely redanish looking green at #3? I'd think that when something comes up that starts to appear that he might have offered some assistance like that. Just being on site at Ardmore doesn't say anything like that.  

What if during that visit Wilson showed something to C.B Macdonald that he used somewhere later in his own work? For some reason no one thinks along those lines. Sometimes I wonder why.

There're just far too many preconceptions floating around a lot of this research in my book. Time might tell though or else it won't.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

"Why would I assume he gave any architectural assistance or certainly why would I assume (think) he gave some specific assistance....?"

Because that is what Tillinghast reported.

[Brian Phillips]

From someone who has been lucky enough to play Merion thanks to two great people on this site.

#3 at Merion is NOTHING like a Redan, reverse Redan or looks like a Redan.

I play the Redan about once every 2 weeks at the moment, in fact I bogeyed the bloody thing yesterday with my usual chip and 2 putts!!

It is not even close so people can stop hoping because it is NOT a Redan.

That feels better now that I have got that off my chest.

Brian.

[Brian Phillips]

Tom M,

Just because Tillinghast reported that CB was involved are assuming it is true?

Is that good research?  Should a researcher believe one statement without trying to find out more or is that what you are doing now?

Brian.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

"Just because Tillinghast reported that CB was involved are assuming it is true? Is that good research? "

I stumbled upon two articles in which he said it, and George found the article with Whigham's comments. I suppose Tillinghast could be lying. Tillinghast was a fairly productive writer, have you found other instances where he lied? I thought it was pretty good research, but the true test of any research is what you ulitimately do with it and I don't plan on doing anything withit. The information is in capable hands. No I am not researching it at present.

You sent me e-mail a week ago, I replied to your e-mail (3-times) waiting for your response.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW and Brian;

So far I've found the writing of Tillie, particularly as "Hazard" and particularly about various aspects of what happened at various times at PVGC to be truly helpful in figuring out who did what and when. And particularly when it's compared to other information which might appear somewhat vague in and of itself. Constructing a basic timeline was much of it.

But again, I'm definitely not inferring Tillinghast was lying in what he said about Macdonald and Whigam.

"Why would I assume he gave any architectural assistance or certainly why would I assume (think) he gave some specific assistance....?"

Because that is what Tillinghast reported."

But what did Tillinghast say exactly about Macdonald at Merion? That he gave assistance? That's all? What does that mean? It could mean a lot or it could mean practically nothing. What did Merion do with it? Did they use it? There are a ton questions and no answers. It may be a good thread to follow though.

At Pine Valley, for instance, he reported he walked the first seven holes that were routed but unconstructed and undesigned at PVGC with Crump maybe up to six months before Harry Colt arrived at PVGC. That really tells me something, as the holes Tillinghast described are basically the way they are now (other than #7).

But what he says about Merion is nothing like that. Not yet anyway. So what did Tillinghast say Macdonald offered? Tillie was around a long time after Merion was built and we obviously know the golf course well and can certainly compare what Tillinghast wrote in 1913 to what's there now if he said anything that we can use to compare. Otherwise, even though it was Tillie that said "he gave assistance" it really doesn't mean anything at this point, certainly nothing specific that can be compared.

[TEPaul]

In a whole lot of ways Brian Phillips is absolutely right about #3 at Merion not really being a Redan hole. When you look at the green it does have some aspects of the orientation of a high redan but it slopes distinctly from front to back (unlike a basic redan concept). It is left to right in orientation something like a reverse redan.

I never thought it could be even a vague copy of a redan particularly after learning it was built on top of the foundation of an old "bank barn" and now that Brian said what he did the hole has absolutely none of the necessary run-up characteristics of any redan style hole or redan concept. The entire approach to #3 is a bank that would kill any ball. To hit #3 you definitely have to hit the green surface in the air, and that really isn't redanish at all.

The orientation of the green is a bit like a reverse redan but if anyone is going to use a definition that broad they could probably start to say that almost any hole is a copy of any other hole somehow.

[Brian Phillips]

TE,

You summed up exactly how I feel about so called Redan copies.  

Many people seem to think that as soon as you angle a green similar to a Redan and put a deep bunker short and left or right (for a reverse Redan) it is a Redan.

There are so many other points to a Redan that make the hole so frustrating and in my eyes possibly overated but I will not take up space on this thread discussing that.

BP.

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Upgrade your email address on here. I've tried to send you an email and it comes back.

[TEPaul]

Brian;

Your right about the way some people talk about holes being copies of other holes. Their comparisons are so broad that if they were even remotely correct the "copy" holes in this world would increase to the tune of about 10,000 percent!

[Paul Turner]

Tom

I would disagree on the "Hazard" report in PV.  I've read the actual articles in American Golfer and it was only a month or so before Colt got there.  Holes 3,5 are very different from how "Hazard" described them.  Hole 6 is described as a par 5 too.

[AWTfan]

Stating that Tillie and Crump may have walked the first 7 routed holes up to 6 months before Colt arrived is a HUGE stretch and poor speculation.  I have also read the "Hazard/Tillie" report from March 1913 (Colt arrived May 1913) and there are major differences, as already pointed out at 3 (Alpinisation),5,6,7.  Some of the descriptions are vague too:  the 1st "around a bend".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
A don't know what assistance Macdonald lent to Merion, that's why - after you spoke Wilson's extensive agronomy knowledge - I asked for your opinion.

The reason I believe he accepted his assistance is because of the chronology of the reports. The frist mention of Macdonald being on site and assisting is Spring 1911. Again in January 1913, his contribution/assistance is noted in the final product. I suppose Tillinghast could have fabricated or over-played his involvement -- stranger things have happened.

It appears to me the article in which Tillie rehashes the chain of events at PV is a synopsis. I too have read some of the articles in American Golf, and I was surprised to learn he did not reprint them in their entirety.

[Paul Turner]

Tom

I wouldn't use the word guarantee with this stuff   The  six month suggestion seemed to be a bit wild.
We don't know when or who contributed to that early/rough routing plan for one thing.  And although Tillie's descriptions sound right for some of the holes, they're not detailed enough to be the final word.

The old routing map that was posted here showed the 5th tee in a different place too.

Is the second iteration of the 3rd green definitely in the same place as the final hole?  It looks to be somewhat further out still.  How much do you have to move a par 3 green before it's rerouted?

The 6th.  Wasn't the par 5 that Crump suggested, documented much later by Wilson and Carr?

Both of the early routing plans have to be studied very carefully in relation to the contours.

You cannot say that those unattributed hole drawings are much much closer to what got built than Colt's drawings: without seeing Colt's book!!  I disagree with Finnegan's analysis that Colt's drawing of the 17th is much different from what got built.  The hole shape is the same, the main hole feature, the driving bunker is the same.  The bunkers around the green look right and v similar to those drawn in the unattributed drawings.  The green shape is the same. But Colt's cross bunkers aren't there.  

As for the main/finished routing plan.  We know Colt's hand is there in blue.   But the other hand(s) haven't been ID'd.

Those unattributed drawings could certainly be Travis's (who gave credit for PV to Colt, incidently) and are at a much later: 1916.  Does the hand look similar to the non Colt writing on the final routing plan?

[ChipOat]

Brian Phillips:

I've checked all posts on this thread carefully and don't believe anybody sought to validate the misguided notion of #3 as "Merion's Redan".  If I inferred that I had either picked that up on this DG at some point or that some other credible source had declared same, please excuse my lack of clarity in that regard.

[TEPaul]

TE
"I don't know what assistance Macdonald lent to Merion, that's why - after you spoke Wilson's extensive agronomy knowledge - I asked for your opinion.

The reason I believe he accepted his assistance is because of the chronology of the reports. The frist mention of Macdonald being on site and assisting is Spring 1911. Again in January 1913, his contribution/assistance is noted in the final product. I suppose Tillinghast could have fabricated or over-played his involvement -- stranger things have happened."

Tom;

Again, my opinion of what assistance Macdonald may have lent to Merion is I just don't know. And that is even while considering the remarks supplied by Whigam and Tillinghast so far.

When you say, "Again in January 1913, his contribution/assistance is noted in the final product", I'm not sure what that means exactly or what you mean by it. Did Tillinghast actually note Macdonald's 'contribution/assistance' in the final architectural product of Merion? And if he did I'd like to know what that was--like a bit more specifically.

As for putting more credence in the possibility of Macdonald's assistance being greater simply because of the chronology (being earlier rather than later) makes some logical sense, I suppose, but still there's no way to determine from that that Macdonald offered anything in particular that was done.

From what I can gather, so far, from what's been reported here that Tillie said about Macd and Merion is not really something that one would wonder if he's telling the truth about; it's just that as far as I can see he never really said anything specific enough.

But if he did or if he had I certainly would accept it, unless it could be determined somehow that what he said never really happened on the ground over there for some reason--and there could be plenty of reasons for that other than Tillinghast lying about it. I have no reason whatsoever to think that Tillinghast would lie.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

This is obviously where you got the idea that Merion's #3 has been called "Merion's Redan".

"The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly. It was even more remarkable considering it was his first effort in course architecture. He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle......
          While Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England--the third hole was inspired by North Berwick's fifteenth hole (The Redan) and the 17th, with its swale fronting the green, is reminiscent of the famed Valley of Sin at St Andrew's 18th hole---none of the holes at Merion is and out and out copy. They are all original holes in their own right. Wilson had absorbed the principles underlying the great holes, then applied them to the terrain at his command."

I quoted this passage from Merion's history book by Desmond Tolhurst. Obviously the hole has been called that for whatever reason. Possibly Wilson called it that but the point is that an inspiration from a hole can be different, maybe even vastly different from a copy.

The point of that quotation is basically how much more adaptive Wilson may have been with his hole inspirations (from Europe) when he built them at Merion than Macdonald may have been at NGLA. Many of the architectural elements of NGLA are visually recognizable from their prototypes in Europe but Wilson's at Merion weren't.
        

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()