David Moriarty's excellent The Missing Faces of Merion is now posted under IMO

[Lou_Duran]

It appears that a few here believe a consumer crime was perpetuated nearly a century ago.  Other than the memories of Barber and Macdonald, I am not sure who has been injured, but several multi-paged threads have not gotten us any closer to a satisfactory conclusion.

Being that most of us are mere amateurs here, it may be useful to call in a pro.  Fortunately, we are blessed to have as a member of this site a man with such credentials.  Here is a call to Jesse Jones to investigate this matter and find the truth.  I am sure the descendants of those who did not receive their due attribution have been waiting in quiet desperation for many generations for the record to be corrected.

For those who may not know Jesse, click the link below and go to the second story- "Get Jesse".  He was great fun to play with at Stone Eagle, even in 110* heat.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=7686108&src=news

[TEPaul]

Wayno:

You know what I really love about Fred Pickering? If anybody really knew how to practice "Flask" golf course architecture that is the man at the top of the hill. He could obviously top Tillie in that category morning, noon or night!

Whoops, I guess I'm kind of forgetting about Dick Wilson, aren't I?

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You asked Mike, "Is it your contention that Ran Morrissett, Myself, Wayno, Tommy Naccarato and TEPaul could design and build a world class golf course in the same manner that you imply the Construction Committee at Merion did ?"

The answer is yes, although I believe the committee would run smoother wirthout you!  (only kidding!)

[TEPaul]

"Not my designs, no!  But I'm saying that an experienced construction foreman could have helped the novices to avoid many, many mistakes.  Or, more generally, (and I hate to piss off TePaul again) that MCC did seek out a lot of advice, which means that Wilson couldn't have been quite as heroic as his brother or a club history nearly 40 years after the fact depicts."

JeffB:

Sometimes I just can't understand where you're coming from with what you say. On the one hand, you just said you wouldn't want your foreman getting credit for one of your designs and then you immediately follow that with the fact that Wilson couldn't have been as heroic as the club depicts him because his brother in a report on the creation of the course doesn't mention the foreman Pickering who definitely helped him day after day build the course to the design of Wilson and his committee?

What is going on with you? Talk about making contradictory remarks unless you think the people who give you design credit for your courses and probably will years from now are unnecessarily making a hero out of you.

But, I'll tell you one thing that really does come through loud and clear in a lot of what you say about Wilson and his committee on here and that is how easily you seem to buy into this contention from a few others on here about what novices they must have been meaning they couldn't have done this without more help from others who they were unwilling to give credit to.

I hesitate to say this on here, Jeff, but I'm going to anyway, and that is this bias that way and the sort of undercurrent penchant of you know damn well who to constantly promote that idea that any amateur architect, even Hugh Wilson, back in that early day, really couldn't have been capable of doing what a professional architect could do even in design---forget about construction knowledge.

The point is professional architects seem to feel the need to promote that idea in the routing and design area too. Again with technical construction practices of putting together design elements I think Wilson was smart enough to understand he wasn't going to do that himself and probably didn't and wouldn't know how, and that he could hire a Pickering to do it for him as long as he watched him do what he wanted design-wise.

The fact is, a guy like Wilson and his committee could do a routing and a hole by hole design but guys even like you feel the need to continue to promote the idea there is no way they could do that.

They did both and it's obviously somewhat bothersome to admit it and to admit that professionals may not be the only ones who can do this and even do it well. I think that's why you feel the need to talk about a guy like Wilson and some on his amateur committee this way. The truth is you guys may not be as talented as you want the world to think you are and some of these amateur architects like Wilson aren't as incapable as you want the world to think!

Sorry, about this big guy but you know as well as anyone that this is a perception that you know who would just as soon continue to perpetuate! 

I don't care if you do continue to perpetuate that bias as long as you don't try to slight Wilson and his committee for doing what they really did do with Merion even in the first phase routing and design! Not to mention that they made it a lot better when Flynn came of age and I know they never had Macdonald and Whigam helping and advising them then.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

No question I have the bias you mention.  And no question you have an equal bias towards believing that any old amateur designer can come up with a classic course, much better than any professional gca alive (or nearly so).    

I think if we survey most of the "amateur designs" through history, starting from Trump (or any current tour pro) backwards, we find that most had some kind of pro brought in for consulting through actual design, sans credit.

And in modern times, I have seen some pretty bland or bad gca's be somewhat saved by good contractors, which influences my opinion.  While I have benefitted from good contractors, and will be glad to tell you how someday, I can't say I believe they "saved" me.  Perhaps thats just ego talking.  Hence, my opinion of how good contractors can make first time or inexperienced gca's look better.  At the very least, if you designed a course, but weren't really sure about things like drainage, working with a Contractor like Wadsworth or Lansdscapes (or a dozen others) would allow you to come out without making a real mess of things.

Even in simpler times, I was just giving credit to Pickering for doing the same.  I do realize that the most experienced golf builders in the country at that time had at most a dozen more courses under their belt, and probalby less than 10 than the guys at Merion.  That in itself probably made it more feasible to attempt their own design than it would seem today.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I think you'd better re-check your facts with Tom MacWood.   

While I might be a bit harsh on Macdonald to make a subjective rhetorical point, your post contains quite a number of historical inaccuracies.

You don't want me to simultaneously sic Phil Young and the TIllinghast Society as well as Ian Andrew and the Travis Society on you, do you?     Nevermind guys like Alex Findlay, Tom Bendelow, Mungo Park, and even Donald Ross, who was part of designing Woodland with Findlay.

I've probably spent a good part of the last year studying the period prior to what we call the "Golden Age" that was triggered by NGLA, followed closely with Merion and Pine Valley, and exploded through the 20s.

This period, which I'll refer to as the Embryonic Stage, was not nearly as primitive and abysmal as contemporary history suggests.   Not every course built before NGLA was a geometric, cross-bunker laden fiasco, although many were of that ilk.   But let's not forget that along with Macdonald's heroic efforts, you already had guys like Travis, and Dev Emmett, and Park, and Leeds, and others who saw the weather changing and didn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blew.

[DMoriarty]

Statement:  But, in 1910, Macdonald was just learning as well.

Reply:  Compared to?

Answer:  Fred Pickering, hired by the Merion Cricket Club to construct the golf course.  Pickering was an accomplished construction man, who also assisted in design work.  At the time Merion was built, Pickering already worked on Wollaston (the course Wm Flynn grew up caddying and playing), Woodland and Belmont in Mass; Lake Placid in NY; and a course in Atlanta, Ga., and according to Alex Findlay, "other courses, too numerous to mention, but this, his latest creation, far surpasses any of his previous achievements.  He has had much his of his own way in the planting of the right seed, and in the general make-up of the course, and to him we owe thanks for one of the prettiest courses in America.”

As you know, I am aware of that quote.  I believe I summarized that passage and may have quoted it in the essay and addressed it there.

Findlay was certainly fond if Pickering's construction abilities and grass knowledge but I am surprised you are such a big fan.    After all, didn't you say that many of the features including some greens were "amateurish"  and needed to be replaced?   If Pickering was given free reign with his construction, then it seems you would not be to big a fan.

 Are you trying to create the impression that Pickering routed the course?  That he was responsible for the design? 

Findlay did not say this at all.   So on what basis are you suggesting it, if you are, which you havent outright said one way or another, but it sure seems like you are.   
________________________

Wayne,

You're spot on here.   David and Patrick act as if all of these guys were babbling idiots who needed a babysitter to put together a golf course.   Thousands of clubs built golf courses at the time, Merion just took the time and put together the resources and study to do it right.   

David or Patrick....do either of you have any idea how well-regarded Woodland was prior to 1910?

Mike, you need to stop stating and implying that I am disrespecting Wilson or anyone else.  This just hasn't been the case, and your constant accusations and implications are rude and offensive.  So stop.

Thanks.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

Here are the handicaps of Philly golfers at that time.   There are some interesting names in there.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1912/ag75q.pdf

[Jeff_Brauer]

Two questions,

Does anyone really think that low handicap golfers necessarily translate into golf course designers then, anymore than tour pros necessarily translate to golf course architects now?

And second (and more germaine) why isn't there an original routing plan of Merion, whether drawn by the committee, CBM, or others?  Even the original Barker plan is seemingly gone.  Seems kind of funny to refute the idea that any one of those three possible entities did or didn't route the course on that basis, since no one can provide anything like a drawing from any of them, at least that I have heard.

[JESII]

especially with an engineer on the team that wrote about poring over drawings or pushing a ruler around or something...

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff, JES

I'm guessing that they weren't so concerned about process in those days, more in the end result and final product. I think it probably takes a few decades in the life of an emerging art form or creative endevour before anyone takes it or themselves seriously enough to start creating language for and interest in the process, at least in a wide-spread way.  I'm also guessing that they were poring over topographical maps, not design/routing plans as we'd understand them; again, because if what was most important was actually getting something built -- on the ground, and ready for play -- maybe many of the steps/stages of the modern design process would've seemed superfluous to them.  Think of how today so much of that process (and design plans etc) has to do with an architect getting the assignment and getting the client on board. But in Merion's case, since the designers/builders seem also to have been the clients, all of that would've been unneccessary.
 
Peter

[JESII]

Peter,

I don't expect a high detail piece of art like some today, but some lines and measurements would seem to help and having an engineer involved would at least suggest an attention to detail in the planning stage would have been possible...

[Peter Pallotta]

JES

Yes, that seems right. But maybe at the heart of this discussion is what kind/level of detail that might've been. And I can't get away from thinking that, with all the land purchases/swaps and with the short time that  Barker and M&W spent on site, it couldn't have been very detailed at all -- which is why the traditional view that Macdonald provided advice and Wilson designed/built Merion makes sense to me.

Peter 

[JESII]

The engineer I was referring to was Richard Francis, not either of the professional architects...I thought that was his occupation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jes,

Yes, whatever and whoever came up with the routing, it surprises me that engineer Francis didn't memorialize that with a stick routing, since he would have had the talent and inclination to do so.  Even in the "18 stakes" days (and it would really have to be 52 on a par 70 course) my guess was that he was on the committee to survey out boudaries and construction control points, not a lot unlike today. Especially, given that the boundary was tight and "in play" in the development process.

I don't recall Merion ever having a clubhouse fire, which is where most clubs lose their old records, although TePaul mentions the complicated club structure and the possibility that they are off site.

Nonetheless, it seems they would have dug out the final initial routing (perhaps an as built) for the club history in 1950, doesn't it?

[Kirk Gill]

And second (and more germaine) why isn't there an original routing plan of Merion, whether drawn by the committee, CBM, or others?  Even the original Barker plan is seemingly gone.  Seems kind of funny to refute the idea that any one of those three possible entities did or didn't route the course on that basis, since no one can provide anything like a drawing from any of them, at least that I have heard.

Peter does make an interesting point about the process perhaps not being as rigidly defined in 1910 as it is now, but Jeff's quote above gets to the heart of the matter, and echoes what I've been asking since I first read David's essay. It is difficult to refute (or prove) that one entity or another is responsible for the routing of Merion without any routing documents. I read somewhere that truth exists at the moment it happens, and before that exists only conjecture about what MIGHT happen, and after that there's only opinion about what DID happen. It's obvious by now that lots of good, decent people have expressed their opinion on what did happen with Merion's original routing, but the proof remains elusive, at least to me.

Finding a copy of the original MacDonald/Whigham letter would be most helpful, and some day it may come to light. The question, though, that comes to mind is, for those of you more familiar with golf course design and construction of that period, is it unusual for there to be no record at all of a course's original routing, or is the fact that this sort of document cannot be found for Merion East not that unusual, and notable only because of the eminence of the course?

[Peter Pallotta]

JES, Jeff

sorry, I sidetracked myself in my own thoughts and should've realized you were talking about Francis. But I still have a question, i.e. how would this imagined 'stick drawing' capture or embody the great/fundamental  principles of golf course design, especially in terms of what Macdonald believed those were and how those were manifested? Aren't we back where we started? If the process and history of Merion's creation is meaningfully different from what the traditional view says it was (i.e. if Macdonald had more of a role than he's been given credit for), how could that have "played out" in something as basic? (That really is a question)

Peter   

[TEPaul]

"TePaul,
No question I have the bias you mention.  And no question you have an equal bias towards believing that any old amateur designer can come up with a classic course, much better than any professional gca alive (or nearly so).  "


Well, JeffB, honestly, I have no problem at all with you sticking to your bias about professional architects and some old amateur architects like Hugh Wilson, as I stick to mine.

But one thing is for sure, Merion East is there in its glory and it has been for many decades and somebody routed, designed and constructed it and it has pretty much always been attributed to Wilson and his committee in the first phase and then Wilson and Flynn from about 1916 until Wilson died in 1925 and then Flynn from then on into the early 1930s.

To date nobody has sensibly and logically REFUTED that attribution to Wilson and his committee that included the credit THEY gave to M/W for their help and advice, and, in my opinion, certainly not with this "The Missing Faces of Merion" essay and its author.

But maybe there's a whole bunch of professionals from the past and today who have courses and architecture out there of the quality of Merion East in their career inventories that I'm just not aware of. Please point me to them, I'd love to see them.     

[JESII]

JES, Jeff

sorry, I sidetracked myself in my own thoughts and should've realized you were talking about Francis. But I still have a question, i.e. how would this imagined 'stick drawing' capture or embody the great/fundamental  principles of golf course design, especially in terms of what Macdonald believed those were and how those were manifested? Aren't we back where we started? If the process and history of Merion's creation is meaningfully different from what the traditional view says it was (i.e. if Macdonald had more of a role than he's been given credit for), how could that have "played out" in something as basic? (That really is a question)

Peter   

And a good one...one that David Moriarty might like to answer...as you may have missed, these conversations have shifted my opinion of CBM's role to only a very ancillary one...that is, virtually no part in the actual routing of the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Sully, Kirk and Peter:

Regarding your posts #489, #490 and #491, I really hear what you are all saying and wondering and questioning----ie where did any drawings, routing plans, topo maps, sketches, whatever, go for this first phase of Merion (1910-1912) whether they were from Barker, Macdonald/Whigam, Wilson, Francis and others of the committee or even Fred Pickering or even a young Flynn?

That's one of the most frustrating things of all for some of us who've been around Merion for years trying to research it's history, particularly Wayne Morrison. We just don't know where it all went---was it tossed (I'd doubt that), was it destroyed accidently, lost or perhaps just misplaced somewhere that still offers us the chance of finding it again after many decades? Or, perhaps, seeing as that was so early in architecture's evolution (architects and others really weren't drawing much or very elaborately back then or just before it) did they just essentially route and design and build it right on and out of the ground as they went along somehow? We just don't know.

It does strike me, however, that there has never been any mention in any of the reports or history books of Merion that specifically refer to "plans" or "drawings" in that first phase (in the second phase 1916 into the early 1930 we have a ton of very specific drawings and plans for Merion from Flynn).

Of course that really gets our curiosity because those reports and history books really are the reference pieces that start sending researchers down various roads of inquiry and search. The thought with most researchers is if a report or history writer refers to some event or some physical item that pertains to it they must be looking at something.

We never just ASSUME they came up with some idea or story totally out of thin air and whole cloth of their own imaginations and just leave it at that assumption or conclusion. They're generally referring to something actual and the only time that becomes a problem is when the first report or writer made some mistake in interpretation somehow and that tends to get repeated as the truth for years and years to come and sometimes forever without and ability to find source material to correct it. That's why if we can't find source material (we sometimes call them "primary assets") we try to go as far back to the event for reference as we can get.

We're trying to look for all kinds of interweaving source material and references from that first phase event (1910-1912) and it is turning up a few things but mostly things that were available and may need to be reanalyzed.

But you three guys are thinking correctly and starting to ask the right kinds of logical questions. You're asking some really practical questions about a time like that, such as if Macdonald/Whigam were there for a day or two in June 1910 and they did route and design the course in a way that Wilson and his committee could basically just build to as a construction crew might with detailed plans from the router/designer, then what could it have been that Macdonald/Whigam left them with? What even could Lloyd and Francis have been referring to out there when David Moriarty says they were "tweaking" Macdonald's routing and design BEFORE their committee was even appointed and formed and BEFORE the chairman of it ever got involved? These are some really good and practical questions that fairly deserve some answers or our very best LOGIC!

We hear now that Macdonald never really drew his own plans and drawings, that even on his own courses he did put his name on, his engineer, Seth Raynor, who was with him on all the courses he did, did those things for him. Raynor was not in Philadelphia on those two visits of Macdonald/Whigam in June 1910 and then next in the spring of 1911 when Wilson and his committee with foreman Pickering and his crew were beginning to build which they seemingly did from the spring 1911 until Sept. 1911 when the course went into grassing for a year.

Someone even said it's speculation to assume that Macdonald never drew himself but the fact is even the best Macdonald experts have never really seen anything from his hand except perhaps one or two holes sketches involving NGLA at some point. So I don't think, given that, it's illogic to speculate he may never have drawn himself and certainly not an immediate whole course routing and hole design plans the committee of Merion could just build to six months later. Or did Macdonald do all this for them when he returned in the spring? Again, he apparently never drew himself and Raynor was not with him then either. (That visit to NGLA does offer some interesting possibliites, though, particularly if Wilson and committee brought along a course topo map with them).

Again, you guys are asking some real practical questions about these modus operandis in a time like that.

Next, I'll offer some scenarios of how I think this could've been done with Macdonald although they may be pretty unlikely, even if they are possible. Some may amaze you, some may make you laugh but I guarantee there are some ways it could've been done because architects today still do some of these things in these funny little ways---I know because I've watched them do them out in the field pre-construction and during construction.

Later:

 

[Mike_Cirba]

In the case of Cobb's Creek, the "golf experts" who Robert W. Lesley appointed to design and build the course DID in fact put together a routing document...a simple ball and stick routing atop a topographical map.

However, that scenario may be a bit different as they needed to submit a formal "plan" and get the approval of Fairmount Park Superintendent, Jesse T. Vogdes prior to putting a shovel in the ground, which happened in April 1915.

I'm not sure they would have gone through the trouble if they owned the land, as in the case of Merion.   I sense that most of what happened took place on the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

The FACTS about the number of courses designed by the men you cited, pre 1910 are irrefutable, irrespective of the amount of time you spent studying that period.

JES II,

Francis and his role interests me because of the design credit attributed to him by C & W.

Perhaps he was Wilson's Raynor ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

What year did Tillinghast's Shawnee open?

As for Travis,

"Walter Travis's first project as a golf course architect was his collaboration with John Duncan Dunn in the 1899 design of Ekwanok Country Club in Vermont. Much of Travis's early acclaim and notoriety as a golf course designer may be traced to his extensive remodelling of the Garden City Golf Club's Devereux Emmet course, that was unveiled when Garden City Golf Club hosted the 1908 U.S. Amateur Championship. In all, nearly 50 golf courses bear his mark, either as an original design, or as a remodelling project. Through consultations, innumerable other courses bear his influence, including Pine Valley, National Golf Links, and Pinehurst #2."

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

Because they didn't bear the names of the holes doesn't mean that Tilly's Shawnee didn't have features found on the great courses of the UK.

Among others were the wonderful punchbowl and of-course his use of Mid-Surrey mounding, the first time that was done on this side of the pond.

Yes, "amateurs" such as Tilly were proving themselves quite professional during these years (1909-1911) and imitating features of the great courses of the UK that THEY had studied and played.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Understood and completely agreed.


All,

In re-reading David's IMO piece last night, one piece struck me because I realized that I had recently heard similar language.

David wrote;

"The (Merion) Board of Governors also announced to the members that “experts are now at work preparing plans for the course which will rank in length, soil, and variety of hazards with the best in the country,” and the Inquirer reported the same.  Unfortunately, neither the Board nor the Inquirer identified just who these “experts” were. 

David then goes on to contend that they couldn't be talking about Hugh Wilson and Committee because in Wilson's writing, he claimed they were all novices.

But let's look again at what Wilson actually said, and remember also the reason M&W were recommended by Griscom in the first place...construction and agronomy.

"The members of the committee had played golf for many years, but the experience of each in construction and greenkeeping was only that of the average club member. "


Let's also recall that Robert W. Lesley, the most prominent man in Philadelphia golf for decades was the President of Merion, as well as the President of the Golf Association of Philadelphia (GAP) at the time.   He is the man who would have assigned the members of the Committee.

What hit me in re-reading what David wrote, and what the Merion governing board reported, is the particular language of "golf experts".   I knew I had seen it before.

In early 1913, acting as President of GAP, Lesley assigned a team of Golf Experts to search Fairmount Park in Philadelphia and recommend a suitable site for a public golf course.   He named to that Committee;

Hugh Irvine Wilson – Merion Cricket Club, whose design of the Merion East golf course had just opened the prior September.

George Arthur Crump – Philadelphia Country Club, who had just bought 184 acres of rolling, sandy pinelands in southern New Jersey and was in the process of laying out a golf course.

Albert Haseltine Smith (aka Ab Smith and A.H. Smith) – Huntingdon Valley Country Club, a top-notch competitor who was an early and vocal advocate for a public golf course in Philadelphia and who had just won the Philadelphia Amateur tournament for the second time in 1911. 

Joseph A. Slattery – Whitemarsh Valley Country Club, a member of the Executive Committee of GAP and another fine local player.


A local paper, reporting on one of the site visits, stated;  "In commenting on the project afterwards, Hugh I. Wilson of the Merion Cricket Club, who was one of the two expert golfers" present (Ab Smith being the other), declared that he believed Plot C would be the first one turned into a golf course.   He stated that it was admirable soil, which would only need a little fertilizer to be put into condition.   All of the work which would be required around the the approaches to the greens, and to the holes could be performed within thirty days in his opinion."

Later in the year, in an article where Ellis Gimbel is trying to get the Fairmount Park Commission to open a nine holer, it states;

"This statement by Mr. Gimbel followed a tour of inspection yesterday by members of the Associated Golf Clubs committee, accompanied by the Committee on Superintendence and Police of the Park Commission, Superintendent Vogdes of the park, and expert golfers.

Later in the year this Committee of experts found and recommended the Cobb's Creek site;

"The proposed golf course in Cobb's Creek Park is a tract of land in the northern end, and is described by the committee as an ideal site.  It consists of a plateau with an undulating slope, dropping down to the bank of the creek.   The tract comprises about ninety-one acres, which has been in grass for a number of years and can be put in order for golf with little expenditure.   The accessories will cost about $30,000 it is estiimated.   It was pointed out by the committee that the site is easy of access.   the cost of maintenance of the course, should it be constructed, would be about $10,000 a year it was estimated."

Finally, in June 1914, progress started to be made;

"Work will soon be started on the first of three public courses which will be constructed in Fairmount Park.  Experts who have seen the layout say the first course will be the best planned municipal links in this country and that it will compare favorably with some of the best courses in the country."


More to come...