News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


T_MacWood

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #550 on: December 12, 2006, 01:55:59 PM »
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.

Some were vague, some not so vague. Greenwich & East Lake consultation on existing courses. Women's National he helped plan the course. Shinnecock Hills was a total redesign.


DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #551 on: December 12, 2006, 02:02:37 PM »
Mike Cirba,  Except for this sentence ::) , I'll leave alone that your "summary" has again misrepresented my intentions and drawn false assumptions of my position.

I've answered your bolded question many times and to the best of my ability, and then posed a few of mine which have been entirely unaddressed.  But I will try again.

There is compelling evidence that MacDonald was involved in the site selection process, advised on laying out the course, and provided the committee with the basis for their understanding of the principles of golf design.  

There is also evidence that, while the committee did not try to reproduce the NGLA holes in their entirety, they learned the principles underlying the golf holes at NGLA and adapted them to their creation of Merion East.  

There is also evidence that, through drawings and sketches, CBM taught the committee about the design principles present in other of the world's great golf holes.  

As far as I know, we have no information which is any more specific than that.

So IMO we are left with the following questions:  

Do we take these men at their word, even absent more specific details?  

Or do we second guess them based on the lack of more specific information?  

While it may not be an ideal solution, our only reasonable option is to accept the former without speculating as to the specifics of his involvement.

The specifics will likely never be known one way or the other.  The information simply no longer exists.   Believe it or not, I found TEPaul especially informative on this issue:

nformation and documentation from those early years of Merion's construction (1911-1913 or 1914) just may be gone now---lost forever. And if they are no amount of speculation from anyone . . . is ever going to overcome that unfortunate fact.

Did it ever exist? I think there is no question of it. If it didn't it would be just so bizarre to me that Hugh Wilson wrote over 1,000 letter on the agronomy of Merion East over the years and so very little on its actual architecture and the architectural concept of it.


So it is not as if evidence of MacDonald’s involvement is suspiciously missing from an otherwise complete evidentiary record.   The evidentiary record itself is practically non-existent!  The very gentlemen who are demanding more specific evidence know very well that all such evidence from this period is likely “lost forever,” as TEPaul puts it.  

The written statements about MacDonald’s involvement must represent a substantial portion of the entire early record of Merion’s design and construction.  Yet more reason to take these written statements seriously, absent compelling evidence to the contrary.

We will never likely know the details of the design and construction of Merion East.  In contrast, Lesley, Wilson and the rest had all the necessary information and concluded that CBM was involved, had an influence, was an advisor, was a mentor.

Yet, the Morrison-TEPaul approach render the words of great men meaningless simply because the rest of the evidentiary record which would confirm or deny CBM’s involvement is “lost forever.”  

Absent compelling evidence that they lied, exaggerated, or were mistaken, we have absolutely no basis for tossing aside their conclusions in favor or your own.  After all, they had all the information and we have none.  
________________________________
Patrick Mucci,

Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation?  Even if circumstantial?

Did MacDonald keep a daily diary of what he did, where he went, who he talked to, and what he said?   Does his diary still exist?   Did he keep detailed accounts of all of his involvements with his courses, much less the courses on which he advised?   At one point I think he suggests that a number of clubs had contacted him for advice and counseling; did he keep a detailed written record of these contacts?   Did he write a detailed record of the NGLA visit of Wilson?  If not, should we act as if that visit never took place.  

These aren’t rhetorical questions.  If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
Mayday,  

Regarding the supposed alps features and redan features, I think Wilson was likely inspired by the originals as much or more than CBM’s holes.  While I don’t think that we can completely separate the Europe trip from CBM’s involvement (after all, he did help Wilson prepare for and plan the trip,) I don’t think that the supposed Redan and Alps and Principle’s Nose are enough by themselves to justify the assumption that CBM was actually involved.  However, when we view these in conjunction with Lesley’s and others words about CBM’s involvement, once could certainly draw that inference.  As for me, I am not sure it is all that helpful, except to show that the committee agreed with CBM as to which holes to look to for sound design principles.  
_____________________________

TEPaul,
Is there any chance that some or all of the drawings which Wilson brought back from his trip were actually done by MacDonald on his previous trip?   If this were the case, would it change your viewpoint on MacDonald’s influence?

« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 02:06:27 PM by DMoriarty »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #552 on: December 12, 2006, 02:23:12 PM »
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.


Tom,

I find that claim incredibly curious.   He didn't just say that he and Macdonald "advised", but goes so far as to claim it's a "Macdonald/Raynor course", and give it top billing, citing it ahead of Lido and Yale!  

And, this wasn't early in the process.   He makes this claim fully 27 years after the course was built; after the 1916 Amateur, the 1930 Am, the 34 US Open.   At the time Merion was certainly in the Top 5 or 10 courses in the country, and had been since almost its inception.

This is after the Wilson/Flynn redesign in the 20s, a fact that Whigham HAD to be aware of.

At what stage in the evolution of Merion did it become generally acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was the original designer of Merion East?   Why would Whigham have completely discounted Wilson's role at the time of Macdonald's death?  


Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #553 on: December 12, 2006, 02:39:26 PM »
Perhaps I should ask the question a different way;

If Whigham clearly stated/believed that Merion East is a "Macdonald/Raynor course", why is it generally accepted knowledge that Hugh Wilson was the original architect?

What is the evidence that points to Wilson?

Is this Bethpage/Burbeck all over again, where years later, a relative comes forward to claim that their father/father-in-law was the actual creator?
« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 02:41:52 PM by Mike Cirba »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #554 on: December 12, 2006, 02:44:26 PM »
Mike
It was written in 1939. It was part of a long tribute to Macdonald following his death.


Tom,

I find that claim incredibly curious.   He didn't just say that he and Macdonald "advised", but goes so far as to claim it's a "Macdonald/Raynor course", and give it top billing, citing it ahead of Lido and Yale!  

And, this wasn't early in the process.   He makes this claim fully 27 years after the course was built; after the 1916 Amateur, the 1930 Am, the 34 US Open.   At the time Merion was certainly in the Top 5 or 10 courses in the country, and had been since almost its inception.

This is after the Wilson/Flynn redesign in the 20s, a fact that Whigham HAD to be aware of.

At what stage in the evolution of Merion did it become generally acknowledged that Hugh Wilson was the original designer of Merion East?   Why would Whigham have completely discounted Wilson's role at the time of Macdonald's death?  



And Mike, as a side note, Raynor did not join Macdonald as a design partner until 1915, if I remember correctly. That being the case, how can that timeline work?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #555 on: December 12, 2006, 02:48:55 PM »
Also, didn't Whigham visit CP during construction? Did Mackenzie ever mention him in regards to "advising"? I'm surprised Whigham never laid a claim to that, if he's never done so.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #556 on: December 12, 2006, 02:53:12 PM »

Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation?  Even if circumstantial?

 
These aren’t rhetorical questions.  If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
 


David, I believe that's all everybody has been asking on your part.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #557 on: December 12, 2006, 02:56:20 PM »
Mike, what I find interesting about Whigham listing Merion was that he did not list it as a MacDonald course, but a MacDonald/Raynor course.  

Is it possible that MacDonald and/or Raynor were at all involved after the initial design and construction of the course?  

This question is probably best addressed to TEPaul and Mr. Morrison:  Are MacDonald and/or Raynor mentioned anywhere else in the Merion records or information?

DMoriarty

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #558 on: December 12, 2006, 03:00:40 PM »

Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation?  Even if circumstantial?

 
These aren’t rhetorical questions.  If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
 


David, I believe that's all everybody has been asking on your part.

Yes, they have been asking that, but noone has identified the speculation on my part.  Where in my above summary am I speculating?

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #559 on: December 12, 2006, 03:05:00 PM »
I thought this was interesting on the Merion website.  It does not site the source of Wilson's claimed motivations, but I assume it's more than club lore.

"In 1910, the committee to lay out the new course decided to send Hugh Wilson to Scotland and England to study their best courses and develop ideas for Merion.  He spent about seven months abroad, playing and studying courses and sketching the features that struck him most favorably.  One mystery which still surrounds Wilson's trip to Britain is the origin of the wicker flagsticks, and it is still part of Merion's mystique.   The layout that Wilson fashioned at Merion was masterly.  He fitted the holes onto the land as compactly as a jigsaw puzzle.  As a result, players only had to step a few yards from each green to the next tee.  The trip to the Old Country had certainly paid off."

"Wilson admitted that his concepts sprang from the holes he'd seen in Scotland and England. The 3rd hole was inspired by North Berwick's 15th 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."

"On September 12, 1912, the old course at Haverford was closed, and on the 14th, the new course and the clubhouse were opened to members.  A report of the opening said the course was "among experts, considered the finest inland links in the country".  This was an assessment that has been echoed down through the years."


David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #560 on: December 12, 2006, 03:16:00 PM »

Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation?  Even if circumstantial?

 
These aren’t rhetorical questions.  If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.
___________________________________
 


David, I believe that's all everybody has been asking on your part.

Yes, they have been asking that, but noone has identified the speculation on my part.  Where in my above summary am I speculating?


I'm talking about speculating and circumstantial evidience in general, which is what this whole thread has been about, no? Hardly the things that would stand up in a court of law. We need a smoking gun, David.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #561 on: December 12, 2006, 03:19:54 PM »
I think the article that Ron Whitten cites from a 1918 Atlantic City newspaper should be introduced as evidence.

This is going to be another of those columns where, without any intention of doing so, I will aggravate fans of a legendary golf course architect of the golden past. I'll do it by pointing out their icon didn't do one of the courses they think he did. Here goes: The Bay Course at New Jersey's Seaview Marriott Resort & Spa (host in June, for the sixth straight year, of the Shoprite LPGA Classic, with Annika Sorenstam as defending champion), is not a Donald Ross original.

I know, I know, the resort says it is, all its promotional literature says it is, even the Donald Ross Society says it is. But it isn't.

Ross was involved, as I'll explain in a moment. But first, I need to set the record straight. The Bay Course at Seaview was originally designed by Hugh Wilson, of Merion fame. Which isn't too shabby a pedigree, either.

How can I know that, but the club doesn't? Well, back in August of 1974, Harold Walker, the general manager of Seaview, wrote me in response to an inquiry about the history of the club. "Unfortunately, some years back, when there was a change of ownership in our club," Walker wrote, "the historical information that you are interested in somehow went astray."

A year later, he wrote again to confirm the club's old paperwork was lost. Never to be found again. Like a lot of golf history, Seaview's early documentation apparently got tossed into a dumpster, and thence into a landfill or, seeing as this is New Jersey, dropped to the bottom of the deep blue sea. So I looked elsewhere. It took me 25 years of searching, but I recently stumbled upon a 1918 Atlantic City newspaper article on microfilm. It was a rambling review of the history of Seaview, especially its massive clubhouse (now expanded into a hotel.) The article did mention the course: "Hugh Wilson laid out course and Ross did the trapping," a subhead read.

"Hugh I. Wilson, who also laid out the two Merion courses (bold mine), is responsible for the Seaview course," it said in the text. "Five or six years ago, Clarence H. Geist, then president of the Whitemarsh Valley County Club (outside Philadelphia), decided that there was no earthly reason why Philadelphians and other golfers should go south in the winter to get their golf. He felt that there were scores of men of big affairs who ... could run down to the shore and play over the weekend ..."

The course Wilson laid out could be termed a genuine links, I suppose, as it sits on sandy soil edging the marshes of Reeds Bay, a barrier island removed from the Atlantic Ocean. (In fact, it might even be on land filled in from the bay, which is why it took the crews two years to complete construction.) When I first played the course, back in 1993, it was terribly overgrown with trees, mostly big firs, spruce and cedars, the worst stuff with which to line fairways. They may have cut down on the effects of ocean breezes, but they also cut off most views of the bay. Worse yet, you could see deep hollows along many holes. These were huge old fairway bunkers that had been grassed over decades before, and had 40-foot-tall trees growing from them. I'm happy to say that many of those trees have since been removed, and many of those bunkers were restored back in 1998 under the supervision of architect Bob Cupp Jr., helped by old Ross diagrams unearthed a few years before in the maintenance building.


In the immortal words of George Bailey, was Whigham off his nut?  


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #562 on: December 12, 2006, 03:35:40 PM »
Did Wigham claim credit for Seaview somewhere? I assume so, but his name was not mentioned in that article.

Also, if Ross left diagrams, and they were still around in the mid 90's what does that mean?

What the heck is going on here? ??? :P

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #563 on: December 12, 2006, 03:40:50 PM »
Tom MacWood,

So now, Merion is a MacDonald-Raynor golf course ?

Why did Whigham wait until 1939 to make this declaration ?

Could it be that he was waiting for all those people who could refute his claim, to die ?


David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #564 on: December 12, 2006, 03:46:52 PM »
Tom MacWood,

So now, Merion is a MacDonald-Raynor golf course ?

Why did Whigham wait until 1939 to make this declaration ?

Could it be that he was waiting for all those people who could refute his claim, to die ?



A good question, Patrick. So far, statements made many years ago by some gentleman have been passed off as "evidence". So if Whigham claims it as Mac/Raynor course are we to give that credence?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #565 on: December 12, 2006, 03:47:40 PM »
Did Wigham claim credit for Seaview somewhere? I assume so, but his name was not mentioned in that article.

Also, if Ross left diagrams, and they were still around in the mid 90's what does that mean?

What the heck is going on here? ??? :P

Jim,

The article goes on to say that Ross came by a few years after Seaview opened and did extensive bunkering, including the hole diagrams.   The original Seaview Wilson course had few bunkers.

I only mentioned Whigham because here he's claiming that Merion is a Macdonald/Raynor course in 1939, yet contemporaneous accounts like the article cited are very clear that Wilson laid out BOTH Merion courses.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #566 on: December 12, 2006, 04:20:20 PM »
Jim,

Here you go.  Interestingly, this portion of the article also cites a 1915 magazine article that also mentions Wilson as designer.

No matter. The Bay is a quaint old design, with tiny teardrop greens perched above flat, lay-of-the-land fairways, perfect for less-than-perfect course conditions. The bunkering is marvelous. Greens playing into the wind, or on long holes (like the 219-yard 11th) are open in front. But other holes have bunkers clear across the front of putting surfaces, forcing shots into the air, like on the 300-yard fifth and 292-yard eighth. Best of all, old-fashioned cross bunkers have been reclaimed and preserved. There's a string of them across the 10th fairway (which was the 14th until a recent renumbering of the back nine) barely a hundred yards off the tee, but they serve as an ornate frame to a marvelous picture that sweeps back towards the bay. Three enormous cross bunkers, placed on a strategic diagonal, complicate matters for average golfers on second shots on the 492-yard 16th (the old ninth). Those bunkers turn an ordinary short par 5 into a work of art.

The bunkers were created by Donald Ross, who was described rather impertinently in that newspaper article as a builder, not a course architect. "Two years ago," the article reads, "the best of American golf course constructors, Donald Ross, ran down to Seaview for a week and when he left, a string of small posts dotted the course. These marked the traps. Those who have not played the Seaview course in two years would scarcely recognize it. Ross has done a splendid bit of bunkering ..."

It is splendid indeed, especially since the club still maintains tall fescue rims around most of the bunkers and atop old mounds. A magazine article published soon after the course opened in 1915 indicated Hugh Wilson's original design contained no sand bunkers. Recalling that the infamous "white faces of Merion" were partly the work of Merion superintendent Joe Valentine and its superintendent-turned-architect William Flynn, I'm thinking maybe bunkering wasn't Wilson's strong suit.


It's one thing for Merion to award the architect job of the West course to Wilson less than 18 months after the East was initiated, but for multi-millionaire tycoon Clarence Geist to then hire Wilson at the same time to design his glorious, opulent Seaview suggests to me a LOT about what these guys knew about who really designed Merion.

Phil_the_Author

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #567 on: December 12, 2006, 04:26:25 PM »
Another voice that states unequivocally who it was that designed Merion is A.W. Tillinghast.

In a forgotten article, especially by me, in the July 1934 issue of Golf Illustrated, he wrote a short few paragraphs for a one page article titled, "Merion and the Open: A word of appreciation from the editor."

He wrote that, "It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf course architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place among the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision..."

Why did Tilly write this tribute? He did so because of the, "Keen regret that my old friend, Hugh Wilson, had not lived to see such scenes as the national Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much."

It's very hard to argue with that, especially when others have cited Tilly earlier in this thread as a witness to CBM's involvement.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #568 on: December 12, 2006, 04:29:38 PM »
Gee...I'd say that's a smoking gun from a contemporary, local expert who was intimately involved and aware of the entire history of the inception of Merion.

Very interesting, Philip.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #569 on: December 12, 2006, 04:35:07 PM »

Patrick Mucci,

Yet more interesting speculation to add to the ever-growing list; but do you have any factual support to back up your speculation?  Even if circumstantial?

YES
[/color]

Did MacDonald keep a daily diary of what he did, where he went, who he talked to, and what he said?   Does his diary still exist?   Did he keep detailed accounts of all of his involvements with his courses, much less the courses on which he advised?   At one point I think he suggests that a number of clubs had contacted him for advice and counseling; did he keep a detailed written record of these contacts?  

In fact MacDonald did keep detailed accounts of his work on other courses, especially important courses like Lido, Yale, Mid-Ocean and NGLA.

He wasn't as modest as Tom MacWood indicates, having authored, "Scotland's Gift" in 1928.

In "Scotland's Gift" he gives detailed accounts of NGLA, Lido, Yale and Mid-Ocean, but, NONE of Merion.

Don't you find that counter-intuitive ?
[/color]

Did he write a detailed record of the NGLA visit of Wilson?  If not, should we act as if that visit never took place.  

David, resorting to extreme's doesn't make your case.
The visit isn't in question.
It's the substance of the visit that's in question.
And, absent a detailed account you can't make any assumptions.
[/color]

These aren’t rhetorical questions.  If you want to use your question to undermine the written record of CBM’s involvement at Merion, you should at least back up the speculation with fact.

I did,  
CBM doesn't mention one word about his alleged invovlement at Merion in a 340 page book he wrote on architecture and golf.

Was he absent minded ?
[/color]

« Last Edit: December 12, 2006, 04:35:38 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #570 on: December 12, 2006, 04:37:59 PM »
Wow. Very interesting, Philip.

"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Phil_the_Author

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #571 on: December 12, 2006, 04:48:38 PM »
Another circumstantial voice that says much while doing so in very few words, is that of Mr. Robert White. In the December 1914 issue of Golf Illustrated, in the column titled "Our Green Committee Page" he wrote:

"We have said that there are good green committees. But we make the admission mainly for the sake of argument. By far the best work in this or any other country has not been done by committees but by dictators. Witness Mr. Herbert Lees at Myopia, Mr. C.B. McDonald at the National, and Mr. Hugh Wilson at the Merion Cricket Club. These dictators, however, have not been adverse to taking advice. In fact they have taken advice from everywhere, but they themselves have done the sifting. They have studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."

Wilson, according to White, was a "Dictator" who took advice but had "done the sifting" [and therefor the decision-making] on his own, and he was able to do this because he was one of a handful, including CBM, who had "studied green keeping and course construction as it was never studied before..."  

Mike_Cirba

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #572 on: December 12, 2006, 04:51:20 PM »
Philip..even more interesting and crucial given that it was written in 1914!  That's not only a smoking gun, it's a howitzer!!  

Where were you 22 pages ago?!?!  ;)  ;D

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #573 on: December 12, 2006, 04:55:30 PM »
Philip..even more interesting and crucial given that it was written in 1914!  That's not only a smoking gun, it's a howitzer!!  

Where were you 22 pages ago?!?!  ;)  ;D

Doh! Mike beat me to the howitzer reference!
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Phil_the_Author

Re:Merion East, 10th hole: Another Piece of the Puzzle?
« Reply #574 on: December 12, 2006, 05:02:54 PM »
Mike, since you asked, finishing the last few pages of a manuscript for a new book that I sent off the other day.