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

[RJ_Daley]

As one of those scoring at home...

...and who still finds it difficult to disparage or not take at face value the Wilson Report, and the credit it DOES give Mr. Macdonald.

Not I.

David's report was by all accounts, and my observation as well - a good report, interesting and appreciated for his effort.   But, the key evidence that would be needed to advance the notion that CB and Whiggy DID more than the Alan Wilson letter already acknowledged, just isn't there in spades to warrant more than a footnote, IMHO.

As I have been saying all along, it was a collaborative effort, and it continues to appear that the proper attributions were bestowed through history.  This includes A's mention of the committee men.

I think that where some have hung a great deal of interpretation in the parsing of A Wilson's letter's words, they are not being seen for the context that it was a rememberance some decade+ along.  When A Wilson makes mention that Hugh was sent to study:

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.

I think it is likely that the use of 1910 as a significant embarcation point of the "process" and was perhaps used in the same sentence as first steps of the process, that included HIW going to "famous links of Scotland and England."  And "On his return the [plan was gradually evolved]" means the trip was part of the process and plan, but didn't really identify it as a chronology of first came A then came B then came C.  The act of writing and accounting for the "process" was regretably not precise for unambiguous interpretation by these 'historians', and so everyone is hanging a hat on the imprecision and misunderstanding of the "process" vs the chronology. 

So, while awaiting this saga's next chapter (David's unfinished version of "part II" where stunning new material might be produced) and with nothing evidentary to point to more than credit for preliminary "advise" of which may/likely have constituted a routing scheme by CB and Whigs, I still see it as how the story was told in the day; and David's currently apparent best hope is to argue for a greater footnote to the history for CBs level of advise, not a full reinterpretation of the history as it was told.

[Rich Goodale]

Inspector Daley of Dock Green, as often you are on the money with this one.  The answer is not either/or but "all of the above."

[RJ_Daley]

Thank you Rich the Magniloquent.

But, I would bet I am not the only one of these 1500+ GCA.com'ers that see the collaborative nature of the Merion process and that all of the debatants are generally correct if considering their POV as contributory to the actual result.   

Assuming half the audience has already put a revolver in their mouth trying to wade through the mind numbing debate over the minutia and parsing of phrases written in a different age, it would be interesting to poll those that keep hanging in there for the next volley of contentiousness, to see where everyone stands in their impression of the Ardmore creation theory. 

Are there any pollsters out there who aren't working on the Hillary and Obama drama, who would like to poll the audience? 

[Mike_Cirba]

Against my better judgement I just thought of something I'd like to ask David, so before we debate endlessly here I thought I'd just come right out and ask;

David,

Do you or Tom MacWood have any hole drawings, routing plans, or definitive documentation that chronicles a greater involvement by either CB Macondlad/HJ Whigham and/or HH Barker?

Isn't that the fundamental question here?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, but please feel free to elaborate as long as your answer is definitive.

Thanks

[Mike_Cirba]

One of the strange things that we’ve come across in doing this research is Hugh Wilson’s “variable” middle name.

We’ve seen press accounts with the “I” standing for Irvine, or Irving, which might not be too strange on the face of it, but then the 1912 article that was unearthed by Tom MacWood the other day called him Hugh “G” Wilson.

Perhaps that was merely some early prophetic foreshadowing of the coming of Huge “Puffy” Wilson to Merion in the coming decades, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion. 

I’m not sure that anything I’m going to present here is any more conclusive or definitive than the manifest information that David presented from 1912, which I challenged earlier.  As I mentioned, and we will see further evidence of, these manifests were quite problematic in terms of accuracy and completion.

Nevertheless, our friend Indiana Jones (Joe Bausch) has discovered something quite interesting.   When Hugh Wilson was just a baby boy, there was a US Census taken in 1880.   Recall, this is what we know of Hugh Wilson’s bio.

Hugh Irvine Wilson was born on November 18, 1879 at Trenton, NJ, the son of William Potter Wilson and Ellen Dickson Wilson.  On October 16, 1905 at Philadelphia,PA Wilson married Mary Warren.  It was one of the social events of the year with Mrs. Grover Cleveland attending the wedding.  The Wilson’s had two daughters, Louise,  born October 25, 1906 and Nancy, born September 6, 1910.  Sadly,  Nancy died not six years later on July 18, 1916.

The 1880 Census is presented below.   While it is clear that this is indeed the Hugh Wilson of Merion fame, what is very strange is that his middle initial is clearly a “D”. 

We also see that his must have been a well-to-do family, as they had three servants.



In 1907, a ship sailed from Glasgow to New York, the “Columbia”, and on board was a 28 year old “salesman” named Hugh Wilson, who is listed as single, but there was a “Mrs. Wilson” on the same voyage who was 24 and married.   Strangely, it seems everyone on the ship was "Scottish", at least based on this particular page of the manifest.



As seen on the earlier George Crump manifest, entering the wrong nationality seemed to be a fairly common thing, as is evidenced by this example.

Here we have the ship “Cameronia” leaving from Glasgow bound for New York on September 13th, 1911.   On board is one “Hugh D. Wilson”, who is shown as Scottish and Married.



When the ship arrives in New York harbor, suddenly the New York manifest for the same voyage, suddenly our Hugh D. Wilson is a US Citizen!



More perplexing were manifests where first names were not even required.   Here, we find US Citizens Mr. and Mrs. H. D. Wilson sailing back from…er…France…in March of 1910.   I wonder if they were in Le Touquet?! 



By 1910, however, the census was again taken, and this time we find our Hugh Wilson now as we know and love him, as Hugh “I.” Wilson.   He is also doing quite well, evidently, as he has four Irish servants in the household. 



Ah hah!, I hear you scoff… that must mean that if Hugh Wilson changed his middle name, or was confirmed and given a Christian middle name for religious purposes, that event must have happened before 1910 and thus the Mr. & Mrs. H D Wilson coming back from France in March 1910 couldn’t have been them. .

However, 

Earlier I questioned why it wasn’t possible to find a U.S. Passport for Hugh Wilson and David mentioned that he didn’t think they were much in use at the time.   This would lead me to believe that some form of identification would be required to get on board, and the most common thing would be a birth certificate, I’d imagine.   If the 1880 Census clearly defined his middle initial as “D”, there seems to be at least 50/50 chance that he was born with a different middle name.   I have reached out to get a copy of his birth certificate, and will let everyone know what I find out.

[JESII]

Is that to say he actually did change his middle name?

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't know, Jim.

Perhaps the US Census folks who seemed pretty meticulous based on all the detail on the form made a mistake.

That's why I've ordered the birth certificate, but it takes about 20 business days.

[TEPaul]

"We also see that his must have been a well-to-do family, as they had three servants."


MikeC:

One thing we all should all understand about those people who populated that world back then around clubs like Merion is a whole lot of them had servants coming out of their ears, and obviously some of them traveled with them to take care of their children or even them. A lot of them were immigrant Irish or whatever.

If you go back about three generations or so that would put someone like my grandparents right in that era (and matter of fact my grandfather WAS a Merion clubmate of Wilson's who broke away from Merion with a group of Merion members in 1916 to start Gulph Mills) then you start to understand what that world was really like and the people too and why they did some of the things they did which we are reading about now. If we are going to understand Merion, we need to understand people like Wilson better and the people around him and why he would get picked by THOSE people to do what he did for Merion.

For any of us to just ASSUME he was some dumb-ass novice who couldn't do what he's always been given credit for is to totally miss the point and the whole gist and essence of those people and that time. It wasn't anything like our time today, everything was different, golf was different, it was so young in America, so was architecture. Those people were doing what they did that way for a reason. Architects, particularly architects of the professional variety were so rare and inexperienced compared to today and on and on and those people understood that a whole lot better than most of us seem to.

I call looking at that time and those people "looking through the prism backwards". Sometimes it's just really hard for us to remember to strip away from our mindsets everything that we know that came after those people that they never could've known or even imagined.

But those people back then----people like those we're talking about like Griscom and Lloyd and many of the others, they were rich, some of them, really rich and their world was like something most of us don't imagine correctly.

I remember some women from that world of my grandparents generation who didn't exactly brag about it but the fact was they had never even been in a kitchen in their entire lives!!! I kid you not, here's an example---my half brother had a grandmother who was from that kind of world. She'd never been in a kitchen in her entire life and when she was in her eigthies she drove down to stay with him for a night. She drove alone which was apparently pretty scary too

Anyway, my brother basically lived alone and the only person who worked for him wasn't there. The next morning my brother walked into his kitchen and there was his grandmother with a piece of bread plastered up againt the speaker of a radio. He asked her what she was doing and she said she was hungry and was trying to make a piece of toast.

I kid you not---absolutely true story, the poor woman had never been in a kitchen in her life.

Moriarty said some time ago to me that we don't need to talk about the rich and famous on these thread but if we really want to understand Merion and Wilson and the way that world really was back then at that time and in that place, that's exactly what we need to do if we ever want to truly understand IT and THEM and why they did the things they did and how!

In a real way, it is true to say, they just weren't much of anything like we are today. They lived in a very different world and they did it THEIR way.

If we don't get that we won't ever really understand that world and time of what might be called those great "amateur/sportsmen" architects and how they did some of those courses that still today are some of the greatest in the world, like Merion, Pine Valley, Oakmont, Myopia, GCGC and NGLA.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

That's understood and part of why I pointed that out is simply to show that if Hugh Wilson travelled alone during that period he would have had plenty of support and help for his wife and kids at home.   Or, if at some point he and his wife travelled together, the kids would have been taken care of.   Or, as I tried to show in the one manifest a few weeks back, Wilson was the type of guy who if he went on vacation overseas with the whole family, would have had the means to bring along a maid and governor for the kids. 

[Paul_Turner]

The bulk of Colts work is in the Mid 1920's, a good 10 to 15 years after CBM's work at NGLA.

Patrick

Colt's first course, Rye (1894), was over a decade before Macdonald's work at NGLA.  And he designed many more courses before WW1 than Macdonald did.  So there

[Mike_Cirba]

I also have to wonder about Robert W. Lesley's role here.   The guy was intrepid, to say the least.

He made Rodman E. Griscom look like a piker, as Griscom was only in Europe, sailing from Cherbourg in the years 1906, then June 1911, and again in June 1913.

Lesley on the other hand...

March 1905 - Cherbourne
August 1905 - Belgium
April 1907 - Southampton
Sept 1908 - Southampton
August 1909 - Southampton
September 1909 - Southampton
August 1910 - Liverpool
June 1913 - Liverpool

Robert W. Lesley was the President of the Golf Association of Philadelphia, the President of Merion, and the man who appointed the committees.   In fact, he's the guy who appointed Hugh Wilson as chairman of the "Construction Committee" for Merion East.   After Merion East was completed, he assigned Hugh Wilson to design and build Merion West.  That same year (1913) he assigned Wilson to a committee with Crump and Ab Smith to work with the city of Philadelphia to locate suitable golfing grounds for the city of Philadelphia.   The next year Lesley assigned Wilson to the Committee to design Cobb's Creek.

Lesley saw every one of the great holes overseas, for certain, well before any work was done on the new Merion property.   Was he mentioned in the White Paper, other than a single mention as part of the Site Committee?

Interestingly Dr. Harry Toulmin also sailed from Cherbourne in April 1911.   

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
That's understood and part of why I pointed that out is simply to show that if Hugh Wilson travelled alone during that period he would have had plenty of support and help for his wife and kids at home.   Or, if at some point he and his wife travelled together, the kids would have been taken care of.   Or, as I tried to show in the one manifest a few weeks back, Wilson was the type of guy who if he went on vacation overseas with the whole family, would have had the means to bring along a maid and governor for the kids."


MikeC:

I hear you and in my opinion if there's some fact glitch in all this like Wilson really did get the 1911 committee forming date wrong in his report and he meant 1910 and for that reason it may be more likely he got over there in that year which the Merion history has always implied he could've left his family behind or even taken them and basically traveled the world world with them for six or seven months even going through Argentina. From reading his letters it sure does seem like the guy was just one of those ultra-curious sort of natural born adventurers who got fascinated by things and followed up on them in a flash. How he developed into one of the best agronomy "go-to guy" experts in America as quick as he did is a great example of that. The only thing I sort of recall that may've stopped him from going abroad in 1910, at least later in the year, is his wife was pregnant and had a baby in something like October, didn't she? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

OK, I am convinced to stay out of this one. If we presume hand written records are fallible, then Wilson may have made a few trips to Europe.  That would jive with the legend.

I really think Wilson should get the credit, but found Dave's work interesting for a few reasons.  Barker had to have done the primary routing to at least establish the the golf envelope.  Since he was hired by Haverford, and he who foots the bill gets some say,  I can easily imagine these instructions, despite the record saying "Merion can have the land they need":

"The old farmhouse seems like a good clubhouse. (No ADA in those days to raise costs)  Also, I want you to use the flood prone land near Cobbs creek, the land closest to the sooty, noisy railroad, and that waste land of a quarry, because I can't sell houses there."

Haverford's likely (and common sense) instructions, carried out by Barker, set the basic footprint of Merion.  I have no problem with Barker having routed Merion in a few days working around a golf tourney - Bendelow was 18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon.  Of all the docs I saw, no one says Mac did a routing, it says he gave advice and written recommendations.  Given the basic footprint, which is about four holes wide on both legs of the L, I suspect Mac made a few recommendations to reverse certain holes, stretch 4's to 5's or vice versa.

On top of that, I think Wilson and the committee DID tinker with it even beyond Macs ideas - both before and after initial construction.  Who wouldn't in that position?  Certainly it happens with professional architects, trying to squeeze every last inch out of a property.  And, new ideas come at odd times, not always up front.  So, if we ever find a Barker routing, I suspect its about 50-80% of what is there now (or was in about 1930) And if Macs sketch notes ever show up, I suspect he, as noted, had suggestions of various types of his own.

I have been in Barkers positions, providing a basic footprint that was later altered by another gca.  I have been a gca working under instructions similar to Haverford and working with land planners, shoving holes back and forth a bit as new land became available, or as it became clear that a few yards here and there might allow some better lots to be built.

In neither case, would the developer, land planner, or original "concept" gca take any credit for the golf course.  Neither would the realtor who sold the estate parcel that completed the front nine!  For that matter, a few days of consulting at the club by a person like Mac (as a gca to assure the club they weren't getting screwed by the developer) might or might not be put on his resume.  Colt was asked to look at Flynn's Shinnecock rerouting, and no suggests he should get any credit there. 

CBM's agronomic or construction consulting would also not be considered germane for "design credit ", even if he had some great consulting input and stopped Wilson from making some whopper mistakes, which I am sure he did.

Its interesting to find out more detail about how the basic golf course evolved in a routing sense.  As is typical, there were a lot of influences. We can debate forever whether "proper" credit among those three forever.  As I said before, I'm not sure that matters. Whatever it comes out, Merion is a gem of course.

But its a 'star" system, and history likes to simplify just to make it easier to assimilate.  Thus, if Wilson headed the committee and took the bull by the horns, he would end up getting the credit, and probably should.  Its not too hard to imagine half of golfclubatlas.com doing the same thing, given half a chance!  So the committee, headed by Wilson is the features architect and at least partially the routing architect.   But history is ALSO about digging out more info and being more precise each time a subject comes up.  Until Whitten started writing about golf architecture, the idea of crediting associates for designs within an office never came up.  Until the advent of internet research, the idea of searching ship manifests etc. was very difficult.

So it doesn't trouble me at all if Merion design credit gets - or doesn't get - a revised design credit in its history.  Dave is playing the role of Paul Harvey here, saying, in effect, "and now you know the rest of the story!"  The rest is somewhat semantics about some wanting to acknowledge that others had some input (as is always the case) and some not.  Wilson was the man most responsible for what Merion turned out like, IMHO.  Its just that he wasn't the ONLY one.  I don't really think David's research needs to be shouted down for that.

[TEPaul]

"I really think Wilson should get the credit, but found Dave's work interesting for a few reasons.  Barker had to have done the primary routing to at least establish the the golf envelope.  Since he was hired by Haverford, and he who foots the bill gets some say,  I can easily imagine these instructions, despite the record saying "Merion can have the land they need;"



JeffB:

That's a very interesting theory. That's a very interesting way to look at it, it really is. But the question is, is that the way it really happened with Merion Ardmore? Will the true history show that Barker was asked to set the "footprint" of the land that Merion East would someday become or did the people who were involved in it then and who hired him really hire him or just ask him to stop by for that day or so he was there (can Moriarty even prove how long he was there? ) and ask him to tell them what HE thought or did they ask him to tell them what he thought about what they were thinking about doing?

Does David Moriarty's piece REALLY document any of that, or is it just speculation on David Moriaty's part about what Barker was doing just something that was designed as another device that allows David Moriarty to come to the ultimate connclusion he did on this piece?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

I looked at the footnote, and he credited Mr. MacWood for the notion that Barker was hired by Haverford.  Again, if we are going to debate, then I guess the primary docs ought to be posted since some folks - you included - will not be satisfied until they are.  I was careful not to credit the final routing to Barker, as I am sure it changed. DM is sure, too, with an idea that CBM should get more credit than he deserves.  I feel like if old CBM had a look, he probably had an opinion and if he had an opinion, he probably expressed it! 

That said, my statement about where the general land was allocated is based on my personal experience and common sense.  Even in trials, jurors are allowed to use their common sense to deduce what really happened.  (Of course, this is MUCH more important than a mere trial. )  But I am pretty sure an experienced developer of high end neighborhoods would know to avoid floodplains, quarries and railroads when building expensive housing lots.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks to all for your comments and questions

I think perhaps many of you have not considered the extremely narrow scope of this paper when critiquing it.   It just not meant to address most of the questions you have, I nonetheless will try to address what I can, because I said I would, but in the future we need a better system than this because I don’t have the time.   

Mr. Gill,

I appreciate your comments, but I think that almost all of them are addressed in the essay.   You seem to have gone through and copied concluding or introductory sentences, but ignored the material that explains from where these conclusions are drawn.  To answer all your questions would simply to restate my entire essay.

For example, you start out with the following:

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.

No specific proof?   

This quote comes from a section that sets out the main thesis of the essay.  The entire essay goes toward proving this and the other conclusions. 

Plus, what specifically is the “pretty major statement” that has not been proven to your satisfaction?   

1.   That there really was a barker sketch?   
2.   That the barker routing may have been superseded by CBM and HJW’s ideas?   
3.   That CBM and HJW played a major role in planning the course?   

These are either my conclusions based on facts and analysis as presented in the essay, and frankly, I am not even sure why any of them are even in dispute at this point.
- I don’t have the Barker sketch, but I explained to you how I know it existed.  Do you doubt there was a barker sketch?   
-  I don’t have M&W’s written comments to Merion, but I go to great lengths to explain why I think their routing MAY have at least partially replaced Barker’s.  Repeating it here would be nothing but a regurgitation of my essay.     Do you think it unreasonable to suggest that M&W’s ideas MAY have partially replaced Barker’s routing?
- M&W did play a major role in the planning.   They helped choose the land, which was purchased largely based on their recommendation. They  taught Wilson how to build the course.  They came back to the site and further helped with the plans.    Are you suggesting that it is unreasonable to conclude that they did play a major role?   

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?

Where did I write that the previously accepted notion of Merion’s history was supposition?     

I am not sure you and I use this world to mean the same thing.   I use it to mean presenting something as valid without factual support.  Feel free to disagree with my analysis if you like, or offer your own alternative analysis based on the same facts, or offer new facts that contradict my analysis.  But at least realize that my analysis is grounded squarely on the factual record.

For comparison sake, here are some true “suppositions” which we are asked to treat as valid despite THE LACK OF FACTUAL SUPPORT. Indeed they were created to avoid the conclusions that the factual record suggests:

—Wilson took multiple study trips abroad?  NO FACTUAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, and CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTUAL RECORD
—Wilson’s was involved in the planning before the land was purchased.  CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTUAL RECORD.
--Pickering, tillinghast and others were involved in the design process?    NO FACTUAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER.

These are suppositions.   In contrast, my essay offers much more than supposition.    I draw a few conclusions (although not as many as have been attributed to me) but my conclusions are based on the factual record.  The suppositions such as those being presented by TEPaul are not supported by the factual record. Rather, the factual record contradicts them.   

 

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.

Again, you are focusing on a conclusive or introductory sentence and ignoring the factual body of the work.   For just one example, the Francis recollection confirmed that the routing in place before the purchase.  In fact even the Francis land swap is an example of changing the shape of the property to better fit the golf holes.   

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?

You are assuming that Merion produced this Purchase plan, rather than the developers, and I don’t think this assumption is the most logical one.  But even if Merion had produced the map (I doubt they did) I’d have to speculate as to their reasons for leaving off a stick map, and I am trying not to speculate.

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?

First, the map is not to exact scale, and contains a number of other imperfections in this regard.   Second, as I explained in the essay, a 1928 transaction involving the same section of the course confirms that the land up in this corner was part of the original purchase in 1911.  Third, this corner has been slightly altered over time, the 1928 transaction being an example.   See footnote 16.

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?

I try to explain the answer to the first question below.  2.  I dont know.  3. NO.

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.

Again, you pick out a conclusory sentence and ignore the body of the paper explaining it.    The givens are all explained in the paper, and the conclusion follows directly from them.  This is how factual analysis works!

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

The terms lay out and layout get thrown around a lot and not always consistently, but in the context of Hugh Wilson’s article, he seems to be talking about placing the holes on the ground in a particular arrangement.  This seems to fit your definition, at least in part.   But what he does not discuss is anything at all about how the arranging took place, why the holes were ordered the way they were, why the course does not return to the clubhouse after 9, why the Redan, why the alps where it was, etc.  In other words, there was no discussion of how the routing was planned.    He could not address this topic because he was not even working on the project at the time this planning took place. 

But let’s assume, for argument, that he used the term exactly as you suggest.   So what?  While it is outside the scope of my essay, I have no doubt that he was involved in the arranging and planning as he prepared to construct the course and after, and he was therefore very much part of the design process, but all this was within a routing that had already been planned.   

Like others, you seem to think that this is a zero sum game.  I don’t look at it that way, and I suggest that you don’t either because it is apparently clouding your ability to understand or even identify the paragraphs that really “key” to the essay.
______________________________________________

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? 

Sean, others may be assuming that Hugh I. Wilson could not have designed Merion East without his first taken his European vacation, but not me.

What I have argued is that HUGH WILSON COULD NOT HAVE PLANNED THE INITIAL ROUTING BECAUSE HE WAS NOT EVEN WORKING ON THE PROJECT AT THE TIME THE ROUTING WAS PLANNED.

This is a much different point and has nothing to do with Wilson’s potential capabilities. 

As for the supposed Redan, while you and I may not have considered the hole a Redan, it was known as a Redan at the time, and even called a Redan by CBM, who was supposed to have known about such things. 
_______________________

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.

I never said that Hugh Wilson did not play a major part in the design.  I said he did not plan the initial routing of the course.  And my reasoning had nothing to do with his capabilities. 

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.

Mike, again I dont have a definite answer, and I was hoping to avoid the discussion for the time being because we've got too much on the table already, but because you Bob Crosby and Kirk Gill are all asking, here is something to consider that was originally suggested to me by Tom MacWood. 

It may all have to do with Barker's involvement.    Barker's sketched a routing and wanted to build the course, but there is no evidence he was at all involved in the project except for the initial routing.  But if anything from Barker's initial sketch actually made it into the ground, then it would have been very difficult for Merion or Macdonald to credit M&W for the routing.

Here is a scenario for the purpose of explaining what I mean. M&W are brought down and given Barker's sketch for a 100 acre course.  They take a look at it, pronounce it too short, suggest that the land containing the redan and some other key terrain should added and explain how this would change the routing.  The also throw in the railroad land because of the terrific natural greensite for the original short par 3, and to make room for another long hard par 4.   They also make a few suggestions for greens and features for the land across from golf course road, but don't suggest completely rerouting this part of course.

[DMoriarty]

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.

What evidence is there that Hugh I Wilson took two trips to study the great courses? Where has that ever been written?
When did he go on this first trip?   And why?  He did not go after Merion purchased the land, did he?   Where are the facts?
What of his statement that he saw the courses, later, after the NGLA Trip?
What evidence is there that he traveled before 1912. 

I am aware of an ambiguous golf column, and a few golf columns all written after the course opened, but am aware of nothing else.  Wilson only mentions travel after NGLA,  Lesley does not mention it at all, none of the earlier newspaper articles mention it, there is no documentation of the actual trip,

What facts support this novel theory that he took an earlier trip to study, then another in 1912?   

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.

As I have said above, I dont need the absence of the trip to  prove that Wilson was not involved in the original routing.   He couldnt have been involved in the initial routing because he was not involved in the project when the routing was done.

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.

To the extent that you are not referring to the initial routing, I agree. 

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.

 

I am glad to see that you acknowledge that the absence of an overseas trip means that Macdonald must have had more of an influence, but I do not understand the basis for you including the other individuals mentioned.
What evidence is there that any of these (other than Macdonald and Barker) had anything whatsoever to do with the design or with advising Wilson about the design?     
Did Wilson write an article in which he praises them for the help they provided?
Did Alan Mention acknowledge them?   
Did the papers report on their visits?
Did Merion invite them in to inspect the property before it was purchased? 
Did Merion purchase the property based largely on their recommendation? 
Were any of these men back on site later, further advising Wilson about the plans?   
Did Wilson try to build at least a few of their signature hole concepts holes into the course? 

Surely the factual record does not justify putting their potential influence on par with that of Macdonald or Barker, does it?

The amateurish design, with a number of flaws either points to mistakes made by Wilson or Macdonald, whoever was in charge.

In charge of what?    As far as I  know, Wilson Wilson was in charge of building the course and was responsible for many of the design elements like the bunker placement, and the building of the features and greens.   I am unaware any evidence indicating that Macdonald came down to check up on the project, or to tell him which greens were too steep or not built up high enough over the water level.   This was Wilson, Pickering, and whoever else was there every day, isn't it?   M&W appears to have been very involved in the planning stage,  but, as far as I know, M&W had little or nothing to do with the execution of this plan.

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. 

It seems that you want to blame Macdonald for what was wrong with Merion  East without ever really acknowledging  whether or not the plan was his.    I never said he was an all knowing expert.  But people seemed to think he was one. 

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?

Alot is written on here about what a boor Macdonald was, usually by the same characters who participate on your side of this discussion, but I am making no judgments about him one way or another, but would rather keep trying to deal with the facts.   The facts indicate to me that at the time Macdonald helped Merion, he was extremely interested in helping others, especially when it came to spreading what he thought were good design principles. 

And isn't the record very clear that he tried to be very helpful at Merion. 

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?

   

I have done quite a lot of research on NGLA.  How else do you think I know that there was an article about it in a Anaconda, Montana newspaper published in 1908?  Also, I think most of the story is known there, at least as it relates to the larger picture of the origins of golf course architecture in America.   If anything, the story of NGLA has been distorted well after the fact, by Raynor's industrial style, by Macdonald's personality rubbing many the wrong way, by stylistic rather than substantive comparisons, and even by battles over putters.   

It is not like I have avoided NGLA and controversy.  Do you remember the Lido Jumped the Shark Thread, where I tried to take Macdonald to task for abandoning some of the core principles that made NGLA and other courses (like Merion) so great?    I've also posted a number of times about the changing look of the bunkers, and how it is a mistake to judge the original NGLA based on what it looks like now (in fact you may reading that bit again some day)  I've also written about whether the template holes really were, and whether the course was originally as manufactured as some think.   Many of my contributions to the Arts and Crafts conversation focused on NGLA.   In fact I'll bet I have studied NGLA at least as much as I have studied Merion. 

One reason it probably is not as noticeable is because (with the exception of TEPaul on the Lido thread)  the response one gets when one opines about early NGLA is incredibly mild compared to the response one gets when one opines about early Merion.   That tends to drag out the discussions and puts much more focus on them. 

  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.

I have not been focusing on this for 5 or 6 years.  But had I there would be good reason for it.  I consider Merion one of the two most important courses of this early era in American golf course design, and therefore worthy of careful study.  But I am not sure Merion's history has been accurately told, and I suspect that the real history is much more compelling than the legend.  You seem to agree.   But while you look at the changes at Merion as a rejection of what you perceive as Macdonald's true style,  I have not come to that conclusion.  At least not yet.   

But it is too soon to worry about that, as we first must decide the degree to which Macdonald influenced the initial version of Merion East.   Only then does it make sense to look at what was rejected and what was kept. 

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.

   I would like to rewrite the myth, and wouldn't bother researching this hard if I thought that the myth was true.   But my motivation is to get at that truth, because I think that this truth is important to the overall story.     

As for Tom MacWood, not sure what you think he has to do with my essay.  I don’t’ speak for him, but thought of him plotting against TEPaul is laughable.  It is the height of self-centeredness for TEPaul to think that, but then it is TEPaul we are talking about. MacWood has better things to do.  Same goes for me.   
 [/quote]

_____________________________________

thanks. I take your points (e.g. think Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow), and as someone who has much to learn on this subject. And yet given what Macdonald himself was writing about his courses in, say, 1914, it still does seem to me that there's a big difference between how the courses that he DESIGNED were being described and how courses that he ADVISED on were being described.

His involvement at Merion was in 1910 and 1911, and a lot could have changed in those years. 

I simply meant that I don't think we can take as a GIVEN that the principles Hugh Wilson was looking for or saw or intuited in the UK were in line/indentical with what Macdonald saw, or with Macdonald's WAY of seeing.

But Wilson did not travel to study the great courses until AFTER he build the course.  So what could he have seen??

Who still has the same questions Mike Sweeney does, and who still finds it difficult to disparage or not take at face value the Wilson Report, and the credit it DOES give Mr. Macdonald.

I try to address Mike Sweeney’s point above, if only briefly. 

As for the Wilson Report, I have not discounted it at all, except where it is obviously mistaken.    Hugh I Wilson did not go overseas in 1910 or as a first step.   That much is not true.   

The report does say that the committee designed the course without help, but it cleary excepts M&W from this characterization.  In other words, except for what M&W designed or for the help they gave, the committee designed it. 

The second paragraph makes clear that Alan Wilson is getting at least some of his information second hand, and in that paragraph he makes a strong pitch that his brother did much more than the rest of the committee.   

I just don’t see that you guys think this report tells us.  I know that TEPaul has presented this report as an answer all, but if that was the case he probably would not have concealed it for months before finally posting part of it in the last round of discussions. 

WHAT IS IT THAT THE ALAN WILSON REPORT TELLS US?

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

Here are a few of the problems I have with your points and logic that you asked for:



1.   Your characterization that Hugh Wilson essentially had nothing much to do with the study of the land that became the golf course which would include parcel choices and the consequent routing and hole design conceptions in 1910 and BEFORE he was appointed the CHAIRMAN of the committee in Jan. 1911 (in my opinion it is very likely that Wilson made a mistake in his 1916 report on the date his committee was appointed, and I'll get into the reason why I say that later) that Alan Wilson said DESIGNED and constructed Merion East really doesn’t make much sense at all---it’s just not logical or commonsensical. Why in the world would a club have a man who they were going to appoint as the chairman of the committee to create the golf course sitting around doing nothing throughout 1910 when you have placed two members (Francis and Lloyd) who would work under Wilson on that committee out there ‘tweaking’ (as you say) Macdonald’s routing and designing and swapping land and picking parcels?

No Sir, if Francis and Lloyd really were out there in 1910 doing what you suggest (“tweaking” Macdonald’s routing) it is completely logical to assume that Hugh Wilson was out there TOO doing the same things Francis and Lloyd were and probably doing a whole lot more of it than they were---again given Alan Wilson’s report that ALL the MEMBERS of Wilson’s committee mentioned that Hugh was primarily responsible for the design and construction of the golf course.

Clearly, the only possible reason you have Francis and Lloyd out there earlier in 1910 before their committee was appointed in Jan. 1911 is to either rationalize a factual report (Francis’) to a time that fits into your speculation that Macdonald had to have routed and designed the holes without Hugh Wilson, or else that Wilson and his committee couldn’t have because none of them would be appointed until January, 1911. Essentially if you are going to assume that Wilson couldn’t have been out there and was a complete novice before January 1911 then the very same assumption must hold true that the two men who would work under him on his committee were novices before being appointed to the committee but yet you have them out there with apparent experience working on the course's routing and hole designs!

Your suppositions are not only unsupported, they contradict Hugh Wilson, Lesley, and the rest of the evidence.    All of the available evidence, including Hugh Wilson’s own words and the words of Lesley, indicate that Hugh I. Wilson became involved in the project AFTER the property was purchased and he was appointed head of the construction committee.

Lloyd and Francis were most likely involved because they were trying to figure out what land to buy, and that required matching up the plans with the land.  As an engineer, Francis was a good choice for that.

So what? Just because YOU have found no evidence of it is in no way shape or form indicative of the fact that Wilson very much would have been out there in 1910 (see above) if two guys who were going to work under him in 1911 were out there in 1910 working on the routing and design. You've simply placed Francis and Lloyd out there in 1910 to conveniently explain away Francis and Lloyd's land-swap story to support your assumption and conclusion that Macdonald must have routed and designed the course and perhaps in something like two days which is also pretty illogical.

H. G. Lloyd working under Hugh I. Wilson?   Perhaps you need to give yourself a lecture on just how powerful a man H.G. Lloyd was.     H.G. Lloyd was involved because he was trying to work out the details of the purchase.

Otherwise see above.

3. I think you have completely miscalculated Horatio Gates Lloyd and his roll in the entire land dealings that included the golf course and Haverford Development Co real estate development. Even if the options and deeds and mortgages are complex it looks to be very clear that Lloyd was playing the part of MCC’s and MCC Golf Association’s real estate facilitator and even their financial “angel”. Lloyd was on the MCC Golf Association committee, the site committee and the construction committee. In fact, the man was everywhere within the administration of Merion in these transitional years with MCC. Lloyd probably was the HDC or he controlled it which would explain why Francis went to him in the middle of the night with his land swap idea and why quarrymen could blow the top off the quarry in two days. You assign hyperbole to Francis’ story only to make it convenient to your speculation that Macdonald must have routed and designed the course. My explanation above does not need to torture the factual Francis/Lloyd land-swap story by claiming it must be hyperbole. The above perfectly explains why it was not hyperbole at all.

There is nothing really to respond to here, except to say that you are misrepresenting what I wrote, and really have no idea what my view on H.G. Lloyd’s role was. 

Facts anyone?

In 1910 Lloyd bought 25 acres of land on nearby Cooperstown Rd to create his famous “Allgates” that would be expanded into a famous 75 acre estate with the Garden Club of America. We have an early photo of this Lloyd estate where it appears Merion GC can be seen in the background. This is further evidence that Lloyd likely was HDC or completely controlled it and why when HDC optioned a good deal of this land on January 24, 1909, Lloyd was likely behind the whole thing and controlling it all.

If he was behind it, it should be easy enough for you to find some proof.   Although I am not sure what that would change.


Which land, specifically, was optioned on January 24, 1909, and by whom? 


Those are the problems you had with my essay.  Your opinion that Hugh I Wilson and others must have been wrong or lying when they dated the beginning of Hugh Wilson’s involvement.   

I hope you don’t mind if I continue to take Hugh’s word over yours?

\

David,
My antique golf book collection includes a 1910 edition of the Badminton Library - Golf (originally published in 1890) by Horace G. Hutchinson.  (in fact, it's the only book in my collection)

The book is wonderful because it includes hand drawings, and photographs of Europe's finest courses.  Interestingly, it really demonstrates the transition going on at this time away from steeplechase golf.

If one makes the assumption that Wilson didn't travel to Europe before 1912, couldn't he have availed himself of books like Hutchinson's which provided an exact description of Europe's finest golf holes?  And couldn't that knowledge have been enough to allow him to lead the design of Merion East?  And, using your premise, have gone to Europe in 1912 to gain further knowledge to refine his design?

Wilson told us where he learned about the great holes.  Why don’t you believe him? 

And, again, I am not saying wilson was not involved in the design, only that he did not plan the initial routing.  This is based upon the fact that the routing was done before he was involved.

Dan H

I fully agree.  In fact...there are a number of experts and/or course designers who have done some excellent work regarding "template" holes without ever seeing some of them in person!  And, no, I'm not going to name names.

Rich

Same question for you Rich

Why don't you believe Hugh Wilson when he tells you that it was Macdonald who taught him about the great holes?

David is making a claim, as I read it, that MacD ought to get design credit of some sort. That's a strong claim. I don't think the evidence supports it.

I also don't see any evidence that Wilson deserves sole design credit.

David has succeeded in showing that there were a group of people that had a hand in the design of Merion. Beyond that we should all fear to tread.

I MADE NO CLAIM ABOUT DESIGN CREDIT

Patrick,
What makes you think Wilson never travelled to Europe prior to 1912?  Lack of evidence is not evidence. 

What makes you think he did?  Surely we just cannot assume he did because it is convenient for us.  No one ever suggested a second earlier trip before I figured out that he traveled abroad in 1912.   There is no evidence of two study trips.  Plus, most importantly, Wilson tells us that this study trip occurred "later"  after the NGLA meeting.   

So lets assume that Wilson grew up in Scotland golfing.   It does not matter.  He tells us when he studied the stuff-- AFTER THE NGLA trip.   This was never even in doubt until it turned out that this also was after the course was built.   

You guys are just changing the story because you refuse to accept where the facts take you.   This idea of a second trip earlier trip is rationalization at its worst.

David's report was by all accounts, and my observation as well - a good report, interesting and appreciated for his effort.   But, the key evidence that would be needed to advance the notion that CB and Whiggy DID more than the Alan Wilson letter already acknowledged, just isn't there in spades to warrant more than a footnote, IMHO.

Actually your observation was that my essay was obvious but failed to cover enough new ground.  Before my essay your observation was that the Legend should stand unless I cleared some extraordinarily high yet undefined burden of proof.  Now your observation is that a report by the guy's brother 14 years after the fact, based on second hand information, should carry the day.   

Tell me Dick, in your unbiased opinion, what exactly is it about the Alan wilson report that I don't understand or that you find so persuasive?   And why dont you find the Hugh Wilson report just as persuasive? 

You admit that A wilson is obviously wrong about the timing.   I agree with everything else he said.  So how does his report undercut or even address anything in my essay??
____________

Does David Moriarty's piece REALLY document any of that, or is it just speculation on David Moriaty's part about what Barker was doing just something that was designed as another device that allows David Moriarty to come to the ultimate connclusion he did on this piece?

Are you accusing me of lying TEPaul, or concealing or manipulating the facts?  If so, I think you have us confused.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba.

You have misunderstood me about the Crump manifest three times now.   There is no mistake on his manifest regarding nationality, just your interpretive mistake.    It says he was an American of English ancestry.

Not exactly sure what it is that we are supposed to gleen from these manifests, other than that you put a whole lot more faith in them when you find them than when I find them.   

Why do you continue to ignore Hugh I. Wilson's Article?

It answers where Hugh I. Wilson learned about the great holes: At NGLA.

It also answers when he traveled abroad to study:  Later, after the NGLA trip. 

This is why I kept telling you that the manifests do not matter.   Hugh I Wilson tells us when he traveled. 

[Sean_A]

Rich,

The terms lay out and layout get thrown around a lot and not always consistently, but in the context of Hugh Wilson’s article, he seems to be talking about placing the holes on the ground in a particular arrangement.  This seems to fit your definition, at least in part.   But what he does not discuss is anything at all about how the arranging took place, why the holes were ordered the way they were, why the course does not return to the clubhouse after 9, why the Redan, why the alps where it was, etc.  In other words, there was no discussion of how the routing was planned.    He could not address this topic because he was not even working on the project at the time this planning took place. 

But let’s assume, for argument, that he used the term exactly as you suggest.   So what?  While it is outside the scope of my essay, I have no doubt that he was involved in the arranging and planning as he prepared to construct the course and after, and he was therefore very much part of the design process, but all this was within a routing that had already been planned.   

Like others, you seem to think that this is a zero sum game.  I don’t look at it that way, and I suggest that you don’t either because it is apparently clouding your ability to understand or even identify the paragraphs that really “key” to the essay.
______________________________________________

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? 

Sean, others may be assuming that Hugh I. Wilson could not have designed Merion East without his first taken his European vacation, but not me.

What I have argued is that HUGH WILSON COULD NOT HAVE PLANNED THE INITIAL ROUTING BECAUSE HE WAS NOT EVEN WORKING ON THE PROJECT AT THE TIME THE ROUTING WAS PLANNED.

This is a much different point and has nothing to do with Wilson’s potential capabilities. 

As for the supposed Redan, while you and I may not have considered the hole a Redan, it was known as a Redan at the time, and even called a Redan by CBM, who was supposed to have known about such things. 
_______________________

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.

I never said that Hugh Wilson did not play a major part in the design.  I said he did not plan the initial routing of the course.  And my reasoning had nothing to do with his capabilities. 

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.

Mike, again I dont have a definite answer, and I was hoping to avoid the discussion for the time being because we've got too much on the table already, but because you Bob Crosby and Kirk Gill are all asking, here is something to consider that was originally suggested to me by Tom MacWood. 

It may all have to do with Barker's involvement.    Barker's sketched a routing and wanted to build the course, but there is no evidence he was at all involved in the project except for the initial routing.  But if anything from Barker's initial sketch actually made it into the ground, then it would have been very difficult for Merion or Macdonald to credit M&W for the routing.

Here is a scenario for the purpose of explaining what I mean. M&W are brought down and given Barker's sketch for a 100 acre course.  They take a look at it, pronounce it too short, suggest that the land containing the redan and some other key terrain should added and explain how this would change the routing.  The also throw in the railroad land because of the terrific natural greensite for the original short par 3, and to make room for another long hard par 4.   They also make a few suggestions for greens and features for the land across from golf course road, but don't suggest completely rerouting this part of course.

David

I am not sure if you are asking me something or trying to convince me of something.  So far as as I am concerned, the detail of all this stuff will not offer any answers as to who exactly should be given credit for what.  A large degree of inference is necessary to draw conclusions.  I can accept most of what your IMO piece purports, but what it doesn't seem to do is give the bulk of the credit to the one guy that was the leader of the pack.  I personally don't have any difficulties believing that Wilson used available resources to get the job done.  In fact, I would have thought it was expected.  I can appreciate your trying to break the process of the design down to finer parts, but that doesn't alter the fact that Wilson was the boss.  As the boss, he gets credit.  Its no different today.  It would be and is absolutely crazy to try and figure out who did what on a Doak course.  While it matters in the process, at the end of the day, Doak is the last buck and he rightly gets the credit and criticism.  Its not perfect, but thats the way it is.  Personally, I would have liked to see more acknowledgement of Wilson's role in your paper because it doesn't read like the course is a Wilson design.  It reads more like some sort of 20+ years of ad hoc design. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

So far as as I am concerned, the detail of all this stuff will not offer any answers as to who exactly should be given credit for what.  A large degree of inference is necessary to draw conclusions.  I can accept most of what your IMO piece purports, but what it doesn't seem to do is give the bulk of the credit to the one guy that was the leader of the pack.  I personally don't have any difficulties believing that Wilson used available resources to get the job done.  In fact, I would have thought it was expected.  I can appreciate your trying to break the process of the design down to finer parts, but that doesn't alter the fact that Wilson was the boss.  As the boss, he gets credit.  Its no different today.  It would be and is absolutely crazy to try and figure out who did what on a Doak course.  While it matters in the process, at the end of the day, Doak is the last buck and he rightly gets the credit and criticism.  Its not perfect, but thats the way it is.  Personally, I would have liked to see more acknowledgement of Wilson's role in your paper because it doesn't read like the course is a Wilson design.  It reads more like some sort of 20+ years of ad hoc design. 

Ciao

Sean, I think this post is illustrative of many of them.  The thing is, I don't care about design credit.  I am not even sure what it means.   I am just trying to figure out who did what.   

What I know so far is Wilson did not plan the routing, and that Macdonald and Whigham and Barker were significantly more involved in the planning than most have thought.   

I suggest you and others take the paper for what it is.    It is not about credit, and not about all that Wilson accomplished over the next 20 years.   It is mostly about the pre-construction planning.    That is about it.   It doesnt sound like much but it took a lot to figure it out and explain it. 

As for the rest, you guys can argue all you want about who should get design credit, but leave me out of it. 

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Do you or Tom MacWood have any hole drawings, routing plans, or definitive documentation that chronicles a greater involvement by either CB Macondlad/HJ Whigham and/or HH Barker?

Isn't that the fundamental question here?

A simple yes or no answer will suffice, but please feel free to elaborate as long as your answer is definitive.

Thanks

David,

Thanks for providing your responses to all of those questions, but you forgot to answer the simplest question of all. 

Could you respond?

Thanks.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike C,

We have come a long way Big Guy, but come on if you are going to start asking lawyers on here for yes no answers, then I am going to start asking for access to Augusta and we can both dream! 

David,

While it was a too long journey, it was interesting to me for:

1. The actual history of Merion;

2. How the history got/gets told;

3. The Philly versus The World Gangsta Historians of GCA!

I will sign off of the Merion threads until we see an early routing map (which may be never) with my latest decision on the Merion East Architect:

Hugh Wilson and friends*

* friends to be determined

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Earlier you challenged my interpretive methods around the manifests, stating that although they might not be 100% accurate, you have to read them in light of what other facts are known.

The George Crump above is aged 50...his friend Joseph's name is suddenly George.   

But, we were accepting because we know these two guys travelled together.

Now, we know that at some point Hugh Wilson's middle name was probably starting with a "D".

What does that do to your interpretation of manifests that you dismissed earlier?

Does it increase the likelihood that it might be THE Hugh Wilson or no?

What if Wilson interpreted buying the property as the time it was purchased by the Lloyd group who were obviously acting in Merion's behalf?

btw, What Tom Paul meant about Lloyd working for Wilson is that Lloyd was a member of Hugh WIlson's Construction Committee and Wilson was the chairman.

Your White Paper contends that Merion originally just wanted to buy their original property and not additional acreage nearby (refuting contemporaneous news accounts), but if that were the case, why in 1909 did Lesley appoint the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association, charged with finding a solution to the Haskell Ball?   

On the face of it, doesn't that mean that the present property was too limited and present holes too short?

What was the relationship of that Committee to the Site Committee?   I would think they'd be conjoined at the hip, probably thru Lesley, wouldn't you agree?