[TEPaul]

henryE:

At this point, the question and answer as to what-all Macdonald/Whigam may've done regarding the routing and hole design of Merion East pretty much just boils down to a matter of timing and particularly TIME.

In other words it all boils down to a single day---eg April 6, 1911. All the information recorded regarding Merion and Macdonald/Whigam from 1910 on essentially proves that was the one and only day they had to consider and influence Merion's routing and hole designs.

Let me ask you something henry. Have you ever actually tried to route and hole design a piece of property and put it on paper for a club to consider and approve it? If you have or even if you haven't do you really believe it could possibly all be done in one single day? 

It's beginning to occur to me that perhaps some of the people reading these threads are either not considering that extremely important point or don't exactly understand or appreciate it and what it means. The reason is probably because none of them have ever tried it or have ever had any experience in that way. It would probably be benefical in that vein to bring in the opinions on that point of the professionals on here or others who have had that kind of actual experience.

I have been thinking about this kind of thing for many years now----eg how long it takes various architects to actually do and produce various things such as a routing and hole designs.

It has occured to me that throughout architecture's history some are much quicker at it than others for all kinds of interesting reasons. It has occured to me that one of the fastest at it in golf architecture's history (at least a comprehensive "hole designed" routing (I'm not exactly speaking here about those very early so-called "eighteen stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" things or just a "stick routing" (basic points and lines)) may've been Mackenzie and perhaps Flynn (the Cascades is proof positive thereon, at least of a routing, not necessarily the "hole designing" of a basic routing sequence). And in modern times perhaps Doak or even my new found friend Lester George (for a most interesting reason of his modus operandi). I know Bill Coore pretty well over the years and I've been out on a number of sites and projects with him in the routing and then "hole designing" phase and I can definitely tell you he never would and probably never could attempt to route and hole design any site in a single day. He prefers to take generally many months at same or both.

I just don't think the viewers and contributors to this kind of thread can continue to overlook the realities of this because if they do I doubt they ever could or ever would find the truth of what really happened and by whom at Merion East.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

I do not think that Old Tom generally hung around to supervise, nor did he leave any plans behind, which is one of the reasons why I thought the CBM/Merion analogy was a good one.  What was different is the fact that at Dornoch (and elsewhere) there is solid evidence that OTM did in fact recommend important routing features which still exist today.  I don't think that even the most ardent CBM supporter would way the same about his lasting influence on Merion.

Rich

PS--I do think, nevertheless, that Barker and (maybe) CBM were probably the "geniuses" behind the Merion routing rather than Wilson (possibly/probably excluding the 15-18 stretch), based on my recollections of previous threads.

rfg

[TEPaul]

"PS--I do think, nevertheless, that Barker and (maybe) CBM were probably the "geniuses" behind the Merion routing rather than Wilson (possibly/probably excluding the 15-18 stretch), based on my recollections of previous threads."

Rich:

Really? Have you ever seen a Barker or Macdonald routing for Ardmore (Merion East)? We never have and we've never seen one from Wilson and committee either but what we do know is one of their final five was attached to their report to a mid-April board meeting, and we do know it was approved and was built.

I'll even tell you a pretty interesting and more than a little maddening tidbit about it. On the actual meeting minutes from that report you can even see the old paper clip mark where it was attached!   

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

On your post #167 I think I pretty much went through that whole "Merion" timeline in detail in post #136. My intention was to get this thread away from parsing the hell out of the meaning of just a couple of words in a newspaper article or newspaper article writers and to take it right into the recorded material fom Merion itself. Face it, the only possible place any credible newspaper article could ever come from anyway would be from the place and people from the place who were working on the project that was being written about.

Tom,

I agree and I prefer not to type out the timeline again but I do think it's important for making my next point that people understand when Macdonald was originally at Merion in June 1910 and what he did, when the Committee went to visit him at NGLA in March 1911 (and what was discussed), and when Macdonald returned for a day in early April 1911 and what he did at that time.

I say that because it occurred to me overnight that I think many folks here have interpreted the fact that there are/were a few template type holes at Merion as some proof that C.B. Macdonald had to be directly involved with the design.  

Coupled with the fact that David's essay discovered that Wilson didn't go abroad until the spring of 1912, how possibly could Hugh WIlson and committee have already routed and seeded those template holes before he even went to see the originals unless CB Macdonald had done it for them?

It's a fair question, and on the face of it seems to make a lot of sense.

However, when one considers the fact that most of the holes as originally grassed in Sept 1911 were pretty much "blank pages", using only what natural features where available, and with very little in the way of bunkers, "mental hazards", or other man-made touches that would ultimately create the various strategies  of each hole.   Relatedly, if you think about the definitions of the Ideal Holes as identified by Macdonald, the vast majority are largely defined by their pre-prescribed bunkering patterns that serve to create the strategic choices and demands of each hole type.

Alex Findlay's June 1912 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches".  

But, we also do know that the first iteration of Merion did have a few attempts at Template style holes in the style of CB Macdonald, including the redan 3rd, the Alps 10th, and the Eden green at the 15th.

How could those have been conceived or created by Wilson if he hadn't gone abroad yet?

Well, they likely came from Wilson and Committee's trip to NGLA in March 1911, after which the Merion minutes reflect;

"On our return, we re-arranged the course and laid out five different plans."

Approximately a month later, on April 6, 1911, M&W came and spent a day onsite with the Committee and selected one plan in particular that they claimed would lead be equal to the seven best finishing holes on any inland course in the world.

That was the plan that went forward to the Merion board two weeks later, along with recommendations that they buy 3 acres near the railroad tracks to accommodate the proposed routing as well as purchase the land of the Francis Land Swap, which was necessary to get both the 15th green and 16th tee up in the northernmost part of the property.

The Merion Cricket Club minutes reflect that Wilson and the Merion Committee spent the first night of their visit to NGLA going over Macdonald's drawings of the great holes abroad, and then saw his representations of them the next day in person at NGLA.

I have to believe this spurred excitement and further discussion among the Merion group on their return such as "That mid-length par three we have to that high ridge over the barn as our 3rd hole on Plan 31 might be a lovely spot to try a redan, Rodney", or "Why, we have to climb up that hill for our 10th hole on Plan 17...might that be a whopping spot to try an Alps-green Dr. Toulmin?"   I think the Findlay article gives us some very good insight when he states that the Alps Hole that Hugh Wilson "imagined" at Merion will "take a lot of making", even a full nine-months after planting.

And they clearly did try to build some template holes, and apparently not very well in terms of duplication.   Just think about the subsequent discussions/arguments we've had here about whether or not the 3rd green was a redan, what with it's back to front slope and inability to permit a running shot.  Or better yet, I don't think there's a person here who would argue that the original Alps 10th hole at Merion was either a) very much like the original, b) a very good golf hole, or c) aesthetically pleasing in the least. 

Findlay clearly wasn't too keen on the whole "Alps at Merion" idea from his article, Tillinghast severely criticized the "Eden" 15th green, and even seven months after Findlay's article,  it's interesting to read what "Far and Sure"(whoever he was) thought about other borrowed elements in his January 1913 article in 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.  Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used.  For example, an attempt to reproduce the Eden green at St. Andrews has been made on the fifteenth and, in my opinion, it has resulted in one of the few failures.  The hole in question is a two-shotter and the sloping green is so keen and barren of undulations that the player is practically forced to "skittle" his approach in fear of getting above the hole.  Many of the imported ideas of hazard formation are good, and the grassy hollows of Mid Surrey have been well introduced.  On some of the sand mounds I noticed the growing of something which looked suspiciously like the bents of Le Touquet."  

"However, I think that the very best holes at Merion are those which are original, without any attempt to closely follow anything but the obvious."

So, it seems that Hugh Wilson and Committee were indeed absolutely inspired by what Macdonald showed them, and they clearly seemed to believe at least at first that creating some template holes was a good idea, but somewhere along the design/construction early evolution of the course this quickly morphed into just little "obviously stolen" touches here and there, such as the "Valley of Sin" in front of 16 green and away from wholesale semi-doppelgangers of "ideal holes" in the way that the Macdonald developed and popularized.

But, Tom Paul is right...the story of who was responsible for the design of Merion East is what it always was and exactly what Alan Wilson claimed...that Hugh Wilson and Committee designed the golf course with the great advisory assistance of CB Macdonald and Hugh Whigham who "advised as to our plans.


Dave Schmidt and HenryE,

To a large extent I agree with both of your recent posts.

I'm very heartened that the tone here around this entire issues has improved considerably and I also agree that David's research and White Paper were well-constructed and ultimately served as the impetus for all of us going back and digging deep and ultimately learning much more about the origins and timelines of a most historic and beloved American golf course.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I've always wondered why anyone would necessarily assume that any template holes at Merion had to be conceived of by CBM, even considering Wilson had not gone abroad yet. Obvioiusly, Wilson and his committee spent two days at NGLA in March, 1911. At that point they certainly had not finished their stated "laying out" process that apparently went on from perhaps January until April. And the record shows when they returned from NGLA they "laid out" a final "five different plans." At that point Wilson and his committee certainly could've been either inspired or motivated to do some template holes themselves from that experience. The record of the Merion committee reports and Wilson's recollections in his report four years later show that Wilson said Macdonald had done 'copies of famous holes from abroad' and obviously Wilson carefully examined them at NGLA in early March 1911 before submitting the final plan for approval for the East course.

These kinds of things, and this kind of logical timeline of telling events has ALWAYS been the primary reason I never saw any convincing logic in the assumptions, premises and essential concludion of "The Missing Faces of Merion" essay.

Not to even mention the Merion story that Wilson went abroad in 1910 for seven months did not even  occur until perhaps half a century AFTER Merion was begun at Ardmore so clearly it had no affect at all on what really occured back then.

[DMoriarty]

Wow, I am never going to catch up with all of this. 

Mike and Tom, thanks again for your responses to my questions, raised many posts ago.   This will by no means be a complete response but is meant as a start.   Your answers went well beyond my questions, and while I appreciate that, I am going to have to respond in pieces.

Preliminarily, I see that  you both find the Findlay column to be poorly written, noting “how unclear Findlay's writing and meaning is in that particular article.” (TP) “Findlay's writing style is far from linear, structured, or logical.”(MC)  I disagree. While there are a couple of subtleties and non-linear passages, the article makes sense to me.  I mention this because  I think we ought not to throw out all reason and logic and simply fill in any meaning we like.    Findlay wrote:

”I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course.  He is now convinced that it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot. But many of the others, as laid out by Charles B. McDonald, are really great.”[/b]

In addition to the obvious, in the first few sentences above Findlay is tactfully indicating that he did not think much of Merion’s Alps, at least in comparison to Prestwick’s.   As I and others understand it:

-  Wilson “really imagined” he had a good Alps hole at Merion. 
-  [Findlay disagreed] and told him to take a close look at the original. 
-  After doing so, Wilson [agreed with Findlay that] Merion’s Alps needed a lot of work.

After subtly indicating that the earliest version of Merion’s Alps hole was not very good, Findlay quickly turned back positive by contrasting the substandard 10th hole with the rest of the holes at Merion: “But many of the others, as laid out by CBM, are really great.”   At least that is how some others and I read it. 

TEPaul asked me whether I thought any other interpretations might make sense. If I only consider the article and do not consider what else I know, I think that the interpretation offered by Kirk Gill way back on the first page made some sense, even though I disagree with his ultimate conclusion.  Kirk wrote:

It is that word "others" that is problematic, and from a grammatical standpoint it is not absolutely clear whether Findlay means 'other holes at Merion' or 'other Alps holes,' as his preceding two sentences mention both.  I re-read that part of the paragraph twice to decide what I felt he was talking about. For myself, I would tend to believe that he is talking about other Alps-style holes, simply because that was the last thing that he mentioned in the previous sentence.

I agree that this makes some sense, especially if CBM designed Merion’s Alps hole.  But FACTUALLY, this interpretation fails because in June 1912 there were not enough CBM Alps holes for Findlay think that many of the other CBM Alps holes were really great.

As for your critiques of my interpretation, if I understand you correctly . . .

1.   While neither of you agree with my interpretation, both of you acknowledge that it is not internally illogical; it at least makes some sense. 
2.   However, you both reject my interpretation because, based on what else you know, my interpretation cannot be accurate.
3.   You each offer your own alternative interpretation which, based on what else you know, you each believe is better and more reasonable than mine; To each of you, your interpretation makes more sense.

Thanks for acknowledging that my reading was not completely illogical.   As for your alternatives, rather than again explain what I view as the shortcomings of your positions, I will instead just refer you to my past posts, and turn to what I feel is your main point:  Findlay would never have written that CBM designed Merion, because you know for a fact that CBM did not design Merion.   

I apply similar reasoning just above.  (There were not "many" CBM Alps holes, so Findlay could not have been referring to CBM Alps holes)  Likewise, you guys apply similar reasoning to dismiss the Barker article.   (You both know that Merion did not hire Barker to design the course, so you dismiss the article as inaccurate, based on old information, and just plain wrong.   While the Alex Findlay column has too much credibility to dismiss outright, it cannot mean what I think it means. 

Do I correctly understand you both? Based everything you know, Findlay could not have possibly meant that CBM designed Merion, or even many of its holes?

Let me put it another way.   What if Findlay had written:  But many of the other holes at Merion, as laid out by CBM, are really great.   

What would you think the passage meant then?  Based on what you know, it is even conceivable that Findlay would ever have written such a thing?

I am going to stop here for now, to see if I am correctly understanding you both. 

[Dan Herrmann]

(smily face for a great discusion underway)

BTW - I'm still interested in the last sentence in that Findlay article about the car parks that allow for viewing of matches.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Thanks...I have a few comments and one clarification I'd like to make and will hopefully get to it in more detail early afternoon.

One thing I'd clarify is that although I mentioned "other Alps holes" as laid out by Macdonald as one possibility, I tend to think more that he meant "other ideal (template) holes" at other "leading courses" which Macdonald had "laid out" in two ways;

1) Macdonald laid out in a theoretical, instructional sense for everyone in the US for the better part of ten years which holes abroad and which leading golf courses were ideal to study and emulate .  He wrote a number of articles, promoted the idea tirelessly, and I found related articles tonight that made clear that by this time Macdonald was very clearly identified as the father of the entire "ideal holes" concept.

2) During the previous couple of years, Macdonald "laid out" his own versions of those holes at NGLA (and was continuing to do so at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow at the time this was written).

I believe that Findlay is probably implying both meanings in his statement.

I would also slightly adjust your interpretation of what I was saying when I mentioned having seen the MCC minutes and that they are consistent with the Hugh Wilson as architect legend.   They are, but we also now know that Macdonald came back to Merion for a day in April 1911 and recommended one of the five plans to the Committee, who then took that plan for board approval.  Irregardless..

I would say that while certainly not implausible or illogical, I don't agree with your interpretation simply because I don't believe it's read correctly in the context of Findlay's article, main points, and in some cases even is contradictory to what Findlay just said (i.e., he's not even ready to discuss the "possibilities" of the course given its state so I find it extremely unlikely that he would then go on to say "many of the holes on that immature course "are "really great").

Also, I mentioned that I had seen the minutes simply because once one has seen evidence, one cannot help but view future evidence without that previous understanding, or view, if you will.   I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know very well in that regard.

[TEPaul]

"I apply similar reasoning just above.  (There were not "many" CBM Alps holes, so Findlay could not have been referring to CBM Alps holes)  Likewise, you guys apply similar reasoning to dismiss the Barker article.   (You both know that Merion did not hire Barker to design the course, so you dismiss the article as inaccurate, based on old information, and just plain wrong.   While the Alex Findlay column has too much credibility to dismiss outright, it cannot mean what I think it means."


David Moriarty:

         That's about exactly right. The Nov. 24, 1910 article about Barker being hired by MCC to lay out a course for them is just wrong. That reporter and report (unattributed) said MCC hired Barker. They didn't; the developer (Connell) who was not a part of MCC hired him and Lesley's report to the board at the beginning of July, 1910 made that very clear (Lesley's report said Barker was hired "On Connell's account" and presumably since his report said it that is precisely what he and MCC meant). So in that vein that article was just wrong. The article also said 'Barker to lay out a course for Merion.' Obviously in that article those words speak to the future about some event after Nov 24, 1910 that just didn't happen. We know it didn't happen because we know what did happen in the future (after Nov. 24, 1910) and after the middle of June, 1910 Barker was NEVER AGAIN involved with Merion and if he was noone ever mentioned it which would be pretty strange, don't you think, particularly considering the entire goings-on at MCC, particularly from Nov, 1910 until April 1911 was very well recorded by the club itself as to what did go on and who did what and when?
             I also have never believed that Findlay was referring to "others" as other CBM "Alps" holes because in June, 1912 (the date of his article) there basically weren't any other CBM Alps holes or none that were within a year or two of being opened for play. For that reason I just can't see how Findlay would have or could have referred to the "others as really great" as being CBM Alps holes. 




"Do I correctly understand you both? Based everything you know, Findlay could not have possibly meant that CBM designed Merion, or even many of its holes?"




That's right, you understand us clearly or I think you understand me clearly.




"Let me put it another way.   What if Findlay had written:  But many of the other holes at Merion, as laid out by CBM, are really great.
What would you think the passage meant then?  Based on what you know, it is even conceivable that Findlay would ever have written such a thing?"



Then, I, for one, would obviously think Findlay meant "other holes by CBM that are really great" were Merion holes. But, as you know, Findlay didn't say "others at MERION by CBM that were really great;" you just think he may've mean that. Based on what we know, particularly the total lack of time involved for Macdonald/Whigam to have been able to do something like that it is not conceivable to me that Findlay would have written that (that the "Others" were CBM holes at Merion) or could have meant that. THIS is precisely why I believe a very closely scrutinized TIMELINE is so very helpful to us now. Macdonald/Whigam, given the facts we have now could only have had the opportunity (the time) to do that on one single day or less (April 6, 1911). Do you disagree with that and if you do, why is that? I most certainly hope you are not going to disagree with that by trying to tell us again that you think MCC, its committeemen and its board were actually just lying or mistaken in what they recorded in committee reports and board meetings about something they were dedicatedly in the process of trying to accomplish! Why in the world would they do something like that at a time like that?  



"I am going to stop here for now, to see if I am correctly understanding you both."


Very good. I hope we have been clear for you.

[Mike_Cirba]

I do find it oddly inconsistent that the June 1912  Findlay article speaks skeptically about Wilson creating an Alps hole at Merion, (whatever his reason), and also mentions that Wilson concurs after seeing the original and states that it will "take a lot of making".   

Three months later Findlay's opening day article three months later tells us that the 10th hole features an approach just like the Alps at Prestwick.  He wrote; "The tenth is a two-shot hole, and the second thereto requires a stroke precisely like that of the Alps, or seventeenth, hole at Prestwick, Scotland."

Does this mean that in Findlay's eyes, Wilson got it right over the next few months?   I find it difficult looking at pictures of the hole and knowing the topography to think he really believed that.

[TEPaul]

"Alex Findlay's June 1911 article gives us clear insight into the state of the course nine months after seeding when he states that it's too early to even comment on "the possibilities of the new course" and then mentions that it won't be until the late fall 1912 that Fred Pickering "will give it the finishing touches"."



Mike:

Since there tends to be such close scrutiny on these Merion/Macdonald threads I would not want someone to pick up on an error in the future and claim you didn't know what you were talking about or that you were in error.

So, it's just a bit of house-keeping to say,  but that Findlay article we're referring to was June 1912, not June 1911. Not to even mention that by June 1911 it does not even look like Merion had found Pickering yet and brought him on board. 

Also, I'm not at all sure what you're driving at in post #186.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

Since there tends to be such close scrutiny on these Merion/Macdonald threads I would not want someone to pick up on an error in the future and claim you didn't know what you were talking about or that you were in error.

So, it's just a bit of house-keeping to say,  but that Findlay article we're referring to was June 1912, not June 1911. Not to even mention that by June 1911 it does not even look like Merion had found Pickering yet and brought him on board. 

Also, I'm not at all sure what you're driving at in post #186.



Tom,

Thanks...I went back and corrected that date.

Also, I rewrote some of Post 186 but I'm not sure I'm trying to make a point other than I find it odd that Findlay seemed to voice skepticism about Merion building an Alps, seemed to indicate that Wilson concurred, and then 3 months later writes that the approach to the 10th is precisely like the Alps at Prestwick!  

Talk about hyperbole!

[DMoriarty]

"Do I correctly understand you both? Based everything you know, Findlay could not have possibly meant that CBM designed Merion, or even many of its holes?"

That's right, you understand us clearly or I think you understand me clearly.

Thanks Tom, that clarifies things.

_______________________________

David,

Thanks...I have a few comments and one clarification I'd like to make and will hopefully get to it in more detail early afternoon.

One thing I'd clarify is that although I mentioned "other Alps holes" as laid out by Macdonald as one possibility, I tend to think more that he meant "other ideal (template) holes" at other "leading courses" which Macdonald had "laid out" in two ways;

1) Macdonald laid out in a theoretical, instructional sense for everyone in the US for the better part of ten years which holes abroad and which leading golf courses were ideal to study and emulate .  He wrote a number of articles, promoted the idea tirelessly, and I found related articles tonight that made clear that by this time Macdonald was very clearly identified as the father of the entire "ideal holes" concept.

2) During the previous couple of years, Macdonald "laid out" his own versions of those holes at NGLA (and was continuing to do so at Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow at the time this was written).

I believe that Findlay is probably implying both meanings in his statement.

Interesting speculation, Mike, but in my opinion little or nothing in the actual text directly supports any of this.  Also, your theory seems built on shifting sand.   You previously argued that Findlay meant that CBM laid out Wilson's travel itinerary.    

The column is just not that opaque or esoteric, and we should not have to work so hard or infer so much to make sense of it.  There is no justification for reading in so much without specific textual support.

. . . once one has seen evidence, one cannot help but view future evidence without that previous understanding, or view, if you will.   I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know very well in that regard.

No doubt.  That is why, even if I set aside the way the phrase is used, I don't  find the "mapped out" article to be all that consequential; because of what else I know (or think I know) about that particular article.  What one knows helps shape how one views new evidence.  And it seems pretty obvious that this is what is going on here.   TEPaul agrees.   Based on what else you guys know, you cannot possibly accept my reading of Findlay as accurate.  

So while I am sure that you sincerely believe that your latest attempt to explain the article is accurate and correct, It seems that what is driving you isn't so much anything in the article, but rather your knowledge that Findlay couldn't possibly be saying what I think he is saying.  It may not be absolutely clear what he means, but he cannot mean what I think he means.  Isn't this a fair enough description of what is going on here?    

If not, then why go into all this about the MCC records to try and figure out what Findlay meant?   They should not matter in this context if they are not a basis of your rejection of my interpretation.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

Your last post is proof that a little knowledge in a small mind is a dangerous thing.

You may be caught up in the old legend.  In contrast to the old legend, I don't think there is any evidence that CBM "laid out" Wilson's travel itinerary.  Certainly there is no reason to read it into the column as if it were commonly known fact to Findlay and his readers.   Even Mike Cirba has apparently abandoned that reading and is onto something else.

Now onto your interpretation, where you may have surprisingly overlooked a few things.

1. In the key sentence Findlay is drawing a CONTRAST.  He writes "BUT." Not "AND."  So your version must read something like . . .

"Before he went overseas, I told Wilson to see the Alps (which Wilson now understands will take a lot of work to recreate at Merion)  BUT CBM told him to see the Alps and a bunch of other really great holes."

Stripping it to its core . . .
I told Wilson to see the Alps.  BUT cbm told him to see the Alps and other great holes. 

Where is the CONTRAST??   More particularly, where is the contrast with many of the others are very good.   

"I told him to see Prestwick's Alps [which is not so good.]  But CBM told him to see Prestick's Alps and others and many of those others are very good?"

Where is that in the column?  I don't see it.

2.  The other thing you surprisingly missed is the reason Findlay sent Wilson to Prestwick in the first place:
- Findlay wrote Wilson "really imagined" that he had an Alps at Merion.
- Findlay apparently knew better.
    * Otherwise why write Wilson "really imagined" it? 
    * And if he agreed, why send him to Prestwick to he look closely at the real thing?
- So Findlay sent Wilson to Prestwick to take a close look at the real thing. 
- Seeing the real thing convinced Wilson that Findlay was correct, Merion's 10th needed a lot of work.   

Again, only condensed:

[/i]"Wilson "really imagined" he had an Alps.  [He didn't, so] I sent him to see the real thing.  He know knows his Alps needs a lot of work."[/i]

And there you have the CONTRAST.   Wilson [and Findlay] thought Merion's Alps needed a lot of work, BUT MANY OF THE OTHERS, LAID OUT BY CBM, ARE VERY GOOD.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I really haven't moved onto something else.   I simply provided more explanation of why I stated that in a very real way, C.B. Macdonald "laid out" Hugh Wilson's itinerary, both that night they spent going over Macdonald's sketches of great holes and courses abroad, as well as seeing in person which overseas holes Macdonald admired and emulated at NGLA when he built his own course.

I do contend that "others" are leading courses and great holes that Macdonald has trumpeted to every potential golfing audience in America for a decade at this point, and it's personalized to Hugh Wilson through the sketches and "principles" of those holes he showed Wilson and the Committee that night at NGLA, as well as his own interpretations of those holes he showed to Wilson and Co.  the next day on the ground at NGLA.

[DMoriarty]

As I recall Mike, before you were very specific about the column meaning that CBM actually laid out the itinerary.  You even mistakenly referenced the MCC documents for support that CBM had specifically done so.  Now your version is much more amorphous.   Either way, there is no hook in the text for such a reading.  Moreover, as I explain to Dave, both your specific and amorphous readings render the meaning nonsensical. 

You seem to be adding what I have bolded:

"I sent Wilson to Prestwick.  BUT Prestwick and many of the other holes abroad which Wilson decided to visit because CBM has been describing these holes and their importance for the past decade and also described these holes to Wilson and his Committee and went over the sketches he had made of them with Wilson and his Committee over a year ago while they visited him at NGLA are really great."

Not only is this very stretched.  It doesnt make sense because there is no contrast between Prestwick and the other holes abroad that were great (of which Prestwick is also one.) , Unless Findlay did not like the Alps at Prestwick, but this is not supported by the text.   Also such a reading would not only be illogical, it would completely change the meaning of not only the passage, but of other portions as well.

"I sent Wilson to Prestwick which I don't think is very good.   BUT Prestwick and many of the other holes abroad which Wilson decided to visit because CBM has been describing these holes and their importance for the past decade and also described these holes to Wilson and his Committee and went over the sketches he had made of them with Wilson and his Committee over a year ago while they visited him at NGLA are really great."

[henrye]

And don't you think a scoop like that - design by the biggest name in golf at the time -

Was CBM really the biggest name at the time?  What about guys like Park, Fowler, Colt, Braid, Travis?

[Peter Pallotta]

Hi David M - I hope you've been well. 

I think Dave S' post #197/reading makes a lot of sense - and it's the first one that does for me. I say that because it's a reading (the ONLY reading) that renders the whole of Findlay's article internally consistent. 

The "many others as laid out by Macdonald are really great" line -- on its own --  suggested to me the same it does for you.  EXCEPT: I couldn't understand why, if that's what Findlay actually meant, he could a) start his article by deferring any judgements about the far-from-finished course to a later date, and b) end his article by equating what Wilson was doing at Merion with what Leeds (at Myopia) and Macdonald himself (at NGLA) had done. 

I think Shivas' reading of the line addresses both those issues, and makes (internally consistent) sense of the whole.

Peter

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,


I still do not understand where you are getting this notion that CBM "laid out" his itinerary.  If you are going to read that into the article shouldn't you have some basis for so doing?  As I see it there is no basis either inside or outside the text.  

These legends die hard, so I am sure it is difficult for us to imagine that CBM did not help plan the trip.   But it would have been even more difficult for the readers (or Findlay) to come up with anything like your understanding, since you are reading in a legend that they haven't likely heard.

Another problem with your reading is that, while I agree that your assumption that Findlay did not think much of the hole at the time of the article was written, there is nothing in there about Wilson or Findlay dismissing the hole concept as unworkable at Merion.
- Findlay did not write, that, upon his return "Wilson agreed that the Alps concept cannot work at Merion."  
- He did write that upon his return, Wilson was convinced that "it would take a lot of making" to equal to that to Prestwick's.  

Wilson imagined he already had an Alps, so I told him to closer look at the real one, and he now is convinced that the hole needs a lot of work.  This reading is consistent with Findlay's preface about not delving into the holes too deeply until the details were finished.  

Again, I think the Merion Legend (at least as told around here) might be influencing your interpretation in this regard.   Many around here look back on the original 10th with such disdain that one gets the impression that it was considered a terrible hole from day one, so it is hard to imagine that it lasted over a decade.  Even then, while around here one might get the impression that the only reason they changed it was because it was a terrible hole, it is my understanding that the hole was changed so as to avoid having to play over Ardmore Avenue, not because it just did not work as an Alps.  

To the contrary, reading the old reviews leads one with the impression that the hole was quite popular and impressive precisely because it played a like Prestwick's Alps.   Before the opening one such review noted:

"The tenth hole is rated a two shot hole, and the second thereto requires a shot precisely like that of the Alps, or seventeenth, at Prestwick Scotland."

The reviewer?  Findlay., which makes the disputed article written three months earlier  all that much more interesting, doesn't it?    To me it looks as if Wilson had some work to do after his trip and got to work.  And Findlay very much approved of the result.  

Did Wilson and Findlay change their minds about the hole?   Or could you be reading the first article incorrectly?
_______________

While I don't recall off hand that any other earlier article used the phrase "laid out," CBM and Whigham's involvement in the creation of the course was mentioned in periodicals and newspapers before this quite a few times, going back into 1910.  I don't think it would have been a shocker to anyone who cared when Findlay reported CBM's involvment.   Nor do I think that the phrase "laid out" would have raised many eyebrows, given how ambiguous the usage of that term was at the time.  

[TEPaul]

"Shivas,
I still do not understand where you are getting this notion that CBM "laid out" his itinerary.  If you are going to read that into the article shouldn't you have some basis for so doing?  As I see it there is no basis either inside or outside the text.   
These legends die hard, so I am sure it is difficult for us to imagine that CBM did not help plan the trip.   But it would have been even more difficult for the readers (or Findlay) to come up with anything like your understanding, since you are reading in a legend that they haven't likely heard."


David Moriarty:

I'm with you about Macdonald setting or "laying out" Hugh Wilson's itinerary while abroard for those up to maybe six plus weeks abroad in 1912; that is if I'm even remotely understanding your point when you question it.

I don't necessarily question, or I should probably say I don't really see it's relevence. In my opinion, it's just speculation anyway, albeit it interesting speculation but since I think I've seen everything and more that's now extant on here about this entire era of Merion, I must say I've never seen it ever mentioned anywhere that Macdonald "laid out" Wilson's itinerary abroad.

You call that idea old stories or old rumors or whatever, but frankly, I don't think they're old at all. I think that idea that Macdonald may've "laid out" Wilson's itinerary probably first started on this website, not with Merion or anywhere else. It's not just that old rumors died hard, it's even more fascinating how and where they begin in the first place!

I mean it certainly is possible and perhaps even logical but so are a number of others doing that for Wilson such as Crump who was over there on a three month architectural tour in the end of 1910. Crump was obviously a pretty good friend of Wilson's for a whole lot of pretty obvious reasons. I don't believe Macdonald was and I only say that because the only letter I've ever seen from Macdonald to Wilson he addressed him as "Mr. Wilson." 

And when it comes to itineraries over there don't forget a lot of those men around MCC were Uber-world travelers both for business and pleasure. The fact is some of those guys were over there all the time and if they were dedicated golfers, the best clubs and courses were definitely no secret to them. I doubt any of them would've had to depend on Macdonald to tell them or Wilson where to go over there to look at the best courses and architecture.

And apparently Hugh had been asking a lot of questions about architecture abroad otherwise why would Findlay have told him to look carefully at Prestwick's #17 (Alps)? 

However, it seems you may be focusing on this mention of Macdonald "laying out" Wilson's itinerary just in a textual or even contextual way only in relation to Findlay's article. I admit, I'm looking at it in a much broader context like who those men were, who had been over there that a guy like Wilson really knew well to ask about it? Frankly, at that point in time in that particular world of people (MCC et al) going over there and looking at all the same courses was probably a bit like the English sophisticates taking what was well known as "The Grand Tour" (of the classical antiquities of the Continent, particularly Greece and Rome and Egypt. 

There is another really interesting thing that is sort of a Merion/Pine Valley switcheroo here, I have absolutely never thought of before, that perhaps is for another time and another thread but that is noone has ever really known how Crump got onto Harry Colt. Did he see him over there when he went in 1910? Or perhaps, did Hugh Wilson tell Crump about Colt because there is no question in my mind when Wilson was over there in 1912 (about nine months BEFORE Crump even began PV) he stayed with Colt! I've never seen much connection to Colt and Macdonald but both Crump and Wilson sure had a connection to Colt! 

If that was off the flow of this thread and a diversion, I'm sorry about that but I just thought some of this might be worth mentioning for you. As you know, I'd like to see you guys get away from just parsing a sentence or two of Findlay's in a virtual vacuum because I really don't think that will get you or take you guys anywhere relevent. I'd like to see you guys try to put some of the interpretations of what Findlay meant into the larger and more important context of what was going on in this vein with Merion itself and what its reports and written record say about Macdonald's available time and opportunity to even be able to do what you are all debating here Findlay may've meant about CBM creating even conceptually holes at Merion (those "others").

Again, I think the larger context can help show that some interpretations of what Findlay may've  meant by "others by CBM are really great" insofar as it might mean CBM laid out those "others" at Merion are virtually impossible for reasons I already cited to you on this thread.

[Mike_Cirba]

Guys,

I'm not saying that Macdonald laid out Wilson's itinerary in a literal sense.

I'm saying that Macdonald spent a decade promoting the ideal holes and leading courses abroad here in the states, then spent a night going over them with Wilson and Co. in great detail, then showed them his versions of the holes at NGLA the next day.

In a very real way, Macdonald planned the itinerary of many of the Americans who went abroad to study the great courses there, and the "ideal holes", because he was the one who brought them to the general US golf public's attention, and he also went above and beyond to educate his readers and listeners and really anyone who would listen back then on their virtues.

In the case of Wilson and Co., it was a bit more personalized is all.

[mike_malone]

 The "others" are the opposite of the Alps.  It's not rocket science

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I might take a bit of an issue with that last post of yours, at least for some of the early transatlantic travelers for a golf architecture education abroad. Macdonald sure as shit didn't plan any architectural study trip abroad for Herbert Leeds or even inspire him to go over there for what he (Macdonald) was proposing to do over here via NGLA in the coming years! Maybe Leeds even led the way for Macdonald somehow since he was over there doing that earlier (apparently 1901).

Or was he? Perhaps it was like "The Perfect Storm!" as according to Macdonald's auto-bio the idea came to him as follows.....

........he said he was inspired by the (1900-01?) London GOLF ILLUSTRATED controversy known as the "Best Hole Discussion" which he claims put the idea in his head to do a course of "ideal" holes over here (NGLA -6-10 years later). Leeds, on the other hand, went abroad in 1901-02? and came home declaring himself satisfied with what he had done at Myopia after what he studied abroad, and this just before or just after Myopia held a US Open on his expanded new 18 hole course (Myopia's second US Open, by the way). 

Macdonald says in his auto-bio his two study trips abroad took place in 1902 and then again in 1904! Pretty interesting, huh?

No wonder the early reports and early architects claimed Myopia was the (first) best course in America if not the world (Kirkaldy)!

[TEPaul]

"The "others" are the opposite of the Alps.  It's not rocket science  "


Well, Mayday, parsing a sentence or a paragraph from an old newspaper article by a really bad early writer sure as hell seems to be treated when analyzed in a vacuum like rocket science on here in the last page or so!   

Why don't you and I just let these self-proclaimed English writing and sentence structure experts duke it out for a couple of days in their mission to grammatically explain what really happened with the design of Merion East via a really bad writer's meaning about "others" and Macdonald and Merion? In the meantime why don't you and I just go hit some balls or play golf somewhere and we can come back and fill them in later on the facts of what really happened, or COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED way back when with the material that really matters to the MEANING of those newspaper articles? 

[DMoriarty]

The "many others as laid out by Macdonald are really great" line -- on its own --  suggested to me the same it does for you.  EXCEPT: I couldn't understand why, if that's what Findlay actually meant, he could a) start his article by deferring any judgements about the far-from-finished course to a later date, and b) end his article by equating what Wilson was doing at Merion with what Leeds (at Myopia) and Macdonald himself (at NGLA) had done. 

Hi Peter.

1.  I guess it is a matter of what you think "finished" is, but I hardly think the course was "far-from-finished."   The course had been planned, built, and seeded and was growing in.   We've known for a while now (or at least some of us have) that Wilson left many of the "finishing touches" until after he returned from abroad.   But this was no blank slate.  As TEPaul and Mike discuss somewhere above in this thread, Merion is a very natural course (despite the fame of its bunkers) and most of the strategy and interest is dictated by how the golf holes lay into the natural features of the place. Because of the brilliant use of the site, I don't think it a stretch to say that Merion's  great holes were great pretty much before the "finishing touches" were added. 

So while it makes perfect sense for Findlay to refrain from describing the course in detail until after the "finishing touches," he knew generally what was good and what was not, and the overall tone of the article was very positive.  He surely knew what was great and what still needed work.  For example, he may have done so subtly, but he got the point across that Merion's Alps still needed a lot of work.  And without going into any detail, he contrasted this with many of the others, which were really great.

The beginning reminds me of another review, by either Hazard or Far and Sure, written after the course opened, where the author makes the same sort of statement about the course still being a "rough draft" and claims to be withholding judgment until everything is finished.  That author goes on offer his opinion on much of the golf course, despite his statement.

2.  As for the second point, you may want to take another look at the article.  He does not equate their work product, but rather their study abroad: 

"Wilson made a study of the topography of the whole golfing country as such as H.G. Leeds did before he built our greatest American golf course, Myopia near Boston, and C.B. McDonald and his national course, at Shinnecock Hills, L.I.  We need such men like Wilson to help build up the nation's ground for the coming national game of golf."

He could not possibly mean to include anything about Wilson's routing Merion in this, because the course was routed long before Wilson's trip!

__________________

Well, Jeez, Dave, I could just as easily ask you where you got the idea that Macdonald designed Merion...after all, your interpretation of the second paragraph of Findlay's letter relies on that supposition, doesn't it?  It's not as if Findlay actually says that, is it?

Well, Jeez, Dave, you could, but then unlike you I'd have an answer.   There is more than enough additional information out there to support a conclusion that CBM was responsible for Merion's routing.  For one example, even the most ardent cannot deny that CBM returned to Merion and chose Merion's final routing on April 6, 1911.  Moreover, his involvement had already been widely reported.  So it does makes sense for Findlay could have meant that CBM routed the holes at Merion.   

In comparison, your explanation is cut from whole cloth.

Goose.  Gander.  Don't you think?

Duck is more like it.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()