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.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Dick,

Is there one that expresses frustration, exhaustion, and relief at the same time? 

I'm happy to move on and give David the last word, as this is clearly a non-starter.  Or perhaps this one he just posted says it all better than any of us ever could;

"Hugh I. Wilson's many capabilities are not relevant to my factual analysis."

I'm outtahere!

I find this post to be extraordinary.  I don't know what has been presented that would cause someone to "walk away".  Mike, it is clear you disagree with David, but you have yet to put together a coherent argument as to why.  Instead of asking questions, put your argument together in a way which directly refutes David or supports your theory, of which I am not at all sure of what it is.  I agree that David hasn't shown enough to disprove the Wilson attribute, but remember that David is starting in a hole as it were.  You lot are assuming Wilson was the man and are asking for David to show proof that he wasn't or that someone else was.  If we start from scratch and assume we don't know what went on then it isn't at all clear who did what.  Though I will admit (imo anyway) that as the man in charge I would give Wilson the lion's share of credit.  Seeking help is no weakness and not a reason to "lose" credit for Merion.  Jeff is right, David has shown documents to at least make an alternative thesis possible.  He may be right, he may be wrong, but it is the process which counts as much as anything right now.

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

"Comment:
Why don't/didn't all of you place the same degree of scrutiny on the current
"official" history of Merion ?  Why did you accept it without question for all of these years ?
David's real estate research appears to be the first time anyone's examined the genesis of Merion from that perspective.
Why was there blind acceptance that Wilson traveled overseas prior to 1911 when there wasn't documented evidence to support that claim ?
In fairness, shouldn't you question Merion's currently accepted history with the same intensity, degree of scrutiny and doubt that you're subjecting David's white paper to ?
Shouldn't all premises be treated equally, undergoing the same academic review and scrutiny ?"


Pat:

Thanks for that response----all those questions are very fair and logical ones and in the spirit of the kind of "academic process" on this article of Moriarty's you called for this morning, thankfully. I'll try to answer all of them as comprehensively as I possibly can. If you want follow ups to my answers, you got it.


WHY DON'T/DIDN'T ALL OF YOU PLACE THE SAME DEGREE OF SCRUTINY ON THE CURRENT "OFFICIAL" HISTORY OF MERION? WHY DID YOU ACCEPT IT WITHOUT QUESTION ALL THESE YEARS?

That's a really good question and the answers may surprise you and most of the people on GOLFCLUBATLAS and elsewhere.

First of all, I don’t know who you mean when you say ‘all of us’. I can only really speak for Wayne Morrison and me. I suppose one way to explain it would be that if Wayne and I actually looked back at when we started all this with Merion about seven years ago, and what we were trying to do then, which was basically research the life and work of William Flynn, and then we looked at where we are today with Merion and at how bogged down we have all become over what back then would've seemed to us a fairly miniscule issue (Macdonald's input) both Wayne and I would be more than a little flabbergasted. And, in fact, we sure are!   ;)

So how did things get to this point---eg this fixation with what Macdonald did for Merion and the degree of credit he got for it or didn't get for it, and why have we never looked into this issue before with this kind of scrutiny? The truth I is we never thought of it as an issue at all and we still don’t. We think Merion’s histories have treated it accurately and that to us includes the Wilson reports on this specific subject of Macdonald. It seems like what happened here probably starting over five years ago and carrying on with numerous threads is basically two people sort of brought it up, and completely blew it out of proportion and that is still going on now. I think you’ll see that this whole thing with Macdonald and his input and the credit he got never really was much of a disagreement among us. The disagreements came on other subjects such as insinuations about research methods, about protecting legends and the status quo about insinuations about us getting frustrated and defensive. I don’t see there really was much of an actual architectural disagreement or issue amongst us, or at least not until Moriarty wrote this paper concluding Macdonald both routed and designed the hole or Merion East. That we don’t agree with right now and I doubt we or Merion ever will unless he or someone else comes up with some factual concrete evidence of that fact and in our opinions this paper called “The Missing Faces of Merion” is definitely not that concrete evidence. It is no more that tortured logic, questionable evaluation and analysis and just down right avoidance of fairly obvious and logical occurrences to the contrary.

I think you'll see how things began to get to this point if you look back on a thread entitled “Re: C.B. Macdonald and Merion” that was started by Tom MacWood in Feb. 2003. In that thread, MacWood had apparently found a newspaper article or two that mentioned that Macdonald advised Merion. He wanted to know what “advised” meant and obviously the extent of it. Wayne and I told him we didn’t know the extent of it but the Merion history books had mentioned it and we were in possession of two reports by the Wilson brothers that chronicled the beginnings of Merion East and West course as well as anything we’d seen and both reports mentioned Macdonald’s contribution on their visit to NGLA and two visits from Macdonald and Whigam to Philadelphia in the fall of 1910 and the spring of 1911 to ADVISE. I very strongly suggest that anyone at all interested in figuring out why these thread tend to go awry should read that thread (it’s now on about the 3rd or 4th page). And then MacWood brought that thread back up again over a year later in May of 2004 in conjunction with another one he apparently started about question “legends” and the “status quo”. Again, he questioned us about the extent of Macdonald’s advice and he began to accuse us of apparently not giving Macdonald enough credit for advice (when we told him all along both we and the club from the beginning had given Macdonald credit for his advice) and then he began to accuse us of frustration and defensiveness and this thing he called on May 8, 2004 on post #103, the “Philadelphia Syndrome” by which he apparently was inferring that we were defensive, too close to our subject, and/or not as good or objective or logical researchers as he was and perhaps even minimizing outside architects in favor of our own. I think anyone can see if they bother to read that thread that we never did anything of the kind. By the way, Moriarty, not a single post was deleted from that thread by me.

At some point, David Moriarty came along and started doing the very same thing and over Merion. Those threads are all in the back pages.

So, Pat, the truth is we didn’t see the need to question the current history of Merion East and who did it and how and we still don’t. I, for one, very much stand by the creation story as chronicled by Alan Wilson in 1926. I have always said that in these threads for a good long time. I have seen nothing from MacWood or Moriarty or anyone else that would lead me to know discount what Alan Wilson said about the creation of Merion East as it relates to the architecture and agronomy and who did it including what Macdonald did.

Of course we have always been aware of the discrepancy in the Merion history between Wilson going abroad in 1910 and almost going down on the Titanic on is way home. The Tolhurst 1989 history claimed that story was a “romantic” one as he was home perhaps a year and a half before that. Oddly that mention was removed in the 2005 Tolhurst Merion History book. And of course David Moriarty did prove vis a ship’s manifest that Wilson did go abroad and he returned right around the sinking of the Titanic on April 14-15, 1914. I confirmed that trip the other day with letter references from the so-called “agronomy” files.

So, I applaud you, Pat, for trying to get this thread on track and in an “academic” discussion process. This is my comprehensive answer to your first questions and I’ll deal with the others later. I’ll even make a short simple list of about 3-6 points where I think David Moriarty’s piece has some very serious flaws in logic in it and simply treats a few other areas in a shocking illogical and speculative way such as his implication Wilson did absolutely nothing until tapped in January 1911.

Since, you supported this piece and you’re trying to get it back on track I hope you can get David Moriarty to respond to this list of simple points both intelligently and comprehensively and expect to make some concessions. If he does none of that this time I doubt we’ll be interested in continuing as we see know need to pursue this unless he can come up with something really concrete like a routing and holes designs from Macdonald. We’ve always said if that happens we feel Merion would be happy to embrace it. I know Wayne and I would.

Good Luck Pat!


Mike_Cirba


I find this post to be extraordinary.  I don't know what has been presented that would cause someone to "walk away".  Mike, it is clear you disagree with David, but you have yet to put together a coherent argument as to why.  Instead of asking questions, put your argument together in a way which directly refutes David or supports your theory, of which I am not at all sure of what it is.  I agree that David hasn't shown enough to disprove the Wilson attribute, but remember that David is starting in a hole as it were.  You lot are assuming Wilson was the man and are asking for David to show proof that he wasn't or that someone else was.  If we start from scratch and assume we don't know what went on then it isn't at all clear who did what.  Though I will admit (imo anyway) that as the man in charge I would give Wilson the lion's share of credit.  Seeking help is no weakness and not a reason to "lose" credit for Merion.  Jeff is right, David has shown documents to at least make an alternative thesis possible.  He may be right, he may be wrong, but it is the process which counts as much as anything right now.

Ciao 

Sean,

It's really very simple.   There are only so many hours in a day, days in a week, weeks in a year, and so on, and I'd rather spend my time on GCA productively.

I'm not sure if you were here during the initial "Merion Wars" but as a grizzled vet of both of those battles, I can tell you that it was not what I'd call fun and it ended at an impasse.

I was part of the group who privately asked for David to come back to this site, and his new evidence that he hinted at sounded very intriguing.   Other events occurred that led me to question his motives, but let's not go into that right now.

The bottom line is that he's presented his new evidence, and like yourself I find it interesting but not conclusive in any way, it's presented with heavy editorial slant in favor the what he hopes is the end result, and I find the whole thing a bit puzzling as to why David would try to credit Macdonald for the design when during his lifetime and for the next 20-odd years Charles Macdonald never did.

Does anyone find that curious?   I certainly do, because Macdonald was a giant at the time and could be a blowhard at times.   If he had one stitch of effort at Merion that he didn't feel was properly attributed to him...and let's remember that Merion quickly became rather celebrated, hosting the most important tournament in the US only four years after opening,...I'm sure the whole world would have heard about it...VERY loud and clear.

He certainly didn't need someone making a case for him 100 years later that he never felt justified in making for himself.

So, enjoy...and in a few weeks I think you'll see the wisdom of my exiting stage left...  ;D
« Last Edit: April 27, 2008, 07:49:08 PM by MPC »

TEPaul

"Again, no dog in this hunt.  However, if its academics we want , I suggest each new post provide a new primary document that furthers the discussion before we post.  Most of the negative response thrashes one side or the other for their opininons and then proceeds to offer more of their own of same.

In the realm of actually providing documents to discuss, DM still leads this tourney by several shots.  Oddly, he has had to endure "several shots" because of it......."


JeffB:

You make a good point there. OK, in the next few days I'll see if I can get Wayne to scan in here Alan Wilson's entire report on the creation of both Merion East or West. Unfortunately, it may not be as detailed as some on this website may want when it comes to explaining who created all the DETAILS of who did everything on that golf course (and, I, as most everyone to date at Merion takes to mean routing, design and construction and grow-in followed by about 23 years of architectural improvement). The point is there is not a single golf course out there of this age that describes exactly who did everything in complete detail.

I stand by Alan Wilson's report and I always have and probably will continue to until someone comes up with SOMETHING that disproves or discounts it, in any way. It explains that the committee created that course and it mentions that the committee itself explained that of all that Hugh Wilson was the most responsible.

If, when we do produce that document some guy like Moriarty tries to just dismiss it or explain it away with some weak response such as he was Hugh Wilson's brother or he was trying to glorify him and alter the factual record because of that, then we, from around here who know this course and the details of its architectural history better than Moriarty or MacWood or frankly all the rest of you combined really will just walk away from this overarching subject and just let everyone listen to this ridiculous mental masturbation of Moriarty's.

At that point I'll guarantee Merion won't care what any of you think and either will we, and the history of the course will definitely not be reinterpreted or rewritten.

Patrick_Mucci

Pat,

Tell me what experience George Crump had before he started to design and develop Pine Valley. 

I'm one of those who doesn't believe that PV was designed in a vacuum.

PV came after NGLA and Merion, and thus, far more in the way of resources were available, from am observatory and a consulting perspective.

In addition, Crump traveled extensively in 1910 studying the courses of the UK and on the European continent.

To date, we have NO factual evidence that Wilson studied the great course of the UK and continent prior to 1912.

Comparing Wilson to Crump is a flawed analogy.
[/color]

The first 4 holes were designed before Colt arrived on the scene.  How would you characterize the qualities of these holes versus the remaining 14 holes? 

How can you say that Wilson could not do what was done before? 

How can you say he could, especially when he lacked Crump's resume in studying the great courses of the UK and Europe.

And, what's more important is the purported link between Merion and the great courses of the UK, and the trip where Wilson allegedly studied these courses prior to designing Merion, a link that appears to be unsupported by the facts, which in turn disconnects Merion from the courses in the UK, unless, the connection is through CBM.
[/color]

Granted, Macdonald's first go at design was pretty poor, but this was years later and much more knowledge was publicly available to Macdonald and a host of others. 

Please tell me exactly what Macdonald had to do with the design of NGLA. 

How much did he rely on Emmett and a team of others to come up with NGLA? 

He didn't do it on his own, right?

No, he didn't do it on his own.
He admits that.
However, he did more than the lion's share of the design.

A read of "Scotland's Gift" might give you a better grasp of the work at NGLA and the author/s of that work.
[/color] 

So are you telling me that a man that could not run a project on his own and one whose project experienced a significant grow in failure would be considered an unipeachable expert?

Absolutely.

First, your definition of CBM as a man who "could NOT run a project on his own", is disengenuous and a misrepresentation of his role.

Secondly, agronomic issues shouldn't be confused with architectural issues.

CBM was smart enough to consult with agronomic experts, whom, I believe he recommended to Wilson.
[/color]  

Prior to NGLA being completed, the Merion project was underway with Pickering, a very experienced construction (design?) man involved.

NGLA began in 1906-7, long before Merion.
Play began at NGLA in 1909.
Merion hadn't even acquired the land for their golf course in 1909, so how is it possible that construction of Merion was already underway with Pickering involved ?[/b][/color]

He had a lot more experience at the time than Macdonald and Whigham combined.  What everyone keeps ignoring is that there was experience on hand on a daily basis to work with the Committee, and that was Pickering.


Wayno, the time line doesn't bear that out.
NGLA was being played in 1909, Merion hadn't even acquired the land for the course in 1909, thus the committee wasn't even functioning in 1909.

And, MacDonald had already designed and built two courses 16-14 years earlier, in 1893 and 1895, so he wasn't a novice at this work, as was Wilson.

And, Wilson had the benefit of a great asset, MacDonald's knowledge and experience.
[/color]

Also, please tell me anywhere else Macdonald would, in the middle of a project, leave and work on a project of which he had no formal role or vested interest.

MacDonald had a formal role at Merion.
It's been documented ad naseum.
[/color] 

I'm not ignoring the fact that perhaps there is something that will directly connect Macdonald and Whigham (and perhaps Barker) to the earliest iteration of Merion, but let's look at this from a balanced approach. 


I believe that I am.
I've applied my intellectual/academic standards equally.
[/color]

Your Macdonald knee pads are slipping  ;D

You may recall that several years ago I had rejected the notion of CBM's early involvement with Merion when DM and TM first floated that balloon.

However, David has presented a compelling case that has yet to be refuted with facts, and as such, I'm pursuaded, as a prudent observer, that his premise is the one premise with the most substantiating evidence to support it.

If evidence to the contrary is presented, I'll accept it, rather than reject it out of principle.
[/color]

And finally, who wants to take credit for the 15' berm behind the 10th green, the crossing of Ardmore Avenue 3 or 4 times and a course that really was a transition course between the steeplechase look and a more modern design? 

That's what NGLA does.
It crosses one road twice and another road once.
Perhaps the berm behind # 10 at Merion is a close relative of the berm behind # 3 at NGLA.

You can't deny the Redan like quality of # 3, a hybrid template if I ever saw one.

Other holes also bear CBM's prototypes fingerprints.

And, IF as the official party line goes, that Merion is an interpretation of the great design principles of the great courses of the UK and Wilson was NEVER in the UK prior to 1912, where else could that connection come from except CBM.

By the way, you seem to have forgotten who CBM was in 1911.
Must I list his curriculum vitae ? ;D
[/color]

Maybe it will prove to be Macdonald.  However,  this course was almost immediately reconsidered and altered significantly with 5 holes completely rerouted and designed, a number of other greens moved or redesigned (one was nearly unplayable) and the look and style of the bunkers and other features completely redone. 

So what ?
What has that got to do with the initial design/s ?

Ross refined and fine tuned Pinehurst # 2 for 26 years, Wilson embarked upon the same process at Merion subsequent to 1912.  I see nothing inconsistent in that approach and with that history.
[/color]

I'd say some of the results were initially amateurish and while the course was a big improvement over the old Haverford course, it was not univerally acclaimed until Wilson and Flynn, and later Flynn alone, redesigned the course.

That's not true.

Accolades were paid to Merion immediately.

Somehow I knew Flynn would enter this discussion  ;D
[/color]

Nothing presented as yet points to anything of Barker made it on the ground.  I won't be surprised if Part 2 contains some material that links Macdonald to the initial design.  It may even prove to be a significant contribution.  Such information if it is substantive will not,  as Tom Paul has stated, be ignored or discarded.  It would prove eye opening to many but what makes anyone think an individual, a club, a city or a district will cling to old stories in the face of new facts?  To think otherwise is a disparaging act without just cause.

Not really.

People, including myself, resist change.
We like things the way they are, the way they have been for decades and decades.

There's a tendency to retain Icons, deities and myths.
That's the romantic element in all of us.
[/color]

What the casual reader or neophyte to Merion's history fails to understand is that the evidence to date, while compelling, is not yet definitive. 


It's more definitive than what was offered previously, which is something you, TEPaul and MPC don't want to acknowledge.
[/color]

There is some new material, but at this point it raises some significant questions and answers less than may seem to understand.

I don't think that David ever represented that his premise was the Gospel.
But, it is a well researched, reasoned effort that leads a prudent man to a conclusion that differs from the accepted history of the club.

Any additional, factual information would certainly be welcomed with open arms by David.  I'm not so sure that response would be universal.
[/color]

Peter Pallotta

Patrick -

You said:

"You can't deny the Redan like quality of # 3, a hybrid template if I ever saw one.

Other holes also bear CBM's prototypes fingerprints.

And, IF as the official party line goes, that Merion is an interpretation of the great design principles of the great courses of the UK and Wilson was NEVER in the UK prior to 1912, where else could that connection come from except CBM."

I've read David's article, and over the last year have read many of the articles in the golf magazines from the 1910s and 1920s.  When it came to discussing 'template' holes in those days, there seems to be little ambiguity, i.e. writers made specific and detailed links between American golf holes and their British antecedents. I'm sure you've read Macdonald's own essays on NGLA and Lido: hole after hole is explicitly linked, the Sahara, the Eden, the Redan, the 17th at St. Andrews etc, etc. But the thing is, I just don't see the same kind or number of direct linkages being made in the reporting on and about Merion. Why is that? Why not, with a man like Macdonald on the scene? Why not, when that 'language' had become so prevalent? Why not a couple of years later? Why not several years later, by anyone at all? How could it be that the supposedly template-inspired Merion never came to be regarded that way, or in the same way that Macdonald's own template courses did? Is mentioning the "redan-like quality of #3" enough?

Secondly, I don't know how we've come to think or accept the idea that Macdonald's "prototypes" (let's call them templates) are necessarily synonymous with the "great design principles" of the British Isles? They may be synonymous and often are, but they don't exhaust the category -- in fact, that's one of the things that David still has to prove, not something that's he already proven...IMHO.       

Peter
« Last Edit: April 27, 2008, 09:51:27 PM by Peter Pallotta »

TEPaul

"It's more definitive than what was offered previously, which is something you, TEPaul and MPC don't want to acknowledge."


Is it Patrick? Then why don't you explain to all of us why it is? And don't talk about ancillary garbage like the relative degree of accuracy of digitized ship manifests, talk about the architectural evolution of Merion East from maybe 1909 on? You don't know much about those details, do you?

No, I didn't think you did and obviously that's why you hitched your wagon to the assumptions and conclusion of some transparent grandstander! I say grandstander because to date I just think his piece is trying to make a massive mountain out of a small molehill. But if and when some routing or course design by Macdonald is produced I guarantee I will change my mind and retract what I just said----but not until. Perhaps we can expect such seminal documents in Part 2 of this piece "The Missing Faces of Merion." At the present time I just don't see that Merion's architectural history as it's recorded has any "missing faces", not even Macdonald and Whigam's. They seem to have always been mentioned liberally in the Merion architectural historic record for the "advice" they gave.

I guess part of the problem with a few of these guys like MacWood and Moriarty is that they came upon some suggestive newspaper articles mentioning Macdonald and Whigam BEFORE they ever actually read or looked at or even considered the history of the creation of Merion as contained at the club. I guess they just felt they discovered something theretofore unknown. They didn't, as the architectural record of Merion has always contained complete reference to the very things those newspaper articles suggested! 

What those two guys probably should have done about five years ago is just come to us and we could've showed them the Merion record contained in the club has always had that information in it!  ;)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 06:19:29 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Peter Pallotta, I always thank the day you came on this website. If it had ten more people like you this place would be spectacular!

Patrick_Mucci


Patrick -

You said:

"You can't deny the Redan like quality of # 3, a hybrid template if I ever saw one.

Other holes also bear CBM's prototypes fingerprints.

And, IF as the official party line goes, that Merion is an interpretation of the great design principles of the great courses of the UK and Wilson was NEVER in the UK prior to 1912, where else could that connection come from except CBM."

I've read David's article, and over the last year have read many of the articles in the golf magazines from the 1910s and 1920s. 

When it came to discussing 'template' holes in those days, there seems to be little ambiguity, i.e. writers made specific and detailed links between American golf holes and their British antecedents.

Do you deny the Redan like quality of # 3 at Merion ?
[/color]

I'm sure you've read Macdonald's own essays on NGLA and Lido: hole after hole is explicitly linked, the Sahara, the Eden, the Redan, the 17th at St. Andrews etc, etc.

I'm familiar with the nomenclature
[/color]

But the thing is, I just don't see the same kind or number of direct linkages being made in the reporting on and about Merion.

No one ever stated that the holes at Merion were exact replicas or templates.  But, to deny the design principles didn't resemble those of other holes is naive at best.  Do you think that # 3 would qualify as a hybrid redan ?
[/color]

Why is that?

Because the intent wasn't to create a course composed of templates.
However, the sources cited by the ojectors to DM's premise repeatedly reference Merion's connection to the great holes on the great courses in the UK, under the presumption that Wilson interpolated and imported their designs.
[/color]

Why, with a man like Macdonald on the scene?

Because Merion didn't want the Philadelphia version of NGLA.
[/color]

Why not, when that 'language' had become so prevalent?

Again, because the intent wasn't to replicate holes in the CBM template mold, but rather to replicate design principles of the great holes in the UK, holes that Wilson NEVER saw prior to 1912.
[/color]

Why not a couple of years later?

Because that was not the design path that Merion wanted to follow.

However, the 3rd hole remains a tribute to the design principles represented by the redan.
[/color]

Why not several years later, by anyone at all?

I believe that Merion didn't want its architecture mirroring that of NGLA and as such, there was no incentive to redesign the holes to emulate those found at NGLA.
[/color]

How could it be that the supposedly template-inspired Merion never came to be regarded that way, or in the same way that Macdonald's own template courses did?

That's your convoluted interpretation and distortion of the stated intent of the design at Merion, circa 1911. 

Time and time again, it was written that the holes at Merion were inspired by the great holes of the UK.  Holes that Wilson had never seen.
No one ever stated, until you did, that the holes at Merion were template inspired.  That's a distortion of the truth and disengenuous on your part.

Could you tell us who stated that Merion was template inspired ?  Template inspired in the context of the accepted names of the template holes you named above ?
[/color]

Is mentioning the "redan-like quality of #3" enough?

I believe the architectural signature, the inherent core values of the 3rd hole are crystal clear.

Do you not find the 3rd hole to be a hybrid redan ?
A fortress like, canted green with that clear architectural signal ?
[/color]

Secondly, I don't know how we've come to think or accept the idea that Macdonald's "prototypes" (let's call them templates) are necessarily synonymous with the "great design principles" of the British Isles?

We came to think or accept that idea by reading "Scotland's Gift"

Have you read it ?

It all began with an article or survey in the London "Golf Illustrated", entitled, "Best Hole Discussion"

The article posed the question,
"Which do you consider the most testing holes on any course in the United Kingdom, having special regard to these salient features:
1 Length
2 accidents of hazard
This question should be answered in respect to the three great classes of holes; namely, those which require one, two and three shots each to reach the putting green."

20 or 30 of the top golfers responded.

For the one shot hole, the Eden or 11th at St Andrews was selected, the Redan was second.

For the two shot hole the 17th or Alps at Prestwick was selected.

For three shot holes, the 17th, the Road Hole at St Andrews seemed the favorite, the 14th at St Andrews was second.

This is where the concept for template holes was born in MacDonald's eyes.
[/color]

They may be synonymous and often are, but they don't exhaust the category --

Did anyone ever state that they did ?
[/color]

in fact, that's one of the things that David still has to prove, not something that's he already proven...IMHO. 

I'm afraid that I don't understand the above statement.
[/color]     


Patrick_Mucci


"It's more definitive than what was offered previously, which is something you, TEPaul and MPC don't want to acknowledge."

Is it Patrick?

Yes, it is.

If it wasn't, you'd have presented evidence to the contrary.

But, since you and others have been silent and have presented NO refuting facts, David's premise stands on its yet to be challenged merits.
[/color]

Then why don't you explain to all of us why it is?


The only reason I can imagine is that you don't have any facts to refute David's premise.

For if you did, you'd present them.

Unless, you're holding to the MCP theory that you're going to horde the info until a later date.
[/color]

And don't talk about ancillary garbage like the relative degree of accuracy of digitized ship manifests, talk about the architectural evolution of Merion East from maybe 1909 on?

I don't have anything to add to David's premise.

Do you have anything to disprove what he's presented ?
[/color]

You don't know much about those details, do you?

I can understand a time line.
I can understand the recording of deeds.
I can understand that HW didn't visit the UK until 1912, after the routing and hole concepts had been crafted.
I can understand that if Merion was crafted on the underlying architectural principles of the great courses of the UK in 1911 and HW had never been to the UK prior to 1912, then, those principles must have been conveyed unto the land by a third party familiar with the design principles of the great courses of the UK.  And, since CBM and HJH were brought in to assist Merion, it's reasonable to conclude that they had a large part in the design of the golf course.
[/color]

No, I didn't think you did and obviously that's why you hitched your wagon to the assumptions and conclusion of some transparent grandstander!


If the guys so transparent why hasn't anyone refuted his premise ?

But, here's the bigger question.

Understanding CBM' huge, really huge contribution to American Golf course architecture, the USGA and Amateur golf in America, why do you and others want to disavow any architectural involvement/connection at Merion ?

Is it a Philadelphia "Pride of Authorship" issue ?
[/color]


DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wayne, that you don’t much care for CBM’s work has been well documented.   In fact, I recall reading your list of the greatest dead architects, and CBM didn’t even crack your top 15!

But we were not around in 1910, and our respective opinions of CBM’s skill are not at all an issue, nor is whether he could manage a project, whether he had help an NGLA, whether he had a grow-in failure.   What mattered were CBM’s and HJW’s reputations in 1910, when Merion brought them into the project.   

And regarding the issue of his CBM's reputation at the time, your representations are very misleading.   

At the time Merion brought CBM and HJW to help plan the course, there was no bigger name in American golf course architecture than CBM, and no course even remotely as important or talked about as NGLA.  Publications overseas and in America had been covering the creation of the course for years, not just in New York but in places like Anaconda Montana, Aberdeen South Dakota, Omaha Nebraska, and about anywhere else they were interested in golf.   CBM was not just considered an expert, he was considered the expert on golf course architecture, whether or not that reputation was deserved. 

And while NGLA had not “officially” opened when work began at Merion, it is extremely misleading to characterize NGLA and Merion has having been built at the same time.  NGLA had been in the works for years, and had 18 playable holes before Merion even purchased their property.  They had been golfing at NGLA for some time, and had even hosted a well-publicized tournament for top players. 

And the growing legend of CB Macdonald and NGLA was known even in Philadelphia by 1910.  Below is an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, published March 20, 1910.  It suggested that “due to a great success at Shinnecock Hills,” American committees were instructing their professionals to similarly copy the great holes overseas.  [note that the article is abot NGLA which is located at  “Shinnecock Hills.”



Also see this article recently posted by Joe Bausch, from the Aug 21, 1910 Philadelphia Public Ledger, and linked below. 

Whether or not Macdonald thought it was quite finished, it was already considered America's best design.


« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 01:19:38 AM by DMoriarty »
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)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
. . . I'd say some of the results were initially amateurish and while the course was a big improvement over the old Haverford course, it was not univerally acclaimed until Wilson and Flynn, and later Flynn alone, redesigned the course.

This is really beyond the scope of my essay, but I am curious—With the exception of the back of the Alps hole, what does Macdonald have to do with what you describe as “initially amateurish” features at Merion East?   No one claimed that Macdonald built the course.   Wilson headed the Construction Committee, and Pickering lead the team that built the course, so I have trouble pinning this one on Macdonald.

Quote
What the casual reader or neophyte to Merion's history fails to understand is that the evidence to date, while compelling, is not yet definitive.  There is some new material, but at this point it raises some significant questions and answers less than may seem to understand.


You’ve cautioned the readers about getting ahead of themselves, but perhaps it is you who are getting ahead.   My scope was very narrow yet I presented many facts that you have thus far ignored, even though they are fundamental to understanding the creation of Merion East.   I will start with a simple one:

Do you agree that Hugh Wilson’s only trip abroad to study the great golf courses occurred in the spring of 1912?   If not, then on what facts do you base your disagreement?
____________________
TEPaul,   

I addressed the Alan Wilson letter in my essay.  Surely you don't still think that Wilson went abroad in 1910 to study, do you?

I look forward to you concise list of 5 or 6 problems with my essay.

_____________________________

I've read David's article, and over the last year have read many of the articles in the golf magazines from the 1910s and 1920s.  When it came to discussing 'template' holes in those days, there seems to be little ambiguity, i.e. writers made specific and detailed links between American golf holes and their British antecedents. I'm sure you've read Macdonald's own essays on NGLA and Lido: hole after hole is explicitly linked, the Sahara, the Eden, the Redan, the 17th at St. Andrews etc, etc. But the thing is, I just don't see the same kind or number of direct linkages being made in the reporting on and about Merion. Why is that? Why not, with a man like Macdonald on the scene? Why not, when that 'language' had become so prevalent? Why not a couple of years later? Why not several years later, by anyone at all? How could it be that the supposedly template-inspired Merion never came to be regarded that way, or in the same way that Macdonald's own template courses did? Is mentioning the "redan-like quality of #3" enough?

Secondly, I don't know how we've come to think or accept the idea that Macdonald's "prototypes" (let's call them templates) are necessarily synonymous with the "great design principles" of the British Isles? They may be synonymous and often are, but they don't exhaust the category -- in fact, that's one of the things that David still has to prove, not something that's he already proven...IMHO.   

Peter

It is very important that we distinquish between a course like Lido, and the courses built before or at the same time as Merion. 

NGLA did not have nearly as many "templates" as people think.   According to Whigham, who was involved choosing the land and routing NGLA, the course had only four copies:   The Alps, Redan, Road, and Eden.   Even these holes were not true copies;  there is no OB on the road, or water between tee and green on the Eden, for example.    Some shared the same name as great holes (Sahara for example) because of a defining feature or a similar strategic concept.  Others simply shared a features or strategies from different holes.   

Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow were contemporaries of Merion East.

Are there many copies at these courses?   

As for Merion East, it didnt have what we think of now as the Macdonald/Raynor look, but then neither did NGLA at the time.   

Also, reading the old descriptions of the holes, I suspect that there were more Macdonald concepts there than just the Redan and Alps.   But I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. 

Not sure what you are suggesting I have to prove in your last paragraph.   For now I am mostly concerned with the facts and analysis in my essay.   
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)

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Wouldn't it have been interesting, and perhaps illuminating for this discussion, if the writer of that article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer in 1910 had mentioned the names of the American golf professionals who had been sent there by their memberships to study the courses of Britain?

Mr. Moriarty, I've read your essay a few times now. I am impressed by the degree of research you've performed, and the obvious degree of passion your work displays. Here are a few points I'd like to ask you about.

You say "Finally, while the original routing plan for Merion East may never be located, we can piece together enough of the early history to know that H.H. Barker sketched the first routing plan, but it may have been superseded by C.B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigham, who played a major role in planning the course." This is a pretty major statement to make without any specific proof. I may have missed it in your essay, but does the Barker routing exist in any form? Is there any extant evidence of the MacDonald/Whigham routing? Is there a direct, explicit statement by anyone describing the routing or saying that it was done? If the previously accepted notion of the origins of Merion is supposition in your eyes, have you replaced this with something more than a supposition of your own? I can't decide if this issue has been clarified or further obfuscated.

You continue "In all likelihood Merion also made the purchase based on where the golf holes fit best.  The major difference between the approaches at Merion and NGLA?  At NGLA, Macdonald and Whigham did not veer off the large parcel from which they were to choose the course, while Merion had to go outside a 300-acre tract to two additional parcels to suit their requirements."

“In all likelihood” needs more explanation here, doesn’t it? This is a major point. The fact that they required additional land that wasn’t part of the original parcel does not in and of itself mean that this was because there was a complete routing in place that required it.

 Another question – the 1910 property plan as pictured doesn’t have a routing on it. Why not, if the routing was already set? Other course maps of similar vintage feature the stick-style routings. Why not give the membership the benefit of this kind of information? Also, regarding the timing of the addition of the portion of land described by Richard Francis, how does the 1910 Property Plan illustration show that this parcel had already been purchased? The "approximate location of road" in fact looks narrower in the lower lobe and wider in the waist than the current iteration of Golf Club Road. Am I wrong here?

Your inference that Wilson and the Construction Committee aren't the experts that the Board of Governors were referring to in their report to the members is certainly possible, given the level of experience on the Committee at that time. And you may be right about the experts being MacDonald, Whigham, etc. There is apparently no proof of this that is extant, however. It must be asked, given the eminence of MacDonald at that time, however, what would have prevented the Board from using his name at this juncture? Further, do you feel that a routing of the course that approximates what was later on the ground actually existed at this point? Is there any mention of a routing in the full report?

"Given that the routing had been known for months, and given that experts (most likely Macdonald and Whigham) had been working on preparing the plans, and given that Wilson and his Committee had just spent three days with Macdonald and Whigham learning how to build the course, it seems extremely likely Wilson had been working out the particulars of the plan with Macdonald, and that he sent Piper a contour map of that plan."  Again, this is interesting supposition, but there's a lot of it in one sentence. You say that the routing had been known for months, but where is this routing? I may have missed the specific quote that you presented referring to a completed routing. Can you pin down the date of the finalization of the routing? There is certainly a lot of information in your essay detailing the participation of MacDonald and others, but proof that a routing existed is not presented here. It is "extremely likely" that Wilson was working closely with MacDonald, based on your evidence, but as has been true since the beginnings of this discussion, what I'd like to know is the specifics of what this work entailed. Was it collaboration? Was it a mentor/student relationship? Was it just information gathering? You've done an impressive job finding a lot of information about this key juncture, but the principals were apparently not forthcoming in detail, and one wonders if more will ever be known on that front. Keep looking !

In talking about the status of things at the time of Wilson et al's trip to NGLA, you again mention that the routing was in place, based on Francis' work. If this routing was already in place, who can take credit for it, based on what evidence? You say "...Macdonald and Whigham had sent their advice as to what could be done with the land in a letter, so at the NGLA meeting they were all likely working out the particulars of the golf holes that Macdonald and Whigham had envisioned." Would it be possible to see the entire contents of this letter? Forgive me if it has already been presented in full somewhere on this site. Does it contain specific mentions of specific holes and features? Is it possible to read about the holes that MacDonald and Whigham envisioned? How do they compare to what is now on the ground. This is an interesting area to me.

I've gone on too long already. If you think my commentary is worth continuing, I'll post some more thoughts on the rest of the essay. I have one big question to ask, which I'll get to at that time.

Thanks for the essay,

Kirk
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Rich Goodale

David

One of your key paragraphs in the essay reads:

"Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.”  In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design.  To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal.   He was charged with laying out the course on the ground.   According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.”   This was precisely how Wilson used the phrase.  “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.'  The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan, and Macdonald and Whigham gave them a good start in understanding how to do so."

I happen to have in front of me an old family dictionary--a large (well over 2000 pages) Webster's, published by Merriam & Co. in Springfield, Mass in 1907.

This contemporaneous and native source has a defintion of "lay out" which is much more amenable to an interpretation of Wilson being involved (probably significantly) in the design than your (presumably) contemporary and overseas source.  Specifically, Webster's relevant definition of "lay out" reads:

"c.  To plan in detail; to arrange; as 'to lay out a garden'"

If you use this definition, "lay out" is much more nearly a synonym of "design" than it is of "construct," and Wilson might in fact have been "abruptly changing the topic to golf course design."

Would you not agree that in this matter the 1907 Webster's definition of a phrase written a few years later might be more authoritative and/or relevant than a definition taken from today's OED?

Apologies if I have introduced a stray and perhaps inconvenient fact into this non-debate. ;)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
David

One of your key paragraphs in the essay reads:

"Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.”  In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design.  To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal.   He was charged with laying out the course on the ground.   According to Oxford English Dictionary, to “lay out” means to “construct or arrange (buildings or gardens) according to a plan.”   This was precisely how Wilson used the phrase.  “Our problem was to lay out the course, build, and seed eighteen greens and fifteen fairways.'  The committee had to arrange and build the holes on the ground according to plan, and Macdonald and Whigham gave them a good start in understanding how to do so."

I happen to have in front of me an old family dictionary--a large (well over 2000 pages) Webster's, published by Merriam & Co. in Springfield, Mass in 1907.

This contemporaneous and native source has a defintion of "lay out" which is much more amenable to an interpretation of Wilson being involved (probably significantly) in the design than your (presumably) contemporary and overseas source.  Specifically, Webster's relevant definition of "lay out" reads:

"c.  To plan in detail; to arrange; as 'to lay out a garden'"

If you use this definition, "lay out" is much more nearly a synonym of "design" than it is of "construct," and Wilson might in fact have been "abruptly changing the topic to golf course design."

Would you not agree that in this matter the 1907 Webster's definition of a phrase written a few years later might be more authoritative and/or relevant than a definition taken from today's OED?

Apologies if I have introduced a stray and perhaps inconvenient fact into this non-debate. ;)

Rihc

Thats very interesting.  I too looked up "layout" and found that the definition fitted "design" more than "construct" - at least that is my interpretation.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this entire deal is how the idea of using UK design principles is bandied about.  It would seem that some believe that having not seen the original holes in question that Wilson couldn't have designed Merion using those UK design principles.  I am not clear as to why this should be true.  It is thought that Wilson consulted with CBM & HJW, saw NGLA and perhaps studied drawings.  Do folks not think this is enough to kick on with a design that was to be significantly altered with time and experience anyway?  This assumption that a man of Wilson's stature, access to resources (including a trip to the UK shortly after the opening of Merion) couldn't create a lasting design over the course of some 20+ years seems an unreasonable conclusion to draw.

We have examples previous to Merion in the heathlands which use original design principles, but look nothing like the originals.  Is it that unlikely that Wilson could have been after the same sort of thing rather than chasing the CBM template system of design? 

Pat uses #3 as some sort of quasi template version of Redan as proof that CBM was heavily involved with Merion.  I too see that there are some similarities to a Redan, but I also see huge differences and would not call this hole a Redan by a long shot.  The hole has departed enough from the original that I couldn't come close to calling it a template.  Sure, Redan may have influenced this hole, but even that is a stretch as I am sure there are other holes which more closely match this design. 
#3


In fact, I look at #9 and see just as many Redan-like features than the 3rd, yet I still wouldn't call this a Redan. 
#9


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Rich Goodale

Thanks, Sean

You are dead right in your second paragraph regarding design principles.  To presume that just because Hugh Wilson probably did not visit the UK prior to 1912 he could not have designed (or at least played a major part in the design of) Merion is "history" based on advocacy rather than logic and facts.

As anybody who has seen both knows, CBM's "Redan" is just an interpretation of "The" Redan, rather than a copy.  It emphasizes the front-back/right-left canting of the green and some of the bunkering, but does not include the eponymous "fortress" element.  Merion #3, on the other hand has the fortress element but not the green movement.  Which is a "true" redan?--obviously both or neither.

Rich

PS--based on the NYT article I referenced on an earlier post to this thread, I can now see that the original 10th probably was meant to be an interpretation of Prestwick's "Alps hole.  I also see Macdonald's infuence in the routing of 10 and 12 across Ardmore avenue (viz. the road crossings at NGLA).  I think Merion could have been a better course if those holes had been left mostly intact, but I also guess that CBM might not have understood the differences in the housing density at Merion vs. NGLA.  All those buyers of posh housing lots would not have been happy accessing their properties whilst avoiding a fusillage of golf balls from those holes....

Slainte

Rich

TEPaul

Here's Alan Wilson's report (and his cover letter) on the creation of Merion East and West Courses which has never been posted on here in its entirety. Sorry it took so long to put on here. It seems to be the document about the creation of both courses and who was responsible for them that was used for Merion's first history by William R. Philler in 1926. It is the report on the creation of Merion's courses that we mostly based our study of Merion's creation on and to date I see nothing about it that would be considered inaccurate. I also see nothing about it that remotely suggests either course was routed and designed by anyone other than Hugh Wilson and his committee of four other Merion members.

Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.

Dear Mr. Philler:-

      You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
      I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.

                  With regards, I am,
                     Sincerely,
                        Alan D. Wilson



Merion’s East and West Golf Courses

   There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans. They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.
   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.
   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.
   The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.
   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.
   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.
………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.
It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”
   Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.   
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 05:33:08 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Richard the Magnificent:

I introduced in a post on this thread an example of the use of the term "laying out" back in that day of Merion's creation that is a quotation by Harry Colt that was used in Tom MacWood's piece entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf" and it very definitely did not refer to exclusively the "construction" of a golf course as the piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" suggests, matter of fact just about the opposite----it very clearly referred to the basic stick routing of golf courses and apparently shockingly quickly and poorly in perhaps a matter of hours. The way Colt referred to "laying out" in that kind of modus operandi suggested it was definitely NOT the way to go about good golf course architecture.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 05:42:50 AM by TEPaul »

Rich Goodale

Thanks, Tom

I had read your previous post and think that what I posted above moves the debate forward more constructively. :)

Rich

TEPaul

"But, here's the bigger question.

Understanding CBM' huge, really huge contribution to American Golf course architecture, the USGA and Amateur golf in America, why do you and others want to disavow any architectural involvement/connection at Merion ?

Is it a Philadelphia "Pride of Authorship" issue ?"



Patrick:

Please tell me you're not getting into that ridiculous claim too. I think you're better and more logical than that.

Here's what I'd like you to do----pull up the thread "Re: C.B. Macdonald and Merion" by Tom MacWood (it's on about the 4th page right now) and read through the entire thing. It essentially tracks how this crazy notion that some in Philadelphia are guilty of what he calls "The Philadelphia Syndrome". There is no such thing at all and there never has been---it's nothing more than some argumentative suggestion on his part. As you can see if you just read that thread through from beginning to end that we who really know the history of that course have NEVER denied the existence within the record of Merion that Macdonald/Whigam "were of the greatest help and value", with, "their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East course."  Those words that I just quoted are from Alan Wilson's own report that I feel is the most comprehensive and accurate report ever done by someone who was there through the entire thing about the creation of the Merion courses and who did them and how. I posted Alan Wilson's report on here this morning. It had never been posted before, just a few parts of it which I posted a couple of years ago (and which Moriarty claims in his piece I deleted).

We never denied any of that as you will see in that thread going back over five years now. I guess what really happened is MacWood discovered that particular mention in a couple of old newspaper articles somewhere back about five years ago and figured he discovered some new and interesting information.

He didn't. We were aware of it years before he mentioned it and it really is part of Merion's historical record. Obviously, he never knew that because like a lot of courses he seems to want to research and/or challenge the status quo of, he had never been to Merion and to date he still hasn't. For that reason he obviously wasn't aware of what Merion's historical record has always said in this particular vein.

Read that entire thread, Patrick, and I guarantee even you will understand how all this happened.  ;)

At this time, you obviously aren't completely aware of how it all happened!
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 06:44:37 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Sweeney

Kirk Gill thanks for the well thought out questions to David M.

Tom Paul thanks for posting the Wilson letter.

My question is still out there. Why did Macdonald not talk abou Merion more in his writings? No matter which side you take (MacD routed Merion, Wilson routed Merion, somebody else routed Merion), it seems strange that MacD did not talk about Merion more based on the fondness that Alan Wilson expresses about MacD in his letter.

For the group: Is there any documentation about picking the location of the Merion clubhouse? I know the original entrance came off of Clubhouse Road (?name) rather than Ardmore Avenue.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 07:00:23 AM by Mike Sweeney »

TEPaul

"Thanks, Tom

I had read your previous post and think that what I posted above moves the debate forward more constructively.  ;D

Richard the Hopeful:

Let's hope that this time that's true. Kirk Gill posted his opinion along the same lines earlier, so let's hope these accurate critiques aren't just dismissed or denied out of hand as other of the constructive critiquing has been on this thread. Let's hope this author finally wakes up and admits to the reality of some of the inaccuracies of the terms and meaning of some of his points and assumptions, including this one on the meaning of "laying out."

wsmorrison

Do you agree that Hugh Wilson’s only trip abroad to study the great golf courses occurred in the spring of 1912?   If not, then on what facts do you base your disagreement?

I only believe that there has been no proof yet presented that demonstrates Wilson did not study the great courses in the UK prior to 1912.  I do not believe anyone has proved conclusively that he did not go.  A 1912 article that states an American architect is studying the courses in the UK does not mean that it was the first trip.  However, a lack of evidence to date would lean in the direction of that.  However, if that is your keystone to the argument, it isn't a solid structure yet.

I still believe, while interesting and an important point to alter the historical record, that a trip after construction is not proof that Wilson was not involved in the routing and design of Merion East.  I'm sure part 2 will present further information for us to consider.  My interpretation would be that if Wilson did not go to the UK until after the course was constructed and seeded, it is still not indicative of Wilson not overseeing the design and construction.  It does mean that Macdonald's teachings and plans had more of an influence and possibly as well the experiences of Tillinghast, Crump, Smith, Baker and others that went overseas for golf somewhat regularly.  The degree of that influence is not yet proved by the information presented to date.  I realize there's more to come.

What I don't understand is why an individual, a club, a city and a district would ignore or discard such a revelation, even if it means rewriting the earliest history.  In fact it makes a far more interesting story where a model, that was all the rage at the time, was cast aside so early on and revised, leading America in a new direction in golf design.  That is a slightly more interesting story rather than the evolution of golf design in one man's mind (Wilson).

The amateurish design, with a number of flaws either points to mistakes made by Wilson or Macdonald, whoever was in charge.  The reason I brought this up is that whoever was responsible was not some mature genius.  While Macdonald may have deserved the acclaim he got, he was making mistakes and he did not yet have statues made in his likeness.  Can you imagine any other architect doing something like that?  So my pointing out that there were amateurish mistakes was not, as you thought, to imply that Wilson must have done it.  They were to show that despite the progress Macdonald was making, he was still far from an all-knowing expert.  Consider the tremendous mistakes and costly design errors at the Creek Club a decade or more later. 

Macdonald was a man that was supremely important to American golf on many levels.  Yet this was also a man that had little time or inclination to help others after a certain point.  What triggered this and why would Macdonald care about a Philadelphia club when all eyes and attention were on NGLA at the time?

Now, David, I am curious.  Despite Pat's pretentions that all is known about the development of NGLA (and by the way--Pat had little regard for a personal account by Hugh and Alan Wilson for the development of Merion but has complete faith in Macdonald's account of NGLA---curious, don't you think?), could you please tell me why you didn't apply your research methods to determining the who, what, where and other details of the development of NGLA?  Are we to believe that that story is fully told?  The fact is, we cannot tell everything about the early courses, the memberships really didn't care and they weren't thinking 100 years from now a bunch of architecture students would.  There will always be missing pieces.  I'm curious at the missing pieces you and Tom MacWood have been focusing on for the last 5-6 years.  For a course that you have seen once (although I certainly sense your regard and joy for the place) and Tom MacWood not at all.  While I do believe you are making an honest inquiry and a very good one at that, isn't there a bit of trying to rewrite a myth that appeals to you both?  Isn't Tom MacWood obsessed with getting back at Tom Paul.? While that obsession has nothing at all to do with your work, it does appear to bias MacWood.

By the way, Pat, your replies and leaps of faith are getting weaker and weaker.  The limb you are climbing out on may just be cracking as you find your separate peace.  Do you get the literary connotation?  The reason some of us have not contended the findings online are because we know there's more to come, so why not wait (that's my approach but not everyone's) and see the whole account?  There are other reasons such as the proprietary nature of a book project that must be considered and one's individual situations that might dictate a different approach.  Believe me when I say that there is a very deliberate and analytical approach to the study of David's valuable work.  Just because you are not aware of it, does not mean it is not happening.   Just because it isn't being rushed to be put on GCA doesn't mean it isn't coming up with key points to consider.  I've been in contact with David offline and we've shared information.  We are both thankful that a cooperative effort is helping the overall understanding.  Your own understanding of the development of Merion is woefully short of complete and your conclusions may suffer from that lack of primary knowledge.

Kirk,

Your analysis and perspectives are quite good, keep them coming.  Someone with a far greater knowledge of Merion's history would be asking many of the same questions (and are). 
« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 07:42:15 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

"Tom Paul thanks for posting the Wilson letter.

My question is still out there. why did Macdonald not talk abou Merion more in his writings? No matter which side you take (Macd routed Merion, Wilson routed Merion, somebody else routed Merion), it seems strange that MacD did not talk about Merion more based on the fondness that Alan Wilson expresses in his metter to MacD."


MikeS:

That's a really great question----eg why did Macdonald basically never mention his involvment in Merion---AND some of the other clubs and courses he was seemingly involved with in some way over the years?

From some reason I think I might have a real bead on that and much more than anyone else I've ever seen consider that question. This is a subject the really good and active historian at The Creek Club, the INCREBIBLY "constant-stream" talking AND FAST MOVING, George Holland, and I talk about all the time!

Why, indeed, did he not mention some courses and clubs that so many seemed to think he had to do with?? And don't forget, the very best source of Macdonald information comes from HIM in his own book, basically his autobiography of his life and times in golf and architecture! If we can't trust that book about what he felt about things then what the hell can we trust??

Do you think the likes of MacWood and Moriarty and even Patrick Mucci who seem to suggest that Merion's history and the legend of Wilson needs to come under some close scrutiny will suggest NEXT that the accuracy of Macdonald's legacy and legend IN HIS OWN BOOK ALSO needs to come under close scrutiny??  ;)

My feeling is that there are two primary reasons for that:

1. He probably just didn't feel he had that much to do with the ones he really never mentioned in the broad scheme of things that it takes to do a golf course, and I doubt any of us would know what he did and didn't do in that vein and where credit should go better than he did himself!  ;)

2. This one is really fascinating to me but it appears that with some of the clubs and courses that Macdonald really did have something significant to do with he got really pissed off at them and perhaps they got pissed off at him too. These look like the ones who were almost never mentioned by him, including in his book. And if they were sometimes it was way more minimally than the truth. I guess we can all understand why----he probably thought; "The hell with you idiots, you can just go F... yourselves and you will never again have the benefit of my GREAT NAME and TALENT connected with you and your G-damn golf course.

I think the very best example of this is The Creek Club itself. Do you want me to explain that one to you in detail because if I do I think you will see EXACTLY what the answer to your question is when it comes to #2 here? It's a helluva story and I think it will teach this site a truly important and accurate REALITY of C.B. Macdonald and his life and times in golf course architecture!  ;)

« Last Edit: April 28, 2008, 07:43:35 AM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Mike,

Once the land was chosen among the many acres acquired by the Haverford Development Company and selected by the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association (of which I have no doubt Macdonald, Whigham and Barker provided valuable advice), it was pretty obvious that the existing farmhouse would be the clubhouse.  In fact, it is likely that the structure had the most to do with the starting and finishing points of the club.  The farmhouse and barn date back to 1824.

By the way, Pat.  Just to set the record straight, we've been looking for deeds for quite some time now and we have a lot of them.  I must say that David's work has spurred a recent surge in investigations.  I am very pleased that this is just one byproduct of his efforts.  Some of the recent deeds and title searches have proved helpful and I sent David the information.