[DMoriarty]

Sully,

Not sure it is time for that discussion.  With TEPaul around I think it would end up being another pointless exercise of insults and unsupported proclamations.    I will say that regardless of our modern understanding of the Redan, there is no doubt that Merion thought they had built a Redan.  Even CBM calls it a Redan.    And there are other similarities beyond just the bunker.   The distance is right, as is the angled green on a plateau with the ground dropping off sharply on one side.  While the green doe not slope front to back it does slope left to right, thus allowing the golfer (at least the left-handed golfer) to work the ball around and behind the bunker on the ground. 

______________________________________________

"It seems as if Wilson was focused what to do next, and this fits well with the theory that Wilson's predominate design contribution occurred after his trip abroad."


It doesn't fit well with that theory if one considers these words from the Wilson report to the MCC board of 4/19/1911: "Your committee desires to report that AFTER laying out numerous different courses on the new land, they went down to the National course...." We know from a separate Wilson letter they went to NGLA in the beginning of March 1911 and so they laid out numerous different courses on the new land before that. Before March 1911 was a couple of months before anything was built at Ardmore for the East course so it is both undeniable and an unavoidable fact that Wilson and his committee did a whole lot of routing (and design?) work BEFORE Wilson took a trip abroad and not JUST AFTER he did.

Yet another version of what the supposed minutes say, and wrongly attributed to Wilson instead of Lesley.    Tom apparently just types out whatever words he feels will make his point, but he puts them in quotes and attributes his conclusions to the "minutes."   

From the various versions thus far provided it is possible (and perhaps probable) that those who laid out the course were not the same as those who went to NGLA.  After WE laid out many courses, THEY went down to the National.
 

This is the way Merion reads and understands that source material anyway, and well they should as any logical and commonsensical person who read it would too.

TEPaul is not Merion nor is he a member of Merion.  I have no idea why he pretends to speak for Merion.

[JESII]

I don't know David, Tom would likely participate in a fact based conversation of the holes themselves.

Trying to force an interpretation of whose idea a specific feature may have been is/will be the downfall of that conversation but I think we'll be able to agree that the 3rd does have at least some characteristics of a Redan and the original 10th was an attempt at an Alps etc...

But that's your call...

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I have no interest at all in being part of a discussion where those two try to force interpretations of Merion's holes or their features. What a total waste of time that would be.



"I have no idea why he pretends to speak for Merion."

I realize that, and I have for years. You have no idea what goes on around here and you never have. That has been patently clear for almost seven years.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know David, Tom would likely participate in a fact based conversation of the holes themselves.

Trying to force an interpretation of whose idea a specific feature may have been is/will be the downfall of that conversation but I think we'll be able to agree that the 3rd does have at least some characteristics of a Redan and the original 10th was an attempt at an Alps etc...

But that's your call...

I don't think we need that sort of agreement with the Redan or the Alps because multiple sources indicate that those were attempts at those two holes.  Whether Wilson's committee pulled it off is secondary, isn't it?   But with the rest of the holes it is a bit more difficult because we are looking for underlying concepts and the incorporation of certain characteristic features and CBM tells.   But I'd rather hold off on that discussion for a few reasons, one of which is to give people a break from Merion.  

What would you expect to to see if M&W were the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built?

[TEPaul]

"What would you expect to to see if M&W were the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built?"


What I would expect to see if Macdonald (since I am not aware of anything that Whigam designed and built) was the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built would certainly not be a course that looks much like or plays much like Merion East. That seems to be the consensus opinion of most of the best golf course analysts for close to the last century as well. But perhaps all of them were simply joking, mistaken or all engaging in hyperbole or just out to create some mythical icon! 

[DMoriarty]

"What would you expect to to see if M&W were the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built?"


What I would expect to see if Macdonald (since I am not aware of anything that Whigam designed and built) was the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built would certainly not be a course that looks much like or plays much like Merion East. That seems to be the consensus opinion of most of the best golf course analysts for close to the last century as well. But perhaps all of them were simply joking, mistaken or all engaging in hyperbole or just out to create some mythical icon!  

TEPaul,  My question was for JES or anyone other than you.  You wrote in your last post that you had no interest in this conversation.  

A few weeks ago you announced you would be ignoring me and not respond to my posts.  I am very much looking forward to that.  When are you planning on getting started?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,  My question was for JES or anyone other than you.  You wrote in your last post that you had no interest in this conversation."


I don't give a damn who your question was for. If someone makes a comment to someone on here or asks someone a question there is nothing whatsoever about this DG that says no one else can comment on it. I know my patience with you trying to make the rules on this website in that way was at an end a long time ago----eg what had to be actually scanned or put on here to conform to YOUR notion of what constitutes VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE to conform to CIVIL DISCOURSE!?? When Wayne and I mentioned that bullshit to Ran a while ago his reaction was priceless-----eg; "Nice term but that's about all."     


"A few weeks ago you announced you would be ignoring me and not respond to my posts.  I am very much looking forward to that.  When are you planning on getting started?"


I will ignore you or respond to you when and how I feel like it and whatever the hell you are looking forward to in that vein is of pretty much zero interest or concern to me.

I gave you a good half dozen really good opportunities to cooperate on a bunch of things including Macdonald's life itself and each and every time you turned it down. I gave you that opportunity on here and by email which I would be more than happy to make available on here if you deny it. Consequently, Moriarty, at this point, I don't think you have a leg to stand on---not even close! What you get on here from me or anyone else, at this point, I feel is the direct result of your confrontational, arrogant and adverserial attitude. The results and consequences of that constant and continuous confrontational, arrogant and adverserial attitude of yours will go beyond this website! I guarantee it.
 
 

[JESII]

Thanks Tom, but you'll admit, I am sure, that there is a value to a one-on-one conversation evolving even within the confines of an internet website discussion group. You and David have been at for a long time and I don't think either has helped themselves much at all. Perhaps listening to others view on things will help move the conversation along.

What would you expect to to see if M&W were the driving creative force behind a course that Wilson built?

I've said numerous times that I don't know MacDonald and Wigham's work much at all, but the number one thing I would expect in the context of Merion is more evidence of their presence and contribution.

One example is what we are beginning to touch on...why would the Alps, Redan and Eden be failures if CBM were really active in the process?

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps listening to others view on things will help move the conversation along."


Sully:

I have no problem with that at all---believe me. But my interest and concern is what these clubs ultimately think about any of this. Can you understand that and can you understand WHY that is important to me? I mean I have no problem with some of these "conversations" on here but when they become SO far removed from reality or the obvious facts of club records and such what is one to do? Just avoid those conversations or become part of them to try to imbue some reality into them?

[JESII]

Tom,

Can you give me an example of this particular Merion topic going so far off the board for any real period of time (read: number of posts) that it needed a reminder? I don't think you and Mike let two posts go by without one of your own in 110 pages...how could it get off course?


Can I suggest that there is a difference with what these clubs think about the process as exhibited here on GCA (less than empathetic and ideal) and what they think about the potential results of really diligent objective research are two different things...by about three light years?

[TEPaul]

"I've said numerous times that I don't know MacDonald and Wigham's work much at all, but the number one thing I would expect in the context of Merion is more evidence of their presence and contribution."


Sully:

Honestly, people like Wayne and me and others from the club have been searching for ten years for more direct evidence of the architectural history of the club. Where, at this point, do YOU expect more evidence will be coming from? We've checked with all the extended families of the original participants, with the US Dept of Ag, with all the old surveying companies etc. Where do you think new information would be coming from? Give us some suggestions and maybe even consider helping us do the legwork as those two yahoos should have done themselves years ago if they are so damn interested in the details of these things. Why do they think we should be their researcher goffers particularly after their years long despicable attitude towards us? Do you have any idea how long and much time we have spent on this stuff? Do you have any idea how much and how long Joe Bausch has worked on this kind of thing in one specific vein?



"One example is what we are beginning to touch on...why would the Alps, Redan and Eden be failures if CBM were really active in the process?"


Failures? What do you mean by that? Are those holes FAILURES even if someone doesn't even think of calling them a redan or eden? This vague template attribution bullshit of Moriarty's or MacWood's of the holes of Merion have always been just that in my opinion and the opinion of most intelligent architectural analysts and historians for about the last century but I suppose there is no reason why THAT should stop that "converstion" on here!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't see how anyone could claim that the "redan" hole at Merion is a failure.

It's a wonderful hole.

We've seen, time and time again, that the templates had various iterations and weren't exact reproductions of a particular hole type.
Is the 17th at PacDunes a version of the concept or an exact replica ?
The 11th at LACC-N ?
The 8th at The Creek ?

As to the "Alps" its elimination was probably due to several factors, including the first hole.

One can't view these holes in the context of golf and golf course architecture circa 2009.
One has to view them in the context of golf and golf course architecture circa 1909-1912.

[DMoriarty]

I've said numerous times that I don't know MacDonald and Wigham's work much at all, but the number one thing I would expect in the context of Merion is more evidence of their presence and contribution.

One example is what we are beginning to touch on...why would the Alps, Redan and Eden be failures if CBM were really active in the process?

I think that Merion's Redan was and is a very good hole.   That it would not be considered a "real" Redan by today's standards doesn't mean it wasn't considered a redan then, does it?   And it certianly doesn't make it a failure, does it?   And CBM and HJW apparently did not think it a failure, given that they used it as an example in their 1914 article on the Redan concept.   M&W were apparently not as dogmatic about these holes concepts as many are today, yet ironically, they are the ones who are often portrayed as formulaic.  Here is their last paragraph:

There are several Redans to be found nowadays on American courses. There is a simplified Redan at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket Club (the green being approached from the left hand end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about level with the green is much higher. A beautiful short hole with the Redan principle will be found on the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course. In reality there are only about four or five kinds of good holes in golf. The local scenery supplies the variety. Here is one of the four or five perfect kinds. The principle of the Redan cannot be improved upon for a hole of 180 yards.

As for the Alps, I know that it has been portrayed around here as an abysmal hole, but accounts about the early course often single out the 10th for praise as one of the better golf holes!  Yes it was changed, but not until over a decade later, and then by all accounts this was because of increased traffic on Ardmore Avenue, not because of any failings of the hole.    

As for the Eden, you mean the reported attempt at the Eden green on No. 15?  I have a hypothesis about what was going on there, but I want to wait to get into that until I can see if it checks out. Tillinghast (?) was quite critical of this green, but I am not sure whether his criticism had merit or not.   My understanding is that this was not one of the greens that was rebuilt early on, and to my knowledge, whatever changes have been made since then have preserved the original design characteristics.

So I wouldn't characterize any of these three to be a "failure."  

As for your general point, just how much more of CBM do you need to see?   NGLA only had three or four holes that could be considered to be actual templates of great holes abroad, and even a few of these don't look much like the holes they were supposedly copying. The rest of the holes were a combination of concepts and features combined with what could be done with the landscape.   Would you expect more of Merion?    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Regardless of the reasons for leaving, it's a shame guys like Mike Cirba & TePaul have chosen to leave the site...

Stephen,

Is an imposter now posting under TEPaul's name ?  

[TEPaul]

"Can I suggest that there is a difference with what these clubs think about the process as exhibited here on GCA (less than empathetic and ideal) and what they think about the potential results of really diligent objective research are two different things...by about three light years?"


Sully:

I think these clubs do (or have) looked at this website as an entity that can produce some really potential results and really diligent objective research but most definitely not from MacWood and Moriarty with Merion and Myopia in a number of years or ever. If you don't want to take my word for that by all means allow me to introduce you to the numerous people who I've known for years who are both historians and administrators of those two clubs. Don't take my word for it on here but you should certainly take theirs! Is there some good reason why you wouldn't or shouldn't?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have postulated before that Wilson's legacy probably lies as much or more in his early redos of Merion than in his original contributions as head of a team that routed the course initially. 

Jeff,

I tend to agree with your postulation.

[TEPaul]

"Stephen,

Is an imposter now posting under TEPaul's name ?   "


Patrick:

You've known me for quite a while now but even you may not realize there actually is no one TEPaul or Tom Paul. When I was about 3-4 I developed into two people----one is Good Tom and the other is Bad Tom and that's just the way it is. There isn't any one single consistent Tom Paul or TEPaul, and that's the way it's always been. Even the great Fireball Roberts, my original idol, and probably one of the most naturally talented race car drivers who ever lived, who knew me since I was about five used to ask me down at Fish Carburetor Corp or on the way to a race: "Hey kid, which one are you today?"


They say even when I was about five about half the time I would say to Fireball who was about twenty years my senior: "Well, Champ, that depends on whether you're going to be a good guy today or an asshole."

And that always seemed to work out fine between us over the years except for one time on the way back from the Daytona 500 on the old beach/road track (it may've been about '54 or '55) when we were riding back in his mechanic's car with me and Fireball sitting in the back with me holding his helmet. He asked me that and I told him the same thing I generally did (see above) but that particular time (which I've never understood) he took his helmet outta my hands and smacked me on the head with it so hard it liked to scramble my brains maybe permanently.

[DMoriarty]

. . . This vague template attribution bullshit of Moriarty's or MacWood's of the holes of Merion have always been just that in my opinion and the opinion of most intelligent architectural analysts and historians for about the last century but I suppose there is no reason why THAT should stop that "converstion" on here!

 This vague template attribution bullshit of Moriarty's or MacWood's of the holes of Merion have always been just that in my opinion . . .  

At this point how can TEPaul or anyone still make the claim that this is vague or bullshit? Numerous sources in and out of Merion have noted that at least some of the holes at Merion were based on the great holes abroad.  So did the major golf figures present at the time including Findlay and AWT.  Most recently an article from Scotland noted that the holes had been modeled on the holes abroad, and Hugh Wilson himself was the most likely source of that info.  

This type of post is why TEPaul has no place in any productive conversation about Merion.   He is still clinging to the status quo story that he and Wayne have worked so hard to protect, and still denying even what the weight of the evidence has established.

[Niall C]

Jeff
I don't believe CBM coined the term golf architect.

In the P&O letters there is a letter from Colt to Wilson in the early 20s, asking him when he will return to the UK and see his new place. That he is now living in a small Berkshire village that he believes Wilson would really like. Colt was living near Sunningdale in 1912.

Niall
Merion had holes constructed etc etc. Everyone knew who was responsible for the NGLA; I don't believe the author would be confused.  The source is mostly likely Wilson, who else would have the level detail regarding the itinerary.

There was a short article in Golf Monthly in the timeframe mentioning Wilson's mission abroad. In the article it compared Wilson's trip to CBM's trip in 1906. In that article Wilson is referred to as Hugh G. Wilson.

Tom

I tried to respond last night but unfortunately the server was jammed. One thing you have to bear in mind with this article is that the writer is Scottish and is writing for a Scottish audience. While I have read some of his columns which makes mention of events in America it is usually in relation to what the Scottish pro's were upto in the US, either that or general comments. To give you a for instance on how parochial the local press could be, the Titanic was sunk at about this time with a huge loss of life, and apparently the Aberdeen Press and Journal newspaper famously reported it with the headline "North east man lost at sea".

Therefore I certainly don't think you should take it for granted that the writer new NGLA from Merion or that his readers would have either. My initial take on the article was that perhaps Wilson was a member at NGLA as the article talked about THE course that had replica holes, my assumption being that NGLA was the better known replica course.

Having thought about it a bit more, I'm fairly certain that the writer didn't meet or had spoken to Wilson or he would have mentioned it. I think therefore that he got his info either from Fernie or someone else who was there. Therefore the only thing in the article that we could take as being gospel (IMHO) would be the fact that he played golf and walked the course with Willie Fernie, taking notes and photographing certain holes/features. That would have been a first hand account ie. either from Fernie or someone who was at Troon. I think the reporting of Wilsons itinerary and the background info needs to be dealt with a little more carefully as its probably coming from someone who is relaying a conversation which could easily be misinterpreted and may account for some of the odd language.

I would suggest that it is safe to assume that Wilson did make it to North Berwick as some time later George Sayers (son of Ben) is employed by Merion as club pro.

David

Thanks for the photo of Sandhills bunker. I can only think the bunker is the dune in front of the 10th tee as I can't think of any other landform on the course which would be like it. If it is the dune I'm thinking of then it is now all grass and gorse.

Niall 

[Tom MacWood]

Niall
One would presume a golf columnist in Scotland would be aware of and would be reading the major golf publications of the day, including Golf Illustrated, which originated in Scotland. The NGLA was the most heavily anticipated golf course in the world, and one of the most controversial, and CBM was well known as its originator. The Times, the Manchester Guardian, Country Life, Golf Illustrated, Golf Monthly, and the Scotsman all reported on the course. I'd be shocked if the author wasn't well aware of the NGLA and CBM, and based on that there is little chance he would've mistakenly thought Wilson was involved.

The source of the information is not important. What is important is the acknowledgment that the course was largely based on the NGLA model, that is a course made up of famous holes and famous features from abroad. I think that was very apparent before you found the article, and this just confirms it.

[Niall C]

Tom

NGLA was perhaps the most eagerly anticipated golf course in the world if you happened to live in Long Island for instance. Any reports in the Evening Times of Glasgow would likely be cursory mentions at best rather than the sort of exposure that changes to Troon, North Berwick or Carnoustie would get. (how many of the new courses in Scotland were discussed in the American press ?)   Basically it would be of passing interest. Thats not to say NGLA didn't receive UK press attention, and MacDonald with it, but the Evening Times was serving a much smaller audience. Would Bulger have known about NGLA and MacDonald ? Possibly if not probably, but even if he was I'm surprised he didn't spell out which course he was talking about for the benefit of his readers.

But then are we talking about NGLA ? The article states that Wilson belonged to the club etc. If Wilson wasn't a member of NGLA then is Bulger referring to Merion and assuming that we know that ? As I said before you just have to be a wee bit careful in taking the wording in this article completely at face value.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

We should be very careful about presuming this or that.  That said, I generally agree with your post, even if Niall is correct about the local slants of most newspapers. When I first moved to Texas, it struck me that whoever was involved in the news usually got a mention of any connection they had to Texas, as in "once lived here," passed through here,""Whose grandfather lived here," etc.

Perhaps this is not the thread to discuss it, but as I mentioned, I see this as possibly a real revelation for Wilson.  Having copied the copies, it seems he was surprised to see how naturalistic the originals were compared to NGLA.  IMHO (and IMHO only) the naturalistic feel of Merion was a major departure from the then dominant NGLA model and it may very well have come from this trip. 

I know others were experimenting with getting away from the geometric look of so many early designs, but since MCC became so famous, I get the impression it may have been more influential in that way than other courses, and all because Wilson took a belated trip to GBI to double check on old Charlie and his thoughts!

[Tom MacWood]

Niall/Jeff
I'm confused. Wilson was a not a member of the NGLA. It is well documented the original version of Merion had features and holes based on famous models overseas. Why does it matter what the author of the article thought?

[DMoriarty]

Perhaps this is not the thread to discuss it, but as I mentioned, I see this as possibly a real revelation for Wilson.  Having copied the copies, it seems he was surprised to see how naturalistic the originals were compared to NGLA.  IMHO (and IMHO only) the naturalistic feel of Merion was a major departure from the then dominant NGLA model and it may very well have come from this trip.  

I know others were experimenting with getting away from the geometric look of so many early designs, but since MCC became so famous, I get the impression it may have been more influential in that way than other courses, and all because Wilson took a belated trip to GBI to double check on old Charlie and his thoughts!

Jeff,  

What was the "dominant NGLA model?"  What looked "geometric" at NGLA in 1911?   I ask because I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature and aesthetic of NGLA during this time period.

Is this the "geometric look" you referenced in your post?  Was this the dominant aesthetic that you think Wilson was rejecting at Merion?

[Joe Bausch]

MikeC asked me to post this for him:

All,

Thanks to Niall for finding that very intriguing article and to Bryan for posting it.   It certainly helps to add meat to our understanding of Wilson's trip.   Similar to the Alex Findlay article Joe Bausch found earlier as well as the one from Tom MacWood that detailed Wilson's Irish portion of Wilson's trip, it helps to answer some questions while begging others.   I've enjoyed reading much of the ensuing conversation and would simply like to address a few tidbits that will hopefully add value.

First, I am very struck by the courses Wilson visited.   I'm not sure why it never occurred to me prior, but can anyone name any famous template holes or even direct hole concepts that Macdonald (or Wilson) ever used on his American courses that seem transported directly from Troon, or Hoylake, or Formby, Deal, Princes, Portrush, etc??   

Yesterday I went through George Bahto's book where he describes each of the template holes that Macdonald and Raynor used often through their careers, as well as the source of their original inspiration, and as one might expect, there are a number from St. Andrews (which somewhat ironically, we learned that Hugh Wilson (as well as Alex Findlay) was quite disappointed with), including Eden, Road, and Long, the redan from North Berwick, the short from Brancaster, the Leven from Leven,  Alps from Prestwick,  Biarritz from Biarritz in France, Narrows from Muirfield, Bottle from Sunningdale, Knoll from Scotscraig, Channel from Littlestone, and the Sahara from Royal St. George's.   Other concept holes such as the Cape were Macdonald originals.

This begs an obvious question.  If the purpose of Wilson's trip was simply looking to either construct or maintain holes identical to their originals, then why would he visit golf courses abroad where clearly no holes from either Macdonald's or Merion's repitoire existed?    What famed holes at Troon were transported to Merion, either in whole or part?   Or Deal??   

Many of the early British publications were skeptical and even downright hostile to Macdonald's idea of "replicating" their golf holes in America, and many of the Scottish experts scoffed at the concept, including Willie Park.   That is because they took Macdonald at this original stated intent that he was going to build exact duplications of those hole, which he later revised when he himself saw how unrealistic that idea was.   So I think it's fair to say that the understanding of many writers in GBI was still that those darn yanks were ridiculously trying to duplicate their great holes, and it wasn't until writers like Darwin came over and raved about NGLA that they started to actually give Macdonald his due for not only duplication, but also for creation.

In any case, I think it's self-evident that the purpose of the trip was broader than the writer's understanding of Wilson simply trying to maintain, or make holes as identical to the originals as possible.   We retrospectively "know" this as fact simply based on the broad-based itinerary of courses with holes that were clearly never duplicated by Macdonald, by Merion, but that were part of gaining a broader education and understanding of what worked and didn't, as Wilson himself would tell us in 1916 had been the purpose of his trip.

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised at this juncture to see the question resurface, "How could Wilson have designed holes based after famous holes abroad if he had not yet visited there?"

Of course, as Jeff or Bryan pointed out, we already know the answer to that question.   In fact, Hugh Wilson himself told us when he stated, "Our ideals were high and fortunately we did get a good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes through the kindness of Messrs. C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigham.   We spent two days with Mr. Macdonald at his bungalow near the National Course and in one night absorbed more ideas on golf course construction than we had learned in all the years we had played.  Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions.   The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes.  Every good course I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings."

The NGLA visit was of course the source of Hugh Wilson's understanding of the holes abroad, and the visit preceded construction of the initial Merion course.    Wilson and his committee had not only seen (and perhaps received copies of) extremely detailed, scale drawings of the famous holes abroad, but they had also seen Macdonald's template holes based on their concepts, and in some cases, attempts at close replication.

I also found one interpretation odd as relates to the writer's term, 'green architects".    Someone wrote that the term "apparently applied to green keeper(s)".

Honestly, I'm not sure how anyone could so misunderstand such a very straightforward term as to humorously omit Hugh Wilson from the writer's intent.   I did get a good chuckle out of it, though, so perhaps my sense of humor is returning. 

Finally, since leaving the DG, I did come across one question to me that I hadn't seen and therefore couldn't answer at the time.   It involved Dr. Harry Toulmin, and my contention that he was one of three men (Harrison Townsend, who also designed the first Spring Lake CC in NJ being one of the others) who designed the original nine hole course at Belmont CC, which later became Aronimink, and where Hugh Wilson won the first Club Championship at age 18, held the course record, and had the lowest handicap by 8 shots in 1898.

The source of that information is the 1898 publication by Prosper Sennatt, which provided detailed information about all of the Philadelphia courses at that time, inlcuding mapped drawings and even pictures of each course.   It's also one of the sources of my contention that the Willie Campbell 9-hole course at Merion was one of those dreadful, rote, cross-bunkered affairs because it's obvious in looking at it.

In any case, a later article Joe uncovered mentions that Campbell is also going to build new courses of 18, 9, and a woman's course for Belmont, but apparently this never happened, as by 1898 the original nine-holer by Toulmin, Townsend, and another whose name is escaping me right now was still the only course in existence at the club.   It seems very early on the golf members and cricket membership was somewhat at odds, leading the golfing contingent to move onto form Aronimink shortly after.

Hope this helps...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()