[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Part of the problem in this discussion is one of perspective. Consider what you said:

"Phil, This what we know regarding Tilly and Merion during the planning phase…”

How are you defining the word “we?” It could be:

1-   Tom & David
2-   The collective known as those on GCA.COM
3-   Tom & Phil
4-   All golf historians
5-   Any combination of the above

And then within your definition of we the possibility that the personal perspectives of those you include may not be different. Again, there are only a handful of people who think of Tilly first as a man rather than a golf course architect, and I am one of them.

How does this affect my view of the discussion?

I know that Tilly was a man who woke up talking golf and would fall asleep in the middle of a sentence about it. It was beyond a passion for him. As a result, he would constantly talk with all he knew about the current state of golf in Philadelphia. That is why his columns give the appearance of being far more gossipy than any of the others in the magazines and newspapers he wrote for.

So when I read that He & Howard Perrin were at a dinner together at the Wyoming valley CC in December 1910 or that he was in attendance at the meeting of the Golf Association of Philadelphia on January 18th 1911, I can’t even begin to think that he didn’t speak to those present about the status of Merion. Could you even consider that he wouldn’t?

So to say, “This is what we know regarding Tilly and Merion during the planning phase” is naive since we (meaning ME) do know, based upon our knowledge of the man, that he was speaking with many about Merion and that these conversations were simply not recorded. I can understand that you may not accept that as proof of anything, but it would be like someone saying that “I heard that Tom Macwood actually visited Tom Paul and spent several hours with him.” Would you believe that ANYONE would think that the subject of Merion would not be brought up? Yet 100 years from now, when future golf architecture nut historians are discussing the influence of GCA.com and speak to the “Great Merion Debates,” when one says that “Sorry, show me WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN that Tom Macwood and Tom Paul discussed Merion during that fateful life-changing meeting. If you can’t it didn’t happen!”

There are some reasonable conclusions that CAN be drawn based upon knowledge of individuals that should be given credence.

That Tilly was aware of what was going on at Merion is one of them. That his sources of this information was plural and included the men behind the project as well as CBM & others (I actually have no doubt that he spoke to Whigham as well) is reasonable.

That he credited Hugh Wilson with the design of Merion East is recorded.

[Mike_Cirba]

Phil,

Perfectly stated.

[DMoriarty]

Well,  if anyone were to rewrite Lesley's artcile of 1914,  what would you have to write to give more credit to CBM and HJW ?

It would be straight forward to do so.  Just cannot get past the articles that CBM and HJW were 'advisers'.

Are we out of fresh articles about Merion ?     Any new articles to review ?

In the 1897 'British Golf Links,'  Hutchinson uses the word 'laid out' to include alll work. There is no distinction in his description.  No other verbs are used.  As in.....Tom Dunn laid out the nine hole course to be opened this summer. 

I think Lesley got it about right for the times.   It is the same way MacDonald and Raynor were credited at Women's National and similar (consustant vs. advisor) to the way AWT was credited at Bethpage Black.   

As for "laid out" sometimes it did include all the work, sometimes it didnt. Laying out involved arranging ON THE GROUND.  When there was a written plan done first, drawing up that plan was not laying out the course.  That would come later when and if the course was laid out upon the ground according to that plan.  Take Barker, he did a written plan  (a "proposed lay out") in June 1910 but he apparently had not yet laid it out on the ground.  Would it be accurate to say, at this point, Barker liad out Merion?  I don't think so.

________________________________________________

Phil,  I don't think asking for articles from 1910-11 where Wilson had been consulted (or even mentiioned) is absurd.  Your position is that AWT knew exactly what was going on.  I don't think so, but if he did, then why doesn't he ever mention Wilson?   Why doesn't anyone ever mention Wilson.  Here we have a course supposedly designed by Wilson, yet AWT is writing about what CBM thinks, and noting how involved  CBM has been, how CBM has reason to be proud and excited, etc.

I agree that chat is the word I should have used, but whether interview or chat my point remains.  It was CBM that AWT spoke to about Merion.  CBM that was very excited.  CBM that HAD REASON TO BE very excited.

As to your post to Tom MacWood.  You (meaning Phil) can draw whatever conclusions you want to about AWT and Merion.  But if you (meaning Phil)  have any direct evidence that AWT was present at Merion or knew exactly what was ongoing, I'd like to see that.    So far it is just your (Phil's) speculation based on proximity, etc.

Thanks. 

[JESII]

Any chance the AWT - CBM article can be posted?

thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Any chance the AWT - CBM article can be posted?

thanks.

I think they have been repeatedly.   Here is one that I find very interesting but others would rather dust under the rug, it is a snippet from a May 14, 1911 article in the Publc Ledger



What I find particularly interesting is that it indicates that not only was CBM "enthusiastic" and heaping praise on the course -- "best inland course in America" -- but that AWT notes that this level of enthusiasm was "only natural" given CBM's level of involvement in the course.   Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course?   Since when did CBM go around bragging about other people's work?    

[TEPaul]

"When there was a written plan done first, drawing up that plan was not laying out the course."


By that are you trying to say that if someone said back then "we laid out five different plans" that that did not mean or could not mean to them back then that they only laid them out on paper at a particular time?

[DMoriarty]

. . .

Macdonald gave advice and was enthusiastic about the project. He was enough of a gentleman to insist his name be kept out of the papers so the Wilson's got their well deserved credit. Merion was NOT designed by Macdonald. I can only find 2 or 3 "template holes" - thus he imparted his general wisdom, made a couple visits like all the Golden Age guys did on their friendly competitors, and went back to the bar at NGLA and had a scotch or two with Morgan OBrien.
. . .

Thanks for chiming in.   Had I only known you had it figured out I would have consulted you a long time ago.  You only found "2 or 3 template holes?"  What is the break even on "template holes" for it to have been a CBM course?   Call me crazy but I can only find 3 or 4 "template holes" at NGLA, and that may be stretching it a bit.   

It is easy to be fooled by early Merion because Raynor and CBM did not build early Merion, and most people have trouble moving past aesthetic stylings into strategic substance.   But I know that you are capable of moving past aesthetics into substance by your description, in jest or not, of the holes at Cypress similar strategic principles as those commonly utilized by CBM and Raynor.    So I'll be interested in your thoughts if we ever move past this nonsense and get into the interesting conversation. 

Thanks.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

You stated, "What I find particularly interesting is that it indicates that not only was CBM "enthusiastic" and heaping praise on the course -- "best inland course in America" -- but that AWT notes that this level of enthusiasm was "only natural" given CBM's level of involvement in the course.   Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course?   Since when did CBM go around bragging about other people's work?"

Perspective is needed here. First of all this is a snippet from a much larger article. That it contains some intriguing comments is a given and has NEVER been "dusted under the rug" as, in fact, it was Mike Cirba who posted it and did so several times. There is nothing to be hidden here.

What is more intriguing to me is what is NOT spoken of. First, Tilly did NOT state that CBM had designed Merion; of course he also didn't say that Wilson did either. But, more importantly, NO MENTION is made of NGLA! It was about 1/2 a year away from officially opening and CBM had spoken of and written about it a great deal. So why didn't Tilly mention it? Simply because he was writing for the philadelphia golfing public, an audience to whom the NGLA was not part of their immediate concern.

"Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course?" For the same reason that everyone else remotely associated with it would; because Philadelphia was finally going to have a true championship golf course!  

[JESII]

David,

Thanks for that, I guess I had seen that a few times but did not connect it to Tillinghast, or an interview.

I think it's clear that CBM felt he was part of the team at Merion. I also think it's interestng that CBM told AWT "more" about Merion...what had AWT been told earlier?

I think the assumption that CBM only praised courses that he controlled is unfair to him.

This is the type of article snippet that supports my statements all along that the degree of attribution may be up in the air a bit but there is not yet reason to move CBM out of the advisor/mentor role and into the lead designer role...JMO.

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
'We' as in those involved in this thread. The articles I described are the extent of the Tilly articles (during the design phase) we have discovered and revealed on this thread. Do you have any Tilly articles relating to Merion that you could add?

[Tom MacWood]

David,

You stated, "What I find particularly interesting is that it indicates that not only was CBM "enthusiastic" and heaping praise on the course -- "best inland course in America" -- but that AWT notes that this level of enthusiasm was "only natural" given CBM's level of involvement in the course.   Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course?   Since when did CBM go around bragging about other people's work?"


Perspective is needed here. First of all this is a snippet from a much larger article. That it contains some intriguing comments is a given and has NEVER been "dusted under the rug" as, in fact, it was Mike Cirba who posted it and did so several times. There is nothing to be hidden here.

What is more intriguing to me is what is NOT spoken of. First, Tilly did NOT state that CBM had designed Merion; of course he also didn't say that Wilson did either. But, more importantly, NO MENTION is made of NGLA! It was about 1/2 a year away from officially opening and CBM had spoken of and written about it a great deal. So why didn't Tilly mention it? Simply because he was writing for the philadelphia golfing public, an audience to whom the NGLA was not part of their immediate concern.

They began playing at the NGLA late in 1909. He was writing for a Philadelphia newspaper...you think it is surprising he would discuss Merion instead of the NGLA?

"Why would CBM be all jacked up about HIW's golf course?" For the same reason that everyone else remotely associated with it would; because Philadelphia was finally going to have a true championship golf course!  

Was CBM a big advocate of Philly golf?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

CB Macdonald had his first public unveiling of NGLA in July 1910.   I've posted it before but the course was still very rough at that point, there were still some grassing issues, and even the design was in an early stage with many bunkers yet to be added.

Frankly, it's amazing he was willing to come down at all, or help as much as he did because he was at a very critical stage with NGLA.  

He had a small invitation tournament that month designed to elicit feedback, which was generally very positive, yet the Road Hole took some criticism, and it's clear that it was still very much a work in progress at that time, even though he originally secured the land back in December 1906.

As for why he woudl be excited by Merion, I think Macdonald would have seen it as clear validation that what he had been working on with his committee of Emmett, Whigham, et.al.  for all of these years was finally coming together, and the golf course was well-received, so when others like his friend Rodman Griscom came to him for advice and help about how to do a similar thing at a club of prominent gentlemen in Philadelphia I'm quite sure he saw it as proof positive that his idea of what good golf course strategies were all about was beginning to spread in this country exactly as he had hoped and precisely as he had been working towards.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I agree, I think he was proud of the course.

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,
I've read the much larger article.   In my opinion the signficance of this particular portion has been swept under the rug.   It is somewhat beside the point, but I disagree with your conclusion that the article was geared toward things of immediate interest in Philalphia.   Wasn't a substantial portion of the article about a tournament at Garden City?  And didn't it even provide fairly detailed descriptions of some of the new features on that course?   I don't live on the East Coast but I've been there once or twice, and I've always thought Garden City was on Long Island.  Same as NGLA.
 
Isn't it interesting, though, that CBM was even talking about Merion?   Because if you believe some around here CBM was only concerned with touting his own courses, and that had CBM designed Merion he most certainly would have touted it.  Yet here we have CBM gushing about Merion, but this has been and no doubt will be dismissed around here as insignificant.  

CBM was reportedly quite protective of his work and quite jealous of any sort of praise other courses would receive.  For example he was reportedly fond of pointing out its shortcomings of Pine Valley.   Yet here he is gushing about Merion and noting that it would become the best inland course in the country!  Best inland course in the country?   Pretty heady praise considering that this would put Merion ahead of some of CBM's own work!   And to think he would be heaping praise on Merion at a time when his beloved NGLA had not even officially opened their clubhouse, at the risk of taking some of the limelight away from NGLA?    

And Phillip, notice how AWT wrote "from [cbm's] description of many of the proposed holes I can readily understand . . . "

From this I think two conclusions are at least reasonable:
1.  CBM was very familiar with the plan at Merion; and
2.  AWT was not very familair with the plan; otherwise he would have no reason to be relying on CBM's description.
Agreed?

Jim has it right.   CBM thought he was part of the team at Merion.  The team responsible for the planning.   Given that this was a team full of admitted novices, does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?

Two more questions, Phillip.  Without you getting into it too deeply, wasn't AWT referred to as a "consultant" with regard to the Black?    And wasn't this one of Whitten's main justifications for minimizing AWT's role there?    

Thanks.

_______________________________________________________________



Jim,  I wondered about the "he told me more about" language as well.   When I first read it I thought maybe it implied that AWT and CBM had discussed the course before.   It could mean that, but it also could mean  that AWT knew something about the course beyond which he had reported in December 1910.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I don't think Macdonald cared who on the committee designed what at Merion, as long as certain fundamental principles of design that were important to him were followed.

Think about what Hugh Wilson wrote;  Macdonald taught them the correct "principles" and I'm quite sure he would have questioned and challenged their ideas, as well, and probably also corrected them if he saw them going too far afield.

[john_stiles]

Maybe it is as Mike said with respect to CB Macdonald and his gushing.

Here Macdonald is,   a self proclaimed expert,  a tough tenacious competitor finally winning the '1st' national championship after three tries,  who says he has found 'THE' way to designing and building great golf courses.    The great course at NGLA is really just getting started by 1911.     And now these prominent men in Phildelphia have called upon 'him' and HJW to be advisers.   'He' is now recognized by a group looking to build the best inland course in America.  They have called upon 'him' for his advise and help on all matters.  Macdonald travels to Philly, and is feted by all the important golfers of the area.   It would have been a wonderful stroke to his ego, and in fact it was.  He was a leading expert.   

His gushing might not be totally unexpected given the Merion folks have accepted his advice, that the land is good for a course, jumped through all these land acquisition hoops and they are actually listening to him that a few templates of the great holes overseas might best work.   As their style of writing is not exactly as the modern golf vernacluar since 1930s or so,  I am not sure that we will ever quit discussing the meanings of the various nouns, verbs, and phrases used in 1910.

As much as CDM and HJW role was mentioned in various articles,    I would have to believe they could have easily been given more credit if deserved.

I guess we await a new article or perhaps a snippet or two from Merion records in a few months.

[DMoriarty]

Maybe it is as Mike said with respect to CB Macdonald and his gushing.

Here Macdonald is,   a self proclaimed expert,  a tough tenacious competitor finally winning the '1st' national championship after three tries,  who says he has found 'THE' way to designing and building great golf courses.    The great course at NGLA is really just getting started by 1911.     And now these prominent men in Phildelphia have called upon 'him' and HJW to be advisers.   'He' is now recognized by a group looking to build the best inland course in America.  They have called upon 'him' for his advise and help on all matters.  Macdonald travels to Philly, and is feted by all the important golfers of the area.   It would have been a wonderful stroke to his ego, and in fact it was.  He was a leading expert.  

His gushing might not be totally unexpected given the Merion folks have accepted his advice, that the land is good for a course, jumped through all these land acquisition hoops and they are actually listening to him that a few templates of the great holes overseas might best work.   As their style of writing is not exactly as the modern golf vernacluar since 1930s or so,  I am not sure that we will ever quit discussing the meanings of the various nouns, verbs, and phrases used in 1910.

As much as CDM and HJW role was mentioned in various articles,    I would have to believe they could have easily been given more credit if deserved.

I guess we await a new article or perhaps a snippet or two from Merion records in a few months.

I don't get this post, especially the end.  Where else would M&W have gotten credit except in the repeated mention of their role in the various articles?  Robert Lesley gives them credit right alongside the committee!  Is it possible that your focus on the word "adviser" as diminutive is not the way it was meant?     After all he was an adviser, wasn't he?   He couldn't have been on the committee, could have he?  They didn't use terms that "consulting architect" or "advising architect" but it is pretty obvious that he was at least that, isn't it?

And you suggest they listened to him on a few templates?   How many templates would we need to find before we recognized that they listened to him on a whole lot more than that?    My understanding is that there were FOUR template holes at NGLA, and even with these four there were substantial departures (improvements, thought CBM) over the originals.   So what kind of similarities would it take?

IF THERE WERE ONLY FOUR AT NGLA HOW MANY WOULD YOU REASONABLY EXPECT AT MERION?  FIFTEEN?

____________________________________

Mike Cirba, it sounds like you are arguing that Merion was a CBM course in the same sense that some of Raynor's courses were CBM courses.    They weren't necessarily directly planned by CBM, but they were efforts at incorporating his ideas and principles into the design.  Am I understanding you correctly?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Commenting on the article you wrote, “And Phillip, notice how AWT wrote "from [cbm's] description of many of the proposed holes I can readily understand . . . "

“From this I think two conclusions are at least reasonable:
1.  CBM was very familiar with the plan at Merion; and
2.  AWT was not very familair with the plan; otherwise he would have no reason to be relying on CBM's description.
Agreed?

As for the first, I agree completely, he was very familiar with the plan. As for the second, I completely disagree. It wasn’t that Tilly wasn’t familiar with the plans but that the holes themselves weren’t FINALIZED as of this date because Tilly went on to write, “NO description of the links can be attempted at this time, FOR THE WORK IS STILL IN ITS INFANCY.”

Those  aren’t the words of someone UNFAMILIAR with the plans; rather exactly the opposite! Tilly could not state that the “work is still in its infancy” to such an extent that the actual holes couldn’t even be attempted if he wasn’t VERY FAMILIAR with the entire project and ALL those involved.

In fact, if Tilly actually believed that CBM had done a final design he wouldn’t have said that they couldn’t be described. Further, he obviously understood that the holes that CBM mentioned were simply “PROPOSED HOLES” as the article clearly states.

You also asked, “Two more questions, Phillip.  Without you getting into it too deeply, wasn't AWT referred to as a "consultant" with regard to the Black?    And wasn't this one of Whitten's main justifications for minimizing AWT's role there?”

I would rather handle those on another thread because they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with this discussion. If you believe they do simply because the word “consultant” has been used to describe CBM’s involvement with Merion, be aware that there is a MAJOR difference in how that word describes the involvements of the two men with the two projects. In Tilly’s case, he had a SIGNED CONTRACT to do the work, something that CBM DIDN’T. As to why Tilly’s contract used the term “Consultant” as part of the description of his services, the answer lay in the contract that Clifford Wendehack signed for the designing of the clubhouse. No one has EVER claimed that he didn’t design it, yet his contract reads as Tilly’s did… He was a “Consultant in the design and construction of…” That is exactly how Tilly’s contract read as well. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Once again, I think Phil's response here is extremely astute and exactly correct.

We know that CBM was extremely knowledgeable about the Merion plans because at the time Tillinghast wrote this, Macdonald had just come back to Merion for the second time (4/6/1911) to help them pick the best of their plans!   He would have known all of the details, certainly.

But AW Tillinghast, at that very end of that same month, wrote that he too had "seen the plans" for the new Merion course, and also wrote at that time sharing other information that I've only seen in the MCC Minutes.

In answer to David's question, no, I don't think what happened at Merion was the same as what happened over time with Macdonald's working style he developed with Seth Raynor.

Raynor and Macdonald were business partners and were working in tandem.   In very real terms, Raynor worked FOR Macdonald.

That is not what happened at Merion.

The Merion Committee instead "employed" Macdonald, not in actual terms, but in practical ones.   For all of the reasons mentioned that seemed to work well for both of them, and I'm sure he was pleased that they used his committee model of amateur sportsmen looking to build a course based on strategic principles that he had been such a strong and staunch advocate for over the previous decade.

To Macdonald, the work he did at NGLA was important as a shrine and living mecca of what could be achieved in golf course architecture, but we also know he wanted NGLA to serve as a model to inspire others to spread those fundamental principles across America.

Tillinghast knew that Hugh Wilson primarily designed the course at Merion and that seems to have been validated through his personal discussions with Macdonald, because he maintained it his whole life and reiterated it loudly in 1934.  

But that doesn't mean that Macdonald wasn't extremely important to the Merion course.   I think what we're seeing is exactly what was said by Hugh Wilson and Alan Wilson and Robert Lesley everyone at Merion all along...that Macdonald had taught them the fundamental principles of design and helped greatly in their efforts to implement those principles on their inland course in Ardmore.

[JESII]

Jim has it right.   CBM thought he was part of the team at Merion.  The team responsible for the planning.   Given that this was a team full of admitted novices, does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?

David,

I think the whole debate could revolve around this particular sentence and the implications made...not that it will end the debate, I don't expect that to happen while the protagonists are still breathing...

While I am not the least bit interested in dissecting "expert" and "novice" I think there are two schools on this...how can a novice become expert without, at some point jumping into the deep end themselves? Sure, most choose the protege route where they learn directly from within the world of the expert (Tom Doak might be a modern example)...but they do not all have to. Peter Pallotta identified Orson Welles as an example of the other route. While film is not my area of expertise   I trust his commentary from a few pages ago. So, while Hugh Wilson was an admitted novice at the beginning there is precedent for a novice creating a masterpiece on their own. Merion East is not that example. CBM and HJW were very helpful throughout...but the possibility is there.

More concerning to me in that sentence of yours is the question/implication..."does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?"    If CBM Macdonald were actually asked exactly what has always been reported that he had been asked...'to look over the property and tell us if it can work'...'to educate us on the principles of building good holes etc'... 'and to help us decide the best of five plans'...why would you make him out to be incapable of acting like a gentleman in the spirit of cooperation for the greater good of the game of golf?

I mentioned a page or two ago that this was a time when several individuals were looking to create a course themselves, over a period of time, and to take complete ownership of the result...in that environment, hiring an outsider to dictate doesn't fit.

This Merion research/passion is yours, how much of it would you let someone else to write and tell you to bind it together?

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,

One need not visit a course or be familiar with the plans to know that they were just getting started.  CBM could have told him that.   He would not have to rely on CBM descriptions of the holes if he had seen them himself.   My conclusion is, at the very least, reasonable.   That you don't agree with it is fine, but the conclusion is reasonable. 

I would rather handle those on another thread because they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with this discussion. If you believe they do simply because the word “consultant” has been used to describe CBM’s involvement with Merion, be aware that there is a MAJOR difference in how that word describes the involvements of the two men with the two projects. In Tilly’s case, he had a SIGNED CONTRACT to do the work, something that CBM DIDN’T. As to why Tilly’s contract used the term “Consultant” as part of the description of his services, the answer lay in the contract that Clifford Wendehack signed for the designing of the clubhouse. No one has EVER claimed that he didn’t design it, yet his contract reads as Tilly’s did… He was a “Consultant in the design and construction of…” That is exactly how Tilly’s contract read as well. 

Phillip,  I fail to see this as a significant difference at all.   Unlike AWT, CBM was every inch an amateur when it came to designing courses.  So there would of course be no contract.   My point is one of word usage.   They called him a "consultant" yet he designed the course.    As for bringing up the clubhouse, that is another example supporting my point.   A "consultant" was responsible for the design of the clubhouse as well.   The point is, we cannot assume that the terms consultant or advisor are diminutive terms.   We have to look at what the consultant or advisor contributed. 

Another example is Women's National, where Emmet was hired and architect and apparently built the course, but CBM and Macdonald were credited with "assisting him with the plans."   According to Bahto, Raynor had drawn up plans for Women's National and whether they were implemented fully or not he does not know (because the plans themselves haven't been located.)  But  "[g]iven the final product . . ., the familiar configurations and brush strokes of their work, it is inconceivable that the course was not heavily influecned by Raynor (and therefore Macdonald, too.)"

[Joe Bausch]

Here is the entire article that is now being debated for those of you keeping score at home.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

I accept that you "don't see a significant difference at all" in how CBM consulted or advised with Merion as compared to Tilly at Bethpage, but the fact remains that there is. There is far more than "word usage" here. In fact, your own example proves this.

Emmet was "HIRED" and therefor the one who was responsible for the job. At Merion, NO ONE was HIRED and the one(s) responsible for the job was the Committee given that by the Merion Board. THEY are the ones who had the last word and NOT an advising amateur architect.

If the Committee, which was headed by another amateur architect (Wilson) deferred the decisions to him, that was their choice. There is simply not anything in any public record that states otherwise.

Thanks for posting the letter Joe...

[DMoriarty]

Jim has it right.   CBM thought he was part of the team at Merion.  The team responsible for the planning.   Given that this was a team full of admitted novices, does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?

David,

I think the whole debate could revolve around this particular sentence and the implications made...not that it will end the debate, I don't expect that to happen while the protagonists are still breathing...

While I am not the least bit interested in dissecting "expert" and "novice" I think there are two schools on this...how can a novice become expert without, at some point jumping into the deep end themselves? Sure, most choose the protege route where they learn directly from within the world of the expert (Tom Doak might be a modern example)...but they do not all have to. Peter Pallotta identified Orson Welles as an example of the other route. While film is not my area of expertise  I trust his commentary from a few pages ago. So, while Hugh Wilson was an admitted novice at the beginning there is precedent for a novice creating a masterpiece on their own. Merion East is not that example. CBM and HJW were very helpful throughout...but the possibility is there.

Jim, as you say, this was not the case at Merion.  Wilson not only admitted they were novices, but also that it was CBM who taught them, and Wilson even recommended to anyone planning to change or build a course should go to NGLA (and Pine Valley) and try to emulate the principles expressed in their golf holes.   

More concerning to me in that sentence of yours is the question/implication..."does anyone really believe that think that CBM would have played a subservient or even equal role to the others?"    If CBM Macdonald were actually asked exactly what has always been reported that he had been asked...'to look over the property and tell us if it can work'...'to educate us on the principles of building good holes etc'... 'and to help us decide the best of five plans'...why would you make him out to be incapable of acting like a gentleman in the spirit of cooperation for the greater good of the game of golf?

You get me wrong.   I think Wilson and Committee would have insisted that he play the majority role, whether he wanted to or not.   M&W were experts, and the men of Merion appreciated that some things were best left to real experts.   Plus, look how Wilson talks about NGLA!  He sure wasn't saying anything like 'we bounced ideas off of each other, and came to a consensus.'  Wilson was there to listen and learn.   And look at what we know about the April Board Meeting.   Lesley did not report that Wilson and Macdonald had worked out the plan.   He reported that Wilson and his committee laid out five alternatives after visiting NGLA and then M&W came down and approved the plan that went to the board.  It doesn't sound like an equal relationship to me.  It sounds like Wilson is trying to carry out what M&W told him would work on the land at Merion, and M&W checked up on him and approved the final.   

So I don't think your description of what MCC asked of M&W is necessarily accurate or complete.  We don't know everything they asked of him, but we do know that he did more that "educate them on the principles of building good golf holes."   He taught them how to incorporate those principles into the natural terrain at Merion.    We cannot continue to dismiss the NGLA meeting as some sort of a general symposium on the great golf holes of the world.    EVEN ALAN WILSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE FOCUS OF THE MEETING WAS THE LAY OUT OF THE EAST COURSE.   M&W gave them advice and suggestions as to the layout of the East Course.   

So when I made that comment I did NOT assume the advice was general and not directly related to the layout of the East.  As far as I am concerned this is one of the last vestiges of the old legend that is still floating hanging around despite the fact that there is no factual support for it.   Old legends die hard, but this one is all but dead, and I will not continue to prop it up.
-  Alan Wilson told us the topic of the meeting was the lay out of Merion East.
-  Hugh Wilson's other correspondence inticates that he was of the type that he would have wanted as much help from the these experts as he could get.  As he said in another context, he realized the value of CBM's advice, and would follow it.
-  Hugh Wilson told us that through drawings and sketches M&W taught them how to incorporate the principles into Merion's natural features.
-  Hugh Wilson also told us that while at NGLA they examined CBM's "plans."
-  They had at least a contour map by then.
- The timing of the meeting suggests that they were trying to get the plans finished so they could start building the course. 
- They laid out the five alternative plans after the NGLA meeting.
-- M&W returned to go over the land again and to chose the final plan, thus indicating that their role was not abstract but concrete.   


I mentioned a page or two ago that this was a time when several individuals were looking to create a course themselves, over a period of time, and to take complete ownership of the result...in that environment, hiring an outsider to dictate doesn't fit.

That may be what their attitude became over time, but initially they wanted the best course they could get, and these men knew the value of true expertise and utilized it to the full extent it was available to them.   They'd have been fools not to.

This Merion research/passion is yours, how much of it would you let someone else to write and tell you to bind it together?

I'd gladly accept a secondary role if the disparity in level of expertise between me and someone else was as great as between Wilson and Co. on the one hand, and M&W on the other.  For example, in my paper I was glad to rely on Tom Macwood for some of the Barker information and greatful for the help, because although the information about his involvement at Meiron was mine,  I didn't know nearly as much about Barker as he did.

We all like to things ourselves, but we'd be fools not to yield to real authority and expertise when presented with the opportunity.  And Alan Wilson was no fool, especially when it came to seeking out and following expert advice. 

[DMoriarty]

Phillip,  a distinction without a difference, and an inaccurate distinction at that.

. . .
Emmet was "HIRED" and therefor the one who was responsible for the job. At Merion, NO ONE was HIRED and the one(s) responsible for the job was the Committee given that by the Merion Board. THEY are the ones who had the last word and NOT an advising amateur architect.

Not so.   CBM and HJW had the last word.  They chose the final routing.   And when the final routing was presented to the board, lesley informed the board that it had been approved by M&W.   No mention of Wilson at all, as far as I know.

If the Committee, which was headed by another amateur architect (Wilson) deferred the decisions to him, that was their choice. There is simply not anything in any public record that states otherwise.

Huh?  Where it the public record does it state that Wilson had a choice in the matter?  We are told that M&W approved the routing.  Nothing about Wilson signing off on M&W's approval.   Not only that, but if Wilson did have a choice, but he deferred to M&W regarding design decisions, then as far as I am concerned  M&W were the creative driving forces behind the course.

And Phillip, it is my understanding that Marion Hollins was in charge at Women's national, and if she preferred Raynor and CBM's design ideas then it doesn't matter who she had hired.    What matters is whose ideas got built into the course.   Bahto thinks they were Raynor's and CBM's ideas at Women's National.  I think they were  M&W's ideas at Merion.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()