[Mike_Cirba]

I believe I have found confirming evidence that "Far and Sure" was indeed Tillinghast.

One thing is certain...it was not Walter Travis.

Please read the following article, and peruse through at least the first five pages.   Lots of good stuff in there!

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1912/ag74i.pdf

Please also recall that Tillinghast is the only man who claims to have seen "the plans" for Merion in April 1914, and then in the 1934 US Open writeup wrote how "sad it was that so few knew that it was Hugh Wilson who planned and developed the course at Merion". 

"I believe we have a first person account, Byron."

"It would appear to be so, Chris." 

Let's please avoid arguing that one can "plan" a course "on the ground". 

[Mike_Cirba]

Once again, this time with feeling... (see previous post)

On April 30, 1911, right after Macdonald and Whigham's second visit to Merion, ( they had been there previously 10 months prior during the US Open at Philly Cricket Club and blessed the new site) and before construction began Tillinghast wrote;

"Recently I heard several players disucssing the prospects of the new course at Merion, and one stated that in his opinion it was futile to endeavor to produce a championship course in the vicinity of Philadelphia because the conditions were so unfavorable - the character of the soil, rank native grasses, worms, etc., etc."   

"This is sheer folly.   The conditions about this section are not at all iimpossible;  as a matter of fact, they are rather good - not as easily handled as some other parts of the country, but on the whole, very satisfactory..."

"I have seen enough of the plans of the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realizaton of the hopes of the committee."


After playing the course when it opened, in fall of 1912, and writing (I can now rather confidently state) as Far and Sure for "American Golfer";

"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."


Golf Illustrated  – July 20, 1934 – A.W. Tillinghast 

“There was peculiar pleasure in revisiting Merion after an interval of years for I have known the course since its birth.  Yet, with it all, there was keen regret that my old friend Hugh Wilson had not lived to see such scenes as the National Open unfolded over the fine course that he loved so much.  It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture. Today the great course at Merion, and it must take place along the greatest in America, bears witness to his fine intelligence and rare vision.”


In thinking about it, it would not be particularly interesting or newsworthy in 1910-1912 that a member of a club had designed a course.   

Hundreds, if not thousands of clubs had done that, and if anyone wants documented proof, I'll be happy to send it to them. 

It would have certainly been newsworthy if CB Macdonald had designed a course, particularly being the first course he designed after NGLA, and given the real estate component of the land deal, the club would certainly have wanted to publicize the fact that the most famous golfer/architect in the country, the great CB Macdonald, had designed their course.

In 1911, golf course architecture was barely a profession (Macdonald and Tillinghast were helping to change that), or something anyone would admit to doing as it was a bit unseemly for a gentleman to be laboring in the fields.   

However, I'm sure by the 1930s, Tillinghast, having realized what Wilson had been able to pull off, wanted to make sure that his legacy was never forgotten.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike

I wrote down I believed on another thread (at least, I think it was another thread). I fully accepted the possibility that I could be wrong, in whole or in part. But your posts have been excellent, I think - and now I'm more convinced of what I believe. This debate has gotten a bit silly - what the term "laid out" meant or the fact that Tillinghast was not writing "contemporaneously" are unnecessary (and almost manufactured) nuance. They seem "significant" only if one assumes that the traditional Merion history (and Wilson's role in its creation) are fundamentally flawed.   Those who said Wilson designed Merion with advice from M&W also said he "laid out" the course; and an expert like Tillinghast who spoke about it 20 years later was also there when it was being born, and wished that more people knew Hugh Wilson planned and developed it. Well, now they know.

An oversimplification, I admit.  But I'm feeling simple-minded and tired at the moment, and in those times the most obvious answers seem to pop into my head.

Peter

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty:

Instead of trying to asking you more than you can answer, from now on I'm going to just limit it to very specific issues: You said yesterday:

"1.   I did NOT write or suggest that  "HWilson had nothing at all to do with the design" of Merion.  I have repeatedly said that he was involved, starting in January 1911, and continuing probably until his death."


Let me tell you something, David. You just said there that Hugh Wilson had nothing to do with the routing and design of Merion East UNTIL January 1911.

If you think ANYONE should accept that from you as a FACT I simply can't imagine why. That is nothing more than your OPINION, your ASSUMPTION, and not a very logical one at that. You have no evidence at all that he wasn't involved before that and simply because YOU haven't seen any does NOT make it a FACT. So, do us all a favor and quit trying to pass it off as a FACT.

To make things even more illogical you have Francis and Lloyd out there in 1910 BEFORE the same committee that they served on under Wilson was appointed in January 1911.

And do you base that they were out there in 1910 doing what Francis said he was doing on some FACT??

Of course you don't. That as well is just your OPINION and your ASSUMPTION that those two men were out there in 1910 BEFORE their committee was appointed because that is the ONLY WAY you can support you assumption and conclusion that Macdonald routed and designed the course.

Do us all a favor, for God's Sake, and do not TRY TO pass off that Wilson was not out there BEFORE January 1911 and that Francis and Lloyd were as A FACT!!

You do not know whether any of them were or weren't! It is only your OPINION and ASSUMPTION and nothing remotely more than that. It is NOT a FACT just because it is CONVENIENT for you to pass it off as a fact!

If you keep on either trying to weasel out of this reality or ignore it or dimiss it I will just keep bringing it up again and again until everyone can see what you're doing here. If you retort with some more bullshit like I'm trying to ruin your reputation I will simply ignore it because nothing could be further from the truth. All I'm doing is asking you to tell the truth about what you're trying to pass off as FACT which you just have to know is NOT FACT!

This is precisely why so many from Merion and elsewhere who may be interested in your subject are somewhat incredulous about some of the techniques you use to present it which are just so remarkably transparent to so many people. If you want anyone to take you and your essay even remotely seriously you really will need to stop doing this kind of thing.

Tom if you dont have anything new to offer, why post?

[TEPaul]

"Tom if you dont have anything new to offer, why post?"

David Moriarty:

What is the matter with you? Why don't you just try dealing with the subject for a change instead of just deflecting it?

Answer me intelligently when I tell you what you said above is definitely not a FACT!

[DMoriarty]

You mistakenly assume that if I do not state he DID design the course, than I have concluded that he did NOT.

I don't know what could make me think that.  Perhaps this from the essay:

Or so the story goes.  But as is often the case with creation stories, this one is a blend of myth and reality.   In reality, Wilson neither planned the routing nor conceived of the holes at Merion East.  The course was planned months before Merion even appointed Wilson and his “Construction Committee.” Wilson and his Construction Committee were not appointed to design the course or conceive of the holes, but were to do what the name of their committee implies, construct the golf course.  They laid the course out on the ground and built it according to plan.

I am certain Ran will be online to again endorse this position since he has no doubt of it.  And Pat is sure to follow as night follows the day.

Why wouldn't they? You guys have posted and posted and posted, yet haven't really even addressed what seems pretty simple and straight-forward to me:

--The arrangement of the holes was planned before November 15, 1910.   
--HI Wilson was not involved until January 1911.   
--Therefore, Hugh Wilson could not have planned the arrangement of the holes.

Wayne and Mike,  what's the big deal?  These are facts as we know them, so what is all the fuss?   This is what those who were there told us about happened, and when. 

All the rest of this tortured logic and parsing words and righteous indignation a simply background noise.

___________________

Look guys, we are long past the point of productive conversation.

If you guys want to equate designing the course solely with planning the arrangement of the holes, then that is your decision.  Like I said, attributing credit is purely definitional, and is not my direct concern. 

But you may want to consider whether you are painting yourself into a corner with this position.   Because, as far as I know, while he did not plan the arrangement of the holes, Wilson did lay the course out on the ground, build it, refine it, and appears to have been one of the major creative forces throughout.

I am not sure why you guys want to take a position that would cut him out entirely if you turn out to be wrong, but I am going to quit trying to talk you out of it.  Like I said, that is not my issue.   
_______________________

I await the results of your search for the deeds, and request that you send me a copy of any deeds you pull.  I cannot imagine what you guys think later deeds have to do with the timing of the swap, as the swap is evidenced by the Board's communications on November 15, 1910,  but I am curious nonetheless. 

And Wayne, I assume you are going to get a look at the Cricket Club's records.   I tried about a year ago, but they were less than forthcoming with this interloper.  I hope the records provide a treasure trove of information so we can end this silly debate.

As for me, I am going to work up a timeline of known facts.  Then we will at least all have a frame of reference.   Maybe we can soon put this behind us and I can move on to part 2.

Good Luck.

__________________________

"Tom if you dont have anything new to offer, why post?"

David Moriarty:

What is the matter with you? Why don't you just try dealing with the subject for a change instead of just deflecting it?

Answer me intelligently when I tell you what you said above is definitely not a FACT!

Tom, there is nothing to answer.  All you have done is repeat over and over, this is NOT FACT. 

But despite your protestations to the contrary, those are the facts as we know them.   The letters of H I. Wilson,  R. Francis, and Merion's Board of Governors necessarily establish that.
1.  The routing was in place before Nov. 15, 1910.
2.  Hugh Wilson was not involved in the project until around January 1911. 

You are arguing with them, not me.

[DMoriarty]

I believe I have found confirming evidence that "Far and Sure" was indeed Tillinghast.

One thing is certain...it was not Walter Travis.

Please read the following article, and peruse through at least the first five pages.   Lots of good stuff in there!

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1912/ag74i.pdf

Please also recall that Tillinghast is the only man who claims to have seen "the plans" for Merion in April 1914, and then in the 1934 US Open writeup wrote how "sad it was that so few knew that it was Hugh Wilson who planned and developed the course at Merion". 

"I believe we have a first person account, Byron."

"It would appear to be so, Chris." 

Let's please avoid arguing that one can "plan" a course "on the ground". 

Mike, you might want to read the article all the way to the end before you make any more pronouncements.  The article gives a pretty solid hint as to the identity of the writer, and I'll bet Joe Bausch can help you figure it out.

[Jim Nugent]

This debate has gotten a bit silly - what the term "laid out" meant or the fact that Tillinghast was not writing "contemporaneously" are unnecessary (and almost manufactured) nuance.
 

Especially when some of the same people put so much credence in Whigham's eulogy, which was even less contemporaneous. 

David, et. al.: Tillie says Wilson planned Merion, and gives credit for its greatness to him.  What do you think about that? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

Why does the quote, listed below, differ from your previous quote of this passage ?

You appear to have left a "comma"after the word, "problems".

It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson."

In addition, it's more likely that the author of the article you cite saw the plans drawn by FRANCIS, who you may recall indicated that he spent many hours over the drawing board.

David Moriarty states the following:

But despite your protestations to the contrary, those are the facts as we know them.   

The letters of H I. Wilson,  R. Francis, and Merion's Board of Governors necessarily establish that.

1.  The routing was in place before Nov. 15, 1910.
2.  Hugh Wilson was not involved in the project until around January 1911.

Don't we also know that MacDonald & Whigham visited the Merion site in June of 1910.

Doesn't David's time line make perfect sense ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Gentlemen,

I'm sure you all recognize Tillinghast's words for what they are;

Contemporaneous, consisitent, expert, eyewitness, unemotional, proven, and irrefutable testimony of the highest order.
 
Had we sworn him into our electronic court we could not be any clearer or more precise in our understanding.

If there is no further evidence, or no other witnesses at this time, I move we dismiss and adjourn.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MPC,

Could you explain the insertion of the word, "problems" in AWT's article ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I corrected the comma...thanks.

It's very clear, but I'll play syntaxtical jeopardy this one time. 

Tillinghast tells us that Wilson and crew conceived of;  1) the holes, and 2) the problems of the holes, because he tells us they are one and the same.   He calls the holes "rough drafts of the problems".   He is referring to they synonymously.   

On a more humorous note, here is some more eyewitness testimony from Tillinghast, proving his personal level of involvement very early on;

"It is rather amusing to recall an incident of the days when the committee was investigating the land where the course has been built.  When they recommended the purchase of the property one member of the club, after looking over it, said, "It seems to be all right with the exception of that old quarry.   Good heavens, gentlemen!  It will cost twenty-five thousand dollars to fill it up."

 

It's over, Patrick...let's move on.   I think the jury is asleep by now anyway. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

"He calls the holes rough drafts of the problems ?

You must be kidding.

Your interpretations don't pass the smell test and aren't the final arbitor on the issues.

[Andy Hughes]

"I have seen enough of the plans of the new course as to warrant my entire confidence in the future realizaton of the hopes of the committee."

Tille before the course was begun

Mike, this is hard to believe, no? How could Tillie have 'entire confidence' the course would be a good one based on plans, if they existed, that at best would have been rough drafts?  Short of a Sand Hills-like site coupled with an established gca, could a Doak or a Hanse today look at a rough draft of a routing with no hazards or strategy defined, drafted presumably by an amateur rookie, and have 'entire confidence' the course would be a good one?

It seemed rather tragic to me, for so few seemed to know that the Merion course was planned and developed by Hugh Wilson, a member of the club who possessed a decided flair for golf architecture.

Why would Tille have said that, when the many newspaper accounts you and others have posted touted Wilson? Who did people in 1934 think developed the course? Flynn?
If you believe Tillie's attribution at this date, what do you make of Whigham's at a similar date? Is there a scenario where both are right?

As an aside--why was Wilson the one selected to head it all up? Why wouldn't those rich and powerful men have pulled in a Colt or some other pro would had a successful course or two under his belt? 

Hugh Wilson was not involved in the project until around January 1911

DM has stated this any number of times. Is there anything out there that refutes it?

[Jim Nugent]

AHughes: Tillie wrote that on April 30 1911.  According to David, the design had been completed by early November 2010.  Nearly a half year earlier.  And Wilson had made good progress in the construction by then too.  Tillie knew the land, saw the plans.  No surprise to me that he could see a great golf course in the making. 

Whigham's eulogy came 5 years after Tillie wrote his article in Golf Illustrated.

IIRC, David says Merion did not form its construction committee until January 2011.  He concludes that means Wilson was not involved in the project until then.  Without further evidence, that conclusion is not correct.  i.e. David may be right, but that evidence does not prove it.   

[Andy Hughes]

AHughes: Tillie wrote that on April 30 1911.  According to David, the design had been completed by early November 2010.  Nearly a half year earlier.  And Wilson had made good progress in the construction by then too.  Tillie knew the land, saw the plans.  No surprise to me that he could see a great golf course in the making. 

Jim, Mike wrote above: On April 30, 1911, right after Macdonald and Whigham's second visit to Merion, ( they had been there previously 10 months prior during the US Open at Philly Cricket Club and blessed the new site) and before construction began Tillinghast wrote...

Either you or he are mistaken on the dates or when work began? Or I am totally confused at this point? 

IIRC, David says Merion did not form its construction committee until January 2011.  He concludes that means Wilson was not involved in the project until then.  Without further evidence, that conclusion is not correct.  i.e. David may be right, but that evidence does not prove it.   

Has there been anything to show that he was involved?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim/Andy,

Your timelines are a little off.

Although the property had been chosen some time prior, there was NO routing of the golf course prior to 1911 that was ever used at Merion, at least not done by Macdonald/Whigham or HH Barker.   

The papers reported in November 1910 that Merion had secured the property, and David's timeline of a January 1911 visit to Macdonald at NGLA may or may not be correct.   

What we do know is that the winter of 1910/11 was pretty awful and no construction was done until the ground was overturned sometime in April.

We also know from Tillinghast that plans existed at that point. 

What we don't know yet is what Hugh Wilson was doing prior to January 1911, but common sense would indicate that a guy like Robert W. Lesley would not put someone as chairman of a committee of those type of guys without complete confidence in his ability.   Doing anything less risked a debacle, which would have absolutely risked Lesley's reputation in Philadelphia golfing circles, as well as the club's.   Everyone knew their plan was to build Philadelphia's first championship course and these guys did their homework.     

We still also don't know if Wilson ever went overseas prior to 1912.

However, that still wouldn't have mattered.   Given Wilson's tournament and collegiate competitive background, there is no question that he would have seen the best American courses of the time like Garden City, probably Myopia, and we all know he saw NGLA.   

There is no question that he knew what a good golf hole consisted of, and there were many other members of Merion who had been overseas, including Lesley, many, many times.   

This type of knowledge of great golf holes was not the mystery that the mythology around Macdonald would have us believe by 1911.   Even the article David posted later mentioned that by 1910, hordes of committees had sent golfers on the pilgrimage to see what they could learn.   It was evidently all the trend and rage of the time. 

What the committee didn't know much about, and what they admitted, and why they sought out Macdonald, was information from his studies about construction, agronomy, and yes...they also talked about the "principles" of the great holes and how they might apply them to a course inland on slow-draining clay.   

He did not design the golf course for them.   

Tillinghast told us who did, and he was absolutely right. 

I am now 100% certain of that.   

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick/Shivas,

If you still have any doubts about who designed Merion, and think AW Tillinghast was just blowing smoke in the writings I've cited here or perhaps just another part of the Philly Cabal with Hugh and Alan Wilson and Robert Lesley conspiring to deny Charley Macdonald his birthright, I suggest you go over and read Wayne's latest post on the "Missing Faces" thread.  

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I am not taking any side in the debate on who designed Merion -- I've always assumed it was Hugh Wilson and will continue to do so until someone offers substantital proof to the contrary.

However, reading your first couple of posts here, you seem to think it would be impossible for two people to disagree on who actually conceived a particular golf hole.  And from recent experience, I can tell you that it's possible.  There are holes at Sebonack where Jack Nicklaus and Michael Pascucci and one or two of my associates would ALL tell you that they conceived themselves.  All I'm certain of is that they are where they are, because I drew the routing that way.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

My logic does get better as the thread continues. 

I'll save you the time and provide the crib notes, however, as it takes a few twists.

We now know that "Far and Sure" was Tillinghast. 

He is the only man who ever wrote that he saw the plans preconstruction, in April 1911, we also know Macdonald was never there after that point, and we know he stated that Wilson and his Committee conceived of the holes when the course opened in 1912, and then later wrote in 1934 how sad it was that so few knew that Hugh Wilson "planned and developed" the east course.

In fact, the only mention by anyone ever that disputed that in any way ever was Whigham in 1939 at Macdonald's funeral, and even that was just a passing mention listing his courses.   I wonder why he waited til the others were dead, or like Tilly, retired from golf before making that statement after almost 30 years of Merion's prominence in the game's limelight.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You don't know that the plans that AWT is alleged to have seen aren't the product of Francis's long hours on the drawing board.

You don't know if Francis was formalizing MacDonald's routing and hole designs, his own, Wilson's or someone elses.

You logic, and I cringe at using that word to reference your posts, would have us believe that Wilson and company didn't know a thing about constructing golf holes, but, were experts at designing them.

Think about that.

As to the wisdom of appointing Wilson to head the committee, you glow about his abilities, yet, Wilson admits he knew nothing about constructing golf holes, so, why would anyone appoint someone who knew nothing about construction to build a golf course ?

Once again, your logic fails because your underlying foundation of facts is seriously flawed.  In addition, your logic is anything but.

You continue to conclude what you want to conclude and try to force the facts and logic to accomodate your conclusions. 

Unfortunately, or, Fortunately, they don't.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

There has been a find you ought to be made aware of.  Check out Ran's thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

I've seen it.

You indicated that you hadn't been able to discover Wilson's routing plan, if he ever made one.

One thing that I am confident about, is that you searched diligently for Wilson's routing plan.   If it was there, I know you would have found it.

Absent a routing plan by Wilson, Francis's drafting plans would seem to be the keys to the kingdom.  Any chance you can get another opportunity to look for them ?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

You make Hillary Clinton look like a quitter!   

I love a man who isn't able to admit defeat, even though in this thread you've not only gone down in flames, you're looking something like the Hindenburg! 

Whighmam, Macdonald...Raynor...Oh...the HUMANITY!!! 

Now that they've been kicked to the curb, you are trying to tell us that perhaps instead of that novice Hugh Wilson it must have been that novice Richard Francis??! 

How about we know whose plans they were because TILLINGHAST TOLD US!!!       Not only once, because evidently just like today there were doofuses who didn't get it the first time, but then again 20 years later!!!      


Seriously, I'm beginning to think Sully is onto something with his contention that the committee was working on the routing and trying to put together a course on the property before 1911.   

I'm also thinking that because the letter is addressed to Lloyd...he was obviously in control of the property prior to July 1910.   I'm also thinking it plays into what Hugh Wilson meant when he said that they bought the property, and I'm also thinking it plays into when the Committee went to NGLA.

Either way, we now know finally for certain that Hugh Wilson and Committee (and yes, that does include Richard Francis ) designed Merion East Golf Club.   

I don't know if I'm happier for the memory and reputations of Hugh and Alan Wilson, or for us, so we don't have to fight about this stuff any longer.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Wayno found nothing that would support or reinforce the notion that Wilson designed Merion.

You continue to draw conclusions based on wishful thinking.

Why do you continue to ignore Francis's own words regarding him being on his drawing board for long hours and adjusting instruments in the field.

What do you think he was doing on both endeavors ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()