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?