Tom MacWood writes:
"There is no evidence that any of the committee or CBM or HW did anything.
How about Hugh Wilson, is there any evidence that he was involved ?
Has anyone produced drawings or the written words of CBM and HW on the design and-or construction of any specific features or holes ?
There is no drawings or design instructions from anyone. Who designed the course in your opinion."
These questions and statements are just more examples of the manner in which Tom MacWood seems to assume if design and construction details were not recorded specifically and in writing they couldn't have happened, depending on he's speaking of at any time.
Unfortunately, the sketches and drawings for Merion East that Wilson did in his seven month study in GB seem to have been lost as were Macdonald's of NGLA. The reports of his sketches and drawings that were to be applied to Merion East "in principle" have been reported from the beginning. Because they are now lost are we to assume that they never existed and that consequently there is no evidence that Wilson and his committee did anything at Merion East as Tom MacWood just contented?
Of course, that's preposterous. Since it appears they may not have kept exact records of the construction of Merion East in 1911-1916 (Alan Wilson did write a general report about the early construction of Merion East) we need to depend on reports like this one from Richard Francis from 1950 as logical examples of how the course was designed and built and who did it:
"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course."
Is this not an example of the work that was going on by Wilson and Francis and the committee every day from the spring of 1911 until the course began to be seeded in the Fall? Should we assume that Francis was the only one spending hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field? It would seem to be pretty illogical to assume that, wouldn't it?
Is this report from the author of Merion's history a fabrication because it does not contain greater detail?
"A GREAT TEAM
Beside the expertise of Francis, Wilson had a first-class crew. Superivisng construction was Merion East's first greenkeeper, William S. Flynn, who had been groundkeeper with the Cricket Club. (Later documents mention Frederick Pickering as a Merion construction foreman). Also involved was Howard C. Toomey, another groundkeeper....and a civil engineer."
The author of the Merion history goes on to describe the manner in which bunkering was laid out at Merion by Wilson, Flynn and Valentine. Was Macdonald and Whigam there for that? No one ever mentioned that but they certainly have always mentioned Wilson, his committee, Flynn, Toomey, Pickering, Valentine. GIven, that are we to assume that there's no evidence that Wilson, his committee, Flynn, Toomey, Valentine et al did nothing?
Is that all a fabrication? Of course not. Those men lived there and they worked on the course every day to buld it beginning in the spring of 1911, to see it seeded in the fall of 1911 and open for play in the fall of 1912. Many of them continued to work on the architecture of the course for the next twently years. They were there every day, that's what they were doing.
Macdonald and Whigam were from New York. Did they spend hours at Merion over a drawing board and running instruments in the field and just plain talking as Francis did with the committee and others who worked on the course everyday? Of course not, they didn't come from Philadelphia. Was Wilson and his committee on the phone to Macdonald and Whigam every day? No evidence of that.
Matter of fact a few years later Wilson declared in a letter what a difficult man Macdonald was to communicate with on by letter or on the phone. There seems to be two, perhaps three instances of them visiting the Merion East site spaced out over a few years. It says they declared they were impressed by the prospects and the progress.
Wilson, committee, Flynn, Toomey, Pickering, Valentine were there every day working on the course.
What does logic tell you from that about the golf course?
It seems from what was reported from Macdonald that he felt the site was a good one for a course perhaps in 1910 or in the spring of 1911 (the course was just beginning construction) and another time when he pronounced the course perhaps one of the best in the country.
Tom MacWood mentioned regarding Pine Valley that he felt a man who spend one week at that course should be given equal design billing with a man who spent practically every day there for five solid years running the project. Now Tom MacWood apparently wants to imply something more than probably was contributed by men who apparently showed up 2-3 times over a period a few years for a day or less each time.
And now he's accusing Pat Mucci of insulting Macdonald---and for what?
Tom MacWood, the researcher and golf architecture analyst needs a really good lesson in both logic and common sense, in my opinion.
Matter of fact, for whatever reason, probably just lack of knowledge, Tom MacWood appears to be relatively insulting of the architectural talents of Merion's Hugh Wilson, a man another great Philadelphia architect, George Thomas, mentioned in his own book;
"I always considered Hugh Wilson, of Merion, Pennsylvania, as one of the best or our architects, professional or amateur. He taught me many things at Merion and Philadelphia Muncipal; and when I was building my first California courses, he kindly advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them."
Do you see that Tom MacW----Wilson ADVISED Thomas when he was building his first California courses. I don't see that those who were actually building Merion East mentioned Macdonald and Whigam ADVISED them after that initial visit of Wilson's to NGLA before going to England, although certainly others said they did. But Thomas HIMSELF mentioned in his own book that Wilson ADVISED him on his first California courses. Does that mean credit for the design of Riviera and LA C.C. should now go to Philadelphia's Hugh Wilson?? And if so how much? Since the extent of it doesn't appear to specifically recorded does that mean Wilson should get a lot, or some of none at all?? And what would you say about Thomas and Bell out there who worked on those California courses from beginning to end, as Wilson did until he died at Merion and Crump did until he died at PVGC?