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.


Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Here is a synopsis  of David Moriarty's carefully researched and heavily footnoted  13,000 word plus paper on the subject of the beginnings of the East Course at  Merion.
 
HH Barker did an initial routing in  1910.

Fresh off their stunning success at NGLA,  Macdonald and Whigham were called in to consult in 1910.
 
Member Hugh Wilson was asked to oversee  the Construction Committee for the purpose of 'constructing' the course. 
 
The course was built in 1911 and seeded  in September of that year, according to Wilson.
 
In May of 1912, Wilson returned from  Scotland according to a ship's registry that David Moriarty found.
 
In the years that followed, holes  were modified and bunkers were added until the course became the flawless  design gem that it is today. Wilson, who learned quite a bit from his study of  the great courses overseas, played a crucial role in the development of the  design of the East Course from 1912 until his death in 1925.
 
However, David suggests that the concept  that he went to the UK and then routed/designed Merion is chronologically  flawed. Wilson's initial role was to construct the course, as opposed to  design it. In 1911, his primary exposure to classic architecture was the time  he and his construction team spent at NGLA with Macdonald and Whigham. Indeed,  Wilson's own writings pay homage to the help  that Macdonald provided.
 
David's research suggests that  Barker, Macdonald and Whigham deserve design credit for the holes that were  laid out and seeded in 1911. Wilson deserves the credit for the  excellent construction of the holes and for translating Macdonald's  ideals so well into the ground. The end of Part One concludes in 1912, so the  knowledge that Wilson picked up in the UK in April/May of 1912 had not yet  made its way into the design. As David says, that is for another  day.
 
Why people get upset with the notion that  Macdonald provided design thoughts and ideas at Merion based on the best holes  in the UK is beyond my ability to comprehend. After all, if you wanted to  build a world class course, wouldn't you consult with the one man who had just  done so?  ??? The thought that an amateur who had never been to the UK would seize  upon the Road Hole, Redan, etc. and properly execute their playing strategies  is both romantic and a bit far fetched, at least to me.   
 
Congratulations to David for all his well spent time and effort in coming up with this document, which is both compelling and original. Ben and I cannot express our deepest appreciation to  David for selecting GolfClubAtlas.com to house it.
 
Have a read and see if you don't agree with David's own conclusions - I know I do.

Cheers,

Phil_the_Author

Bravo, David!

At first quick glance it looks like it will be both a wonderful read but also worthy of an open-minded studious examination.

Again, Bravo!

Tom Huckaby

Concur with the bravos!

Hell of an article.  I have zero clue about the issues, but again at first glance - only skimmed it really - that seems like a pretty damn exhaustive study.  And what I did read was very interesting...

One thing though  - perhaps more proofing needed?

Did you really mean to say this, a key underlined point:

"In fact, I have been able to locate a single reference to a Wilson study trip abroad that was written before Wilson trip in 1912.  Not one. "

Don't you mean "unable".

Fix before the bloodhounds strike.

 ;D


Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Does this mean that Merion will no longer host "The Hugh Wilson Invitational?"

"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
David,
   I look forward to reading your work.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

TEPaul

Thanks Ran and David! I, for one, am glad this "White Paper" is finally here.

I haven't had a chance to do more than scan it but I'm looking forward to analyzing the credibility of particularly this idea that H.H. Barker essentially routed the land that is Merion East golf course and that Macdonald and Whigam (and/or Barker) essentially "designed" the holes that basically became Merion East.

THAT, most certianly is something that the history of Merion GC does not contemplate or remotely mention in any way, or ever has to my knowledge, regarding the creation of Merion East, the golf course. As to whether that is just unsupportable speculation promoted by a series of preceding events, or is, in fact, something about which there is some hard provable evidence, I guess we will just have to see with some really good analyses of all the other information extant about the creation of Merion East golf course.

David, that looks to be a lot of work, and congratulations from me on doing it all. We're certainly looking forward to analyzing it carefully, but I should note here and now that simply doing a lot of work (analogous example---Tom MacWood's five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf") both shouldn't and won't NECESSARILY pass in and of itself as indicating an accurate historical reexamination of Merion East's golf course and its entire creation, or anything else, for that matter.

Let's have a really good AND CIVIL analysis of and dicussion on this paper!
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 12:29:55 PM by TEPaul »

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wow! Obviously alot of work went into this. Thank you for the efforts you put into this, David. I look forward to the discussions.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

JSlonis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Does this mean that Merion will no longer host "The Hugh Wilson Invitational?"

Unfortunately, Merion hasn't held the Hugh Wilson since the year before they hosted the US Am.

Mike_Cirba

David,

Congratulations on completing Part I of what is obviously a tremendous amount of work and thank you for bringing the information to our attention.

I've scanned it and will go into more depth later in the week but it certainly looks to be interesting and well-researched.

Mike

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
I mean no offense, but my take on this is that having followed most if not all the years of debate on these matters, the "basic" ideas and concepts of the chronology and progression of the land acquisition, the site visits by Mac and Whig and Barker's prelim, and the "laying out" or "routing" and the subsequent voyage by HIW to "study" the great holes, which has always seemed likely to have taken place in the context of first constructing the bones and planting the turf, is nothing new!  I believe that I for one had written this same understanding from trying to match all the conversant sides posts long ago.  

In a way, I am like Ran in expressing incredulity that all this back and forth bickering about fractions of the general chronology is a fart in a windstorm in the sense of who should be 'given credit for the creation of Merion'.  

At the end of the day, and IMHO as has been expressed between the lines and between the back and forth points of the debaters, it has always been evident to me that Merion was a COLLABORATION of many.  I don't see Mac and Whig, nor Barker for his earliest part, as having stood there waving arms directing the laborers as a matter of on-going supervision to adhere to their original routings to build the course expressly according to design ideals that were undoubtedly on an on-going 'as-built' basis.  Nor do I see Wilson doing so on a daily basis, but at least as leader of the construction committee during 1911-1912 and into 1913, he surely was the one that had access to go out to the site often to oversee the laborers adhering to original routing plans.  Whose plans, again, as has been gleaned from all the debate between TEPaul, David Moriarty, Tom MacWood, and others adding pieces of evidence, a general routing by the Barker, MacD, Whig, collaborating, and study and tweaking during and after basic construct and grow-in by Wilson who was learning on the fly and adding playing hazards and features after the basic construction, always to be understood as an evolutionary process to continue to make the course, "one of the best of its kind".  ;) ;D

Finally, I don't think any of these men had a qualm in their time about how the "credit" was being doled out by these subsequent reports and recalling of their individual roles.  They all seemed proportionately effusive or generous of praise to each other's roles, while noting their own or brother's or associate's roles.  I didn't see any of them getting into a tizzy about the subsequent recounts of events as they were told in 1912-1926 reports, etc., nor the eulogy to MacD.  

What will happen 100 years from now about some of the modern courses that were designed/built by 'entities'?  Will some architects say, I laid out the course on paper according to topos and a construction companies say, we had so many change orders and did so much tweaking of the plans, that we basically did the lion's share of the final design project?  Could some day debaters even argue that well known GCAs of our time, were not the one primary to bringing in the guts of various courses because their associates did the lion's share of the on-site and on the ground work?  Look at a Nicklaus design.  How much is Jack, and how much is someone else's "real" work?  Sure the big guy's name is on the door now.  But, will really fanatical GCA buffs in 2100 say that so-and-so was well known to be the guy on site that really brought the design in.  In that context, controversy will always reign... if we let it.

Thus, it is time to put the debates to rest, and recognise collaboration when we see it.  A group of mover's and shakers back in the day, of a certain sporting genteel kind, well healed and able, in pursuit of a relatively new recreational game with an associated social component, got together to build their dream course and club, and they all were happy about it.  

PS: BTW David, my tone might be misunderstood, I want to say that the part 1 is a wonderful piece of writing.  Thank you, and thanks to all the others who write with passion to explain their views.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 01:58:48 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Always nice to see legal research skills used for good, not evil. :)

Nice piece, can't wait to sit down and read it more thoroughly.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
One small point of confusion for me:
Findlay
Quote
He then went on to briefly critique the holes, calling the first and second “rather plain and somewhat easy.”  He continued, comparing the third with a famous hole overseas, presumably the Redan at North Berwick. “The third is a very difficult driving iron or spoon of 185 yards.  It will remind golfers who have played abroad of one of the nicest golf holes in existence. “  While apparently referring to the Redan, Findlay must have thought that the comparison was so obvious that he need not go into detail or even identify the hole to which he referred.

Lesley:
Quote
The seventh, or the Redan hole, is a one shotter, situated on a side hill with a deep gulley and severe bunkering in front of it, and requires the most delicate placing to hold the green.

What is up with them talking about two different Redan's, the 3rd or 7th?  Is that an example of misreporting or misinterpreting by different people reporting?
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Last time I played Merion the 7th was a short par 4.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Apparently, in the original flow, today's #3 was #7.

RJ, Not sure of the timeline those two quotes fall or how they would relate to the re-direction of playing order, but this could be pretty easily explained.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks for the kind words.

I also look forward to comments and criticism, but hopefully they can wait until after you have had a chance to read it. 

RJ, thanks for your comments.   Sorry it didnt meet your expectations, but if many read it, agree with it, and are left with the impression that everything in there is really pretty obvious,  then I will be very satisfied.

As for the hole numbers, Findlay reviewed the holes just before the course opened, and in the order the holes are played today.  By 1914, Wilson's Redan was the 7th hole, and the order was  1, 2, 6, 7, 4, 5, 3, 8, 9.  Back nine was the same. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom Huckaby

I read it, agree with it, and my impression is that everything in there had to be damn time-consuming to find and present coherently, not to mention in an an interesting, very readable form, but in the end is pretty obvious.

But I still think you need to fix that rather key typo.

 ;D

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
I read it, agree with it, and my impression is that everything in there had to be damn time-consuming to find and present coherently, not to mention in an an interesting, very readable form, but in the end is pretty obvious.

But I still think you need to fix that rather key typo.

 ;D

Consider it fixed.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

wsmorrison

David,

I congratulate you for putting forth such a tremendous effort, and to think this is only part 1.  You must have had access to board records of the Cricket Club that I have not yet seen.  While my research has concentrated on Wm Flynn's work subsequent to the opening of the East Course (he was not present for the initial construction of the course), I am keenly interested in the earliest iteration of the East Course.  If possible, I would like to have a look at some of the primary assets you utilized in the making of this essay.  Reading the article (I must do so in a more thorough fashion) clearly indicates that you have material on hand that I have never seen and which the club is unaware.  I guess you found the Sayers scrapbooks as some information you mentioned is contained in there. 

I have found some inconsistencies and errors in my initial review and hope to give it a more concerted effort over the next week or so.  Before jumping to conclusions (as others have done) I want to give this report the consideration it deserves.  I will be happy to share with you my findings.  Clearly the record needs to include some of your discoveries though I am hesitant to say to what extent that history is revised by them.  In fact, if your findings regarding Hugh Wilson's lack of design involvement proves correct (and I am not presuming that it does as yet) then it has some profound impacts on matters closer to my field of study.

I must say that I am concerned or rather alarmed by the quick rush to judgment by Ran, Tom H and others that agree with the findings without a more informed understanding of the course and its history and certainly without an exhaustive study of the essay.  The only way they can agree with David's conclusions are if they take for granted or assume what he states is correct.  While there are an awful lot of facts presented, and potentially very important ones at that, some of the conclusions are troublesome and require a great deal of consideration.  Something that neither Ran nor Tom has done and on a subject that neither one of them knows very much about. 

While the conclusions they say are obvious and proven may turn out to be for the most part true, any judgment to that effect is premature and poorly considered at this stage.

Tom Huckaby

Wayne:

I have no dog in this fight, as they say.  I know next to nothing about these issues, and I'm sure David knows that.  I have absolutely not considered any parts of this whatsoever.

What I did do was read David's article - twice - and I can say with complete honesty and sincerity that:

I read it, agree with it, and my impression is that everything in there had to be damn time-consuming to find and present coherently, not to mention in an an interesting, very readable form, but in the end is pretty obvious.

If that is a rush to judgment, then so be it.  Just note that I am not commenting on any issues, but just this article.

I knew I should have stayed the hell out of this.

Tom H.

ps - if it makes you feel better, David likely feels about as good about my "endorsement" as Hilary Clinton would be about an endorsement from Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel.  ;D
 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
David,

Well done and very interesting lunchtime read!

What I took from this is the Merion was an early development course that came out quite well!  While the next words are speculation, if things worked then as they do now, it makes sense to me that the developer hired a known (but probably cheaper than CBMac) gca ror routing, and the club then got a little nervous and wanted their own second opinion.

Also similar to today is the give and take of property acquistion, and numerous refinements as parcels become available and acquired.  That a good topo was available early sounds more like a developer leading the project than an amateur golf committee of the day.

Presuming you have the documents you reference, I doubt Paul and Morrison could hold out as naysayers very long.  It would be interesting to see some of those property acquistion docs and letters back and forth.  Any of the original routing proposals would be a gas, but I presume they are long gone.  Its clear they were there.

You can put me in the camp of "why the bickering?"  You have spent considerable time and are without obvious agenda in finding first generation documents.  Of course, some conclusions will always have to be drawn and interpretations made, so I suspect the discussion on gca.com will continue.

I for one have no problem if they continue to credit it to Wilson.  He was certainly the "features architect" even if Barker, Whigham and Mac did the routing, perhaps with an assist from some committee members who controlled what land got bought.   There are many other courses who have similar multiple lineage and singular credit.  But, its always nice to know just exactly how things really happened and your piece, IMHO, does a lot to enlighten us.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

wsmorrison

Tom H,

Of course it is a rush to judgment based upon a leap of faith.  In your mind that leap is not very large.  I am not as convinced.  I choose to consider this with a great deal more scrutiny before I take any such leap.

Jeff,

I too would like to study the primary documents.  While there are some references, many of the significant passages are not referenced nor presented in their entirety.  That would be helpful to us all wanting to make informed conclusions.  I hope David is willing to share this information in its entirety.

Tom Huckaby

Tom H,

Of course it is a rush to judgment based upon a leap of faith.  In your mind that leap is not very large.  I am not as convinced.  I choose to consider this with a great deal more scrutiny before I take any such leap.


Aha.  I get it better now.  Yes, I did make the assumption David's facts are correct.  Therein lies a rush to judgment on the issues.

But I still make my statement in all honesty and sincerity.

Just remember, I was not asked "who designed Merion."  I took the initiative to comment on David's article.  And my comment stands.  If asked the other question, my answer would be:

One guy I know seemed to present a pretty darn strong case for a few guys, but otherwise, how the hell should I know?

Better?

 ;D

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wayne,

Being able to see the primary docs is always the ultimate goal.  I looked at David's footnotes, and some reference letters only seen by TePaul, etc.  So, I agree that its not a perfect piece of history, quite yet. I think its a great start. 

I hadn't heard of the cooperation of Merion and a housing developer until reading this, although perhaps that is common knowledge up there in Philly.  That was the most interesting part to me anyway. I don't really care if Wilson went to Europe early, late, or whatever.  Its plausible to me that he went later as David states, even if I believe that the Titanic legend is just that.  I bet hundreds or thousands of folks claimed to have just missed being on the Titanic in those days.  Of course, I don't really know.  But its not hard to surmise that the same people responsible for that perhaps slight exageration might have also fudged dates on the trip in some other ways to enhance the legend.

In the end, it doesn't really matter. Somehow or another Merion came up with one of the real gems of the golfing world.  It has seen some evolution by many hands from before it was built up to the bunker redo this decade.  Debating whether Wilson was 60 or 90% responsible for Merion's original design should be fun because of its place in history, not a matter of endless heckling and bickering.

I will follow this one closely as a student of gca, but not get any more involved.  I do look forward to any clarifications.  If gca.com could uncover some real history, albeit via the work of one of its contributors, it would be a great thing for this web site.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
I agree with the tone and content of Jeff's posts above. I am an interested on-looker. David's piece is very good. A tip of the cap for all the hard work. I would also like to hear from those in the know who have access to the same materials.

I do have one question that kept coming to mind as I read David's piece. With all the impressive secondary sources on the early days of Merion East, why don't any of them state who actually routed the course? It would have required no more than a simple declaratory sentence. People seemed to spend a lot of time talking around the issue or making vague references to "experts" and the like. Why? Why the purposeful ambiguity?

My questions are not to take a side in the debate. I don't know enough to take a side. But I find the above odd. I don't understand why people didn't simply state the facts that they, as eye witnesses, must have known.


Bob
« Last Edit: April 23, 2008, 05:50:44 PM by BCrosby »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
David

Well done.  Like others, I found the piece an enjoyable read.  I learned quite a bit and was particularly impressed about the attempt to unravel the terms "layed out", "built", "constructed" etc.  As Bob states, its most frustrating that language is used so interchangeably. 

As much as I liked the article I would still liked to have seen the following:

1. How did you conclude that "Hazard" was Tillie?  As you are making this connection to utilize Tillie's obvious expertise in the area it might be helpful to explain the line of thinking which makes you believe Hazard to be Tillie - at least in the footnotes.

2. Construct an actual  timeline somewhere in the piece.  Sometimes it is difficult to keep track of the dates and events.

3. More detailed citing of your sources in a bibliography.  This seems to be a thing of the past these days and it is a great shame.

Once again, well done.  I can't wait to read Part II.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back