"It is obvious from comparing the 1916 routing to what exists today that Flynn (or whoever) made some very significant changes to Wilson's Merion, but the two of you seem unwilling to step up to the plate and acknowlege that. Tom MacW seems to state (properly, I think) that Merion, (like many courses of similar quality) represents an organic design, responsible of many hands. You seem to have a problem with this. Why?"
Rich:
I don't understand why you say that. Are you aware what we're talking about here? If you aren't it sure doesn't surprise me!
We're talking about the initial phase of the architetural construction of Merion East. That would basically be that period when the course first went into construction in the Spring of 1911 until it opened for play in Sept 1912. That diagram you see above (appparently drawn by Flynn) is that golf course---eg the way Merion East was back then. That drawing is the course during the Open of 1916. After that we know full well what went on at Merion East to get it's architecture and the course to the way it was in the early 1930s. That was Wilson and Flynn because we have all of Flynn's drawings which show all the minute detail of that next phase of the course's architectural evolution.
But the phase from the Spring of 1911 until the course opened in sept of 1912 and the way it appeared on that drawing above (1916) is what there's very little left to go on! That's the phase very little is left to draw from. There're no Flynn drawings from that early time, no construction plans of any kind, nothing left of the sketches Hugh Wilson brought back from Europe.
All that remains is about is a ten page account written by Hugh Wilson with some addenda by Alan Wilson of the evolution of the course that Piper and Oakley asked him to write in 1915-16. About one paragraph even refers to the actual construction of the architecture from 1911 to 1912. The rest discusses agronomy, green construction, weeds, rolling, greenkeeping, grubs and worms and everything else it took to run and maintain a course in those days. That report of Wilson's was effusive in praise of Macdonald and Whigam for that weekend at NGLA before they began but it mentions nothing more about them. Wilson wrote that report in Feb 1916.
So what do we know about that early first phase of construction? What does anyone know about it at this point?
We know that Hugh WIlson was charged by the club to go to Europe and to study and draw architecture. We know Wilson was part of the Merion committee that was charged with the building of the course. We know that entire committee went to NGLA and spent and entire weekend with Macdonald getting what they all described as a crash course in golf architecture. The Merion record is replete with that committee's appreciation for what Macdonald did for them during that weekend at NGLA--particularly Wilson is appreciative---I'm reading right now here in front of me what Wilson himself wrote about that time with Macdonald in 1910 before he traveled to Europe for six months to study and draw! I'm reading the first of Wilson's letters to Charles Piper of the US Dept. of Agriculture in Feb of 1911 when he first wrote Piper and Oakley (the beginning of 14 years of correspondence in over 2000 letters). Right in that first letter Wilson says;
“Mr Macdonald spoke of you and said you could help us out if anyone could”----this was about three months before Merion East went into construction.
He then went to Europe and studied and played and drew. What were some of the courses and holes Macdonald probably told him to study? Well, probably those same famous holes and courses that were the raw material of the template holes of NGLA and others. Where did Macdonald come up with those template holes? He came up with them from a solicitation just after the turn of the century and a poll of the best and most knowledgeable players and architectural people in Europe at that time of what the best and most respected holes in Europe were.
Did Wilson see those holes in Europe? Obviously he did. Did he or anyone else build them or close approximations of them at Merion East? We can see he didn't or no one did. Only a few little conceptual ideas were used that really aren't recognizable. Merion East is a conglomeration of architectural principles not necessarily architectural copies or even "concept copies';
"Through sketches and explanations of the right principles of the famous holes that formed the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, 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 (NGLA) and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland, confirmed Mr Macdonald's teachings. May I offer the suggestion to any commitee building a new golf course or altering their old one, to spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine valley, where they may see the finest holes and while they cannot hope to reproduce them entirely, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their courses."
Hugh Wilson, February, 1916
We know who that committee was that created the Merion East course (Messers. Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin and Wilson). We know the foreman of Merion East’s construction was a man named Pickering and might’ve been Flynn’s brother in law. Toomey might have been the engineer picked up by the railroad magnates who apparently funded the project. We know Flynn was the greenkeeper and perhaps much more at that time but there is not record, except brief mention in letter and such.
This is the initial phase we’re talking about and concerned with. We have absolutely no bias for or against anyone being responsible for the architecture of Merion East---zero. We just want to find out how it happened and who was responsible for it. Isn’t it odd that with-all we do have we have no real mention from any of these men about the architectural input of anyone other than obviously those who just quietly went about constructing that course in perhaps six months!! One would certainly think that after what the committee said about Macdonald’s tremendous help to them before Wilson went to Europe if he or Whigam had come down there and really done something significant for them during construction with advice or whatever, they certainly would’ve said so.
That leads one to conclude that in that first phase they just did it themselves! But in the next phase of the architectural evolution of Merion, primarily beginning in the early 1920s and lasting until about 1934 we basically have everything we need to know in detail.
It is true that before we got involved with Merion with this Flynn material we have that Merion was not that aware of just what or how much Flynn did for that course. Now they are and they are more than happy to both know it and admit it.
As for Macdonald and Whigam or anyone else we have no hesitation at all to include anyone in this Merion evolution if we can just prove it they way we can with what we have from Flynn later.
This constant talk from Tom MacWood that we’re protecting some Philadelphia local legends or we or Merion is paranoid about something is just plain silly on his part. I’ve said many, many times on here that I have great respect for Tom MacWood’s ability to come up with raw research material but not much respect for how he analyzes it. I really do mean that and this is just another example.
I’m more than happy to be able to help add Macdonald to Merion’s architectural evolution when the courses was first being built but to do that we need more than just a newspaper article saying he ‘visited and advised”. Advised on what? Architecture, agronomy, what? And I do know what a PN looks like. MacWood sees some three bunker carry set on #4 and proclaims that to be an indication of Macdonald’s input?
That’s just bullshit---that bunker is nothing like a PN and never was---it’s a massive carry bunker set across about a 45 yard wide fairway.
As for C.B. Macdonald, I told that group in NYC last week and particularly George Bahto that I really felt he should research and write more about Macdonald not just from the perspective of architecture but from other aspects of golf he was and had been involved in. I believe that far earlier than any of us now realize that Macdonald basically just dropped out and returned to NGLA in semi-seclusion sort of a depressed and perhaps beaten man. In that I feel is a tremendous story of early golf waiting to be told.
Early on in those Wilson/Piper/Oakley agronomy letters Piper told Wilson that Macdonald wasn’t answering his letter and Wilson told Piper not to worry about it that he’d just call him and see if he could get through to him and that he wasn’t easy to approach. And this from the formation of the USGA Green Section Committee that they’d all worked so hard on through the teens;
“Charlie Macdonald has refused to serve, putting his refusal on the grounds that he has practically dropped out of active golf. If you think it wise, I am sure that I can persuade him to serve in the formation of the committee whether or not he resigns afterward.”
Wynant Vanderpool of the Morris Co G.C., NJ
In a letter to Hugh Wilson, 1920
Again, if Tom MacWood has something specific to add to all this regarding Macdonald/Whigam or anyone else I wish he would do it instead of telling us we’re over-reacting or that were paranoid about something, I can assure you we’re not.