Mike, you misunderstood my comment to Bradley Anderson.
Let me break it down for you.
1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.
2. This assumes he traveled abroad before the course was designed and built.
3. But he did not travel abroad until after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.
It is a simple time line. He couldn't have based Merion on courses he had not yet seen, on a trip he had not yet taken. Simple as that.
As for whether or not his trip mattered. All the other accounts of Merion sure think it mattered, otherwise why do they say he based on the holes on courses overseas?
_________________________
As for your earlier post, you claim that "we can add to our list of facts from Francis that Hugh Wilson, and not anyone else was responsible for today's 3rd hole being an attempt at a redan."
But Francis is talking about how Merion benefited from Wilson's trip abroad. The trip did not occur until AFTER THE HOLE WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT. "One hole which benefited was the third. It was copied from the Redan at North Berwick."
So whatever it was that Wilson learned at North Berwick, it could not have been incorporated into the hole UNTIL AFTER WILSON'S TRIP. This was long after the hole was planned, laid out, built, and seeded.
So Francis' statement does NOT establish that Wilson and no one else was responsible for today's 3rd . . . "
_______________________________
David,
Thank you for that timeline. I believe that it highlights where we differ, as I’ll explain shortly, but I also want to thank you for what I feel your essay has added and altered to my (and others) overall understanding of the history of Merion and I believe that has been very valuable.
I think Bradley Anderson touched well on a related point, but I’d like to go a bit further down that road.
“I advised him, preparatory to his trip to Scotland, to watch carefully the seventeenth, or Alps hole, at Prestwick, which he really imagined existed on his new course. He is now convinced that
it will take a lot of making to equal that famous old spot”. – Alex Findlay, talking about Hugh Wilson in May 1912 after Wilson’s return from overseas
What do you think Findlay means when he says that it will take a lot of making in this context? As you pointed out, the golf course and the holes have already been routed, the holes on the ground, the greens and tees shaped and seeded, and now growing in. That all happened over the previous year and now the course is months from opening so why would some hole concept still “take a lot of making”, or require much more work to be anything resembling the original?
Let’s examine your timeline again;
1. Wilson has long been credited with designing the course
based upon principles he learned while traveling abroad.
2. This assumes he traveled abroad
before the course was designed and built.
3. But he did not travel abroad until
after the course had been routed, planned, built, and the tees, greens, and fairways seeded, and at least some of the artificial features built.
4. Therefore the initial routing, lay out plan, construction, tees, greens, fairways, and at least some of the artificial features could not have been based on what Wilson learned while traveling abroad.
You may be very surprised to learn that I agree with almost everything you’ve written with the exception perhaps that the first point is an overly broad generalization and oversimplification but the second point is where I’d like to get more specific because I’m not sure it’s a valid assumption.
It’s also why I’ve been asking you for any other specific examples of holes on the original Merion course that you believe were directly influenced by great holes overseas. I want to be sure I address this comprehensively, but I guess we have enough generally agreed examples to work with using holes 3 (redan), 10 (Alps), and 15 green (Eden Green).
After all, we have outside, contemporaneous support for all of those holes/features being template-based, so we can comfortably work within that construct.
Let’s start with the redan hole, the third.
Richard Francis tells us directly that this is one of the holes that “benefitted” from Hugh Wilson’s overseas visit and that
“the location of the hole lent itself to this design”.
You’ll notice he doesn’t say that they found that location while looking for a redan hole. He states that they located the hole first, and only then, working within the possibilities and constraints of their natural conditions, determined that applying some redan principles to that location might work well.
This is wholly consistent with what Francis tells us about the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad. Francis also tells us clearly that the idea all along was to “incorporate their good features on our course” AFTER Wilson returned in May of 1911.
How could this be? Weren’t the holes already “designed” before Wilson went abroad, as you rightfully ask?
The simple answer is, no, they weren’t designed. Eighteen tees and greens were fitted into the property in a routing, again using the natural features and conditions at their disposal on the property that had been selected as their canvas.
None of these tasks required Wilson to go abroad to study first because all they were using at this point was their own carefully studied knowledge of the property, their understanding of good golf holes in the U.S. through their own individual experiences playing golf at a high level nationally for over a decade, as well as what knowledge Macdonald had imparted regarding agronomics and construction techniques, as well has his knowledge of the great holes abroad that he communicated during their visit with him at NGLA.
All of the early accounts mentioned that what was built at first was incomplete, that there were very few bunkers and pits, and that “mental hazards” and additional strategies would be added later. THAT was the purpose of Wilson’s trip abroad…to see in person the type of great hole strategies they had discussed with Macdonald and now wished to apply to their evolving golf course.
Some months ago, and again as Adam Messix questioned yesterday, we had a great debate here re: whether the 3rd hole was indeed a redan, because it does not have the characteristic green sloping front to back, and tilted severely to the low side. In fact, the 3rd green at Merion slopes back to front, the opposite of what you would expect.
If you think about the definition of the great holes abroad, almost every one of them are self-defined by a few key attributes, and in almost every case it’s not due to some natural feature that needs to be present, but due instead to the placement of artificial hazards which determine strategy. THAT is what makes them somewhat repeatable. Almost every template hole is self-defined by its bunkering pattern which defines the hole strategy…the road hole, the redan, the eden, the short, the alps…
I would contend that when the Merion course was first routed, shaped, and seeded, the 3rd hole was simply a tee in a valley, and a green located on a plateau hilltop, much like probably hundreds of uphill par threes in existence, although that barn-top abrupt rise does make it admittedly a bit special.
If nothing else was done to the hole after that it would still be a very good hole…it could even be bunkerless and would be a very good hole.
Yet, to apply some of what they saw as “redan principles”, the Wilson committee decided to build the key “redan bunker” into the face of the hill diagonally to one side (which Francis tells us was the basement of the barn), and also put some “high side” bunkering in on the left to catch the golfer playing a bit too cautiously away from the visually obvious front-right hazard.
I would contend that those bunkers, and thus the entire hole strategy as a “redan” were added AFTER Wilson’s return from abroad. The green design doesn’t exactly fit the redan concept because as you mentioned, that was already done and in place. But we already know they weren’t looking for exact copies…they were simply looking to implement specific features and principles of great holes abroad and apply them to their natural inland conditions.
So it goes with the other examples. Robert Lesley tells us the “principle” of the Alps Hole they wanted to copy was the large crossing bunker in front of the green, and possibly the large mound behind. Well, we already know that when Wilson returned from his trip abroad and spoke with Findlay, he admitted that to create anything like the original Alps, “it would take a lot of making.”
But what about the “Eden Green” on the 15th, I’m sure you’re thinking. Didn’t that require previous intent? After all, it was built with a large back to front slope and we know that it was roundly criticized as too severe, as was the 8th, which Francis tells us “originally…took the contour of the hillside so that players had to play onto a green which sloped sharply away from them.” The 8th green was rebuilt before 1916.
In the case of the 15th, we know that Tillinghast claimed it sloped so much from back to front that players had to “skittle” their approach shots up to the front.
But, was it an Eden green because of the back to front slope, which on the uphill 15th also probably originally took much of “the contour of the hillside”, or was it the typical Eden bunkering pattern, where a large front right bunker cut into the face of the upslope is only matched in challenge and difficulty by the “Hill bunker” to the left, where those playing away from the more obvious frontal attack often end up? By that time, there were thousands of back to front sloping greens, probably many of them too severely constructed, as well.
Once again, I’d contend that the bunkering created the "Eden" strategy of that approach, and defined the principles they wanted to copy from overseas on the 15th.
You mentioned the other day that you thought the 6th hole had some characteristics of a Road Hole, and I agreed with you. What made it a road hole?
Well, we know it had a property boundary on the right but that was simply happenstance of the routing. However, Merion CHOSE to utilize that boundary and you told us that they created a tee area that required a carry over the corner, built some large mounding in that corner, and then build a large hazard left of the green to challenge those playing too cautiously away from the boundary on the drive.
Once again, these are/were all artificial touches that created the hole strategies, and that were added AFTER the course was routed, based on what Wilson learned abroad, and based on how the Merion committee determined to apply them to the natural conditions at their disposal.
So, to draw an alternate timeline, and hopefully conclude my participation for the time being (I’ve honestly said everything I can say unless more facts surface), this is what it looks like to me;
Jan – early march 1911 – Wilson and Committee create many golf course layouts, none of which they are satisfied with.
March 1911 – Visit Macdonald at NGLA and gain some great insight.
March – April 6th – Wilson and Committee take what they’ve learned and created “five different” course layouts. Macdonald makes his second visit to the property and after reviewing the land and the proposed layouts carefully, selects the best one.
April 19th – The Merion Board gives approval to the selected and recommended plan and construction proceeds forthwith.
Late April – Fall 1911 – Construction of 18 tees and greens consistent with the routing that attempts to take best advantage of the natural features of the property takes place and by fall the property is seeded.
Winter 1911-12 – Wilson tells us that the committee worked all winter, although it’s unclear what they were doing at this point.
March 1912-May 1912 – Wilson goes abroad to study.
May 1912 – Sept 1912 – Wilson puts the first “overseas touches” on the golf course, almost certainly in the form of bunkers and mounding influence play and creating internal, artificial hole strategies that he emulates based on great holes he has now both seen and discussed with Macdonald through sketches and Mac’s NGLA versions, as well as the originals he’s seen with his own eyes.
Sept 1912 – Sept 1916 – This work continues up to and including the first US Amateur at Merion.
1922-24 – Much more work is done by Wilson and committee with William Flynn to solve the problems of the increasingly busy Ardmore Avenue and continues to refine the hole strategies. This work replaces original holes 10, 11, 12, 13, and replaces them with today’s versions.
February 1925 – Sadly, Hugh Wilson dies at age 45.
Postnote – I also intend to add this post to the “Timeline” thread I started, and then I’m going to sit back and watch the discussion on the acreage.
Thanks again, David.