News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3050 on: July 17, 2009, 04:20:05 PM »
I'm not sure why this is so hard...

We know M+W did not route the course when they visited in June 1910.

We know that the Merion committee laid out many golf course plans prior to thei NGLA visit.

We know specifically what they spent their time doing while at NGLA...both the MCC minutes and Hugh Wilson himself told us.

We know the committee returned and created five different plans.

We know Mac returned for his second and final one-day visit on 4/6/1911 and helped them select the best of their plans.

They were still the Merion Committee's plans and M+ W provided advice and suggestions of value about Hugh Wilson and Committee's plans for Merion East.

That is what Everyone, including Tilly, told us happened.

Any other interpretation is a stretch at odds with everyone who was there.

Why the need to overreach?

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3051 on: July 17, 2009, 04:30:32 PM »
I think the constant misrepresentation of what Hugh Wilson said about he and his committee being "novices" (he said they were novices in agronomy and construction) speaks to a lack of intellectual dishonesty in this discussion. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3052 on: July 17, 2009, 04:44:03 PM »
Mike,

Why do you have so much trouble keeping the facts straight?    Every one of your points misstates the facts.  To be blunt, it seems you are either disingenuous or mentally incapable of getting these things right.  

If I am wrong, then why can't you at least get the facts right?
 
I'm not sure why this is so hard...

We know M+W did not route the course when they visited in June 1910.

No we don't.  We know that they did not attach a routing to their letter, and that they did not have a contour map to do an accurate routing. but judging from the facts that they provided hole numbers and commented on using or building a number of specific features, they likely had a good idea at least where some of the holes would fit.    We also know that at some point Merion obtained a contour map and that they'd have been foolish not to send it to CBM.  We have also been told that  Cuyler referred to a golf course in his Nov. letter, albeit one that had not yet been finalized.   We also know that the ag letters indicate that there was a "course" already in existence.  

We know that the Merion committee laid out many golf course plans prior to thei NGLA visit.

Unless you mean Lesley's committee, then no we don't. We don't know who laid out many courses, or when.  
Plus you have added the word "plans" and "golf."  Aren't you the one who insists that in the Wilson letters "course" refers to the land without a planned course?  Well if you are correct (and I don't think you are) then this could refer to the number of changes to this land that took place before Wilson was ever appointed, including the land swap, and might have nothing to do with planning the actual course.

YOU ARE SKIPPING THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT.  THEY SPENT TWO DAYS AT NGLA LEARNING HOW TO LAY OUT MERION EAST.   THAT IS, THEY LEARNED HOW TO INCORPORATE THE GREAT CONCEPTS INTO THE LAND AT MERION.   THEY EVEN WENT OVER CBM'S PLANS.


We know the committee returned and created five different plans.

NO we don't.   We've been told that they laid out five different plans.   Nothing about who came up with the five plans.  

We know Mac returned for his second and final one-day visit on 4/6/1911 and helped them select the best of their plans.  

No we don't.  We have been told he approved the final plan, and may have made substantive changes in the process.  

They were still the Merion Committee's plans and M+ W provided advice and suggestions of value about Hugh Wilson and Committee's plans for Merion East.

We don't know whose plans they were, but judging from what we know about the NGLA meeting, it seems they were either CBM's or he played a major role in what the plans depicted.


That is what Everyone, including Tilly, told us happened.

Any other interpretation is a stretch at odds with everyone who was there.

Why the need to overreach?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 04:53:34 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3053 on: July 17, 2009, 04:52:27 PM »
I think the constant misrepresentation of what Hugh Wilson said about he and his committee being "novices" (he said they were novices in agronomy and construction) speaks to a lack of intellectual dishonesty in this discussion.  

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty . . . you and Joe Bausch have provided a number of examples of where you think they used the term construction to mean laying out the course.   And we know the topic of the meeting was how to lay out the course.  And if you look at the snippet in context it leaves no doubt it was about laying out the course.

Yet you repeatedly misread it, to purposefully obfuscate its obvious meaning.   Here is the quote so people can decide for themselves.


ADDED:
This passage also casts further doubt on the speculation that it was Wilson's Committee who "laid out many courses on the new land" some time before NGLA

If they had already been laying out courses, then how could CBM have given them a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.  
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 04:58:48 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3054 on: July 17, 2009, 05:12:49 PM »
Tilly mentioned Merion in 5 different articles he penned in 1912 for the Philadelphia Record newspaper.  I don't have copies of all of them as I think I was running out of change that day for the machine!  But I do have two of the five.

1.  February 18, 1912.  Within a larger article that just contains many topics, he says the following:  It was the original intention of the Merion Green Committee to open the new course for a trial next fall, but I am informed that it has been decided to play there this entire season and to abandon the old course this spring.  To be sure the going will be a trifle rough, but as the expense of keeping the old course open would be considerable, it was deemed advisable to put the eggs all in one basket.

2. May 5, 1912.  I made a note that within this article is a short Merion blurb, but I did not get a copy of it (yet).

3. September 15, 1912.  This one I made a note that it includes a blurb about Merion opening, but I did not get a copy of it.

4. December 1, 1912.  This is the long review of Merion that has been put up here many times before, but I'll put it again below:



5. December 22, 1912.  I also made a short note about this 'Merion blurb' and I wrote "new 18 holes needed", which I'm quite confident is referring to the congestion at the new course and another 18 holes is desired.  I'll have a copy of this article soon.

I can already hear two of the thread contributors salivating b/c of the info from the February 18 article above.   ;) ;D
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3055 on: July 17, 2009, 05:19:27 PM »
It would seem with the many articles and the 'avalilable' meeting notes that Lesley gave CBM and HJW the highest praise. Lesly and other articles still had CBM and HJW as advisers.  It is certainly established that CBM and HJW advised.

In any case, having 5  'plans'  for review and CBM/HJW putting their finger on one of the five would be advice.  It just doesn't seem that CBM/HJW would have been, or could likely have been, responsible for one of the five.  

And most would agree that Wilson and committee constructed the course.
Presume you could say that construction follows planning.  
CBM and HJW reviewed 5 plans.    

David,

Are there any articles or letters of CBM or HJW submitting or drawing up plans ?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3056 on: July 17, 2009, 05:36:24 PM »
It would seem with the many articles and the 'avalilable' meeting notes that Lesley gave CBM and HJW the highest praise. Lesly and other articles still had CBM and HJW as advisers.  It is certainly established that CBM and HJW advised.

In any case, having 5  'plans'  for review and CBM/HJW putting their finger on one of the five would be advice.  It just doesn't seem that CBM/HJW would have been, or could likely have been, responsible for one of the five.  

John,  we don't know who drew up the five plans that were laid out.  They may have been created at NGLA, from where the committee had just returned before they laid out these plans.   They also could have been Macdonald's plans-- after hiding it for a year, TEPaul finally admitted that the minutes refer to the committee going over Macdonald's plans.  

Even if the committee had drawn up these plans, I have no idea how you or anyone else could conclude that CBM was not responsible for at least contributing to these plans.   The committee had just been at NGLA, where they were learning how to lay out the course, and how to incorportate the concepts into Merion's landscape!    

Isn't it about time we all started being a bit more realistic about what occurred at the NGLA meeting?  It wasn't a theoretical symposium.


Presume you could say that construction follows planning.  
CBM and HJW reviewed 5 plans.    

David,

Are there any articles or letters of CBM or HJW submitting or drawing up plans ?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 05:42:47 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3057 on: July 17, 2009, 05:46:28 PM »
David,

You accuse me of mireading the evidence but on ech point you simply have to make stuff up and say...see, we don't know that Santa Claus doesn't exist!, as if you've actually made sense or even a rhetorical point.

If I'm the one with the incorrect interpretation, why is it you arguing with everyone else except your partner MacWood?

Is this one of those, "everyone else is crazy...I'm sane I tell you...sane!!" moments?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 10:49:15 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3058 on: July 17, 2009, 05:50:04 PM »
"-  Alan Wilson told us the topic of the meeting was the lay out of Merion East."



And in the same letter Alan Wilson also said each of the four members of Chairman Hugh Wilson's Committee (Lloyd, Griscom, Francis, Toulmin) told him that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses. That is a statement that doesn't take much analytical head-scratching to interpret the meaning of and it did not seem to make it into the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" for some reason! Had it, perhaps it may've led the author of that essay to assume and conclude that Wilson and his four man member committee did not JUST "construct" (build) the East course to someone else's design and that they were the ones who were the driving force behind the intial creation of the East course and the ones calling the shots, with the always reported "some kindly help and advice from those two good and kindly gentlemen C. B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam."

That MCC documentary evidence, and numerous other documentary evidence like it that corroborates and confirms it should not be missed, ignored, dismissed or ratinalionalized away if a credible golf architecture analyst wants to do a credible analysis of the architecture or architect of Merion East. And that kind of MCC accumulated evidence that has always been part of MCC and Merion is why the architecture of Merion East and West has always been attributed to Hugh Wilson and why there never has been any mystery about it.

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3059 on: July 17, 2009, 05:58:16 PM »
Can anyone out there imagine a set of circumstances as completely absurd and outlandish as this?

Here you have one of the greatest architects of all time reporting on events in his home town and even talking throughout with all of the protagonists and Tilly goes to great pains to tell us in absolute terms that Hugh Wilson PLANNED and DEVELOPED the course at Merion and had a flair for architecture.

When the course opened originally, Tilly wrote that Hugh Wilson deserved the congratulations of all golfers, and not a peep about Mac or Barker.

Yet, again, here we have David and Tom arguing either that Tilly didn't know what the hell he was talking about or a liar.

It is truly amazing to watch...much like a shipwreck..
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 10:49:58 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3060 on: July 17, 2009, 06:00:09 PM »
David,

I'd be curious to hear your explanation of Alan Wilson's words about "THEY SPENT TWO DAYS AT NGLA LEARNING HOW TO LAY OUT MERION EAST" being in the same letter as the words "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses"

Thanks

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3061 on: July 17, 2009, 06:00:51 PM »
David,

You accuse me of mireading the evidence but on ech point you simply have to make stuff up and say...see, we don't know that Santa Claus doesn't exist!, as if you've actually made sense or even a rhetorical point.

If I'm the onw with the incorrect interpretation, why is it you arguing with everyone else except your parrtner MacWood?

Is this one of those, "everyone else is crazy...I'm sane I tell you...sane!!" Moments?

Mike,  do I need to list all the times you have been wrong you have been proven wrong despite the support of others? To do so would take the rest of the year.  

Quit fudging the facts.  Dont right "plan" where the word "plan" wasn't included.  Dont pretend we know it was Wilson's committee when we don't.  Don't just fudge it when when you don't like the actual wording.   You pretended list facts but you didn't.  

Again Mike, are you trying to mislead us, or are you mentally incapable of understanding that you can't just change things to suit your needs?  Or is it that since you see TEPaul doing it, you think you can as well?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3062 on: July 17, 2009, 06:13:54 PM »
At some point I believe I typed, posted and provided Alan WIlson's five page 1926 letter on the creation of Merion East and West, requested of him by MCC's historian and 35 year treasurer (and sometimes secretary) William Philler. I don't know how to use the search engine on here very well. Could someone find it for me or help me find it?


Moriarty, Cirba, MacWood etc, instead of spending page after page just going after each other or me let's put Alan Wilson's letter up here again and let it and what it says stand on its own.

I would caution all that just because Alan Wilson's letter that was written to MCC historian Philler in 1926, made the statement, "the land was found in 1910 and as a first step the club sent Hugh Wilson abroad" seems somewhat inaccurate to US as to the timing does not suggest that everything else he said in that five page letter to Philler should seem to us or be deemed by us as inaccurate!

For anyone on here to suggest such a thing I feel should be called out on consensus on here as a pretty cheap debating ploy and trick, particularly since he also said that every member of Wilson's committee (Lloyd, Griscom, Francis and Toulmin) told him that in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses we should also understand that the four of those men who worked on the Wilson Committee for perhaps 2-3 years were ALL alive and well to read and verify or deny what Alan Wilson reported to Philler that they told him about Hugh Wilson being the one who was in the man reponsible for the design of Merion's East and West courses!

And also, Alan Wilson's statement that each of the members of Chairman Wilson's committee told him Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses definitely does not need any of this ridiculous and on-going word-parsing and trivial and inconsequential arguing over what it exactly MEANS!

For any credible analyst, researcher and writer to assume or suggest and certainly conclude that all of the four men who worked on that committee with chairman Wilson during that early time were mistaken, engaging in hyperbole or taking part in some kind of petty conspiracy to glorify Wilson's roll and minimize Macdonald's roll in the design of Merion East with what they all reported to Alan Wilson seems to me to be very bad and pretty unintelligent historical analysis and to suggest and certainly conclude such a thing is very bad history writing and reporting that should be deemed by informed and logical critics as historical revision of fact.

In fairness to the author of the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" he did not have that Alan Wilson letter when he researched and wrote his essay. But we have it now and we have had it for over a year and I see no point at all continuing to ignore, avoid, dismiss and rationalize away WHAT-ALL the entire letter says about the intial design and creation of Merion East and particularly what ALL the four men who served on his committee and were there REGULARLY and THROUGHOUT at that time with Hugh Wilson REPORTED what he did when asked by Alan Wilson who was asked for that letter explaining that time and event by MCC historian William Philler.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 07:06:00 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3063 on: July 17, 2009, 07:16:41 PM »
"David,
I'd be curious to hear your explanation of Alan Wilson's words about "THEY SPENT TWO DAYS AT NGLA LEARNING HOW TO LAY OUT MERION EAST" being in the same letter as the words "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses"
Thanks"



I'd like to expand on that message of Jim Sullivan Jr's (Sully, what happened to JESII?). I would like to hear the author of the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" FIRST and FOREMOST admit to all of us that he did not have that 1926 Alan Wilson letter at hand to be able to refer to what it said and/or ALL of what it said WHEN he wrote and put his essay on here!

I should add as well, he will probably respond with or even feature the fact that it or some of it may've been on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com WHEN he was researching and writing his essay but that it was me who put it on here and I deleted it. (that is the explanation that can be found on his actual essay  ::)).

That's not the point. The point is and the question is did he or could he refer to what it said and ALL of what it said when he researched, wrote and then put his essay on this website?

I think and have always thought that particular piece of MCC documentary evidence (the Alan Wilson letter to William Philler) is one of the most important in Merion's archives; I also think the recently discovered "Wilson Report" to the 4/19/1911 MCC board meeting, the existence of which was unknown until a year ago and was put on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com AFTER the essay "The Missing Faces of Merion," is just as important as the Alan Wilson letter to MCC historian William Philler.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 07:32:58 PM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3064 on: July 17, 2009, 07:22:48 PM »
Tom,

I would like to hear his answer to the question just the same.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3065 on: July 17, 2009, 07:23:08 PM »
David,

I'd be curious to hear your explanation of Alan Wilson's words about "THEY SPENT TWO DAYS AT NGLA LEARNING HOW TO LAY OUT MERION EAST" being in the same letter as the words "in the main Hugh Wilson was responsible for the design of the architecture of the East and West courses"

Thanks

Sure Jim.    The brief explanation is that these guys are taking the quote out of context, never even bothering to include the first part of the same sentence.   The sentence is essentially singling out Hugh's contribution as compared to the rest of the committee.  While the others on the committee contributed, Hugh contributed the most.    

For a longer answer, here is an explanation I provided earlier, with a few changes:

In the previous paragraph, Alan Wilson had essentially written that except for the help provided by M&W they did it themselves and without the help of a [professional] architect.

Then in the next paragraph Alan Wilson addressed the Committee's contribution:

The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

TEPaul, Cirba, and Wayne insist that this paragraph means that Wilson was the person in the main responsible for the original design, over CBM and HJW.  But it isn't about M&W, it is about comparing Wilson to those on the committee.  Here again is the key sentence in question, color coded:

On his return the plan was gradually evolved
and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course.   [/i]


First, note that he is also including the West Course in his analysis.  Second, note that Alan W is not writing about the original plan, but how it evolved.  This is a bit confusing because he apparently has the date of the trip wrong or is suggesting that the trip was really the "first step" in Wilson's detailed involvement in the design process, but this was after the course had already been built.

Third and most importantly, Cirba et al. ignore the part highlighted in green.   AlanW is not writing about M&W in this sentence.   AlanW is writing about HWilson's contribution AS CONTRASTED with the contributions of rest of his Committee.   The rest of the committee had good suggestions, but the other members of the committee acknowledged that (of the committee) Wilson was the person in the main.

In other words, AW is contrasting the contributions of Hugh with those of the rest of the committee.  M&W are not part of the comparison.   Look at the sentence.  It certainly does not say:

. . . while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee and of Macdonald and Whigham, the members of the committee have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course.

The context is Hugh standing out is among the members of the committee.

Hope this explains it.  Look forward to your questions.

DM
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 07:35:34 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3066 on: July 17, 2009, 07:33:30 PM »
David,

That would seem to put your argument for M&W in a bad spot because if they were not on the committee, where were they? I am going to make an assumption as to your response to that, so tell me if I am wildly off...I would guess your response to where M&W is that they were directing the committee.

Possible...

But then I have to ask about Alan Wilson's words..."they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course"...

"Lay out" can be argued about, as can "expert", but when he says Hugh was responsible for the architecture of the East Course I've got to wonder if this document doesn't really hurt your case.

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3067 on: July 17, 2009, 07:37:09 PM »
Well, Tillinghast said he was the architect too.

That won't stop this awesome quest for the truth!

Why believe Tillinghast or Alan Wilson?
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 10:50:56 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3068 on: July 17, 2009, 07:43:33 PM »
Now that response from Moriarty really will need some very serious ANALYSIS AND PARSING, that's for sure!!  ;)

Let's just put the Alan Wilson letter to William Philler on here and look at it, what it says and how it says it in its entirety!

Perhaps the most important question, however, is the one the essayist did not answer, at least not yet anyway----eg did he have that entire Alan Wilson letter to refer to BEFORE he researched, wrote, and put the essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion" on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com?

That question really needs an honest and accurate answer from the essayist, in my opinion, because if he did not have the information and exact remarks of Alan Wilson BEFORE the fact (of researching, writing, and putting the essay on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com) tryiing to explain it away AFTER the fact of researching, writing and putting the essay on here, becomes a little too easy and definitely a lot suspect, particularly if one is a researcher and essayist on the architecture and factual architect of Merion like this particular essayist!
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 07:56:23 PM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3069 on: July 17, 2009, 08:14:56 PM »
Jim,

They most certainly were NOT on the Committee, and THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS OF MERION.    This is crucial, because it explains why they are always treated differently, as opposed just included.

For example, in the Lesley statement, where Lesley wrote the course was laid out on the ground by the Committee, and that M&W were advisors.    People have taken this to mean that they were not as involved.  I take it to mean that they WEREN'T ON THE COMMITTEE (and couldn't have been) so Lesley needs something to call them.

Here M&W are not on the Committee, and since the comparison is between members of the Committee, they are not included.  



David,

That would seem to put your argument for M&W in a bad spot because if they were not on the committee, where were they? I am going to make an assumption as to your response to that, so tell me if I am wildly off...I would guess your response to where M&W is that they were directing the committee.

No.  I think they he directed them early on as to the initial plan, but I don't think that is what AlanW is writing about here.   In the first part of the sentence he is talking about the plan "gradually evolving" and I think this means over the years.    I think Alan Wilson is talking about the entire evolution of the course up until Hugh Wilson's death, and iparticularly all the Hugh did after the course the course was buit.  He was trying to make the case that of those at Merion, his brother did the most.    He sets M&W aside, then compares HW to the rest of the Committee.  

Possible...

But then I have to ask about Alan Wilson's words..."they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course"...

"Lay out" can be argued about, as can "expert", but when he says Hugh was responsible for the architecture of the East Course I've got to wonder if this document doesn't really hurt your case.

But Jim,  there is no need to debate the meaning of architecture,  all you have to do is look at the whole sentence which essentially says . . .

All the committee members contributed to the architecture, but of these Hugh was the person in the main.  
 

The key word in the sentence is not "architecture," but "while."   While in this case is contrastive and is synonymous to "although."   Something in the later clause is being singled out or contrasted with something in the first.  

Although they all contributed to the architecture, Wilson is the person in the main who contributed.    M&W are nowhere to be found.  The comparison doesn't include them.     Their contributions have already been covered  and not we are talking about who else did what.

« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 08:25:15 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3070 on: July 17, 2009, 08:22:35 PM »
If anyone puts the Alan Wilson report up, please try use the version that TEPaul did not doctor to omit the part about ". . . as to the layout of the East Course."
_____________________________
Jim, perhaps  a silly example help clarify:

Let's say we are writing about the BEST GOLFERS at Stanford when Tiger Woods was still at school there, but AFTER he had turned professional.  (I can't remember if he was still enrolled in school when he played his first pro tournament, but let's pretend he was.)

We might say something like . . .
Tiger Woods attends Stanford but he is no longer of the team.  Except for Tiger, the best players are all on the golf team.
And in the next paragraph something like . . .
While all members of the team are very good, Notah Begay(?) is the very best player.

Does this mean that Notah Begay is better than Tiger Woods?   NO.  It means Notah Begay is the best on the Stanford team.  

It is similar here . . .  

M&W were of the greatest help and value as to the design of the courses.  Except for what they contributed, the committee was responsible for all the architecture
then . . .
While everyone on the Committee contributed greatly,  Hugh Wilson was the person in the main responsible for the architecture of this and the West Course.    

Does this mean that Hugh Wilson did more than M&W?   NO.  It means that Hugh Wilson did more that the rest of the Committee.  

Does that make sense?  
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 08:42:37 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3071 on: July 17, 2009, 10:29:45 PM »
I'd have to see it all together to agree that he was putting M&W aside before discussing who did the most...it seems to me he is recognizing their advisory role but nothing more.

Also, I think you are wrong in your reading of the term "gradually evolved"...the whole paragraph is talking about that immeidate time frame...ending with the course(s) opening. Gradually seems more suited to a reference to the complexity of the land acquisitions and border manipulations than the re-work over the ensuing 15 years...but I failed English...and aced Logic...

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3072 on: July 17, 2009, 10:31:41 PM »
"If anyone puts the Alan Wilson report up, please try use the version that TEPaul did not doctor to omit the part about ". . . as to the layout of the East Course."


I completely agree---if anyone puts the entire Alan Wilson report up, please try to use the version that includes the part about "...as to the layout of the East Course" since I'm the only one who had Alan Wilson's report in the first place when it first appeared on this website it had "....as to the layout of the East Course" on it.

Did the essayist have this report when he researched, wrote and put his essay on here? Apparently not as he doesn't appear to have it a year and more later. What does that say about his research, analysis, writing of his essay and putting it on here? Does he have much of any research material? If he does why does he keep asking everyone else to put it on here for him?  

How about Merion and MCC? Why didn't he have that material? Why did he wait for Wayne Morrison and a few members of Merion to find it AFTER he wrote and put his essay on here? The answer is he never established a research relationship with his subject (the clubs, Merion and MCC) FIRST as any credible researcher, analyst, writer, historian does before researching, writing and producing an essay on a particular subject.

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3073 on: July 17, 2009, 10:38:07 PM »
Jim,

They most certainly were NOT on the Committee, and THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS OF MERION.  


Here we go, kids...Bolds and Caps largely mine...


Mr. William R. Philler,
Haverford, Pa.

Dear Mr. Philler:-

      You asked me to write you up something about the beginnings of the East and West courses for use in the Club history, and I warned you that I did this sort of thing very badly. You insisted, however, so I have done the best I could and enclose the article herewith. If it is not what you want, please do not hesitate to destroy it and to ask someone else to write you something which will better suit your purpose.
      I am very glad you are writing the club history. It ought to be done because unless put on paper these things which are interesting in themselves are apt to be forgotten,-- and I do not know of anyone who would do the work so well as you.

                  With regards, I am,
                     Sincerely,
                        Alan D. Wilson



Merion’s East and West Golf Courses

   There were unusual and interesting features connected with the beginnings of these two courses which should not be forgotten. First of all, they were both “Homemade”. When it was known that we must give up the old course, a “Special Committee on New Golf Grounds”—composed of the late Frederick L. Baily. S.T. Bodine, E.C. Felton, H.G. Lloyd, and Robert Lesley, Chairman, chose the site; and a “Special Committee” DESIGNED and BUILT the two courses without the help of a golf architect. Those two good and kindly sportsmen, Charles B. MacDonald and H.J. Whigam, the men who conceived the idea of and designed the National Links at Southampton, both ex-amateur champions and the latter a Scot who had learned his golf at Prestwick—twice came to Haverford, first to go over the ground and later to consider and advise about our plans . They also had our committee as their guests at the National and their advice and suggestions as to the lay-out of the East Course were of the greatest help and value. Except for this, the entire responsibility for the DESIGN and CONSTRUCTION of the two courses rests upon the special Construction Committee, composed of R.S. Francis, R.E. Griscom, H.G. Lloyd. Dr. Harry Toulmin, and the late Hugh I. Wilson, Chairman.

   The land for the East Course was found in 1910 and as a first step, Mr. Wilson was sent abroad to study the famous links in Scotland and England. On his return the plan was gradually evolved and while largely helped by many excellent suggestions and much good advice from the other members of the Committee, they have each told me that he is the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE of this and the West Course. Work was started in 1911 and the East Course was open for play on September 14th, 1912. The course at once proved so popular and membership and play increased so rapidly that it was decided to secure more land and build the West Course which was done the following year.

   These two committees had either marked ability and vision or else great good luck---probably both—for as the years go by and the acid test of play has been applied, it becomes quite clear that they did a particularly fine piece of work. The New Golf Grounds Committee selected two pieces of land with wonderful golfing possibilities which were bought at what now seems a ridiculously low price (about $700. an acre). The Construction Committee LAID OUT and built two courses both good yet totally dissimilar—36 holes, no one of which is at all suggestive of any other. They imported bent seed directly from Germany when bent turf was a rarity and gave us not only bent greens and fairways and even bent in the rough and this seed only cost them 24 cents a pound, while it sells now for $2.25. They put in water systems for the greens and tees before artificial watering became a routine. They took charge of and supervised all the construction work as a result the two courses were built at the combined total cost of less than $75,000---something under $45,000 for the East and about $30,000 for the West, whereas it is not unusual nowadays for clubs to spend $150,000 or more in the building of one course of 18 holes.

   The most difficult problem for the Construction Committee however, was to try to build a golf course which would be fun for the ordinary golfer to play and at the same time make it really exacting test of golf for the best players. Anyone can build a hard course---all you need is length and severe bunkering—but it may be and often is dull as ditch water for the good player and poison for the poor. Unfortunately, many such courses exist. It is also easy to build a course which will amuse the average player but which affords poor sport for players of ability. The course which offers optional methods of play, which constantly tempts you to take a present risk in hope of securing a future advantage, which encourages fine play and the use of brains as well as brawn and which is a real test for the best and yet is pleasant and interesting for all, is the “Rara avis”, and this most difficult of golfing combinations they succeeded in obtaining, particularly the East course, to a very marked degree. Its continued popularity with the rank and file golfers proves that it is fun for them to play, while the results of three National, numbers of state and lesser championships, Lesley Cup matches, and other competitions, show that as a test of golf it cannot be trifled with by even the world’s best players. It is difficult to say just why this should be so for on analysis the course is not found to be over long, it is not heavily bunkered, it is not tricky, and blind holes are fortunately absent. I think the secret is that it is eternally sound; it is not bunkered to catch weak shots but to encourage fine ones, yet if a man indulges in bad play he is quite sure to find himself paying the penalty.

   We should also be grateful to this committee because they did not as is so often the case deface the landscape. They wisely utilized the natural hazards wherever possible, markedly on the third hole, which Mr. Alison (see below as to identity—W.R.P.) thought the best green he had seen in America, the fourth, fifth, the seventh, the ninth, the eleventh, the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth. We know the bunkering is all artificial but most of it fits into the surrounding landscape so well and has so natural a look that it seems as if many of the bunkers might have been formed by erosion, either wind or water and this of course is the artistic result which should be gotten.

   The greatest thing this committee did, however, was to give the East course that indescribable something quite impossible to put a finger on,---the thing called “Charm” which is just as important in a golf course as in a person and quite as elusive, yet the potency of which we all recognize. How they secured it we do not know; perhaps they do not.

………..The West course was designed particularly for the benefit of “the ninety and nine” and for low cost of maintenance, in both of which respects it was most successful. Very little bunkering was done but the ground was rich in natural contours and hazards and they were utilized in an extremely clever way. While not as severe as the East, it is a real test for even the best of players as was shown in the qualifying round of the National championship in 1916.

It is so lovely to look at that it is a pleasure to play and I like to remember the comment of Mr. C.H. Alison of the celebrated firm of Colt, Mackenzie and Alison—British Golf Architects---who, after going over both courses said: “Of course, I know the East is your championship course; yet while it may be heresy for me to say so, I like this one even better because it is so beautiful, so natural and has such great possibilities. I think it could be made the better of the two.”

   Having spent so many years playing bad golf over good courses I have come to believe that we members of Merion have for all season use about the most attractive golf layouts I have seen; two courses quite dissimilar in character and in play, in soil and scenery, both calling for brains and well as skill, very accessible, lovely to look at, pleasant to play, yet real tests of golf, with excellent bent fairways and fine greens. The East course recognized as one of the half dozen regular choices for National championship play, and the West capable of being made just as exciting a test should that ever been deemed desirable. We certainly owe a debt of gratitude to those two committees which by their hard work, foresight, good judgment and real knowledge of the true spirit and meaning of the game of golf evolved and built so well for Merion.  

« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 11:07:56 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3074 on: July 17, 2009, 10:40:57 PM »
"perhaps  a silly example (will, sic) help clarify:"


Yes, I would think a silly example would be most appropriate and certainly consistent with the "Essayist," his "essay"  ::) and most everything else he has put on here in the last year and more.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 10:42:58 PM by TEPaul »