[Joe Bausch]

That, believe it or not, was apparently the belief of some writer from the Evening Public Ledger in October of 1914.  Was this really possible?  Did the East course get very much stiffened between 1914 and the 1916 USAm?  Or was this writer off his rocker?  Note:  the qualifying rounds for the 1916 tourney involved 36 holes on one day, with both courses used.  A quick calculation by me from published scores in newspapers shows the following averages:

East (par 70):  87.0
West (par 71):  83.2

The article is below.  Note:  my little birdie friend is feeling a little bloated these days. 

[TEPaul]

Joe:

Even though Alan Wilson's really good description of the East and the West courses of Merion was written some years later (1926) I very much doubt a better explanation and description could be found than his as to the intended differences between the two courses---Merion's East and West courses (the East as the club's championship course and the West as the course for "the ninety and nine").

I hate to sound snarky and keep pushing the point but I believe your really good and comprehensive ongoing research and production of so many of these old newspaper articles is, among other things, very much proving the point that the reliability of information from newspaper reports never was and never could be as reliable as information coming from the clubs themselves that were being written about.

I do not want this to be perceived as another attempt to reprise this long-going Merion debate but there is no question that Merion wanted to have a championship golf course and clearly the East course was it and intended to be it. It may not have been as much of an intention in 1910-1911 or until they realized in the fall of 1912 that they were going to need a second golf course because of over-crowding and they bought the land for the West course.

But it should be pointed out again that in Macdonald's original letter to MCC in June 1910 he very much recommended a shorter course (no more than 6,000 yards) essentially explaining that he felt that would be better for the membership than a longer, obviously more difficult course---eg a "championship" type and style course.

Perhaps, Macdonald did not understand or appreciate or agree with the well-known sentiment amongst this primary group of Philadelphia "amateur/sportsman" golfer/architect around here at that time that the championship type and style was precisely what they DID want and for a particular and specific reason---eg to train and promote better local golfers to be more competitive for national championships and other important competitions such as the Lesley Cup. Their observations on that point liberally articulated by most all of them back then speaks directly to this very point and that previous to these seminal courses (particularly Merion East and Pine Valley) the Philadalephia area was distinctly lacking in this type of necessary championship training ground type golf course and architecture.

This was definitely the theme and purpose of Pine Valley and seemingly Merion's East course as well and certainly within a few years after it first opened in Sept. 1912. And it seems crystal clear from his own letter to MCC that this was distinctly not the advice of Macdonald/Whigam to MCC of what the East Course should be.

[Joe Bausch]

I hate to sound snarky and keep pushing the point but I believe your really good and comprehensive ongoing research and production of so many of these old newspaper articles is, among other things, very much proving the point that the reliability of information from newspaper reports never was and never could be as reliable as information coming from the clubs themselves that were being written about.

I cannot agree with you more Tom.  A club's records are basically a diary, and I would bow to them over any newspaper article probably w/o exception.

But I found this article to be a good read in simply comparing the two courses at a young age, even though the opinion held by the author that the West course is more difficult may not have been held by many.

[Phil_the_Author]

"I cannot agree with you more Tom.  A club's records are basically a diary, and I would bow to them over any newspaper article probably w/o exception..."

While this may be true as more than a general rule, exceptions will be found to it far more often than most would think. That is why it is very important to do ALL the research that can be done.

An example. Recently I became privy to the club records of a well-known club that confirm that it opened for play in 1923 and even named the tournament it hosted on that day. This information can also be found in its club history book. I also found reports in the newspaper stating that it opened in 1922 and that report named both the name of the tournament that was given and the winners.

How could both be right? How could you not believe the club records?

The bottom line on this is that there is no possible explanation why a newspaper would give a report of something happening including names and details if it didn't occur.

By the way, the trophy given to the winner that the family still has in its possession also has the 1922 date on it.

The point is that a researcher must neither give too much nor too little credence to "facts" discovered. Verification is the researchers dearest friend...

[TEPaul]

"An example. Recently I became privy to the club records of a well-known club that confirm that it opened for play in 1923 and even named the tournament it hosted on that day. This information can also be found in its club history book. I also found reports in the newspaper stating that it opened in 1922 and that report named both the name of the tournament that was given and the winners.

How could both be right? How could you not believe the club records?

The bottom line on this is that there is no possible explanation why a newspaper would give a report of something happening including names and details if it didn't occur.

By the way, the trophy given to the winner that the family still has in its possession also has the 1922 date on it.

The point is that a researcher must neither give too much nor too little credence to "facts" discovered. Verification is the researchers dearest friend..."


Phil:

That's a good example and frankly a very funny one. There's no way a course opening and tournament events could've happened in 1923 if a newspaper reported the very same events a year earlier in 1922, obviously. 

But that is nothing like the events the board of MCC was reporting in their very own meeting minutes in 1911. Those were events the club was recording at the time they were happening. It all happened in 1911. I guess it's possible that the board's secretary could've gotten the year on his meeting minutes wrong but in this case that clearly did not happen. 

[Jim Nugent]

The bottom line on this is that there is no possible explanation why a newspaper would give a report of something happening including names and details if it didn't occur.

 

[wsmorrison]

Prior to the 1916 Amateur, I believe Merion East was played to par 73 (I'll have to check my notes) and Merion West to par 70.  Versus par, many believed Merion West was as difficult as the East Course.  Bear in mind that the East course underwent significant changes almost from opening day in 1912 up until 1934.   The course we think of today was a lot different for the 1916 Amateur.  The West Course has a lot more elevation change than the East Course, especially on the southern portion of the property.  There are a lot more shots that are hard to figure out due to elevation changes and proximity to streams and other hazards including the clubhouse:  tee shot on 4, tee shot and approach shots on 5, tee shot on 6, tee shot (tee points directly OB) and approach shot on 7, tee shot on 8, approach shot on 10, approach shot on 11, approach shot on 16, approach shot on 17 and approach shot on 18.

I think it would be beneficial to anyone playing Merion East to ask their host to arrange play on the West Course as well.  Over time, the effects of technology have impacted the way longer, less topographic courses are played.  They are easier.  However, courses with quirk, elevation change and features that make golfers think (sometimes question, sometimes fear) still provide interesting challenges, if only between the ears.  Play Merion West.  It is a throwback course and one you will enjoy playing.  For members, it is enjoyable all year round, 7 days a week.

[JESII]

Wayne,

What were the three par 5's on the East in 1916 that are now par fours?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Ahh, there were only two additional par 5s, the 6th and 16th.  The 17th played as a par 4.  This was prior to the 1916 Amateur.  Of the two holes, only the 16th played as a par 5.  Later, it too was changed to a par 4.  17 played as a par 3 for the Amateur and afterwards.

[Thomas MacWood]

I hate to sound snarky and keep pushing the point but I believe your really good and comprehensive ongoing research and production of so many of these old newspaper articles is, among other things, very much proving the point that the reliability of information from newspaper reports never was and never could be as reliable as information coming from the clubs themselves that were being written about.

I cannot agree with you more Tom.  A club's records are basically a diary, and I would bow to them over any newspaper article probably w/o exception.

But I found this article to be a good read in simply comparing the two courses at a young age, even though the opinion held by the author that the West course is more difficult may not have been held by many.

Joe
Why are you selling yourself short? In the last six months, or so, you have produced more new information on Philadelphia golf through newspaper articles than all contributors to this site have produced in the previous nine years, and presumably some of these folks had access to club records. I tip my hat to you.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

What makes you think Joe Bausch is selling himself short or that any of us are selling his research efforts short? He doesn't seem to think so and either do we, so why should you?

His point to me was merely that he agrees with me about the accuracy of some information that comes directly from the administration of a golf club at the time it happened compared to the accuracy of some newspaper accounts.

He's the one who's done this newspaper research and who's gone over the info from them so he probably understands this point a bit better than you do, don't you think? 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
It seems to me you have consistantly attempted to discredit and disparage newspaper research. See your first post on this thread. IMO Joe has shed more light on Philadelphia golf history through his newspaper articles than anyone has been able to do in the the previous nine years, that would include me, you and all the other contributors to this site. I don't think the guy gets enough credit, and I'm not sure what qualifies you to tell him what is and what isn't good comprehensive research.

[mike_malone]

 In some ways I think this is true today for the average player. The greens are smaller and there are a couple of drop shots that have danger close by. There also are narrow holes with precise tee shots necessary to avoid significant problems. Some of the greens are as demanding as the East.

[Mike_Cirba]

One contemporaneous article that Joe came across recently that I'm hoping he'll put up here before long says that the Merion that opened in September, 1912 had only a few sand hazards.

I find that interesting when you consider that almost all of the standard template holes are actually DEFINED by their bunker placements and configurations.   If you think of the redan, the short, the alps, the himalayas, the bottle, the eden, and virtually every other single template hole (can anyone name one that isn't?), the bunkering placement is quite rote and self-defining.

The article states;

"There are enough water hazards to make things interesting for the most exacting player and also a few sand hazards.   The mental hazards will not be placed until next spring in order that they can be located to the best advantage."


Another recent article Joe uncovered from July 1912 by Alex Findlay does indicate that Fred Pickering is building the greens and compliments his efforts.


I think the picture is becoming much clearer.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

I am not disparaging or discrediting old newspaper articles. All I'm saying is, in some cases, such as Merion East, I do not believe the information derived from newspaper articles is as reliable and accurate as to who created the course as the information that comes from the administration of the club and the course at that time. Apparently Joe Bausch agrees with that.

The supreme irony about all this arguing that you and the other fellow have done about Macdonald/Whigam designing Merion East or even being the primary creative influence behind the design of it is no newspaper or magazine article any of us have ever seen either said or implied such a thing. The only people we've ever heard of who've made that claim in close to a century are you and David Moriarty. To do that the both of you have tortured pretty obvious facts, and dates and events to try to fit them into this conclusion of yours. I can cite for you where you first came up with this notion over five years ago. I know the thread where it happened---you started it. It's called "Re: Macdonald and Merion."

Apparently, at that time you ran across an article or two that mentioned that Macdonald/Whigam had advised MCC on Merion East and since you'd apparently never heard of such as that you apparently assumed that might mean they routed and designed the course rather than Wilson and his committee. And then it isn't very hard to see where David Moriarty jumped on that notion too.

The fact is those articles have always been available to us and to Merion probably from the day they were written almost a century ago. The committee and board meeting minutes of that time very much reflect Macdonald/Whigam's advice and the club thanking them for it but neither those articles (clearly the information contained in them coming from the information contained in those MCC meeting minutes) or the board meeing minutes ever indicated that Macdonald/Whigam routed and designed Merion East as you two seem to cling to the ridiculous notion that they did.  

And I would very much say the same thing is true regarding the information of who designed the original holes of Myopia that came from the administration of the club and course of Myopia at that time compared to some newspaper article that you claim contends that Willie Campbell did it and not the men Myopia's contemporaneous meeting minutes claim did it.

And it is definitely not lost on me that you refuse to produce this Boston Globe article that you claim says that. I'm quite sure, at this point, even you understand that it probably either doesn't say that or if it does that it's simply wrong.

In this way a newspaper article like that will never be as reliable as something like the records of the administration of a club about something they are doing at the time.

This is what Joe Bausch and I mean in that post above about newspaper articles compared to a club's administrative records.

[Joe Bausch]

(I can feel this latest thread starting to careen out of control!  What the heck, here's a little more gasoline for the fire.     )

As Mike indicated, I unearthed this article from the Evening Bulletin (September 14, 1912) that talks about the opening of Merion.

[TEPaul]

"Another recent article Joe uncovered from July 1912 by Alex Findlay does indicate that Fred Pickering is building the greens and compliments his efforts."

MikeC:

If that July, 1912 article indicates that the green building was taking place at that time I believe I can clearly show you information emanating from within the administration of the club that proves that newspaper informaton wrong and is just another example of newspapers often not being anywhere near as accurate to the truth as information emanating from the records of the club itself.

[Joe Bausch]

"Another recent article Joe uncovered from July 1912 by Alex Findlay does indicate that Fred Pickering is building the greens and compliments his efforts."

MikeC:

If that July, 1912 article indicates that the green building was taking place at that time I believe I can clearly show you information emanating from within the administration of the club that proves that newspaper informaton wrong and is just another example of newspapers often not being anywhere near as accurate to the truth as information emanating from the records of the club itself.

I'll have a copy of this article in due time, but I'm reasonably confident that it was written in either July or August in 1912 and Findlay was giving credit for the greens to Pickering.  Let's not go any farther on this one until I get a copy as my memory of what I read last Friday on my trip with Pete Trenham downtown may be spotty as I was speed reading many different old newspapers on microfilm.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
I'm still wondering what qualifies you to judge what is a really good comprehensive research and what isn't, compared to someone like Joe or Wayne or Phil or David, all of whom have exhibited some great research over the years. What qualifies you?

[wsmorrison]

Joe and I have spoken of this in the past.  It is clear from the September 1912 article that the course was routed as it is played today on holes 3-8.  I wonder why it was changed prior to the 1916 Amateur and then changed back again sometime later.  Might it have something to do with controlling or efficiently moving crowds around the course?

[TEPaul]

"TE
I'm still wondering what qualifies you to judge what is a really good comprehensive research and what isn't, compared to someone like Joe or Wayne or Phil or David, all of whom have exhibited some great research over the years. What qualifies you?"


Mr. MacWood:

To answer a question like that it would probably be best for you to ask it of the clubs and projects and the people who are part of them that I've been involved with.

[Joe Bausch]

Joe and I have spoken of this in the past.  It is clear from the September 1912 article that the course was routed as it is played today on holes 3-8.  I wonder why it was changed prior to the 1916 Amateur and then changed back again sometime later.  Might it have something to do with controlling or efficiently moving crowds around the course?

Wayne, I'm wondering if that really was something due to the upcoming amateur and crowd control.  As I think I mentioned to you in e-mails, I have newspaper articles with tournament scores from 1915 that strongly suggest the routing had changed by then (and I have 1913 articles with scores suggesting the routing was still in place from 1912).  If this was just a crowd control issue, I would assume they would have just implemented it at the Amateur.

My seat of the pants alternative theory was someone thought changing the order of those holes improved the routing, then later someone with the power came along and changed it back!

(P.S.  My guess would also be the routing of the holes probably changed in 1914 or early in the 1915 season).

[wsmorrison]

Joe,

I don't recall the emails regarding the scorecards indicating the routing progressions in the 1913 and 1915 articles.  I sure would like to see them.
Thanks,
Wayne

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
What clubs, projects and people?

[Mike_Cirba]

I find that interesting when you consider that almost all of the standard template holes are actually DEFINED by their bunker placements and configurations.   If you think of the redan, the short, the alps, the himalayas, the bottle, the eden, and virtually every other single template hole (can anyone name one that isn't?), the bunkering placement is quite rote and self-defining.

The article states;

"There are enough water hazards to make things interesting for the most exacting player and also a few sand hazards.   The mental hazards will not be placed until next spring in order that they can be located to the best advantage."

What are the "Mental hazards"?

Do you think the author is talking about the placement of bunkering to create strategy?

I do.

Why would the committee wait until "next spring" to place those hazards if they were already building a course to the specifications of CB Macdonald's great template holes?

Could it be that they wanted to wait until Hugh Wilson could go overseas (as he did prior to "next spring") and do the study of the great holes and courses himself before trying to actually create "internal" hole strategies that fit to the natural characteristics of the land that Merion had instead of trying to force some type of plasticine template models onto terrain where it may or may not work?

We already know the basic original routing of the holes was decided in April 1911 after the Merion Committee devised five final "plans" and had assistance and advice from CB Macdonald to help them pick the best one.

However, it seems pretty clear that the "internal strategies" of the holes...the bunkering patterns, etc., were left til after Wilson went to study hole strategies at the home of golf.

It is certainly an interesting approach.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()