News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3075 on: July 17, 2009, 10:45:52 PM »
I find it increasingly interesting that everyone...from Alan Wilson, to Hugh Wilson, to Robert Lesley to "Far and Sure", called what M&W did at Merion "advisors".

If you go back and read Alan Wilson's report, he makes clear that Macdonald "designed" NGLA.

If he did the same at Merion, why not just use the same word?

No one who was there even came close to making that leap.   Hell, they didn't even say that Macdonald laid out Merion...or planned it...or routed it...or anything but "ADVISED".

This has to be the most stupid exercise in historical revisionism since several dopes contended that Man did NOT walk on the moon.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 10:54:23 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3076 on: July 17, 2009, 10:58:15 PM »
I'm thinking that the Alan Wilson report is so clear, definitiive, and lacking in bullshit that it should simply be posted in total as the immediate response to each and every future attempt to erroneously change the historical record and besmirch the men who were responsible for the great course at Merion.

Also please note that bent grass was planted in the rough, completely at odds with how the P&O letters were presented here, which told us that all Wilson was concerned with was how to treat fairways and greens, (that just HAD to be on that topo map!  ::)) even though the folks who tried to sell us all this line of crap knew the content of the Alan Wilson letter in that regard.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 11:01:53 PM by MCirba »

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3077 on: July 17, 2009, 11:00:45 PM »
"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,"




Just a passing point and question that seems mildly appropriate since the disputants have questioned what Alan Wilson could have known about the histories of the Merion East and West courses-----Why do you suppose a man (William Philler) who had been the treasurer (and sometimes stand-in secretary for Edward Sayres, long time MCC secretary and meeting minute taker) of the club and had been on the Board of Governors of MCC all that time ask a man like Alan Wilson to write a letter for him (William Philler) as the first MCC history writer about the beginnings of the East and West course if he (Alan Wilson) was not extremely close to and informed about what had gone on with Merion East's and West's creation and evolution all those years??

Oh, that's right, Alan a most central MCC member, a founding member in 1909 of The Merion Cricket Club Golf Association with Hugh Wilson worked with Hugh Wilson, his younger brother, in a family insurance business every day!

What could Alan Wilson possibly have known about what was happening at MCC and Ardmore all those years?   ::)
« Last Edit: July 17, 2009, 11:03:40 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3078 on: July 17, 2009, 11:09:28 PM »
Tom,

Here's what I think about that...


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.   


TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3079 on: July 17, 2009, 11:20:50 PM »
"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."



My Goodness Gracious, look at that! Alan Wilson admitted he did this sort of thing (writing) very badly just as his brother Hugh admitted he didn't know more than the average club member about architectural construction! Therefore, due to the apparent modesty of both Wilson brothers I see no reason whatsoever why any of us should believe anything Alan Wilson wrote about the beginnings of Merion East and West which MCC historian William Philler asked him to write about since he had been there throughout at close hand with his brother Hugh. Since we are asked to believe that Hugh could not possibly have designed Merion East in 1911 we should not believe Alan was capable of writing about it in 1926.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 08:47:00 AM by TEPaul »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3080 on: July 18, 2009, 12:23:40 AM »
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.

Their entire role was referred to as an "advisory role" but I don't think that was a subordinate role.  After all, they couldn't be on the committee, could they?  The questions are; what did they advise, and was their advice followed?   The Wilson letter confirms that they were involved in the lay out and were of the greatest help and value, from this it we can't tell the extent of the involvement other that to say it was significant.  Nothing in the report indicates otherwise.

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...

Interesting take, but I am not convinced.   Wilson and his committee weren't even appointed during most if not all of the machinations with the land and purchases.  We don't know if the land changed after at all during the time Wilson was involved.   (I suspect it did not, and that it just wasn't measured accurately when they first agreed to the transaction.   Had they had a surveyor do it, the accurate dimensions would have showed up on the "Approximate Road" Plan.  Time will tell on that one.)   Plus, the plan did gradually evolve after his trip.  There was plenty to add still upon his return from his trip, and a number of changes were in the few years after the opening.  

So while I agree that the whole thing was the "immediate timeframe, I think that timeframe was after Wilson's trip just like the report says.    Wilson came back from overseas and the plan did gradually evolve through the 1916 Am and after.  This also more closely parallels the timing of the creation of the West.  So while the paragraph indicates that Alan Wilson was somewhat confused, it makes a lot more sense if it was focusing on the post trip period.  



_____________________

I still cannot quite put my finger on how much Alan Wilson actually knew first hand, about the design.  I suspect it wasn't very much,  how else could he botch the trip so badly?  Plus, much of the specific information is of the type that he could easily have looked up, price of seed, cost of courses, and the such.  For another, his information at issue here was definitely second-hand.   The committee told him that of them, Hugh was the man in charge.   Had AWilson been around, he'd not have needed the Committee to tell him that.   All of the facts about the creation appear to be at least secondhand.  d inforamtionin the discussion of the creation of the course that could not have come from someone else.   would have had to have looked up.   His comments about the design are all very general.  Nothing about how any hole came about just a lot of effusive general praise.    

Whether Alan Wilson was there or not, I am trying to take his word for it for the time being.  And unless we take his words out of contex, the report does not compare Wilson's contribution to that of M&W.  

« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 12:26:16 AM 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)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3081 on: July 18, 2009, 08:59:42 AM »
Other than being the brother of Hugh Wilson, the man most closely associated with the course in 1926, why would they ask Allan Wilson do write an account on the beginning of the East and West courses? To my knowledge he was not involved with either course, in any capacity. The best he could do is to put together a second hand account based on the recollection of others. That being said these are the questions I have about his account:

Does everyone agree Allan's account is second hand?

One of the most important aspects of any story, perhaps the most important aspect, is the beginning of the story. In Allan's account Hugh Wilson's story begins with his trip to the UK (April 1912). On his return from that trip a plan was gradually evolved, and as a result he was the person responsible, in the main, for the 'architecture' of the East and West courses. He also mentions the committee were guests of CBM at the National (March 1911) in another part of his account.

How did he get the beginning of the story so wrong?

Did he confuse the trip overseas with the trip to the NGLA? Should the story actually begin with the trip to the NGLA?

Or was he accurate in marking Hugh's return from the trip to the UK as the beginning of his 'architectural' influence on both courses?

Does Allan Wilson consider the routing process as part of 'architecture'? There is evidence a routing existed prior to the trip to the NGLA.

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3082 on: July 18, 2009, 09:14:26 AM »
"Other than being the brother of Hugh Wilson, the man most closely associated with the course in 1926, why would they ask Allan Wilson do write an account on the beginning of the East and West courses?"


Why indeed would the first MCC historian William Philler (the man who had been the treasurer of MCC for thirty five years and on the board of directors of MCC all those years) ask Alan Wilson to write an account on the beginnings of the East and West courses?

Let's ask the two protagonists and disputants who have questioned the accuracy of Merion East's architectural history of that time to tell us what they know about the life and times both in golf and otherwise of Alan Wilson.

I SUSPECT we will find that they don't know much of anything about him perhaps because like their approach to the subject of Macdonald and Wilson and Merion they have never been to Merion and neglected to FIRST establish a relationship with Merion and become intimately familiar with its records, history and all the people who were there at that time.

Are we to be treated to the very same logic with Alan Wilson that MacWood and Moriarty applied to Hugh Wilson-----eg since they cannot find evidence of when he was appointed or even if he was appointed that therefore he could not have done much of anything and someone else must have done it for him?  

Has everyone noticed how many QUESTIONS Tom MacWood has asked us about Merion, its people and everything else about it over the years? Does that sound like a researcher/golf architecture analyst familiar with and informed about this subject? But yet he certainly does have and has always had some very strong opinions about what-all happened there over the years, doesn't he?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 09:25:43 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3083 on: July 18, 2009, 09:37:32 AM »
TEP
If you're interested in discussing Tom MacWood feel free starting a separate thread, I think this thread should remain focused on Merion. I apologize for too many questions so I've whittled them down to four.

Does everyone agree Allan's account is second hand?

How did he get the beginning of the story so wrong?

Did he confuse the trip overseas with the trip to the NGLA, or was he accurate in marking Hugh's return from the UK as the beginning of his 'architectural' influence on both courses?

Does Allan Wilson consider the routing process as part of 'architecture'? There is evidence a routing existed prior to the trip to the NGLA.

TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3084 on: July 18, 2009, 10:47:41 AM »
Tom:

What do you know about Alan Wilson and his life and times in golf and otherwise such as he relationship with Merion etc? Who on here do you think knows much about Alan Wilson's life and times in golf and otherwise? Do you think everyone does who you asked those questions of? If you don't and most others don't then what it the purpose of those questions other than just another excercise in total speculation on here?

I'm not interesting at all in discussing Tom MacWood; I'm only interested in finding out what Tom MacWood actually knows about Merion and its people like Alan Wilson to have such strong opinions about what you say Alan Wilson didn't know.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 10:50:07 AM by TEPaul »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3085 on: July 18, 2009, 11:34:17 AM »
Tom P,

Is it documented that Alan Wilson was on the board of the Merion Cricket Club Golf Association?

If so that would eliminate any speculation about his knowledge being anything other than secondhand...after all, please remind me what exactly MCCGA was established for.

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3086 on: July 18, 2009, 11:54:08 AM »
Think for a moment about the ridiculousness of the interpretation you're being asked to accept.

We're being told that Mac & Whigham were the actual routers and designers of the holes.

BUT...of anything else done out there incidentallly or accidentally, among the five members of the Committee appointed to layout the course, the committee members all told Alan Wilson that Hugh Wilson was in the main responsible for that "architecture".   Ooooo....nice.   ::)

WHAT ARCHITECTURE WAS LEFT TO TALK ABOUT??!?!?  What an absolutely silly and preposterous contention!!  ::) 

That leaves us to try and determine why EVERYONE, from Tillinghast, to "Far and Sure", to Alan Wilson, to Hugh Wilson, to Robert Lesley, all used the terms "advised" to tell us what Macdonald and Whigham did for Merion's committee.   

NONE of them used the words "architect", "laid out", "routed", "designed", "conceived of", or any other term even remotely connoting the routing of the golf course or the designs of the holes..   NEVER, before or after.

Even HJ Whigham never said that...he just said in some vague term that it was one of a list of "Macdonald/Raynor" courses, meaning he had some involvement, which everyone there at the time tell us clearly was "advisory".

So, what type of things do we think they advised about?

Well, we know that Wilson and Committee admitted to not knowing much about construction and agronomy and we know they shared info about grasses, soils, Mac sent them to Piiper and Oakley, probably got them Pickering as a builder and overseer of the construction effort.   

We also know that he helped them to understand "the principles" of strategic holes abroad, which seemed to be his primary interest to impart and spread, and I'm sure he helped because Hugh Wilson himself told us he did.

I believe the following 1914 article sheds some light on this subject, of what ALL of these guys were in the process of learning, and what "expert" information was out there and how best to get that type of advice.






I think this type of article makes clear how it's simultaneously possible for Hugh Wilson to be the primary architect and designer of Merion, yet have HJ Whigham say it's a "Macdonald/Raynor" course, simply because it was a place where he advised on the grasses, the soils, helped the Committee with their routing plans, and taught them what he knew about strategic principles during an overnight stay at NGLA.

Everyone who was there tells us WIlson did the architecture with the advice of Macdonald and Whigham.

These are not mutually exclusive truths.


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3087 on: July 18, 2009, 01:02:23 PM »
I also would submit this as Exhibit A among learned, studied men of the game as to why the One-Day Wonder HH Barker had a brief, inglorious summary dismissal once Merion got down to business;




By the way, the author of this article is the incomparable Mr. Max H. Behr. December 1914.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 01:07:09 PM by MCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3088 on: July 18, 2009, 01:21:54 PM »
David would have us believe that CB Macdonald was "calling the shots".

This contention is completely belied by the language of the men who were there at the time who neither used any language suggesting authorship, ownership, or leadership, but instead almost remarkably used language meaning that they were helpful, but somewhat perihperal to the ongoing process, or "advisors"

This is seen again in what Alan Wilson writes when he tells us what they provided;  1) Advice and 2) Suggestions.

Would anyone "in charge", or "calling the shots" be also someone who "suggested" ideas for the golf course?   The language is completely incongruous with this idea that it was actually Charles Macdonald who was either responsible for the routing, the design or the specific hole ideas.

No, instead, he provided valuable ideas and indeed, expert advice, but was not leading the train.   He was simply ensuring it stayed on the tracks.

ad·vice (d-vs)
n.
1. Opinion about what could or should be done about a situation or problem; counsel.
2. Information communicated; news. Often used in the plural: advices from an ambassador.

sug·gest (sg-jst, s-jst)
tr.v. sug·gest·ed, sug·gest·ing, sug·gests
1. To offer for consideration or action; propose: suggest things for children to do; suggested that we take a walk.
2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association; evoke: a cloud that suggests a mushroom; a ringlike symbol suggesting unity.
3. To make evident indirectly; intimate or imply: a silence that suggested disapproval.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3089 on: July 18, 2009, 01:45:07 PM »

Is the fact he got the beginning of the story wrong an indication he was relying on second hand accounts?

Did he confuse the trip overseas with the trip to the NGLA, or was he accurate in marking Hugh's return from the UK as the beginning of his 'architectural' influence on both courses?

Does Allan Wilson consider the routing process as part of 'architecture'? There is evidence a routing existed prior to the trip to the NGLA.

« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 02:14:42 PM by Tom MacWood »

Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3090 on: July 18, 2009, 02:09:43 PM »
Does everyone agree Allan's account is second hand? No, not in the slightest.   Before writing that his brother was the architect, however, it would have been only proper to ask each of the Committee who they believed was the biggest contributor to the course.   Manners were very important at that time, don't you think?   I also believe that he felt it important to make sure his understanding was correct and corroborated by the others on the committee before writing, which was the obviously responsible thing to do.

How did he get the beginning of the story so wrong? He also stopped beating his wife that same erroneous year, I believe.  

Did he confuse the trip overseas with the trip to the NGLA, or was he accurate in marking Hugh's return from the UK as the beginning of his 'architectural' influence on both courses? Again, another question that tries to capitalize on a simple mistake to call into question his entire, very detailed, very accurate account.   It's shameful, Tom.   Really...

Does Allan Wilson consider the routing process as part of 'architecture'? There is evidence a routing existed prior to the trip to the NGLA. There is not only evidence that a routing process was underway prior to the trip to NGLA, there is definite proof that the Merion Committee had been out there laying out many golf courses and trying to get a routing established on the new land prior to their visit to NGLA.


And Tom, what about A.W. Tillinghast's account?   He talked to CB Macdonald, he "saw the plans" after approval and prior construction, and yet he told us the exact same thing Alan Wilson did...that Hugh Wilson PLANNED AND DEVELOPED MERION EAST.  

Is there any single account anywhere that tells us that either CB Macdonald or HH Barker PLANNED Merion East?!?!?

HJ Whigham did not even say that, did he, although what he did say has been wholly misrepresented here.


Mike_Cirba

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3091 on: July 18, 2009, 02:30:53 PM »
The men assigned to design and build the new course at Merion in 1911 were hardly newbies to either the club, or to Philadelphia golf.

Almost a decade earlier, in 1903, the Merion team that competed in inter-club matches was made up of the following, in position;

1) Rodman Griscom (who had also been the first Green Committee Chairman in 1896 as well as Philly Amateur champion in 1905)

2) Hugh I. Wilson (former club champion of Belmont CC, which became Aronimink, fresh from Princeton)

3) C. S. Farnum

4) Dr. Harry Toulmin

5) R. P. McNeely

6) J. H. Wiindsor

7) H. G. Lloyd

8) H. H. Barlow

9) G. Philler

As Tom MacWood mentioned earlier, Richard Francis became a member at Merion sometime after this.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 02:43:39 PM by MCirba »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3092 on: July 18, 2009, 02:52:02 PM »
Mike
According to Lesley someone laid out several courses prior to the NGLA trip, and after that trip the course was rearranged. That is evidence that the routing process was underway. The problem is Alan Wilson's account says his brother began designing when he returned from his UK trip.

Allan Wilson begins his story with his brother traveling overseas and then designing the golf course on his return. That is a simple mistake? That is the core of his entire account. That is a major boo boo, and an indication he did not have first hand knowledge.

I'm not questioning the entire account. I think his account is mostly accurate and may give us insight into what really happened. I believe when he returned from overseas in 1912 he did begin to exert his architectural ideas on the course, which ultimately resulted in the 'architecture' of the course being his in the main.

I've already answered your question about Tilly. In 1934 Hugh Wilson was largely responsible for the design of the course, so I agree with Tilly. Tilly wrote very little about the course while it was being developed - he was busy with Shawnee - so its not surprising he didn't mention who designed the course or the details of what was happening on the ground.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 03:16:58 PM by Tom MacWood »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3093 on: July 18, 2009, 03:49:40 PM »
Perhaps we can return to the relevant historical t record?

Looking at the Alan Wilson letter, it seems his reminiscences about the joy of playing Merion are based on his first hand experiences, but as far as what exactly happened at early Merion, none of the information seems of the type about which he had or would have direct knowledge.

Jim,

So far as I know, there were three committees at Merion who had something to do with the creation of the golf course'  Lesley's Golf Committee, Wilson's construction committee, and Merion's Board of Governor's.   So far as I know Alan Wilson was not part of any of these at this point.  He was not one of those charged with finding the land, not one of those charged with building the course, not one of those approving the plans or acting on behalf of he entire club.   

So far as I know, he was not present when M&W came down in June of 1910, the committee was - Lesley's committee - but he was not on the committee.  So far as I know, he was not present at NGLA, Hugh Wilson's committee was but he was not on this committee.  I have no reason to believe he was present in April when M&W came back to the site and went over the land again and approved of the final plan, and may have changed the shape of the land and significantly altered the routing.  I have no reason to believe he was at any of the Board Meetings, including the April 1911 meeting where Lesley presented the the plan approved by M&W as the final plan to the board.   

Plus, most of the information about the beginnings of the courses is the kind of stuff one looks up.   Price of seed; total cost; these are things he looked up.   As far as Hugh Wilson's role, he went to the Committee for his information. 

Plus there is the matter of the date of the trip.   We are not talking about just getting the date confused, we are talking him completely botching the order of when things happened.   Sending him was not the first step.   He did not go over until after the course had been planned and built.  So Alan got things complete out of order, and in a monumental way, so that I am not sure we can rely on any of it seriously,

Or, and I think this is a possibility, he did just get the date wrong, and he is actually focusing on what happened after Hugh returned from his trip.   There was still much to be done when Hugh traveled abroad, bunkers to be placed and built, mounds to be built, finishing touches to be added.  We know from the Findlay article that he made significant changes to the Alps holes.   Plus, there would very soon be the West Course to design and build, and a number of changes and fixes to be completed on the East, including three new greens, at least one of which would significantly change the playing characteristics of the hole, and regrassing a substantial section of the course. 

As for Mike's latest observation that there would have been no real architecture left to do.  It is just his latest about-face to support his argument de jour.   Not long ago he was arguing that routing the course was nothing, and the real architecture came in with placing the hazards.  Now the routing is everything, and placing the hazards is absolutely nothing.   Which is it Mike?   As usual, he is just changing the facts and argument to suit his conclusions.

The reality is in between.  The initial planning was very important, but so was the building, the placing of the hazards, the changes.  There was plenty of "architecture" to be done, especially the way AW appears to be using the term.

Lastly, I think we have to look at the context in which this was written.  Alan Wilson had lost his brother not long before, and understandably was interested in preserving his bothers reputation.   I think he was honest, but his overall point seems to be to establish that except for the help provided by M&W (which AWilson readily acknowledges) there was no outside help, and especially no help from a [professional] architect.

So when Alan Wilson was concerned about someone mistakenly thinking there was involvement from a professional architect, about whom was he worried?    I cannot imagine it was HH Barker, for he had been out of the picture for 16 years, and posed no threat.  M&W were not professional architects, and Alan Wilson readily acknowledges their involvement and contributions.

As we get into the 20's and 30's I think we need to keep in mind that there was a professional architect on the scene, and right at Merion.  William Flynn.   Not only had Flynn been around for a while, but he had come into his own as a professional architect by this time, and it is quite easy to imagine that there may have been some confusion as to just who was responsible for what at Merion.  There still is, and Flynn was involved in quite a bit at both courses.   Not only that, but I surely there were a few raised eyebrows when Flynn started publishing plans of Merion, like he did in 1926, and when he marked the plan "Plan by William S. Flynn, Golf Course Architect."  Whether he was or not, it sure looks like Flynn was taking credit for work at Merion, whether he deserved it or not.

So it is no wonder to me that Alan Wilson would want to make the record clear that aside from that which M&W contributed, Alan Wilson and his Committee were responsible for the East and West Courses, and not William Flynn      Same goes for the AWT article.    Flynn was the threat to Alan Wilson's reputation,  not Barker, or M&W.

They might not have made themselves clear enough, as much of the architectural work that was reportedly done under the direction of Alan Wilson is now thought of as having been done by William Flynn.
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 #3094 on: July 18, 2009, 03:54:11 PM »
"According to Lesley someone laid out several courses prior to the NGLA trip, and after that trip the course was rearranged. That is evidence that the routing process was underway."




Tom:

Someone? Who do you suppose those someone(s) were Lesley was referring to in the report he gave as MCC's Golf Chairman to the MCC board on 4/19/1911?  ;)


David Moriarty:

In your post #3201 most of what you say about Alan Wilson is prefaced by a lot of "So far as I know" or "I have no reason to believe."

Let me ask you a few things. Have you ever belonged to a golf club? Have you ever belonged to a golf club like Merion? Do you have a brother? If you do was your brother ever the chairman of the committee charged by the club with designing and constructing two golf courses and researching golf agronomy for two golf courses for that club? If so did you get involved in agronomic research with him early on? If so, do you work everyday in a family insurance business with your brother? If so do you talk to your brother practically every day about what he's doing and thinking and you're doing thinking in those veins?

If the answer is yes to any of those questions I doubt you would have to preface any of your remarks in post #3201 with all those "So far as I know" and " I have no reason to believe."
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 04:09:48 PM by TEPaul »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3095 on: July 18, 2009, 04:16:59 PM »
Tom P.,

Can we have a show of hands of anyone in this treehouse that meets your criteria which you laid of for David?

That's what I thought. None of us is qualified, according to those qualifications.

Which is a blessing. since no one is qualified to speak from experience on starting a club either, so we should all disqualify ourselves from participating in this embarrassing quarrel.

Joe

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3096 on: July 18, 2009, 05:12:47 PM »
Joe

TEPaul thinks that noone should write about these things unless that person's Auntie Gertrude was best friends with the cousin of someone's mother who danced with one or both of the Wilson brothers at the Semi-Annual Cotillion over at the Union Club.  Facts are irrelevant except when he makes them up.
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 Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3097 on: July 18, 2009, 06:07:56 PM »
David,

I know. The last thing I was looking for was another opportunity to have someone point out another person's flaws.

I get it. You guys don't like each other, but for some reason you guys feel the need to keep reminding us.

Joe

" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3098 on: July 18, 2009, 06:19:48 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.


TEP, Mike, David, et. al.

I agree. How do you read this part?

"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."


TEPaul

Re: The Merion Timeline
« Reply #3099 on: July 18, 2009, 06:24:34 PM »
"Which is a blessing. since no one is qualified to speak from experience on starting a club either, so we should all disqualify ourselves from participating in this embarrassing quarrel."


Joe:

You are the greatest! You may be the best problem solver on this entire website! You've just reiterated the reason why a 92 PAGE, 3200+ POST, THREAD should end that has been perpetuated by a couple of guys who've basically never been to nor have established a working research relationship with one of the finest clubs and courses in America but still want to rewrite its architectural history on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.   ;)

« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 06:31:59 PM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back